Richard Cohen has most brilliantly summed up the confusion over why Republicans simply can't let go of Benghazi.
I feel about the GOP as I do about the religion of others: I don't get it. I know feelings can be strong and reason plays little part in it -- faith is faith, after all -- and this is the way I see the GOP snits about the IRS and, more pertinently, Benghazi. What are these people talking about?
Four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, died in the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya -- two from mortar fire, and Stevens and another man from smoke inhalation. These deaths are a serious matter for which bureaucratic blame has already been assessed. No one can possibly think the Obama administration knew the attack was coming and let it happen. There is no proof of that. Similarly, no one can still think the White House put the brakes on a rescue attempt by the U.S. military. Again, there is no proof of that.
So what is Benghazi? Beats me, I am tempted to say. But I recognize it as a transparent Republican attempt to provide the party's base with grist for its fantasy mill.
Fantasy mill, indeed. Man, they really do love this stuff, don't they?
Is it possible the Obama administration fudged the nature of the attack, refusing to apply the term "terrorist"? Yes, of course. Did the White House spinmeisters put their hands all over it? Could be. But is any of this so momentous that it has required 13 public hearings and now a select House committee that will delve and delve feverishly ... for what?
I am not sure if this rancorous partisanship is something new in American history or just the same old, same old. But I know that what I am seeing looks both petty and mean. House Speaker John Boehner talks about Benghazi with synthetic solemnity. Fox News dissects it, parsing White House talking points with the ferocious intensity of a hunting dog pointing at some prey. Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. It will show ... It will prove ... It will expose ... What? What the hell are you talking about?
Indeed, what?
6 comments:
Unlike you and Cohen I do get it. You don't care that the Administration lied, that they hauled some fairly innocent schlep off in cuffs to deflect their own dishonesty and incompetence.
You don't care because he is your guy and that is that.
What I don't get is why you can't be honest about at least your own self.
What exactly did they lie about and where is evidence that they did? I think criticism of the State Department and the president is perfectly fair and both he and Hillary have taken responsibility for what happened. But it should be in the same arena as the criticism we had of the Bush Administration's bungle over 9-11 intelligence.
But it should be in the same arena as the criticism we had of the Bush Administration's bungle over 9-11 intelligence.
What does that even mean?
What exactly did they lie about
How can you even ask?
They lied that the attack was a demonstration against a YouTube video spun out of control. The truth ran against the re-election campaign talking points. Re-election was more important than re-acting while the attack was happening or being honest afterward (until the point that even Jay Carney couldn't lie with a straight face).
Nor do we know what in the hell was going on before the attack - what activity was the CIA (with State fronting) involved in? You've even raised that point yourself - not that you seem to really want an answer (as it might not look too good for your demi-god President).
They lied that the attack was a demonstration against a YouTube video spun out of control
Except that the Times story showed that the video did play a part in the attack and that the attack itself was much more complicated than conservatives are making it out to be.
Re-election was more important than re-acting while the attack was happening or being honest afterward
Where is the evidence of this? Worse, you guys are still sticking to the lie that the president never called it an act of terror when he did. He was honest afterward and you seem to feel that you are entitled to your own facts.
Nor do we know what in the hell was going on before the attack - what activity was the CIA (with State fronting) involved in? You've even raised that point yourself - not that you seem to really want an answer (as it might not look too good for your demi-god President).
A good question until you slipped into straw man again. What if the answer turns out to illustrate that the president was trying to get intel on AQAP and establish a foothold to stem extremism in the region?
Except that the Times story...
If you are going to eat bullshit please don't do it in front of other people, okay?
Where is the evidence of this?
You aren't asking for evidence because it wouldn't matter how much evidence was shoved under your nose, you are so full of shit that you couldn't smell it.
What if the answer turns out to illustrate that the president was trying to get intel on AQAP and establish a foothold to stem extremism in the region?
Well fuck, maybe they had made first contact with a race of space people of superior intellect.
I mean, why go small when you are going to fantasize - or do you have some evidence to support your contention? You really are just a total partisan condom.
Post a Comment