An Open Letter to NBC

I wrote this to NBC news earlier today, but it could be easily applied to any of the fellow-traveler networks:

Dear NBC News:

You no doubt have now heard the news that the Obama administration’s Situation Room had received word of the terrorist nature of the Benghazi attack no later than two hours after it began. They did NOTHING to protect the lives of those in the Embassy compound. President Obama went to sleep, then jetted off to Las Vegas to raise campaign cash, meanwhile, relying on a manufactured cover story of some locals being riled up over a YouTube video that wasn’t seen.

There wasn’t any report in the cables or emails about a protest preceding the attack. The attack lasted over 7 hours before the final two occupants of the compound were murdered. And the Obama administration did NOTHING to help. Instead, they continued their COVER-UP of the video story, for WEEKS afterward and they even got to the point where they buy youtube views to make the video popular.

I listened to the NBC news top of the hour radio broadcast. Not ONE WORD of the above. Just Obama giving his “Romnesia” line, and something about his jetting 5000 or so miles today campaigning.

What– somehow you don’t think that these developments in Benghazi are NEWSWORTHY? That the administration not only knew of the attack, but refused to take action to protect the embassy occupants? And then, COVERED IT UP, LYING about the nature of the attack, and making his underlings spread his propaganda, FOR WEEKS, until the cover story collapsed under the weight of contrary evidence?

Not to mention that there remains an INNOCENT man still sitting in jail! Los Angeles Bail Bond offices voiced their opinions over this injustice in a collective voice that had almost no ear from the government. (Don’t tell me it had nothing to do with Obama’s cover story!!))


Are you SO enamored, so infatuated with this president, that you, the press, are willing to be derelict to your Constitutional First Amendment duty and to cover up for his abject malfeasance? They did that with State-Controlled media in Soviet Russia. They do that in China. They have no choice. YOU HAVE A CHOICE!!

Are you that devoid of conscience???



It took long enough, but ABC News is finally beginning to grow a pair:

NBC still doesn’t have word one about this story on their website.

Congressional Republicans ask why Obama described attacks as response to film.

35 thoughts on “An Open Letter to NBC

  1. bozo October 25, 2012 / 6:45 am

    Update – in your rush to give aid and comfort to the enemies of America who killed our Ambassador by turning against the president, your condemnation without facts has taken a small turn:

    Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, and two other Republicans in the Senate wrote Wednesday to Obama, saying: “These emails make clear that your Administration knew within two hours of the attack that it was a terrorist act and that Ansar al-Sharia, a Libyan militant group with links to Al-Qaeda, had claimed responsibility for it.”

    However, an examination of the known Facebook and Twitter accounts of Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi reveals no such claim of responsibility. Aaron Zelin, a research fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, tracks dozens of jihadist websites and archives much of what they say. He told CNN he was unaware of any such claim having been posted on the official Facebook page or Twitter feed of Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi.

    Anonymous emailers randomly point to Ansar al-Sharia and you are ready to kill them all now and let God sort them out. Because, you know, terrorists never take credit or point blame untruthfully. YOU seem to trust their word over Obama’s. Congratulations! According to Bush-logic “you’re with us or against us”, you’ve just become a terrorist.

    That you would not “blame” the previous president for being warned multiple times when thousands of Americans died on America soil, while condemning this president for an attack on foreign soil without the facts in yet…

    • bozo October 25, 2012 / 6:47 am

      Never mind. I had an epiphany yesterday. My car repair guy out of the blue started ranting on about how Obama lied and that he built his business with his own two hands, with no help from the government bla bla bla. A SMOG check repair shop that’s SOOOO great, even if there were no roads, even if there were no California smog regulations, he is soooo freaking great that customers would flock to his business on foot – without cars – to get a smog check. And this in oh-so-liberal California.

      Carry on.

      • tiredoflibbs October 25, 2012 / 8:00 am

        What does this have to do with the topic creepy assclown?

        More deflection…. More distraction.

        More pathetic.

      • Amazona October 25, 2012 / 12:53 pm

        And of course the creepy assclown would have been able to meet smog inspection requirements if this man had NOT risked his own money and invested his time and energy in establishing this shop.

