The media's sickening love affair with Hillary Clinton has gone so over the top that Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) took issue with it Thursday.
Discussing the Secretary of State's recent testimony on Capitol Hill with the gang at Fox & Friends, McCain said, "She was called feisty according to the mainstream media. She obviously has an adoring media. She really didn't answer any questions" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
ALISYN CAMEROTA, CO-HOST: Senator McCain, let's talk about what happened on Capitol Hill yesterday when Secretary Clinton came in front of you to talk about Benghazi. What did you learn yesterday?
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (R-ARIZONA): Not much. Not much. She was called feisty according to the mainstream media. She obviously has an adoring media. She really didn't answer any questions. Her response to Senator Johnson about whether there was a spontaneous demonstration or not, saying it didn't matter. It didn't matter how these people died? That was stunning. That was really stunning. Of course it matters. It matters for a whole lot of reasons, including to the families and Americans because the American people deserve to be told the truth, and they were not told the truth in her talking points.
CAMEROTA: Well, her points that she went on to say after she said it didn't matter was basically there are four Americans dead. Forget the message. Forget the messaging, the labeling. What are we doing about it? Where are the people who are being prosecuted? Where are the suspects in custody? Is that for her to answer or the FBI, and why don't we have answers about that?
MCCAIN: We don't have answers because they haven't done anything. One thing they called it an FBI investigation, which is a criminal investigation. This was obviously an act of terror. But by saying it doesn't matter, then that sets aside or diminishes the importance of all the measures they failed to take. There were warnings. There was attacks on a British ambassador. There was a request to keep an additional security force there because of the rising threat. It was obvious that there was, including rather urgent messages sent by our ambassador back to Washington which she said she never saw.
I was in Tripoli with Christopher Stevens on July 7. He was deeply concerned about security there. A CNN reporter found a message from him weeks later in the burned-out consulate. So, look, this thing has been, it’s been a cover-up. It, I'm sorry to tell you that probably the adoring media will now say, “Well, that chapter is over.” Well, it's not over for the families of those who have sacrificed needlessly, in my view, and it's not over because we are not changing our policies because we let this happen in Libya and it continues to happen.
Nicely said, Senator.
It is indeed a shame America's media were more interested in covering up this story last year to protect President Obama from scrutiny before Election Day than they were uncovering the truth about what happened at our consulate in Benghazi.
Now that their candidate got re-elected, they seem just as disinterested in this matter because the woman in the middle of it is their choice for president in 2016.
Exactly when did America's press become more focused on assisting politicians they like rather than uncovering and reporting the truth?
How can political leaders be kept in check if the media are willing to aid and abet their misdeeds?
It was evident Wednesday that the press support Clinton's contention that it doesn't matter what the administration told the nation after the Benghazi attack.
If the White House telling the truth doesn't matter to so-called news organizations, why should this or any Democratic administration in the future ever be required to do so?
(HT Mediaite)
