Why does the media ignore Benghazi?

SGT Francis Wright — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 18:42:09 -0400

The media should be leading with that. Because if Clinton gets into office; she will abandon our troops overseas, in a hostile country.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 4 at 2015 6:43 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 18:43:09 -0400

Because it doesn't bode well for Mrs. Clinton, the anointed democrat!

Response by SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL made Sep 4 at 2015 6:44 PM

SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 18:44:16 -0400

SGT Francis Wright I think its simply Hillary running for President and it's a national security issue with the war on terror.

Response by SMSgt Tony Barnes made Sep 4 at 2015 6:46 PM

SMSgt Tony Barnes — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 18:46:01 -0400

To protect darling Hillary

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Sep 4 at 2015 7:02 PM

Capt Seid Waddell — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 19:02:15 -0400

The media ignores it because they are running defense for the Dems.

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Sep 4 at 2015 10:20 PM

LCpl Mark Lefler — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 22:20:32 -0400

ignore it? you seriously think they ignore it? what news are you watching.

Response by Cpl James Waycasie made Sep 4 at 2015 10:21 PM

Cpl James Waycasie — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 22:21:20 -0400

Perhaps it's because a lot of people who knew dirt or might have blown the whistle on the Clintons came up dead. Since Hillary is partly responsible for this, people may be worried about bringing her to the limelight.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Sep 4 at 2015 10:36 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 22:36:41 -0400

Because it's not actually news or unusual?

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Sep 4 at 2015 10:40 PM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 22:40:44 -0400

Simple... they are protecting Obama

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 4 at 2015 10:54 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 22:54:52 -0400

Because it doesn't suit their agenda and bias? No, that couldn't be it.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 4 at 2015 10:57 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 22:57:41 -0400

I don't know if it's the media or the public in general that's displaying the memory of a goldfish.
I've been wondering myself why the emphasis has been on some email protocol technicalities; in 2012 she publicly took responsibility for Benghazi. If she had meant it, it would have been admirable; but since she's now running for office expecting us to trust her with American lives again, it was obviously just a Democrat ploy to take the heat off of Obama. Thus demonstrating a complete lack of integrity for her and her party.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 5 at 2015 2:32 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 05 Sep 2015 02:32:00 -0400

Aside from Fox they are largely liberal shills. You know, scum bags...

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 5 at 2015 8:13 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 05 Sep 2015 08:13:45 -0400

Ignore...? What were there, 7 investigations, all of which were media-driven?

Response by CW4 Guy Butler made Sep 5 at 2015 10:30 AM

CW4 Guy Butler — Sat, 05 Sep 2015 10:30:29 -0400

Might be because of the results of the previous 7 investigations.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Sep 5 at 2015 11:55 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Sat, 05 Sep 2015 11:55:10 -0400

Because they are in the tank and invested in the Democrat party.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/05/06/just-7-percent-of-journalists-are-republicans-thats-far-less-than-even-a-decade-ago/

Just 7 percent of journalists are Republicans. That’s far fewer than even a decade ago.

A new study shows reporters are increasingly independents and that if they choose a side, it tends to be with Democrats.

Response by LTC Kevin B. made Sep 5 at 2015 11:23 PM

LTC Kevin B. — Sat, 05 Sep 2015 23:23:15 -0400

Bad inference. I have no problem finding media coverage about Benghazi...broadcast, print, online, or otherwise. Therefore, the "why" and the "ignore" parts of your question don't need to be addressed.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Sep 5 at 2015 11:47 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Sat, 05 Sep 2015 23:47:39 -0400

Because the 'H-bomb' has the clout to keep it from getting out. She probably has the editors on speed dial and has threatened them with who knows what.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Sep 5 at 2015 11:48 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Sat, 05 Sep 2015 23:48:31 -0400

Isn't there a movie in the works about what went down? That will be on the must watch list.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 5 at 2015 11:50 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 05 Sep 2015 23:50:12 -0400

Because it is something that exists primarily in the fevered dreams of conspiracy theorists?

There have been multiple investigations. There's nothing "there" there.

Response by SSgt Thomas L. made Oct 23 at 2015 4:42 AM

SSgt Thomas L. — Fri, 23 Oct 2015 04:42:24 -0400

You really think the media is ignoring it?

Response by Cpl Chris Rice made Oct 24 at 2015 4:15 PM

Cpl Chris Rice — Sat, 24 Oct 2015 16:15:09 -0400

It’s hard because the fact that Republicans have exploited these deaths for political gain do not make them less of a tragedy. Though I have read the comments on this, I have found exactly 0 examples of the hard questions, just that the media won’t ask them. Would the opposition party ask the right questions? MSNBC arguably the most liberal news outlet aired every minute of the hearing, and so did CNN. What do people want? Do they want PBS to waterboard her? What are the unanswered questions? Rep. Gowdy said the revelation that has come to light from 11 hours of questioning, in which they could ask all of the hard questions he wanted and all he could find was an interesting line of questioning.

I think this leads to the problem, Americans who are not as partisan look at this and think the conversation is that the those lives could have been saved; but again the “best info” the Rep. Gowdy could point to was a line of questioning on the motives of the attackers. This is because those answers have been found in the previous investigations. If you think that something as trivial as talking points were really substantive to the events that followed, and that the administration wouldn’t have just thrown a low level under the bus to a) correct the record, b) remove the line of attack.

I think that bad things are going to happen, September 11th, 2001 was President Bush’s Responsiblility; could he have done things better…ABSOLUTLEY, that does not mean malice. President Reagan is Responsible for the Marines in Beirut, and Sec. Clinton, and Pres. Obama are responsible, which I watched the first 3 hours of the hearing and she said no less than 3 times that she was responsible. In the debates immediately following Pres. Obama stated that he was responsible for those we lost (Remember that the line of attack was that Sec. Clinton was being scapegoated as she was the only one to accept responsibility…).

HRC could have sat before that committee said “It was all my fault” pulled a gun from her purse and blown her own brains out, and someone this site would post a question about whether this was all for gun control.