If I was any calmer, I might have no pulse; but funny isn't it? Not a response, to counter my assertion, because I guess when you are right, well then there's no argument. Just had to make an observation, that this body notices what many other also likely noticed.
Normally I just ignore you, but I'm procrastinating from studying, so I'll humor you.
First of all, the right wing anger over the Benghazi attack is not based in any real outrage or remorse for the lives lost, it's all an effort to pin some scandal on Obama to hurt his reelection chances. Everyone can see right through it and its disgusting. As for the media, they're not reporting on it because there are no clear answers. Unlike the right wing, they are showing restraint and not throwing out speculation and blame over a very sad and tragic event, as it should be. The media loves getting a good scoop and they don't care who it reflects poorly on, so if they had definitive answers about Benghazi they would report on it. This is like Journalism 1101, not sure what's so complicated about it.
I'm a journalism major, taught by some very esteemed journalists, and frankly it offends me when right wing trolls like yourself accuse accomplished journalists of liberal bias simply because they report on facts that don't always fit your narrative. That's what good journalists do. When Romney puts out a false as, they will check him, as they have done with Obama's campaign as well. It seems to me that right wingers are actually the ones that demand a huge slant from their news and get pissy when good journalists report things like, I don't know, the truth? It's the classic example of projection.
That's disingenuous to claim that "right wingers" are only outraged because there's an election going on. If there wasn't an election going on, Obama wouldn't have tried this whole "it's all about a video" stunt.
He did so because it did not fit his election narrative. To believe otherwise is laughable. Even the PM of Libya was calling it a terrorist attack a few days after it happened. But the Obama camp stonewalled for more than two weeks through a number of crucial debates as their MSM friends provided cover and went and had a guy's civil liberties jammed up on a "probation violation."
You do have some very good, accomplished reporters on the story. I laud CBS for (mostly) reporting the facts, but leaving out that little video where Obama stated that he didn't know if it was a terrorist attack a few days later -- directly contradicting his debate lie that was aided and abetted by Candy Crowley.
With that said, the Romney camp could have bludgeoned Obama in the third debate. They chose not to. Why? They didn't want another brutal knockdown debate that turned off women. They elected to run out the clock instead.
However, don't think for a second that even if Obama wins this election that there isn't a through investigation and a finding of at least incompetency in the White House. Heads should roll. The administration's inaction (e.g. denial of increased security requests at minimum) that resulted in the death of an Ambassador was inexcusable.
