Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

~~~

Monday, December 30, 2013

BENGHAZI! BENGHAZI! BENGHAZI!




Got your attention?

Good.

Unfortunately, the folks who should read this, won't because it interferes with their cockamamie conspiracy theories surrounding the Benghazi tragedy and because The New York Times.  

Before the victims were buried, the cray-crays on the right were calling for Mr. Obama to be impeached for treason.  And they were not shy, either, about slandering Susan Rice.  Naturally, they were entirely mistaken on everything their fevered little minds conjured up about what happened in Benghazi that terrible night, and the recent report in the NYTimes lays out in detail how utterly WRONG the extremist TeaPublicans were and still are.



Steve Benen sums the NYTimes piece up nicely.


For the White House’s far-right critics, for whom the notion of a Benghazi “cover up” is practically a foregone conclusion, the exact details of the allegations can get rather convoluted. That said, the basic gist of the argument is that al Qaeda, on the anniversary of 9/11, led the attack that left four Americans dead. The White House knew this, the conspiracy theory goes, but chose to lie and hide the truth. Why? According to the unhinged, President Obama was in the middle of his re-election campaign, during which he boasted about his counter-terrorism successes. To acknowledge that al Qaeda killed four Americans in Libya would, according to the theory, undermine the narrative, making a cover up necessary. 

 The problem with the allegations, of course, is that facts keep getting in the way, and the NYT report obliterates the conspiracy altogether. Republicans insist al Qaeda led the attack, but it didn’t. 

Republicans insist the attack had nothing to do with the right-wing YouTube video, but it did. Republicans insist the violence was carefully planned, but it wasn’t. Republicans insist the White House deliberately misled the public, but it didn’t. Indeed, looking back, the initial remarks Susan Rice made in the immediate aftermath of the attack look pretty accurate a year and a half later. 

 I’m reasonably confident Rice would be gracious and accept apologies from the Republicans who smeared her, but first they’ll have to acknowledge how painfully wrong they were. 

 By any fair estimation, the Benghazi conspiracy theories unraveled a long time ago, but this latest report serves as a powerful coda. 

Republicans will be reluctant to accept this, but the right’s obsession is no more. GOP policymakers and media invested heavily in their fevered dream – even using our money for a series of baseless investigations – but the political scandal was a mirage.


Will there be any apologies forthcoming from the hysterics who slandered President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and Susan Rice? 

 Are you kidding? 

 We'll hear Sarah Palin utter a coherent sentence before THAT happens!

42 comments:

Ben Crazy said...

Don't expect the low-information scandal mongers on the right to read the New York Times report. It does't match up with the misinformation they love to feed each other.

Infidel753 said...

Will there be any apologies forthcoming from the hysterics who slandered President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and Susan Rice?

Of course not. The dominant narrative on right-wing sites since the election has been that the only reason Benghazi didn't bring down Obama is that the media were covering for him. They'll dismiss the New York Times report in the same way.

A lot of the teabagger base seems to be made up of the same kind of dregs of the population that think the Moon landings were faked or 9/11 was a Jewish plot. Any evidence against the lunatic conspiracy theory is just taken as proof of how vast and devious the conspiracy is, and how effective its cover-up.

Anonymous said...

VALIANT for TRUTH said:


http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/new-york-times-whitewashes-benghazi_772382.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/30/completely-false-sources-on-ground-in-benghazi-challenge-nyt-report/

FreeThinke said...

VALIANT for TRUTH said:

Ben Crazy said...

Don't expect the low-information scandal mongers on the right to read the New York Times report. It does't match up with the misinformation they love to feed each other.

Gee! That's funny, Ben. Our side says the exact same thing about you guys.

When will this farce end?

Shaw Kenawe said...

Anonymous @12:24,

Here are the links you provided:

Republican Neocon publication "American Standard:"

"The New York Times Whitewashes Benghazi"

And from FAUX NOOZ:

'Completely false': Sources on ground in Benghazi challenge NYT report"

Just as I predicted in my post. The TeaPublican righties live in a bubble where no facts are allowed. Nothing that refutes their idea of Mr. Obama as a traitor, Commie, Marxist, Fascist, America-hating, Kenyan Muslim, can get in. They've lost all connection to reality.

Be assured that if there had been a cover-up or any criminal actions related to the Benghazi tragedy and its aftermath, the Hounds of Hell folks on the right and their countless Congressional investigations would have found them by now.

They haven't. They've uncovered NOTHING ILLEGAL nor have they uncovered a COVER-UP.

