#rsrh Hey, do you want to see Laura Ingraham eviscerate a NYT reporter over Benghazigate?

What am I saying?  Of course you do.


Kinda-sorta via AoSHQ.  Ingraham is not particularly on my radar – honestly, I don’t really watch or listen to many television/radio pundits, except as necessary to do the blogs – but she was kind of ruthless, here.  For those without video, she pointed out to the NYT guy’s face that his paper was a hypocrite for not covering the Benghazi lying/incompetence/whatever with nearly the same recklessly fevered  enthusiasm that the Media did over, say, Plamegate.  Good stuff, and nicely concentrated down into a reasonably pure form.

She also happens to be right.


14 thoughts on “#rsrh Hey, do you want to see Laura Ingraham eviscerate a NYT reporter over Benghazigate?”

  1. Used to listen to her show when I lived in a market it was in. Not bad, but there are better shows. She tended to hit the same material as most of the right side talk shows, so if you had already listened to Rush, Hannity, etc. You knew what the show would be about. I rate her as a high second tier show.

  2. The Other McCain made an interesting point: we should be calling this Benghazi-quiddick instead of Benghazi-gate, since Watergate didn’t have a death count and Chappaquiddick did. Not that I particularly like either formulation, but anyways.

  3. she wasn’t ruthless — Rush is ruthless. In this case, Ingraham is just insistent over accountability

  4. @Aruges, I’m also not any longer in her market – but I liked her a good bit more than Rush. And, she can slice and dice a good bit better than Hannity, who tends to be a bit more genteel.

  5. She sums up, very clearly and succinctly the many apparent failures that have yet to be explained, or even investigated by Old Media, or its Authority, the Obama Administration. This will mean something tonight.

  6. Laura is only semi-right. The press is entirely culpable here, not partly. I’ll assume she’s being polite, ‘mainstream’, acceptable to the broad audience. The complete lack of public supervision is what allows this clown show of a regime to continue in its contemptible stupidity.

  7. Argues,

    So what? I mean that you rate Laura as second tier, so what, thats not really the point is it? She was face to face with a squeamish and obviously embarrassed Times reporter. She made a telling rebuke to the MSM, in front of Deep Throats own GodFather and Mike Wallace and several million viewers. Good Girl- and pretty and smart to boot.

  8. Great questions and all we’re going to get from the lamestream national socialist media is crickets chirping until AFTER the election.

    Laura, you’re dern right if this had been a Republican president the lamestream media would have been camped out in front of the homes of the AG and State Department officials as well as the White House DEMANDING answers … and probably going through some trash cans to boot.

  9. I saw that part of the show and, IIRC, in his response the NYT guy sitting next to Ingraham completely avoided addressing her point about the media failing to do its proper job of demanding a response from Rice, Clinton, or Obama. Of course, that might prove embarrassing to the president just before the election and would be completely inconsistent with the role he’s assigned the supine press of providing political cover for his administration. That does beg the question, given the incompetence of the Obama campaign, when will the NYT run out of kneepads?

  10. Freddie Sykes, I think you must have meant to say “rightful” indignation. This lying scumbag in the whitehouse and his chicago goons have disrespected us long enough. Time to flush the toilet on this turd of an administration.

Comments are closed.