Instead, the post-Benghazi media coverage quickly became an exercise in finger pointing designed to show that it was anyone's fault but the Obama administration's. First, the attack on Romney. Then, the attempts to deflect attention on to the poor sap who made the anti-Islam hate video (which supposedly – though not at all in fact – provoked the fatal assault in the Benghazi consulate) – as if in some way to persuade us all that, hey, the lynching of the ambassador and his staff/protection kind of wasn't that bad because, hey, we sort of invited it…..
Here in Britain, where the general understanding of Obama's manifold inadequacies is so pitifully thin that about the most vigorous criticism we're prepared to make of him is that maybe the muscle tone on his beautiful arms isn't quite so perfect as that on his immaculate and delightful wife Michelle's the Benghazi scandal hasn't had much play.
But in the US conservative media – which basically means talk radio and the internet and the Wall Street Journal – the story is snowballing. And rightly so.
Here are a few examples: this one, this one and this one courtesy of the mighty Rush. Now, even the not noticeably conservative Reuters is joining the fray with more shocking revelations.
This is a big deal.
It is a big deal. And that was the response. 4 Americans were dead and the media could just attack Mitt Romney. And they did so day after day after day. Diane Rehm was attacking him the Friday after the attack, days after the remarks. But we couldn't explore what really happened, could we?
James Delingpole is incorrect when he claims that it was conservatives on the internet. I'm not a conservative and I've covered the story. Ruth has done a great job covering it repeatedly. Ava and C.I. took on this crap immediately ("TV: Media Fail") and repeatedly.
So it's false to claim it was just the right-wing.
But he is correct that the media response to 4 dead Americans was to attack Mitt Romney.
Closing with C.I..'s "Iraq snapshot:"