Sharyl Attkisson has done it again. We have credited her for her excellent reporting on Operation Fast and Furious, the gunrunning operation in which Attorney General Eric Holder has been caught telling lies to Congress about what he knew and when he knew it. This has been one of the major scandals of the Obama administration that the mainstream media have largely ignored. But CBS News and in particular investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson have done some groundbreaking reporting on this story, while the rest of the mainstream media have largely ignored it.
Today, on CBS This Morning, Attkisson reported on another major scandal of the Obama administration, though it is not exactly identified as such. Most have heard about Solyndra, the solar panel company that declared bankruptcy after receiving more than half a billion dollars in taxpayer funds though ample warning signs existed that should have prevented that boondoggle from taking place. But a key financier of the company was a top Obama campaign-cash bundler who had visited the White House on numerous occasions.
It turns out that:
CBS News counted 12 clean energy companies that are having trouble after collectively being approved for more than $6.5 billion in federal assistance. Five have filed for bankruptcy: The junk bond-rated Beacon, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, AES’ subsidiary Eastern Energy and Solyndra.
Others are also struggling with potential problems. Nevada Geothermal — a home state project personally endorsed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid — warns of multiple potential defaults in new SEC filings reviewed by CBS News. It was already having trouble paying the bills when it received $98.5 million in Energy Department loan guarantees.”
This is the kind of reporting, without fear or favor, that the networks should be doing on a regular basis.
And it is particularly instructive while the country is focused on how venture capitalists get involved with troubled companies to either turn them around, close them down, or restructure, yes, to make a profit in the process. The difference is that the decisions are based on economics rather than on promoting a political agenda or rewarding political cronies.