        But on behalf of all conservatives I thank you for pointing out the idiocy and downright nastiness of your kind in sneering at people who have taken risks, have built businesses, and the odd way you have of looking at the world.

        The normal, rational, way to look at this would have been to realize that if this man had been born in a different time, without cars that need to be inspected, he probably would have built a different kind of business, depending on the needs of his time and place.

        You seem to think that because the last hundred years or so have built up an infrastructure, that no one who finds opportunity because of that infrastructure should be credited for seeing that opportunity, risking capital, and investing time and energy to create a business that is made necessary by that infrastructure. Worse, you sneer at people who know damned well what sacrifices they have made and risks they have taken to establish what businesses they have built.

        Even worse, you seem to think that government should get the credit for what these people have done.

        I guess in a weird distorted way that is kind of symmetrical—–if the government is not going to take responsibility for what it has screwed up, I guess to people like you it has a right to take credit for what someone else has done right.

    • tiredoflibbs October 25, 2012 / 7:58 am

      Creepy assclown: “That you would not “blame” the previous president for being warned multiple times when thousands of Americans died on America soil, while condemning this president for an attack on foreign soil without the facts in yet…”

      Still mindlessly regurgitating the lie that Bush received specific intelligence that could have prevented 9/11.

      As we have seen, obAMATEUR had specific information to prevent this horrible attack. A terrorist attack that he denied for 12 days.

      I see it is necessary for you to deflect from the continuing failures of this pResident.


      • bozo October 25, 2012 / 9:03 am

        I’m not saying it could have prevented, I’m asking what’s the difference?

      • Cluster October 25, 2012 / 11:07 am

        Let me help you out with the “difference” bozo. the original 9/11 pretty much came out of the blue. Even though there was intelligence suggesting AQ was up to something, I don’t think anyone in their wildest dreams thought they would have done what they did.

        In Libya, not only did it happen on the anniversary of 9/11, which should be a date now that we prepare for, it also happened in a country that we recently helped depose the leadership, leaving a vacuum, and not properly securing our embassy.

        That’s a rather LARGE difference.

      • Amazona October 25, 2012 / 1:01 pm

        “What’s the difference?”

        The thing is, freakzo really doesn’t KNOW the difference. In his simple-minded mentality, there is absolutely no difference at all between a completely new and unheard-of kind of attack after a lot of vague chatter about a possible attack, some day, some time, maybe using some airplanes in some way, somewhere either in the United States or on some place associated with the United States, and an attack on the anniversary of the first attack, following several other attacks on ta specific and identified place, after specific warnings of attacks on that specific place.

        He simply lacks either the mental capacity to understand the differences or the intellectual and moral honesty to admit them.

        And it really doesn’t matter which, or that the two are not mutually exclusive. What does matter is that he is so deeply, inherently, innately nasty, with such a compulsion to attack people he somehow thinks represent a political system he doesn’t even understand. His knee-jerk spasms of viciousness and hostility define him far more than his ignorance or his stupidity or even his lack of honesty.

      • tiredoflibbs October 25, 2012 / 1:06 pm

        It is really simple creepy assclown. The memo, you drones love to refer to as the smoking gun Bush “ignored”, was vague and contained no info on when, where or how the attack would take place.

        The intelligence provided to obAMATEUR was more specific and if acted upon four Americans would be alive.

        It is really that simple, assclown. But for some reason “simple” is just way too complicated for you.

        obAMATEUR ignored intelligence and rarely attended the daily briefing. He then lied about it. Lied about the attack as a protest for some video. Now before you regurgitate the Rose Garden talking point Susan Rice on 9/16 said there was no information that would indicate the attack was premeditated and blamed the VIDEO.

        Big difference in all aspects creepy assclown. You just don’t like it that the “one you have been waiting for” fooled you and millions of others four years ago. He is in reality a failure and not who the hype portrayed him to be.

