Benghazi Hall of Shame

Remembering the officials and commentators who inaccurately blamed a murderous attack at least in part on an obscure YouTube trailer.

(Page 3 of 3)

Sept. 18, 2012: Tim Wu, The New Republic:

When Censorship Makes Sense: How YouTube Should Police Hate Speech

A better course would be to try to create a process that relies on a community, either of regional experts or the serious users of YouTube. Community members would (as they do now) flag dangerous or illegal videos for deletion. Google would decide the easy cases itself, and turn the hard cases over to the community, which would aim for a rough consensus. Such a system would be an early-warning signal that might have prevented riots in the first place.

Sept. 20, 2012: President Barack Obama:

Here's what happened. ... You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character who -- who made an extremely offensive video directed at -- at Mohammed and Islam.

Sept. 25, 2012: President Barack Obama:

In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening; in every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask how much they are willing to tolerate freedom for others.

That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

Sept. 25, 2012: Eric Posner, professor at the University of Chicago Law School:

The vile anti-Muslim video shows that the U.S. overvalues free speech. [...]

Americans need to learn that the rest of the world—and not just Muslims—see no sense in the First Amendment. Even other Western nations take a more circumspect position on freedom of expression than we do, realizing that often free speech must yield to other values and the need for order. Our own history suggests that they might have a point. [...]

So symbolic attachment to uneasy, historically contingent compromises, and a half-century of judicial decisions addressing domestic political dissent and countercultural pressures, prevent the U.S. government from restricting the distribution of a video that causes violence abroad and damages America’s reputation. And this is a video that, by the admission of all sides, has no value whatsoever.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Sevo||

    ..."It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose: to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage."

    Actually, it was intended to piss of ignorant twits like Clinton, and it WORKS!

  • robin552||

    Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job Ive had. Last Monday I got a new Alfa Romeo from bringing in $7778. I started this 9 months ago and practically straight away started making more than $83 per hour. I work through this link, Mojo50.com

  • jillian77||

    until I looked at the check that said $9995, I be certain ...that...my friend woz like realie taking home money in there spare time from their laptop.. there mums best friend haz done this less than fifteen months and just now took care of the morgage on their villa and purchased a great new Jaguar XJ. I went here, http://www.fox86.com

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I wonder if anyone is going to do a Muslim version of *Life of Brian.*

    "He's not the Seal of the Prophets, he's a very naughty boy!"

    "Always look on the bright side of sheep..."

  • albo||

    Mo could use those aliens that showed up briefly to take him on the Night Journey.

  • jensua07||

    Evan. I just agree... Patrick`s report is impressive... last tuesday I bought a great Volkswagen Golf GTI after I been earnin $8978 this-last/5 weeks an would you believe $10,000 last-munth. it's realy the easiest-job Ive ever done. I began this 3 months ago and immediately got me over $73 per-hr. I went to this website grand4.com
    (Go to site and open "Home" for details)

  • markhit07||

    Evan. I just agree... Patrick`s report is impressive... last tuesday I bought a great Volkswagen Golf GTI after I been earnin $8978 this-last/5 weeks an would you believe $10,000 last-munth. it's realy the easiest-job Ive ever done. I began this 3 months ago and immediately got me over $73 per-hr. I went to this website grand4.com
    (Go to site and open "Home" for details)

  • Sevo||

    "Americans need to learn that the rest of the world—and not just Muslims—see no sense in the First Amendment."

    A guy who teaches law wrote that. How someone keeps that position when he holds that belief is beyond my reckoning

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Sevo, where did you get that quote?

    Astonishing stuff.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "The World Doesn’t Love the First Amendment"

    http://www.slate.com/articles/.....eech_.html

    "Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, is a co-author of The Executive Unbound: After the Madisonian Republic and Climate Change Justice."

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Thanks.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "Climate Change Justice."

    Damnit, I just face-palmed myself into a concussion.

  • Sevo||

    "Climate Change Justice."
    Just pathetic. The man supposedly teaches law, which (supposedly) has some relationship to objective reality.
    And we get *THIS*? Who signs that man's paycheck?

