Media using Petraeus sex scandal to further avoid discussing Benghazi

The lapdog news media has covered for the Obama administration on the Benghazi scandal since the attacks occurred in September. They are now using General David Petraeus’ sex scandal as a means to further avoid the subject.

What’s the difference between Benghazi and the Petraeus sex scandal? One heavily damaged a reputation, and the other left four Americans dead.

  • Scott

    Something stinks bad enough to knock a buzzard off a gut wagon at 40 paces. MSM still covering obamabutt. Is it any wonder why Fox has twice the ratings?

  • nc

    The longer they let Benghazi coverage go, the harder it is to explain to the public. But a sex scandal? Easy peasy.

    The Messengers (MSM) will someday answer for their crimes. If we survive long enough.

  • John

    Sooner or later the excuses and lies have to run out:

  • Jack Deth

    I’ll wager the Dems are laughing their backsides off.

    A ‘sex scandal’ like this can be bled for all its worth as a distraction as documents are either shredded or back dated. Arms are twisted and the ‘evidence’ fits whatever narrative Obama, State, Pentagon and Agency wish to formulate, rehearse and deliver amongst non answer answers, stone walling and cries of victim hood back stopped by bought and paid for liberal talking heads and non expert ‘experts’.

    In other words. Just about as effective as the media circus surrounding ‘Fast & Furious’.
    No one who watched Benghazi unfolding in real time inside the ‘Bunker’ will testify or be touched.

  • TheTweetest

    “There’s nothing worse than a general who can’t control his privates”

    • OHNESA

      hahahahaha! very good!

  • riddler1620

    Once again, and not long in our future, people much smarter then me will realize it is the coverup that did them in.
    And thanks to computers, and more importantly “servers,” nothing anymore can truly be destroyed or back dated.

  • scalzo

    It’s hard to believe I served under this man in the 101st. He seemed very honourable then. Did the democrat way get to him? If he is covering for the Obama administration I will lose all respect for him. Sgt Scalzo

  • KBS2011

    And, when will the media ask about the drone that Iran fired upon on November 1st? Isn’t that an act of war? I do not feel safe and secure with bho at the helm. But, I guess free phones and relays at the white house take precedence for his constituents.

  • Libertyship46

    It all comes down to the Democrats in Congress. If they smell that the White House tried to cover this up, they will abandon Obama like rats fleeing a sinking ship, just like the Republicans left Nixon twisting in the wind. Everybody knows that this is much, much, worse than Watergate. We have four dead Americans here and somebody is going down for it. The only question is who. So keep your eyes on key Democrats in Congress. If they start asking “Who knew what and when,” it’s game over for the White House.

    • Stephen Mizer

      I want to believe this, but I wouldn’t count on this happening. The demoncrats in Congress are being hounded by their far left constituents to protect their messiah. Not to mention pressure from the messiah himself, and his hoard of merry radicals infesting the White House. On top of that, the snews media is doing just EXACTLY what I thought they would. It’s completely up to FOX and the right wingosphere to hammer this issue until it gets someone to admit their duplicity. But don’t count on it being BO. You can’t convict a messiah, unless His name is Jesus. And of course He was accused falsely.

  • riddler1620

    Sadly I think these democrats will go to hell and back in protecting Obama. Hope I’m wrong.

    • Stephen Mizer

      You can count on it. Look for some rumblings from a few Senate demoncrats, and then Harry Reid will let it die. The snews media will ignore it all they can, hoping to smother it. FOX can keep it alive for a while, but unless someone has a conscience in the BO administration and blows the whistle, you can bet on this eventually fading from the news-scape until the midterms. Or unless there are a lot of rejects from people refusing to serve as ambassadors because they can’t trust Barry to keep them alive.

  • DarylLloydDavis

    I remember when Tom Brokaw practically wept on air when one of his colleagues received what might have been anthrax in an envelope. Does it really have to hit that close to home for them to just do their jobs — to set aside party affiliations? They all need to start placing human lives — like the four dead in Libya — ahead of their own politics.

  • Stephen Mizer

    When I heard people discussing the Petraeus scandal and they said, “Well, now the news media will HAVE to cover this!” I had to laugh.

    They completely forget how this worked in the Clinton Whitehouse. All those unconstitutional things the Clintons did were swept under the rug, and the only things discussed were Monica and how soiled her dress was, cigars and what role they played, and whether or not Hillary would evict Bubba from her House.

    The REAL scandals of the Clinton Administration went ignored by the snews media. Vince Foster, White Water, using the military for political purposes, the Serbian genocide which came about because of their policies, Hillarycare, Vince Foster and the other dead Cabinet members, those hundreds of classified files on conservatives found in Hillary’s office, the transfer of nuclear and missile technology to communist China for campaign contributions, Sandy Burger’s theft of classified documents dealing with the Clintons from the national archives… the snews media ignored EVERYTHING.

    Obama is the left wing messiah. Don’t expect the lamestream media to cover anything dealing with “his holiness.” Fast-N-Furious fell off their radar as fast as they could make it happen too, so don’t expect to hear anything on this but lurid details of how “intimately” the general was “connected” with his girlfriend.

    • Hiraghm

      You didn’t even mention the Waco massacre…

  • $24698634

    Accusations of cover-up are misplaced at best. Cover-ups usually first involve crimes. Benghazi may have been a lot of things, but a crime is not one of them; except as it relates to the actual perpetrators. What exactly was the administration allegedly covering up? That they got the cause of the attack wrong? Or the timeline? Or confusion about orders? Those are open for criticism, but fall short of a cover-up.

    • Stephen Mizer

      Liberal definition of a cover-up: any action to provide information by a conservative which the left can misconstrue to suit their purposes, usually to accuse conservatives of not being forthcoming, transparent and honest about any given subject.

      Of course by the left’s definition, they could NEVER be guilty of a cover-up. But you keep telling yourself this. Along with “the middle class is doing fine”…

      • $24698634

        I would give you a lot more credibility if you spelled out what the actual cover up was.  Going all philosophical on me merely obfuscates the issue.  What was being covered up, please?

  • $24698634

    Does anyone really believe that Petraeus would throw away his career to not testify? Pretty far fetched.