  2. Retired Spook October 25, 2012 / 8:32 am

    What we don’t have yet — and probably won’t have unless it can be spun in a way that supports the President, are transcripts of the highly classified flash message traffic from the Americans on the ground in Benghazi. I don’t think it makes any difference if it was Ansar al Sharia or the Muppets who were responsible, an attack with precision morter fire, shoulder-fired missles, automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades would have been recognized very early in the attack by the people manning the coms at the consulate and the annex as a coordinated military style attack and not a simple demonstration gotten out of hand. I’m guessing that the White House knew this was a terrorist attack very early on, had several available reinforcement and rescue options within an hour or two and did nothing as they watched the whole thing play out in real time.

    • bozo October 25, 2012 / 9:08 am

      Which may or may not be the reason Obama called it an act of terror thrice before the following sunrise (why does that sound familiar?).

      From Fox News:

      “This is completely false. The attack in Benghazi was clearly an act of terror, which is why the president referred to it as such three times before this testimony,” National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor told Fox News. He was referring to Obama’s statement on Sept. 12, and subsequently, in which he referred to “acts of terror.”

      Read more:

      Oh, I know…he actually said “acts of terror” but Obama really meant to say “death to America.”

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) October 25, 2012 / 9:12 am

        So, when Obama continued to mention the attack being the result of the video on The View, Letterman, and even a half dozen times in a speech before the UN a couple weeks later, he just had a relapse?

      • Retired Spook October 25, 2012 / 9:17 am


        Sounds to me like Obama tried, as usual, to have it both ways, depending on how the facts actually shook out. This has to be one of the most duplicitous Presidents in history.

      • Cluster October 25, 2012 / 11:15 am


        Should Jay Carney be fired? He is the spokesperson for the President right? This is what he said September 14:

        We also need to understand that this is a fairly volatile situation and it is in response not to United States policy, not to obviously the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video, a film that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting. That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it, but this is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims.

        Odd, isn’t bozo?

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) October 25, 2012 / 11:55 am

        Carney’s answer was to a direct question about the demonstrations and violence in Muslim countries directed at our embassies. It was not a direct question about Benghazi.

        Jake Tapper, later in the briefing specifically pressed the Libya attack, this is the most relevent exchange;

        Q But saying you’re very vigilant and being very vigilant are different things.

        MR. CARNEY: Jake, let’s be clear, these protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region —

        Q At Benghazi? What happened at Benghazi —

        MR. CARNEY: We certainly don’t know. We don’t know otherwise. We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack. The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary that we know of, or to U.S. policy.

        Q But the group around the Benghazi post was well armed. It was a well-coordinated attack. Do you think it was a spontaneous protest against a movie?

        MR. CARNEY: Look, this is obviously under investigation, and I don’t have –

        Q But your operating assumption is that that was in response to the video, in Benghazi? I just want to clear that up. That’s the framework? That’s the operating assumption?

        MR. CARNEY: Look, it’s not an assumption

        Q Because there are administration officials who don’t — who dispute that, who say that it looks like this was something other than a protest.

        MR. CARNEY: I think there has been news reports on this, Jake, even in the press, which some of it has been speculative. What I’m telling you is this is under investigation. The unrest around the region has been in response to this video. We do not, at this moment, have information to suggest or to tell you that would indicate that any of this unrest was preplanned.

      • Cluster October 25, 2012 / 12:02 pm


        Jay Carney said specifically in regards to Benghazi – “We don’t know otherwise”

        Meaning, the video statement stands.

        Nuff said.

      • tiredoflibbs October 25, 2012 / 1:09 pm

        Again you have a problem with “simple” creepy assclown. You are simply listening to spin and LIES told by this pResident and White House.

        You are just too weak minded to know any better.

      • Amazona October 25, 2012 / 1:30 pm

        Now, now, freakzo is merely parroting the tactics of the Left, in this case repeating something as if that will miraculously make it true.

        Actually, they don’t care if it is true or not, as long as some people are convinced it is true.

        I read the 9/12 Obama statement and it was very carefully parsed, with the one reference to “acts of terror” stuck in right after a reference to 9/11/01.

        He had more than enough opportunity to stand up and say “THIS attack on THIS embassy was a terrorist attack”. He did not. As Spook so accurately noted, he dodged around enough to be able to stand on either side of the issue, as polls might dictate.

        Well, when there is ambiguity about the meaning of something, it is necessary to go to contemporaneous commentary on the subject. And the contemporaneous commentary from Obama himself, from his own State Department, and from his U.N. Ambassador, as well as presidential spokesman Jay Carney, all identified the Benghazi attack as the result of a protest against a video.

        Obama counted on being able to go back to that wimpy little aside about “acts of terror” as cover, if his efforts to reframe the narrative away from a resurgence of A-Q and retaliation for his gloating over the death of Bin Laden were to be revealed as bogus. He counted on having some mindless minions eager to vomit up the talking point that yeah, he DID use those very words, so that has to mean he openly called the attack an act of terror.

        And freakzo stepped right up to shovel the s**t.

  3. Retired Spook October 25, 2012 / 11:08 am

    OT, but too funny.

  4. Leo Pusateri October 25, 2012 / 11:10 am

    Obama reportedly said he wanted to refrain from calling it a terrorist attack, as he wanted to make sure all the facts were in before making such a declaration. But they wasted absolutely no time at all in blaming the entire clusterf*ck on Nakoula, who, by the way remains a political prisoner (make no mistake-he was jailed for political reasons).

    Where is the justice, anywhere, with regard to this whole affair?

    • Cluster October 25, 2012 / 11:18 am

      I am guessing that Bozo supports the imprisoning of American citizens under suspicious reasons, especially those who put Obama in uncomfortable positions, excluding Michelle.

  5. Leo Pusateri October 25, 2012 / 11:27 am

    And all the commercials made and broadcast in the Middle East, apologizing for the video, not to mention the Statement on the State Department website the day following the attack–all a charade- all a cover-up.

    Nixon was a piker. But at least he had the good sense to resign.

  6. GMB October 25, 2012 / 11:35 am

    I watched this video. I am a loss for words.

    • Leo Pusateri October 25, 2012 / 11:42 am

      Criminy…just the kind of voters democrats absolutely love and count on.

    • Retired Spook October 25, 2012 / 11:44 am

      GMB, I hope none of those people breed.

      • Amazona October 25, 2012 / 12:16 pm

        Well, according to freakzo, he has.

  7. Retired Spook October 25, 2012 / 11:37 am

    Ya gotta love spooks. Perhaps one of them will write a book about this foreign policy disaster/travesty.

    In December, Jeffrey Feltman asked Patrick Kennedy to approve “a combined footprint of 35 U.S. government personnel in Benghazi.” That would include 10 people identified as State: 8 State Department and USAID, and 2 temporary duty personnel.

    Which leaves 25 people unaccounted for.

    As it happens, the Libyans say there were 29 people they hadn’t expected when they came to evacuate the Americans. They complained afterwards that the Americans hadn’t told them about all the spooks they’d have onsite.

    Well, now, Issa just confirmed they were not State or even USAID personnel. He has confirmed the Libyans’ claims–that they were spooks.

    • Amazona October 26, 2012 / 6:07 pm

      Of course Velma chugs down the KoolAid offered by a far-left source, which telegraphs its bias in the first paragraph: “…Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice broke with the majority of her party last night on Fox News, as she tried to hit the brakes on the right wing’s politicization of the recent attack in Libya.”

      And really, all Condi said, before this latest info came with details on how emergency communications are usually handled, was “don’t jump to conclusions”.

      She did not deny anything or challenge anything, just encouraged a systematic evaluation of information as it comes in.

      “Think Progess” tried to spin this into support for Obama and an indictment (what lawyah Velma would call an “inditement”) of the Right.

      Really, all the Left CAN do is try to shift the narrative into a complaint that people who are looking at the shameful way this was bungled, at the way our highest officials watched this unfold in real time, looking at video from a drone overhead, for more than 7 hours, as our people were under attack, refusing aid, refusing to send in assistance, and watching our people die—AND THEN LYING ABOUT IT—-are really just interested in “politicizing” it.

