Benghazi-gate gets even more ludicrous

[nhboy (Premo)]

Link to original article.

"REPUBLICAN senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham devoted an appearance at the Washington Ideas Forum on Wednesday to vowing to filibuster if Susan Rice, the current UN ambassador, is nominated to replace Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. They're apparently ticked off over her statements on talk shows on September 15th about the Benghazi attacks. Barack Obama got pretty incensed about this at his press conference later in the day, and Kevin Drum argues he was right to be incensed. As Mr Drum says, everything Ms Rice said on September 15th was in fact the judgment at that moment of American intelligence agencies, and she relayed that judgment accurately.

The only thing that was even arguably wrong in those intelligence assessments was the claim that there had been a copycat protest over those anti-Muslim YouTube videos in Benghazi; intelligence agencies didn't start calling this into question until some time later.

"Berating Rice, who had nothing to do with Benghazi aside from representing the administration on these talk shows, is nuts," Mr Drum writes. "The intelligence community was wrong about one relatively unimportant fact, and Rice passed along that mistake. That's it. There's no coverup, no conspiracy, no incompetence, no scandal."

This is absolutely right as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough. At the most fundamental level, the reason it is absurd to suspect the existence of a "cover-up" over the Benghazi attack is that such a cover-up could not have had any conceivable goal. Back to the beginning: the underlying accusation about Benghazi is that the Obama administration deliberately mischaracterised the terrorist attack there as having grown out of a spontaneous demonstration because that would be less politically damaging.

Such a cover-up would have made no sense because the attack would not have been less politically damaging had it grown out of a spontaneous demonstration. The attack on the Benghazi compound would not have been any less politically difficult for the administration if it had grown out of a riot, nor would any normal voter have expected it to be less politically damaging, nor would any normal campaign strategist have expected any normal voter to have expected it to be less politically damaging. Had Susan Rice gone on the talk shows on September 15th and inaccurately stated that the attackers had been wearing green pants, when in fact their pants had been red, there would be no reason to suspect this to be part of a political "cover-up", because no American voters could conceivably have cared either way."

.....

"Obviously there's a huge temptation to turn any incident that could reflect badly on the opposition's government, such as the killing of an ambassador in a terrorist attack, into some kind of scandal. But this attempt is just absurd. The strategy here has been to shout "Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi!" until the public begins to think there's something fishy going on with Benghazi, and then move on to targeting administration figures because...Benghazi! If this actually works, we are all still in kindergarten."

Yet some "conservatives" will continue to waste time & money pursuing this faux scandal.

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by nhboy

The only thing that was even arguably wrong in those intelligence assessments was the claim that there had been a copycat protest over those anti-Muslim YouTube videos in Benghazi; intelligence agencies didn't start calling this into question until some time later.

"Berating Rice, who had nothing to do with Benghazi aside from representing the administration on these talk shows, is nuts," Mr Drum writes. "The intelligence community was wrong about one relatively unimportant fact, and Rice passed along that mistake. That's it. There's no coverup, no conspiracy, no incompetence, no scandal."

The ONE unimportant fact is that virtually nothing of what she said was true. It didn't go down the way she described, and it didn't happen for the reasons described - there was no protest crowd and nothing in her story resembled fact.

Moreover, the intelligence community was NOT in the dark regarding this event. They knew within hours and minutes exactly what we know now. They didn't pass along incorrect intel several days later - SOMEWHERE along the line, a story coincidentally supportive of the White House got manufactured out of whole cloth.

Amazingly, the biased Sunday morning hosts got at least ONE thing right, even while people like David Gregory tried to make the case that Condi Rice did the same thing. Not quite. Condi made the case with faulty intel - she was, at the time, national security advisor - so she was not some stooge having talking points shoved in her piehole. She got the info from the source, which was incorrect from several national intelligence agencies.

Susan Rice may not have known what she was saying was false - but SOMEONE changed her story.

[aps45819]

Originally Posted by nhboy

Such a cover-up would have made no sense because the attack would not have been less politically damaging had it grown out of a spontaneous demonstration. The attack on the Benghazi compound would not have been any less politically difficult for the administration if it had grown out of a riot, nor would any normal voter have expected it to be less politically damaging, nor would any normal campaign strategist have expected any normal voter to have expected it to be less politically damaging.

How does an Al Qaeda attack fit into the President's proclamation that "GMs alive, Bin Laden's dead and Al Qaedas on the run"

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by nhboy

Yet some "conservatives" will continue to waste time & money pursuing this faux scandal.

It's not a scandal. The President of the United States of America came into office saying silly things and he is still doing it. He is a silly person.

This is exactly like "I don't know all the facts but, I do know the police acted stupidly..." He embarrassed himself, made an ass of himself and in so doing embarrassed the nation.

So, now, on the anniversary of 9/11, a military operation is conducted against us in Libya killing our ambassador. So, out comes our leader and says, with that same stern face "This video is bad. We don't like that it made people do bad things..." WTF?

Now, is it a scandal that the most powerful person on the planet is a silly person? It probably ought to be. However, there is the alternative view that he's not silly at all;

He just knows we, the people, are and he can toss toys to the children so he can go about his silly business.

Now, given the policies our President pursues, given the results, it seems obvious that, if we're silly, we have the proper leader.

Yay us.

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by nhboy

As Mr Drum says, everything Ms Rice said on September 15th was in fact the judgment at that moment of American intelligence agencies, and she relayed that judgment accurately.

That's funny, if it was the judgment of the American intelligence agencies that it was a protest gone wrong, and the Whitehouse sent Rice out with these talking points, then how could Obama have known on 12 Sep that it was a terrorist attack?

[Pete]

If this was Bush imagine the howling.

[migtig]

A "faux scandal"? No, it isn't a faux scandal. It's a tragic event that shouldn't have occurred.

It is a tragic event that could have been prevented.

It is a tragic event that resulted in wasted lives while the white house watched it unfold live and didn't do a damn thing about it.

It's a tragic event that demonstrates loudly that this president and this white house doesn't give a crap about the American people they are supposed to represent.

It's a tragic event made more tragic by lies and attempted cover-ups.

It's a tragic event made even more tragic by more of the American people not being outraged that this happened at all.

The only "faux scandal" is people like you nhboy and the people like this writer trying to pretend that everything is a-okay with this tragic loss of life and attempting to convince others that it is a-okay. That's not only a scandal but it's a damn shame as well.

[migtig]

Deaths of American Citizens? We are not impressed.

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by migtig

It's a tragic event made even more tragic by more of the American people not being outraged that this happened at all.

That has a lot to do with the fact that many major news outlets aren't covering it at all. You'd be astonished at how many Americans really don't know or have heard anything about it.

[Toxick]

Originally Posted by migtig

Deaths of American Citizens? We are not impressed.

That picture is epic.