More musings on Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi testimony yesterday
I watched some of Clinton’s testimony yesterday, but at a fairly early point I decided to stop.
The reason? My gut feeling was that nothing would come of it. Note I don’t write that “there was nothing worthwhile that was said or revealed.” There was plenty, and it should have been meaningful. But all of it was just an underlining, with more proof based on emails, of things we already knew—things the right cares about and the left doesn’t.
I think it’s really just as simple as that. And what’s even simpler was predicting what the MSM would say about it. Sure enough, on the Yahoo page that comes up when I go to check my email, the featured story was advertised with a photo of Hillary Clinton and a headline and blurb that went like this:
“Benghazi panel gives Clinton presidential platform”
The 11-hour hearing yields precious little new information and no major political missteps by the Democratic front-runner.
If I was the person (in terms of politics) I’d been until fourteen or so years ago, I’d most likely have scanned that headline and figured it meant that Hillary had done well, had done nothing wrong, there was nothing new, all was okay, and that I didn’t have to read any further. All I needed to know was contained there: nothing more to see, move right along. And I’d have been only too happy to have done so, because hearings are boring and there’s lots of better things to do. Multiply that by many, many, many millions.
I’m remembering back to the Watergate hearings, though, when there were also better things to do and yet we were riveted to our TV screens. What was the difference?
One difference was that televised hearings were relatively few and far between in those days compared to our C-SPAN era. Another was that something was up, something was in the air, something that felt very important. How did that get conveyed? It had become clear for quite some time that President Nixon might be implicated, and Nixon was the sort of figure that even most of his own supporters didn’t like all that much, and whom the MSM absolutely detested. There was no way the media was going to defend him, and that was part of the “something in the air.”
Besides, the media itself was a big part of the story. Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward were cast as heroes, and they and the rest of the press had a big investment in seeing a president brought down (especially this president). Plus, there were characters such as Democrat Sam Ervin, who became an audience favorite. He was given to pronouncements such as this one, part of his reaction to Nixon’s refusal to turn over the tapes (at least somewhat analogous to Hillary’s initial stonewalling on the emails):
I deeply regret that this situation has arisen, because I think that the Watergate tragedy is the greatest tragedy this country has ever suffered. I used to think that the Civil War was our country’s greatest tragedy, but I do remember that there were some redeeming features in the Civil War in that there was some spirit of sacrifice and heroism displayed on both sides.
Hyperbole much? Can you imagine if a Republican senator had referred to Clinton’s behavior as “the greatest tragedy this country has ever suffered,” how much that senator would have been ridiculed? And yet, in quite a few ways, I see Benghazi as worse than Watergate. Certainly, the reaction of the Democrats is far far worse than the reaction of Republicans to Watergate; it was Republicans who ultmately turned on Nixon and forced him out by withdrawing their support.
I wrote about the Democrats’ reaction to Benghazi two years ago, when the Issa hearings on Benghazi had already began:
David Gelernter nails it:
It is the Democratic Party that’s on trial today; and to a lesser extent, America’s mainstream media. For Democrats (and especially Democratic senators) it is put-up-or-shut-up time: are they Democrats or Americans first?…
How would Republicans act if a GOP administration were under this sort of cloud? We know exactly how. It was the radically partisan Edward Kennedy who proposed that a senate select committee investigate Watergate””but in February 1973, the Senate voted unanimously to create that committee. Republican Senator Howard Baker was vice chairman, and asked the key question: ”What did the president know and when did he know it?” Which Democratic senator will ask that question today, now that the issue isn’t breaking-and-entering but lying about four murders, including the murder of an American ambassador? Which cabinet member will be Eliot Richardson and resign rather than continuing to be part of a coverup? Will John Kerry rise to the challenge?
The answers, unfortunately are “none” and “no.”
It’s only gotten worse, much worse. Republicans are not even asking about the president any more; he seems irrelevant even though he almost undoubtedly is not. And it’s been proven without a shadow of a doubt that the person soon to be the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, “lied about four murders, including the murder of an American ambassador,” and not a single Democrat can seem to manage to say a word against her on that score. Nor, as far as I can see, can the liberal MSM.
It’s a bit like this Onion piece:
More than a week after President Barack Obama’s cold-blooded killing of a local couple, members of the American news media admitted Tuesday that they were still trying to find the best angle for covering the gruesome crime.
“I know there’s a story in there somewhere,” said Newsweek editor Jon Meacham, referring to Obama’s home invasion and execution-style slaying of Jeff and Sue Finowicz on Apr. 8. “Right now though, it’s probably best to just sit back and wait for more information to come in. After all, the only thing we know for sure is that our president senselessly murdered two unsuspecting Americans without emotion or hesitation.”…
What exactly is the news hook here?” asked Rick Kaplan, executive producer of the CBS Evening News. “Is this an upbeat human-interest story about a ‘day in the life’ of a bloodthirsty president who likes to kill people? Or is it more of an examination of how Obama’s unusual upbringing in Hawaii helped to shape the way he would one day viciously butcher two helpless citizens in their own home?”
“Or maybe the story is just that murder is cool now,” Kaplan continued. “I don’t know. There are a million different angles on this one.”
So far, the president’s double-homicide has not been covered by any major news outlets.
Just now, looking at that “Benghazi panel gives Hillary presidential platform” story with which I began this post, and starting to read the comments there, I saw this one that references Watergate:
You know, Watergate evolved to what it became in American history because of a cover-up. A cover-up of deceitful politics. HRC’s cover-up of Benghazi (she finally admitted to it) is equally shameful and four people died. America kicked out a president in 1975, in 2015 America seems to celebrate presidents (or at least candidates) who don’t even attempt to pull the wool over your eyes. Somewhere between then and now Americans have traded in their moral compass and for what I am not really sure.
They traded it in for self-congratulatory pats on the back, government dependence, and self-esteem awards for everyone. But what they’ll get goes way beyond that, and it’s not good.
[NOTE: If you want to look at some of the substantive revelations at the hearings yesterday, see this from the WSJ. Some excerpts:
Here’s what the Benghazi committee found in Thursday’s hearing. Two hours into Mrs. Clinton’s testimony, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan referred to an email Mrs. Clinton sent to her daughter, Chelsea, at 11:12 the night of the attack, or 45 minutes after the secretary of state had issued a statement blaming YouTube-inflamed mobs. Her email reads: “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like group.” Mrs. Clinton doesn’t hedge in the email; no “it seems” or “it appears.” She tells her daughter that on the anniversary of 9/11 an al Qaeda group assassinated four Americans.
That same evening, Mrs. Clinton spoke on the phone with Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf, around 8 p.m. The notes from that conversation, in a State Department email, describe her as saying: “We have asked for the Libyan government to provide additional security to the compound immediately as there is a gun battle ongoing, which I understand Ansar as Sharia [sic] is claiming responsibility for.” Ansar al Sharia is al Qaeda’s affiliate on the Arabian Peninsula. So several hours into the attack, Mrs. Clinton already believed that al Qaeda was attacking U.S. facilities.
The next afternoon, Mrs. Clinton had a call with the Egyptian Prime Minister Hesham Kandil. The notes from it are absolutely damning. The secretary of state tells him: “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack””not a protest.” And yet Mrs. Clinton, and Ms. Rice and Mr. Obama for days and days continued to spin the video lie.
In other news Thursday, Judicial Watch unveiled a new cable, sent the day after the attack, from the Defense Intelligence Agency to the State Department Command Center. It explains that the attack was carried out by a “Salafi terrorism group” in “retaliation for the killing of an Al Qaeda operative.”
The cable says “the attack was an organized operation with specific information that the U.S. Ambassador was present.” The cable included details about the group’s movements and the weapons it used in the assault.
Count on the Obama administration to again resort to blaming “confusing” and “conflicting” information at the time for its two-week spin. That was Mrs. Clinton’s flimsy excuse at the hearing. But her own conversations prove she was in no doubt about what happened””while it was still happening.
Yawn and ho-hum, says at least half the country.]
“No new information”? We learned that she told her daughter right away that it was a terrorist attack and told the rest of us differently. That is a BIG deal. There was absolutely no reason to lie except to prop up Obama for his 2012 campaign. Sick, sick, sick.
If the Democrats don’t see why that is a problem, then they are just lost. They should be running away from this woman as fast as they can.
Trump is right. He would LOVE to run against Hillary.
I called Congressman Trey Gowdy’s office and spoke with one of his assistants.
She was genuinely appreciative of my call to thank Trey Gowdy for his professionalism, and his diligent efforts to bring about a resolve to this issue—–a resolve which counterbalances the LIES told by the Obama administration, including Hillary Clinton.
Mr. Gowdy’s assistant told me that their office has been inundated with HATE emails. I figured as much. That was part of the reason for my call. To register my position that he did one helluva job in this project.
I hope many others will consider calling Trey Gowdy’s office to share their appreciation of his work in this. There are not enough quality representatives in our government.
But all of it was just an underlining, with more proof based on emails, of things we already knew–things the right cares about and the left doesn’t.
I think it’s really just as simple as that. And what’s even simpler was predicting what the MSM would say about it.
if the trotskites dont care what stalin did they certainly are not going to care about material lost or killed. whats two to ten vs 100 million
comparing today subject can we put it in same as when lunatic Khomeini and his game with US Embassy in Tehran?
Is that also consider as”It is the Democratic Party that’s on trial today; and to a lesser “?
but it was not Democratic Party at that time.
think on it..
lookwhat they created for the hated class in SA
and you see your future here once numbers change in under 5 years
see? they are being threatened with murder and being beaten and they say we are fighting for the same goal…
Really?
are they?
are we?
Benghazi: Committee Called A Sham Meant To Destroy Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign
Elijah Cummings has had enough of the Benghazi committee! On Oct. 22, the U.S. Representative accused the Republican-led investigation into the 2012 attacks of being a fraud and that the committee’s only concerned with ruining Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign!
Neo:
“And yet, in quite a few ways, I see Benghazi as worse than Watergate. Certainly, the reaction of the Democrats is far far worse than the reaction of Republicans to Watergate; it was Republicans who ultmately turned on Nixon and forced him out by withdrawing their support.”
If facts spoke themselves, lawyers and anyone else in advocacy work would be out of business.
The facts, whether in a trial or any other judgemental setting, must be argued with a narrative frame structured on the elements at bar.
Properly establishing the elements at bar – the premises – is necessary.
A large part of winning at politics is establishing the premises that define the framing of the issue for public judgement. That task goes to the Narrative contest for the zeitgeist of the activist game. Once the activists do their work, the politicians follow suit.
The difference between the Republicans who constantly seem checked on issues like Nixon’s resignation, the Benghazi killings, etc, in spite of the facts, and the Democrats who deploy blatant “hyperbole” without penalty is the Democrats are following Left activists that work hard to establish the premises necessary to control the political frame, whatever the facts.
Participatory politics is bigger than electoral politics. The difference, as always, is activism.
Because Republicans are chronically handicapped by the Right’s self-imposed deficiency of activism, Republican politicians are forced to fall back on the frame – false or not – that’s been prevalently established by Left activists, even on issues such as the Iraq intervention where the facts blatantly point to a different frame.
The activist game is the only social cultural/political game there is. It’s a lot simpler to win any contest where the competition refuses to compete.
This was very hard to listen to:
Chris Stevens, That Comedian, Was Probably Making a Big Joke When He Pondered Purchasing Barricades From the Deserted British Embassy
Not a spoof!
“David Gelernter nails it:
It is the Democratic Party that’s on trial today; and to a lesser extent, America’s mainstream media. For Democrats (and especially Democratic senators) it is put-up-or-shut-up time: are they Democrats or Americans first?…”
Gelernter’s question has been answered beyond all doubt; they are leftist ‘democrats’ before all else.
“it’s been proven without a shadow of a doubt that the person soon to be the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, “lied about four murders, including the murder of an American ambassador,” and not a single Democrat can seem to manage to say a word against her on that score. Nor, as far as I can see, can the liberal MSM.” neo
Which makes them culpable in that crime. Obstruction of justice being a crime.
“America kicked out a president in 1975, in 2015 America seems to celebrate presidents (or at least candidates) who don’t even attempt to pull the wool over your eyes. Somewhere between then and now Americans have traded in their moral compass and for what I am not really sure.” commenter
“They traded it in for self-congratulatory pats on the back, government dependence, and self-esteem awards for everyone. But what they’ll get goes way beyond that, and it’s not good.” neo
And therein lies the heart of the matter, we have a President and democrat party that place leftist ideology above being Americans because a slim majority of supportive Americans subscribe, above all else, to that ideology. Those supportive American’s self-esteem is dependent upon satisfying the PC requirements of that ideology.
And, as long as they do, they have made themselves TWANLOC.
“If ye love
wealth[security] better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom – go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.” Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren (24 October 1780)The Onion piece in prescient.
I am amazed at how many people have died as a result of Nobel Peace Prize-winning Obama’s policies or (non) actions, whether its running guns to Mexican cartels, killing a lot of bystanders with his ongoing drone strikes in the ME, military casualties jumping under his ROE, all the people slaughtered by ISIS (including western hostages he didn’t rescue) because of wrong-headed decisions in the ME, open borders (disease, criminal aliens, abused unaccompanied minors), Obamcare, and so on.
The dude is covered in the blood of others and no one seems to notice or care.,
I posted this on the earlier thread on Benghazi, but it seems more apt here.
“Suggested line of questioning by Chairman Gowdy (CG):
CG: Madame Secretary (MS), Did you send an e-mail to your daughter on Sept 11, 2012 stating that the Benghazi attacks were carried out by an al Qaeda type group?
MS: I believe that’s correct.
CG: Yes or no?
MS: Ah, yes.
CG: Did you tell the Egyptian Prime Minister on Sept. 12, 2012 that the attacks had nothing to do with the U-Tube video?
MS: My recall of that isn’t perfect, but that is what the transcript seems to say.
CG: Yes or no?
MS: Ah, er, yes.
CG: Was one of the main talking points of President Obama’s campaign that “General Motors is alive, bin Laden is dead, and al Qaeda is on the run?”
MS: I suppose you could say that.
CG: Yes or no?
MS: Have it your way — yes.
CG: Was it true that you and the President considered the anti- Gaddafi campaign in Libya to be a great success?
MS: Well, that’s because it was a great success. Gaddafi, the tyrant and abuser of his people, was deposed and killed.
CG: What had happened in Libya since Gaddafi’s overthrow?
MS: The elected government was struggling to try to govern the country. Something that’s not unusual in such situations.
CG: Would you say that it had fallen into anarchy?
MS: I suppose you could say that.
CG: Yes or no?
MS: Yes. (Scowls)
CG: Had Libya become a haven for Islamist terror groups such as al Qaeda?
MS: We didn’t believe that to be true, We had no convincing evidence of it at the time.
CG: But it was unstable because of Islamist activities?
MS: As I said, we didn’t have hard evidence of that.
CG: Was it not true that this attack put your claims about the success of your policy in Libya in a bad light? And that it further refuted the claim by President Obama that al Qaeda was on the run?
MS: I suppose you could say that if you are looking to score political points.
CG: Yes or no?
MS: Is this an inquiry or a prosecution?
CG: We are inquiring into the facts as they existed at the time of the attack. Simple answers without qualifiers will speed the process along.
Now, MS, did the Dept. of State issue a press release at 2200 hours on Sept. 11, 2015 blaming the U-Tube video for the attack?
MS: Yes.
CG: Who made the decision to issue that release?
MS: I’m not sure. It was coordinated with the White House and CIA I believe. Things were happening vary fast at the time. There was a “fog of war” atmosphere.
CG: Did you publically maintain the position that the video was responsible for the attacks until Sept 21, 2015?
MS: Yes.
CG: In doing so, were you carrying out orders from your boss, the President?
MS: No, based on much conflicting evidence, that was my belief.
CG: And you say that in the face of evidence that you privately told your daughter, Chelsea, and the Egyptian Prime Minister on Sept 11th and 12th, that it was a pre-meditated attack by an al Qaeda type group? MS, there is a conflict in your testimony that indicates to an objective observer that you are not telling the truth about this. Now, can you tell me who you were lying to, the American public or your daughter, and why you did it?
MS: (Raises her voice) At this point, what difference does it make? This issue has long been resolved. Your desire to attack me politically is the only reason we’re here.
CG: Is it your final answer that you are a person who believes it is okay to deceive the citizens in matters of public affairs?
MS: You and your committee are a part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that has been attacking me from the day I first came to Washington. I refuse to cooperate any further with this inquisition.
CG: Thank you, MS.”
For those who are really into Benghazi here’s a timeline that covers most of what is known at this time:
http://www.aim.org/benghazi/timeline-of-events/
given that bengazi isnt the only thing, just think of what a regime that does this would be willing to do
Report: US Spied on Israel, Prepared to Destroy Israeli Bombers to Protect Iran
In an explosive report we learn that ever since 2012, the United States has been spying on Israel in order to prevent the Jewish State from attacking suspected Iranian nuclear sites, according to Friday’s Wall Street Journal. The White House had sent an additional aircraft carrier to the region after learning that Israeli aircraft had flown into Iranian airspace in what U.S. officials feared was a test run for an attack on Iran’s Fordow plant. The carriers had attack aircraft on board prepared to respond to any Israeli attack on Iran.
so they were willing to respond in seconds to israel, but not able to respond to benghazi? it would take too long… (despite the fact that there are groups that are on high alert to respond this way)
We all knew the Hillary was lying about the video. But when it was proven, the MSM couldn’t care.
I really fault Gowdy for the presentation. Way too long. Too many tangents. He should have started with the emails disproving the video theory and hammered her for it over and over.
The 600 requests for more security should have followed it. And then come back to it.
To suggest that Stevens assumed the risk or was negligent was insane. She should have been hammered on that.
Finally, not sending jets from Italy was a huge mistake.
Hit the four strongest points and come back to them from different angles.
Gowdy and the committee bungled it. Yale won.
Here’s a cartoon that sums up the hearing (HT Instapundit):
http://cdn.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/HILLARYCRUISE-600×283.jpg
My best hope now is that after HRC wins the nomination that Israel leaks all of her hacked emails. The bribery stuff with Bill and the Foundation will be hard to escape.
im going to try to answer @japan
i can tell that english is a bit of an issue so if i get the subject or focus wrong, i am sorry…
Japan asks and says…
not quite the same as the embassy in tehran had marines guarding it.
in the benghazi event, they had more marines guarding the embassy grounds in norway than they had in benghazi.
and yes, it WAS the democrat party at that time. Jimmy Carter was a democrat president… and he was presiding over. carter was in office 1977 to 1981, and in that time both the hous and senate were democrat as well.
United States Presidents and control of Congress
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Combined–Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_-_Control_of_the_U.S._Senate.png
it was the 95th congress
95th (1977—1979) – 292 dems vs 143 in the house
despite their one-party control of the federal government, Democrats failed to pass President Jimmy Carter’s comprehensive energy program. The 95th Congress (1977—1979) produced only stop-gap energy legislation. Congress reformed the process for low- and middle-income bank loans, deregulated the airline industry, and added more than 150 federal judgeships. – house.gov
Fifty-two American diplomats and citizens were held hostage for 444 days (November 4, 1979, to January 20, 1981), after a group of Iranian students, belonging to the Muslim Student Followers of the Imam’s Line, who were supporting the Iranian Revolution, took over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran
On the morning of February 14, 1979, the same day that US Ambassador to Afghanistan Adolph Dubs was kidnapped and fatally shot by Muslim extremists in Kabul. Fedayeen militants stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran and took a U.S. Marine named Kenneth Kraus, hostage. Ambassador William Sullivan surrendered the Embassy to save lives, and with the assistance of Iranian Foreign Minister Ebrahim Yazdi, secured the embassy back in U.S. hands within three hours
basically he panicked and thought that giving up the embassy would be the right thing to do…
The next opportunity to seize the American embassy was initially planned in September 1979 by Ebrahim Asgharzadeh, a student at that time.
The Islamist students observed the security procedures of the Marine Security Guards from nearby rooftops overlooking the embassy. They also used experiences from the recent revolution, during which the U.S. embassy grounds were briefly occupied. They enlisted the support of police in charge of guarding the embassy and of Islamic Revolutionary Guards.
in the bolded parts is the similarity to benghazi.. [but note, the benghazi incident had the history of that prior thing to know what could happena nd how… that prior thing did not have that hiindsight]
Around 6:30 a.m. the ringleaders gathered between 300 and 500 selected students, thereafter known as Muslim Student Followers of the Imam’s Line, and briefed them on the battle plan. A female student was given a pair of metal cutters to break the chains locking the embassy’s gates, and she hid them beneath her chador.
something the left still denies happens as a matter of effort
as it became clear the guards would not use deadly force and that a large angry crowd had gathered outside the compound to cheer the occupiers and jeer the hostages, the occupation changed
yes, you read correctly… someone told the military to stand down and NOT shoot the students attacking the embassy… when they realized they couldnt get killed, they kind of went overboard and took over more and more and what was to be an extreme protest became hostages.
forgot to mention that the benghazi incident didnt have a hostage or protest in mind… they wanted to kill them all and let god sort them out (As they could have had hostages but didnt) and to steal the records and weapons…
dont you hate modern feminist snollygoster’s?? this one lets her husband hold the cigars in the family..
IMO Gowdy and most of the gop on the committee bungled a prime opportunity to reveal the nasty critters living under the msm Benghazi rock. They were not focused on one core issue: you and the entire team obama lied to the American people, and more importantly to the families hovering around four flag draped coffins; all to provide smoke and mirrors to protect the 2012 campaign narrative.
The narrative that Eric never mentions is shame on you. On a personal basis that is the narrative I follow whenever I have a chance to ‘discuss’ issues with the LIVs of the left. PP, FnF, ACA, etc. are all shame on you issues. What I see in those rare occasions is the stumbling blather of msm talking points, cringes, and then swift exits.
Didn’t watch much, but during the little I saw and heard, I was struck by how clueless HC claimed to be about what happened, or did not happen, in the Department of State, outside of her little inner circle, known as “my staff”.
She repeatedly said that Ambassador Stevens had the option to come directly to her with any security concerns; but, instead went to the security people. Whose security people? Some phantom Secretary of State that we don’t know anything about? It seems that no problems whatsoever percolated up to the woman with the power–and responsibility. Of course, given the disappearing emails, we have no way of knowing whether he did contact her directly through some channel that has become obscured.
Further comment: Most (90%?) of those who vote for the dems are not well informed people. They are the brainwashed legion who are lazy and blindly march in lock step. Someone famous once said “Forgive them for they know not what they do.”
Its easy to consider the brainwashed dangerous fools, but it is important to avoid hating them least one becomes a bit less human. Save your visceral hatred for those who are washing the brains.
Parker said:
IMO Gowdy and most of the gop on the committee bungled a prime opportunity to reveal the nasty critters living under the msm Benghazi rock. They were not focused on one core issue: you and the entire team obama lied to the American people, and more importantly to the families hovering around four flag draped coffins; all to provide smoke and mirrors to protect the 2012 campaign narrative.
Bingo.
And I actually think it would make a difference, even in today’s MSM/Facebook/Tweeter—dominated political landscape, if some Republican were to make just such a dramatic, sweeping statement as that made by Sam Ervin which Neo quoted in her post. Sure, whoever said it would be lambasted, ridiculed, etc., but it would get the main takeaway re Benghazi out there. Which is, as Parker said, that what Hillary did was to lie and cover up what really happened there in order to mislead the America public, and thereby influence the outcome of a presidential election. That’s big, and simple enough for anyone to understand. Which is why the MSM have kept it buried from day one.
Great Post Neo and many informing comments. But in the end, it’s a tribute to lamentation. The quite damning information does not appear to matter in the present. I’m sure the lengthy hearings will be quite useful to future historians, if the objective study of history is even permissible then.
“…and thereby influence the outcome of a presidential election.”
Not only that, but Obama used it to encourage adoption of blasphemy law-type restrictions on free speech in a speech at the UN weeks after the attack. Who was he talking to when he said “The future does not belong to those who slander the prophet Mohammed?”
Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward were cast as heroes
They were just tools and puppets of the FBI.
Remember this the next time some Democrat starts lecturing people about how they were accused of being unAmerican by the Bush II Admin and pro Iraq members of America.
Ymarsakar Says:
October 23rd, 2015 at 7:40 pm
Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward were cast as heroes
They were just tools and puppets of the FBI.
A well engineered coup it was….
parker Says:
October 23rd, 2015 at 4:14 pm
Its easy to consider the brainwashed dangerous fools, but it is important to avoid hating them least one becomes a bit less human. Save your visceral hatred for those who are washing the brains.
Good luck with that … Vociferous Aunt Minnie has it coming ….
“Finally, not sending jets from Italy was a huge mistake.” J.J.
The decision to NOT send the jets in Italy was Obama’s NOT Clinton’s. Only Obama has that command authority.
However, not sending the jets was hardly a ‘mistake’.
It was a carefully considered decision not to militarily respond. Those four men were sacrificed to Obama’s primary consideration, reelection.
The cover-up was of course to keep secret what Stevens was doing in Libya in the first place and to obscure the fact that Obama sacrificed those four men for political and ‘policy’ considerations.
If vociferous Aunt Minnie shows up unarmed on my front porch I will give her a glass of ice tea or a cup of hot chocolate depending upon the season. In a hot civil war 90% of the left will be shaking with fear in a closet. Currently we are in a cold civil war and vociferous Anunt Minnie is mesmerized by cnn, msnbc, and the rest of the msm. Fish in a barrel.
Building on what Anne said yesterday, my disappointment in the GOP continues. Why didn’t someone look that b***ch in the eye and say, “madam, your total lack of human decency is astounding. You stood there with the bodies of the slain Americans and their families mere feet away, and repeated your disgusting lie. How evil are you?”
It was a perfect opportunity to call her out, but no one had the guts to do it. Where are our Sam Ervin’s and Winston Churchills?
A rhetorical reason that the GOP has difficulty making headway in the public judgement is the cornerstone premise of the false/BDS narrative of the Iraq mission. It mitigates the political impact of the Benghazi killings like it undermines the pushback to Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.
Contrast with the false/BDS narrative of the Iraq mission is the basic justification and excuse – the linchpin – for Obama’s whole ME policy, including with Libya, Iran, Syria, and of course, Iraq.
So one, irrespective of the (de)merits of Obama’s Libya policy, it was presented from the outset as a purposeful contrast to the false/BDS narrative of the Iraq mission. Any not-Iraq ME policy is justified on that basis. If the Iraq mission is widely accepted as a polar wrong and failure, then anything wrong with the not-Iraq Libya policy has built-in mitigation.
Following from that premise, many, many more Americans died in Iraq than Libya. If the Iraq mission was wrong and a failure, the logic then is even if mistakes were made, the Benghazi killings are at worst the lower cost of the lesser of two evils in the not-Iraq Libya policy. They’re viewed as a tragedy that at least avoided the worse alternative.
Following from that logic, if at worst, a handful of Americans died in Benghazi due to mistakes that were made from a not-Iraq Libya policy justified by its contrast to the Iraq policy from which thousands of Americans died, then it’s simple to sell that the GOP that’s held responsible for the Iraq mission is making an obscene political attack on Clinton with a shocking lack of self-awareness.
In order to effectively criticize Obama’s ME policy generally and set the necessary narrative frame for public judgement of the Benghazi controversy specifically, it’s necessary to pull out the linchpin. The GOP and Right must set the record straight on the Iraq mission and kill the false/BDS narrative for the zeitgeist, and discredit promoters of the false/BDS narrative.
Physicsguy,
See my comments upthread and above.
The tack you want the GOP to take with the Benghazi controversy is effective depending on Right activists constructing the practical preconditions and rhetorical premises to set the stage with the necessary narrative frame for the zeitgeist.
Simply, solving your frustration with the GOP on this issue requires the Right to arm the GOP like the Left arms the Democrats to at least level the playing field. Setting the stage is part of the competition. Without the Right collectively doing their part as a competitive Marxist-method social activist movement first, the GOP cannot effectively do what you want.
Oh. let’s stop already. The investigation of Benghazi is an investigation of evil by intelligence. legality, morality, which matter no longer. The Benghazi obfuscation delivered re-election to Barack Hussein Obama. Obama owes Hillary.
Progressives don’t listen to us, and we should return the favor. We know what is right and just. When we get power, we should prosecute Hillary. The MSM will scream about all the years of disingenuous propaganda they’ve spouted “proving” her innocence, and our response will be “sorry, but I don’t watch your program.”
I watched a bit of the Hillary hearing and what impressed me was how out of their depth the interrogators on the Republican side seemed to be when pitted against Cankles.
They dealt with her as if she was someone who could actually feel remorse or shame, when that particular emotion was excised out of her back in her Wellseley days.
She knows she is untouchable and simply doesn’t care and spent the hearing looking like she was about to yawn in the faces of the hayseeds trying to take her down.
I think the Repubs are barking up the wrong tree on this one. The real crime is the intentional violations of the Official Secrets Acts, and her premeditated concealment of the record of her time in office.
Chances of the Obama Justice Department acting on those felonies? Zero to none.
The crowing on the left is always something to behold, but NYT’s Maureen Dowd’s headline celebration of Emperess Palpatine was the best: “The Empire Strikes Back”.
I have no problem imagining that bloodless machine calling in an air strike on a Republican “District Twelve” like President Snow did in the Hunger Games.
The Ruling Class has their Empress Palpatine.
God help us all.
Emperor Palpatine had a lot of applause, so that would be Hussein. The Empress part doesn’t come in until sometime later.
Simply, solving your frustration with the GOP on this issue requires the Right to arm the GOP like the Left arms the Democrats to at least level the playing field.
Arming a bunch of cowards and weaklings won’t do much. The Left trained their politicians from scratch, from the bottom up. The GOP would need the same kind of purging.
Pingback:The Bookworm Beat 10-27-15 — “it’s just another day” edition and open thread
Pingback:The Bookworm Beat 10-27-15 — “it’s just another day†edition and open thread | H2o Positivo