  • Monty Crisco||

    Just look at where he teaches... the same place another LUMINOUS "constitutional scholar" "taught". And that one went on to become PRESIDENT...

    Can you fucking believe that was also my alma mater? Talk about face-palming yourself into a concussion...

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Fuck off, slavers! (Especially Hillary, O! and Posner).

  • RightNut||

    I'm not holding my breath that those people listed will be considered foolish for blaming the video and the 1st amendment for Benghazi, but thanks for trying Matt.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    I'm also not convinced they're capable of feeling shame.

  • BrooklynBrett||

    Can we stop truncating articles yet? One page Matt! One page!

  • albo||

    But one page is harder on my 56k modem in my Dell Celeron tower.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    "Nothing new in the past seven months? I told you it was old news!"

    /progtard

  • grey||

    You are so right, we have real work to do now, the American people need our protection, and it's so over. What does it matter how officials and the military responded or who actually did it or why, it's none of the publics business. Besides, we caught the guy who made the video, although there may be more video makers to arrest.

    /progtard speaking back to other progtard

  • Ken Shultz||

    "In the days and weeks after the attacks, academics and foreign policy thinkers fell over themselves dreaming up new ways to either disproportionately punish Nakoula or scale back the very notion of constitutionally protected expression."

    We can actually point to a specific example of free speech being prohibited because of Obama's lie.

    From Jacob Sullum's post less than a month after the Benghazi attack:

    "The Washington Metropolitian Area Transit Authority (WMATA) also has rejected the AFDI ad (after initially accepting it), citing concerns about "security and safety" in light of violent protests against The Innocence of Muslims. WMATA worried that the ads might "expose passengers to terrorism and threaten their safety"—a rationale (the terrorist's veto) similar to the MTA's (the vandal's veto)."

    http://reason.com/blog/2012/10.....rities-nix

    In other words, both the New York subway system and the WMATA started infringing on free speech rights in the wake of Barack Obama's lie.

  • PapayaSF||

    Good point.

  • Anders||

    There is no way the Regime or Hillary will be taken to task over this clusterfark.

    It was inconvenient for Baroquey's narrative about the Arab Spring Disaster. The media will continue to run heavy interference and pave the way for Hill 2016.

  • Gorilla tactics||

    2008-2016...dissent is racist
    2016-2024...dissent is sexist

    Hillary is gunna run and she will probably win. Even though the reps have much younger and better candidates, Paul and Cruz

  • Anders||

    That's likely.

    The media will opine that America should be ashamed that it has not elected a woman president and that Hill is the most supremely qualified political leader of all time. America changed the course of the universe in 2008 by electing a half-white man. America must shift the earth's tilt yet again by electing this girl who is too ugly to ride, princess in a moustache, one size fits all, everybody hookup, babe.

  • John||

    Hillary will give stupid people another stupid reason to vote for President. "Isn't it a woman's turn now" is probably too stupid and too easy of a reason to be denied.

  • Mr. Soul||

    Um, it's still Bob Dole's turn.

  • PapayaSF||

    I can't believe Hillary would win. But then I couldn't believe Obama would win again, either.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's a two-step analysis.

    Could she win the Democratic nomination? That the first step.

    Once you get to that point, it's really just about swing voters--people who listen to progressives and think to themselves, "They've got some really good ideas; I'm just not sure."

  • JWatts||

    Once you get to that point, it's really just about swing voters--people who listen to progressives and think to themselves, "They've got some really good ideas; I'm just not sure."

    Nope, that's not quite right. It's more like: "Their offering some really good free stuff; I'm just not sure. But hey free is free, right?"

  • grey||

    Will Obama come out for Hillary early? Hate him, but respect the fact that he can bring out the stupid peeps to vote.

  • Marshall Gill||

    It will be Chewbacca. Not only is she really black, she is a woman to boot. Experience? She has lived in the WH for years and will have the Greatest President in History living there with her, giving advice.

  • Monty Crisco||

    I find it a fanciful notion that Hillary could win the presidency. But I was wrong about BO's second term and I could easily be wrong about Hillary. But if America is that SHEER FUCKING STUPID there we really are too far gone. There is no coming back from that level of abject fucktardery....

  • Nazdrakke||

    Reading those statements made me feel unclean.. Like I fell into a cesspool of tyranny and had a momentary vision of what living in the early Soviet Bloc was like.

  • Gorilla tactics||

    PROTECT HILLARY AT ALL COSTS!!!

  • Ken Shultz||

    The Obama Administration is woefully incompetent. That's been obvious for a long time. There's no new news there!

    What was new about Benghazi was seeing Obama so clearly scapegoat Muslims because of their religion--let me be clear...Barack Obama exploited bigotry against Muslims to deflect criticism of his own Administration's incompetence away from himself a month before the election.

    Obama has done a lot of disgraceful things from a libertarian perspective--but in exploiting bigotry against Muslims just to get himself reelected, Obama did something woefully disgraceful from a liberal and progressive perspective...

    And we're in danger of missing a huge opportunity to hurt progressives in the eyes of left leaning swing voters. When we talk to our friends and family about this, we don't want to come across as conspiracy theorists--and that's the way a lot of them hear it when we focus on the Obama Administration not sending any help. We should focus on hitting the Obama Administration for exploiting bigotry instead.

    One of the reasons libertarians and conservatives fare so poorly with swing voters is because we're seen as bigoted in comparison to progressives--Obama handed us a chance to change that. Let's not blow it.

  • ThomasD||

    Except that, per the tenets of the progressive-left, Barack Obama - black being only one way he qualifies as a protected 'other' - is therefore deemed constitutionally incapable of being a bigot.

    Never mind that large swathes of progressives are either hopelessly cynical in the pursuit of power, or are actually Marxists in disguise, and are therefore impervious to any form of good faith argumentation.

    We really should stop pretending with all this 'post-modern' euphemism, what they are is post-enlightenment.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Never mind that large swathes of progressives are either hopelessly cynical in the pursuit of power, or are actually Marxists in disguise"

    Don't confuse the enemy with the battlefield.

    The progressives are the enemy.

    The swing voters are the battlefield.

    We've been giving up too much battlefield to the enemy--because we don't contest the enemy's anti-bigotry credentials enough.

    We've got a new weapon to hit the enemy with. Let's not use the weapons that didn't work before. Let's use the new weapon that always seems to work!

  • grey||

    So what's the one liner that conveys how Obama scapegoated the Muslims religion on Benghazi? It seems difficult to get there. Oh, and he's black and incapable of anything but a fairness so perfect as to blind most mortals.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Obama scapegoated the Muslims religion on Benghazi"

    That looks like a good one-liner to me.

    "Obama exploited anti-Muslim bigotry just to get himself reelected."

    That's the one I use a lot. It makes people mad, and then they listen to me explain it.

  • wwhorton||

    Our government and terrorism folks have been making this mistake for years, though. They've conflated fundamentalist Islam with nationalist and pan-nationalist terrorism. It's like blaming bottles for alcoholism. It does absolutely nothing to help you understand terrorist groups, anticipate attacks, or eliminate threats. It does however give you an oversimplified straw man version of a problem against which you can apply any tactics you wish with success, and, most importantly, lets you tell people that you understand the situation (even if you don't). That's probably why it's so popular.

    During the Cold War, Communism filled this role nicely, and we went after Communism as if it was causing nationalist movements, instead of nationalist movements using Communism as a vehicle for their own goals. Worked about as well as the war on terror. And, before anyone starts, I would point out that we didn't win the Cold War by defeating Communism, because that's an idea; we defeated the Soviet Union (by default), which was a Communist superpower, and the formation of which had much more to do with Russian history and national identity than any cold ideological calculations.

  • kinnath||

    watergate + wreckage at desert one < benghazi

  • Granite26||

    There's a big difference between saying a video is offensive and shouldn't be made and saying a video is offensive and shouldn't be allowed to be made.

    "But even if it were possible, our country does have a long tradition of free expression which is enshrined in our Constitution and our law, and we do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views no matter how distasteful they may be."

    That's the rest of the H.C. quote. It's not as resounding of a defense as I might have liked, but I think it's disingenuous to put her speech up there with the rest of them.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "we do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views no matter how distasteful they may be."

    So, she's saying that people in organizations don't have free speech rights, and the leaders of those organizations don't have the right to speak for the people who made them their leaders?

  • Rich||

    "we do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views no matter how distasteful they may be."

    "We do, however, prosecute citizens after they have expressed their distasteful views."

    Continuing to study Obamaese ....

  • John||

    The bottom line is Obama threw an innocent man in jail on a trumped up probation violation and exploited the worst prejudices against Muslims to cover up his administration's incompetence and perhaps illegal activities in Bengazi. But other than that this story is no big deal.

  • Ken Shultz||

    +1

  • grey||

    NO! Someone he is not even connected with has tossed a bigot and instigator of terrorist acts in jail. So Obama has deniability and JUSTICE on his side. Civil liberties have no place in the conversation. Obama has his finger prints on one thing, He Killed Osama. Anything else is on a need to get elected basis.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Maybe I'm going to sound deeply cynical (Is President Obama going to drone me for that?), but many of these statements seem to say that, precisely because some Muslims will react violently to video (I'll leave out the fact that it had nothing to do with the attack), their sensibilities should trump everyone else's liberties. The message from that, if you want statists' respect, nothing beats blowing crap up.

  • John||

    The message is also racist and demeaning as hell to Muslims. Muslims are generally so crazy and irrational we can't talk to them like we do normal human beings.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Yeah, that occurred to me, as well.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Too many people seemed to have forgotten what the Obama Administration and the MSNBC crowd tried to set in motion with the YouTube narrative. It's not just that we were misled, it was that we were lied to (at least partially) in an attempt to create an outcry for curbing free speech.

  • JWatts||

    Actually curbing free speech was incidental to the process. All they really cared about was punting the story by any means necessary. They sent Susan Rice out on Sunday to lie her teeth out on 5 different morning shows.

    They pushed the issue beyond the date of the election. They won. Now, they are calling any attempts to bring the issue back up partisanship politics. Most of the media will go along with it. Most people will just assume that it wasn't really that important or the media would make a bigger deal of it.

    This was game and match for the Obama administration. They won big time for pretty much no political costs.

  • Raven Nation||

    Even if the chorus blaming the video & free speech were ever sincere, it's still bullshit. Think of it this way: back whenever the "Piss Christ" controversy broke out, imagine if a bunch of Christians invaded the NEA offices and killed some of the staffers as retaliation for funding "Piss Christ." Is it even REMOTELY possible to think of anyone blaming the sculpture rather than the perpetrators?

  • John||

    Of course not. And imagine if people came out and said that Piss Christ was a menace to public safety because of the risk of Christians going nuts and killing people over it. Isn't that a bit offensive to Christians?

  • Benjamin||

    We are all truly fucked. Until Obama, I didn't realize that americans are literally sitting in front if the TV waiting to be told what to think. Independent thought is dead. Government obstructionism will die with the GOP. Say hello to nanny state totalitarianism.

  • albo||

    Independent thought?

    Too much work. Duck Dynasty is on and I got Buzzfeed listicles to read.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Principal Skinner: Uh oh. Two independent thought alarms in one day. The students are overstimulated. Willie! Remove all the colored chalk from the classrooms.

    Groundskeeper Willie: I warned ya! Didn't I warn ya? That colored chalk was forged by Lucifer himself.

  • Mr. Soul||

    Lisa: It's not my nature to complain, but so far today we've had three movies, two filmstrips, and an hour and a half of magazine time. I just don't feel challenged.

    Skinner: Of course we could make things more challenging, Lisa, but then the stupider students would be in here complaining, furrowing their brows in a vain attempt to understand the situation.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    That school has to be some sort of commentary on the state of public schools across the continent.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    Krabappel: How do you expect us to teach with these supplies? This pointer's so old, it's worn down to a nub!

