Washington & Its Fawning Media, Not Petraeus, Are On Trial

The mainstream media has deliberately ignored the growing scandal of Benghazi. Biased reporting is not new, although the extent to which the current media is willing to sacrifice its search for truth and personal glory in order to support ideology seems excessive.

If the scandal of Watergate made Woodward and Bernstein, why do current reporters not pursue similar fame and fortune? Ideology rarely trumps self-interest, yet not one individual in the mainstream media even seems interested in pursuing the Benghazi story. Nor did any of them have any interest in pursuing Obama’s missing past. Surely some entrepreneurial reporter would break ranks in hopes of achieving the personal fame and wealth that accrued to Woodward and Bernstein. Isn’t that, after all, what drew many into journalism in the first place? Is there collusion between the media and government?

If the press is unwilling to play an adversarial role then they become little more than propagandists for the State. Is it possible that threats and coercion from Chicago thugs in Washington somehow is responsible for the decidedly dis-interest on the part of the media in certain topics? These are potential scandals for a different day.

Regarding Benghazi, at least fringe opinion writers are focusing on it. Here is Wes Pruden’s lead (with my emboldening):

What did the president know, and when did he know it? Of what steel are the Republicans in Congress made? We’re about to find out.

Big scandals from little leaks grow. Watergate was at first only “a third-rate burglary.” Bubba thought he was only trying to cover up the details of a failed real-estate scheme down on the White River. Humiliation, resignation and even an impeachment followed.

Mr. Pruden’s closing paragraphs express concern regarding the spine and integrity of Congress (my emboldening):

With no facts, we have only the tangled web of lies in the changing official stories. Was the general intimidated — if not blackmailed — into joining the president, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice in their ridiculous story, told over and over, that the Benghazi attack was set off by demonstrations protesting that obscure video? Mr. Petraeus supported the president’s story about the video in testimony to Congress shortly after the assassination of Chris Stevens. He surely knew better.

By all accounts David Petraeus was and is a man of honor and integrity, now disgraced and broken by a familiar indiscretion born of human frailty. Looking to Congress for brave men and women who can unravel this web of deceit, a web perhaps woven of high crimes and misdemeanors, is usually a fool’s errand. But Congress is all we’ve got.

Given the outcome of the Presidential election, will Republicans have any spine? Will Democrats have any honor?

Mr. Pruden breaks no new ground in raising these issues. The shallowness and self-interest of politicians are at the center of our failing country. No one in Washington is willing to rock the ship of State. They will to whatever is necessary to be elected including painting their opponents as troglodytes. Yet once ensconced in the trough, former enemies come together like the Bloods and Crips when confronted by the police. Their cosa nostra must be protected at all costs. When it is threatened, they coalesce as one to repel any threats.

The Benghazi investigation will likely be a classic Soviet-style “show trial.” If so, the corruptness and cowardice of Washington is beyond repair and will only worsen with time.

http://www.economicnoise.com/2012/11/14/washington-and-its-fawning-media-not-petraeus-are-on-trial/