Media AWOL: IRS, Libya Legitimate Stories Before Obama's Reelection
Days after the news broke of the September 11 anniversary terror attack on our consulate in Libya, Republicans and right-leaning media were screaming about how the Obama Administration mishandled security and was covering up the fact that it was a terror attack. The day after the news broke, Fox News and a few other outlets were already reporting that it was likely a terror attack.
The Obama Administration, however, insisted for nearly two weeks that the death of four Americans had resulted from a spontaneous protest caused by an anti-Islamic YouTube video. Standing before the caskets of the four Americans, Hillary vowed to some of the families that she would get that awful filmmaker (after a midnight raid, the filmmaker now sits in jail over a parole violation). A few days later, Obama would rail against the YouTube in front of the United Nations.
Lie after lie after coverup after coverup, and all the media did during that time was savage Mitt Romney whenever he opened his mouth about Libya and declare all other criticism as nothing more than politically-motivated.
Flash-forward eight freakin' months. Obama is safely re-elected, and only now is the media starting to tell the truth about White House lies told eight months ago. Sure, some of the attention is based on new information, like the revelation of the 12 edits of the CIA talking points, but most of it is not.
Today, finally, The Washington Post found a reason to take issue with the fact that Obama did not describe Libya as an act of terror for almost two weeks. Well, gee, thanks WaPo, but where were those four Pinocchios after Obama (and his CNN ally Candy Crowley) pretty much said the same thing during the second presidential debate?
And guess what else happened today: PolitiFact finally found a reason to report to America that UN Ambassador Susan Rice downplayed the terror angle during her now-infamous round-robin of Sunday talk shows five days after the attack.
Where was that useful fact check before the election?
The answer is, nowhere, because just like the Obama Administration, the media was also trying to muddy the waters around what the president did or did not say during those crucial two weeks in the heart of his reelection bid. The media didn’t want to get definitive about the White House's lies or even the fact that Libya was a terror attack because that would lead to questions about the kind of security failures that might lose a state like Ohio.
During that time, the only issue the media wanted to discuss was anything involving a vagina. Anything outside of The Woman-Parts Narrative was annihilated, dismissed, played down, or ignored. This included, by the way, legitimate complaints from Tea Partiers about IRS intimidation.
The fact that the IRS was singling out conservative groups is only new-news if you only get your news from the corrupt mainstream media. Right-leaning New Media covered the story last year, but the rest of the media either ignored it or wrote it off as right-wing desperation or paranoia.
The "paper of record" went so far as to spin this IRS intimidation as a good thing. In an editorial last March, The New York Times told taxpayers that they should be "encouraged by complaints from Tea Partiers" about the IRS.
Flash-forward eight months later -- after Obama is safely re-elected -- and now that the story has been handed to them by an IRS official's confession, all of a sudden it is the big deal it deserves to be.
The fact is, though, that both Libya and the IRS scandals should have been treated as legitimate stories and scandals eight months ago. But last year, when Obama's re-election wasn't looking like a sure thing, the media weren't going to give him a bad news cycle, much less drop a couple of legitimate scandals on his corrupt head.
Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC