40 years ago Woodward’s name was household

The other half of the Woodward-Bernstein team has continued to speak out about the Benghazi affair. It seems to me that after being dissed by the White House Woodward has suddenly found his journalistic mojo once again. Yes I am being sarcastic, because I believe that Woodward should have used his talents at least 4 years ago to do investigative reporting and he failed to take any notice over what was happening. Only Andrew Breitbart was willing to take on the corrupt White House Administration.

So what exactly is Woodward saying about the Benghazi scandal? Hot Air has the scoop on the Woodward comments and yes I think that they are well worth repeating. Woodward has cast his mind back to the Nixon era to find a parallel (everyone seems to be doing that these days!!) to what took place with the Benghazi terror attack talking points. Bingo. There is a very strong parallel and comparison to be made and if anyone knows the facts it is Woodward.

I hope you noted that the IRS scandal took off at the same time that the emails relating to the talking points were released to the press. I hope you note that two days worth of emails are in fact missing from the release. Why?

What Woodward is saying is that Nixon did the same thing with the transcripts that he was told to release. He went through each and every one of them and he removed certain details. Well, it seems that the White House and the State Department have done exactly the same thing and with the same net effect – lying to the people.

I also note this from the same Hot Air article:

USA Today’s Oren Dorell lists a few more questions raised by the e-mail release:

Dozens of e-mails released by the White House reveal that Obama administration officials were behind the crafting of a false narrative about the attack in Benghazi, Libya. The communications raise questions about who called the shots and why, say an analyst and a lawmaker involved in the investigation. …

Among the unknowns:

•Why were the revisions made?

•Why did Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton testify before Congress that the edits were a product of the intelligence community when State officials had made many of the requests for alterations?

•Why did the White House say it made no substantive edits when the e-mails show officials there helped lead the process for changes?

•Where did the story come from that the attack grew from a protest against an anti-Islam video? The video was mentioned once in 100 pages of e-mails, but it was a central theme of Obama’s and Clinton’s description of the event.

Comments are closed.