They don't exist. But people like Bill Kristol and the banshees at FAUX NOOZ will never let this go because it doesn't fit their narrative.

Happily, history will leave them all on the ash heap of irrelevacy.

Shaw Kenawe said...

FT,

How did you know what V for T said before I published it?

Clairvoyant?

But to answer you comment. We say these things because many on the right refuse to accept that President Obama did not cover up anything about Benghazi.

When people believe in unicorns and fairies, they tend to see them everywhere, instead of reality.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Infidel753:

"The dominant narrative on right-wing sites since the election has been that the only reason Benghazi didn't bring down Obama is that the media were covering for him. They'll dismiss the New York Times report in the same way."

As you can see, Anonymous provided us with evidence of what many predicted would happen as soon as the NYTimes report was published.

The more facts that come out to disprove their cover-up conspiracy theories, the more they cling to their fantasies.

You can't help people like that.

Ben Crazy said...

Don't forget that Kristol pushed the idea of Sarah Palin as vp on McCain and his people. Why would anyone take that clown seriously?

Fox News? Bwahahahaha!

Shaw Kenawe said...

Some interesting speculations from Politico on why this story won't go away:

"Political opportunism.

Republicans see a chance to damage Hillary Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time of the attack, ahead of a feared waltz into the White House in 2016. No doubt they’ll keep trying. But so far, nothing has emerged to tar her with anything other than paying insufficient attention to security in Libya, and she survived a Capitol Hill grilling on this more or less unscathed. None of which has deterred the critics one bit: Some Benghazi obsessives gleefully pointed to polls this spring and summer showing a decline in Clinton’s approval ratings. There’s no proof, though, that Benghazi had anything to do with it—and it seems unlikely that voters will factor a 5-year-old incident into their decision come November 2016. More plausible is the explanation offered by Democratic pollster Peter Hart: “Pure and simple, she’s gone from being the nonpartisan secretary of state to potentially a partisan Democratic nominee for president.”

Shaw Kenawe said...

"According to previous Times reporting, for example, U.S. officials believed members of the Jamal network, named for Egyptian militant Mohamed al-Jamal (also known as Muhammad Jamal Abu Ahmad) and known to have al Qaeda ties, had participated in the Benghazi attack. But when the State Department formally designated the network a terrorist group in October 2013, it made no mention of Benghazi—and Kirkpatrick doesn’t mention Jamal in his story. That may be because the connection is murky: When Egyptian authorities captured him and several others in December 2012, the Wall Street Journal reported, “Aside from a possible indirect connection through Mr. Ahmad, U.S. officials have said they can’t confirm connections between the five men detained in the raid and the Benghazi attacks.” Even so, the mere fact that people with al Qaeda ties were present wouldn’t prove that al Qaeda planned the assault."

Rational Nation USA said...

Gosh, I always thought unicorns and fairies where a feel warm and fuzzy all over liberal thing. :-)

Who knew?

Paula said...

the cons are having a fit because their belief that there was a benghazi cover-up has been destroyed and so THIS!

Infidel753 said...

Republicans see a chance to damage Hillary Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time of the attack, ahead of a feared waltz into the White House in 2016.

Exactly. This has always been entirely about personal destruction, not about getting at the truth. Something they think they can use against both President Obama and Hillary Clinton is too good to let go.

The digging-in and refusal to face reality will only get worse with this report, and may last long enough to damage them in next year's election.

Anonymous said...


"For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbours, and laugh at them in our turn?"

- Jane Austen

Shaw Kenawe said...

Anonymous, have you ever visited the conservative blogs where a certain friend of this blog named "Ducky" is called a "POS" and "Commie" and other charming epithets because he doesn't drink their con Kool-Aid?

Or when liberals are referred to as "libtards," "Marxists," and destroyers of America?

Are you the sort that sees "sport" only when liberals make their opinions known?

Yeah. I thought so.

You need to take that log out of your eye.

Ducky's here said...

Is this the part where Darryl Issa commits sepuku?

Shaw Kenawe said...

If Issa had any honor, he would.



If only.

Leo T. Lyon said...

Agreed. The extreme cons hoped the Benghazi would take down Obamna. It didn't because it was tragic, not a conspiracy. Don't tell the cons.

Watch for this comment to appear on their blogs. They love to quote me.

skudrunner said...

Bengazi is not an issue because the administration accepts no responsibility for any of their incompetency.

On another note is the administration's attack on the middle class and small business.

I am sure you support the destruction of the middle class as long as it is lead by the incompetent incumbent.

A Large New Tax on Small Business.
Oh thats right,, you need proof from conservatives.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304465604579220413773642016

Rational Nation USA said...

"We'll hear Sarah Palin utter a coherent sentence before THAT happens."

Perhaps, but she sure is looking HOT these days!

Shaw Kenawe said...

"Perhaps, but she sure is looking HOT these days!"


But only in flashes.


PS. Imagine if a woman said that about a male pundit! But perhaps you hit on the reason so many men on the right still pay any attention to her blatherings.

Shaw Kenawe said...

skud: "Bengazi is not an issue because the administration accepts no responsibility for any of their incompetency."

Not true, of course. But you're wrong again. Benghazi IS an issue, it's just not a scandal that the extremist TeaPublicans drooled over. And that's why your comment is dripping with sarcasm and anger.

You and the other extremists in the GOP didn't get to impeach the president you love to hate. And your hoped for "scandal" disappeared into the mists of rightwing delirium.



So sad.

Infidel753 said...

Shaw: But perhaps you hit on the reason so many men on the right still pay any attention to her blatherings.

I'm convinced that if Sarah Palin weighed 300 pounds, she'd still be an unknown today.

Krudrunner: On another note is the administration's attack on the middle class and small business.

Standard troll tactic -- when losing the argument, try to change the subject.

Rational Nation USA said...

Could be Shaw, could be.

Howard Brazee said...

What difference would it make? Benghazi never was about facts. It always was about preparing for the next presidential election.

They should be careful though - preparing for Clinton might get a true progressive like Warren in.

Rational Nation USA said...

One can only hope not.

okjimm said...

//Perhaps, but she sure is looking HOT these days!//

....so did my oatmeal this morning....and it was more nourishing.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Okjimm, You always make me guffaw!



I just love that word!

Shaw Kenawe said...

H.B., Warren is not ready for the presidency yet. But she will make a terrific POTUS when the time comes.

Infidel753, skudrunner will be in a continual state of rage so long as Mr. Obama is president. That rage is what gives him and the other TeaExtremists a reason to get up in the morning.

Anonymous said...

So RN, your praise of Palin in the lats years is based on sexual attraction, not political ideology?

skudrunner said...

"You and the other extremists in the GOP didn't get to impeach the president you love to hate."

That was never even considered not because he doesn't deserve it but he has the press on his side.

With the obama attack on the middle class, and the elite backing his efforts, I wouldn't be to sure about warren.

okjimm said...

/guffaw!/

HA! I had guffaw once. With a lot of rest and some medication it went away. Never did date that girl again!!!!

Shaw Kenawe said...

Hey, okjimm, is "guffaw" a portmanteau?

I'm thinking it could be, and here's why:

When someone gives you so much "guff" that it leaves you awed, then that person has given you "guffawe."

Is that what your erstwhile girlfriend gave you?

skudrunner does that to me on a regular basis.

(See above.)

Shaw Kenawe said...

the link to the definition of "guff" didn't work, so here it is:


guff

noun informal
noun: guff
1.
trivial, worthless, or insolent talk or ideas.


Origin
early 19th cent. (in the sense ‘puff, whiff of a bad smell’): imitative.

Shaw Kenawe said...

skudrunner,

And a Happy New Year to you, too.

skudrunner said...

Shaw,

Have a joyous and safe New Year.

You have the good fortune to be able to cab or walk to you celebrations, cold as it may be.

Rational Nation USA said...

Depends on your nourishment criteria. With my slightly elevated cholesterol I'm with you okjimm.

Rational Nation USA said...

Whatever jackass Anon...

Anonymous said...

the cons on the conblogs pissmoaning about obama, obamacare, ben ghazi, and everything else they're helpless to do anything about...mewling little wimps whaaa....whaaa...whaaa.

A. Reader said...

Anon: "the cons on the conblogs pissmoaning about obama, obamacare, ben ghazi, and everything else they're helpless to do anything about...mewling little wimps whaaa....whaaa...whaaa."


Don't complain about the complainers. It's better for them to do that, otherwise they'd be eating paste or sticking forks in their eyes.

okjimm said...

RN...add dried fruit. Mango & cherry oatmeal is great...especially topped with a shot of brandy. absolutely nothing to guffaw about. :)

Rational Nation USA said...

Absolutely will give Mango-Cherry Oatmeal a try. Won't skimp on the brandy for sure!