      What is really funny is the hypocrisy of Velma, regurgitating this dreck, after she herself has posted so many whines about how Bush supposedly ignored warnings about 9/11. A wholly dishonest claim of criminal indifference by our president to an impending attack was not politicizing that attack, no sirree. But discussing proven evidence of what happened in Libya, well, the RRL can sure scurry out of the woodwork to label THAT “politicalization”.

      Typical dreck from both the source and from Vel.

      • Amazona October 26, 2012 / 6:19 pm

        For example, at the time of her comments Condi Rice did not know this: emphasis mine

        Friday, 26 Oct 2012 02:28 PM

        By Newsmax Wires

        “An urgent request from the CIA for military back-up during the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya and another assault hours later was denied by U.S. officials. These same officials also told CIA officers twice to “stand down” rather than help the Americans when shots were heard that night in Benghazi.

        Fox News reports that sources on the ground said that former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team at a CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Christopher Stevens and his team came under attack.

        Stevens and three other Americans died in the attack.

        When Woods and others heard the shots fired about 9:40 p.m., Fox reports, they notified their supervisors at the annex of what they heard and requested permission to head to the consulate to help.

        But the supervisors told them to “stand down,” sources familiar with the exchange told Fox. Moments later, they were, again, told “stand down.”

        Woods and at least two others, however, ignored the orders and moved toward the consulate, which by then was engulfed in flames, Fox reports.

        Shots were exchanged — and the rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate, including Sean Smith, the U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer who had been killed in the initial attack.

        The rescue team could not find Stevens, returning to the CIA annex at about midnight, Fox reports.

        At that point, the CIA team called again for military support and help, because now shots were being fired where they were at the annex. The request was denied, Fox reports.

        There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound, Fox reports. They were in continuous radio contact between the team and headquarters, with at least one member of the CIA team on the roof of the annex with a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound.

        The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up from a Spectre gunship, Fox reports. The gunship is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to support Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights.

        The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours, which provided enough time for planes based in Sigonella Air base, about 480 miles away, to arrive.

        Two separate Tier One Special operations forces also were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators, Fox reports.

        This chain of events apparently counters remarks from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Thursday, who told reporters at the Pentagon that U.S. officials lacked a clear picture of what was occurring on the ground in Benghazi to send help.”

        I find it very interesting that now, in this time and place, in the United States of 2012, a week away from the presidential election, seeking truth is defined by the Left as “politicizing” an event. It says a lot about the Left and those who support it.

      • Amazona October 26, 2012 / 11:22 pm

        And then there is the story of the father of one of the fallen Seals, who talked about a conversation he had with Hillary Clinton when the coffins were returned to the United States.

        “Woods: Basically Hillary, she came up to me and, you know, she looked quite frankly very worn out. She came up to shake my hand. I shook her hand and I put my arm around her shoulder and, you know, she did express sympathy, “I’m sorry for what happened to your son” and then she, I guess to comfort me, said,“We will make sure that the person who made this film is arrested and prosecuted.”

        The story was still being pitched TO THE FAMILIES as late as when the bodies were returned to the U.S.

        The whole government position, from watching our people die to the attempted coverup afterward, is shameful.

      • bozo October 27, 2012 / 11:41 am

        Hard-right Newsmax quotes hard-right Fox News, beginning with “Fox News reports that sources on the ground said that…” – sounds air-tight and fully vetted to me.

        It’s kinda sad that Newsmax has to use the disclaimer “Fox reports” so often. The only way for Fox to run with this story now is to claim that “Newsmax writes that Fox News reports that sources on the ground said that…”

      • Amazona October 27, 2012 / 2:25 pm

        So, freakzo, what is YOUR position on the Benghazi mess?

        Is it that the people getting shot at are less capable of knowing if they are being shot at than those watching them being shot at?

        Is it that the people who begged our government to step in, shoot at the lasered targets, protect the people it sent into harm’s way, are now wrong to tell the public that this is what happened?

        Is it that we had no obligation to protect those people?

        Is it that national security is now a spectator sport, where officials watch what is going on in real time but don’t actually DO anything, as our people are killed?

        What the hell ARE you blathering on about? You appear to be as weak and vacillating as the President himself, refusing to take a stand.

Comments are closed.