![Picture](/uploads/1/2/9/6/12961350/5613311.jpg)
As you can see from the above, a political break-in caused the resignation of a president. This was a story brought to light by the press: Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein uncovered information suggesting that knowledge of the break-in, and attempts to cover it up, led deeply into the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and the White House. Obviously the press was doing it's job.
Now the question is why are they so reluctant to do their job at this point in time when the offense is so much worse and involves the death of 4 brave Americans? Will they now be forced to cover the story as new evidence is revealed indicating that email excerpts are showing that a top official was pushing to water down the initial story-line on the Benghazi attack?
Is the media's dedication to the Obama/Hillary camp so complete and unalterable that they would rather back away from a major story rather then follow it when it appears to lead to the highest offices?
If Obama and Clinton actually had no idea of what was occurring during the days of the 'video' story being fed to the press and the American public, then they definitely should not be in jobs that demand the highest degree of dedication to the country, regardless of party lines.
On the day of the Congressional Hearings with Hicks, Thompson and Nordstrom, other then Fox News, the other news channels appeared to downplay the importance of the men's testimony - making it seem that it was all a Republican ploy against the Obama administration - after all, as Hillary had so passionately exclaimed, "what does it matter!" Hicks eloquently told the nation that it did "matter". He was there. He lived through that night of terror and death with no help coming. This was after repeated requests for extra security measures made by Ambassador Christopher Stevens to the State Department in the time leading up the the attack.
They were not forthcoming before the attack nor were they forthcoming during the attack. The State Department's rationale appeared to be that it would take too much time for help to arrive. Of course then the question becomes, "how on earth did they know how long the attacks would continue and how many other people in Benghazi would be at risk?"
If you call 911 to report someone trying to kill you, you don't expect the police to tell you, "we aren't coming because by the time we get there you'll be dead". I'm sure that Ambassador Stevens wasn't expecting a 'stand down' order to be issued. Up until the last he probably still hoped that his Country would come to his aid and the aid of his staff. Two ex Navy seals did, and they lost their lives. Thank heavens for people like that, who put their integrity above 'covering their asses'.
Both Watergate and Benghazi were politically motivated. But there are several major differences. Watergate was a minor political break-in, lies by a president and a cover up. Nixon's own party asked him to resign for the good of the nation, and he did.
Benghazi was a matter of poor security, poor relaying of information, cover ups at the top levels of government and ultimately resulted in the tragic loss of four American lives.
Elections hinged on both Watergate and Benghazi.
Somehow the press, to date, deemed a break-in of more importance then the death of an Ambassador. After all, as Hillary said, "what does it matter!"