    Skinner: It still points, doesn't it?

    Edna: Stop that! And look at this: the only books we have are ones that were banned by other schools.

    Skinner: Well, the kids have to learn about "Tek War" sooner or later!

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Skinner. I hope I die with a flash back to him.

  • albo||

    I hate all of those people. They cower in fear to barbarians and blame the greatest human right for the violent hate of others.

  • Anders||

    "Hillary will give stupid people another stupid reason to vote for President. "Isn't it a woman's turn now" is probably too stupid and too easy of a reason to be denied."

    That's about the size of it.

    You can hear that conversation coming.

    "Well, of course those kind of people (evangelicals / conservatives / racists / sexists) would never vote for a woman. It's sad really - she's so intelligent" etc. etc.

  • Tman||

    And sadly no one is going to call her out for lying to the families of the deceased while they were pulling the caskets off the plane that "they were gonna get that guy who made that video".

    She will get this story buried. A sad commentary on our current political reality.

  • Anders||

    Brandon Webb wrote a short ebook on the events that is available on ebay for $3. It uses unclassified documents available to the general public.

    He doesn't directly finger her, but he hardly exonerates her or the Regime.

    Unfortunately, it's the kind of thing no low information voter would ever read - even at that price and length (60 odd pages)...

  • JJK||

    *shudders* I wouldn't finger her directly OR indirectly

  • grey||

    And there will be those that will call her a 'centrist' in some sort of magical Bill Clinton juxtaposition. But we all know: It Takes a Village is her soul.

  • Virginian||

    Yeah I can't think of one woman that evangelical conservatives would really love to see be President.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Sarah "Michael" Palin?

  • John||

    Palin, Bachman, probably Condi Rice.

    I know you are being sarcastic here. But yeah sort of like Republicans would never vote for a black man if you don't count the five or ten counter examples.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    If they were able to turn an election that was originally about the economy, foreign policy and Obama's record into "THEY'RE COMING TO TAKE YOUR ABORTIONS AWAY!", they'll have no problem doing the same with Hillary.

    Then again, Hillary may do what she did in the '08 primaries and make censorship one of her main platforms.

  • Eric Bana||

    I'm so sick of hearing that we have to "respect" religions. Why the f--- do we have to respect religions? Oh right, because it's inconceivable to not have faith in SOMETHING. (gag)

  • Ken Shultz||

    You don't have to respect any religion.

    But the government does. It's in the First Amendment and everything.

  • GregMax||

    Government does NOT have to respect religions, only the right of the people to believe and practice. There's a difference.

  • Ken Shultz||

    There aren't many religious beliefs without people involved--but I think I see your point.

  • pmains||

    Probably because not respecting the religions of others has historically led to genocide, forced "conversions" and wars of religion.

    In this case, people are calling for respect for one particular religion based on narrow and cynical grounds.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I just prefer living in a free society for qualitative reasons. I mean, I aesthetically prefer freedom generally, which, for whatever reason, seems to blow a lot of non-libertarian people's minds.

    ...and a society in which it's okay for the government to force people to do things against their will--so long as the reasons they don't want to do those things are "stupid"? Just isn't a free society.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "Probably because not respecting the religions of others has historically led to genocide, forced "conversions" and wars of religion."

    I'm apparently missing all these genocides and forced conversions by atheists who don't respect belief in the supernatural.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's been a few years, but it happens a lot when the communists take over.

    It happened in Cambodia.

    "All religion was banned by the Khmer Rouge. Any people seen taking part in religious rituals or services would be executed."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K.....ouge_power

  • Marshall Gill||

    Technically, Ken, they do believe in the supernatural, ie, Communism. The belief that human beings will ever actually act that way surely compares with even the most wild religious mythology.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I see the same kind of thing coming from progressives.

    Watching Tony defending Obama or reacting to criticism of Obama is a lot like listening to a priest trying to defend transubstantiation.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    As Marshall Gill caught, my "supernatural" comment was a jab at Communism. Perhaps I should have said, "dogma" instead.

    The problem I have with counting communist genocide is that I feel those

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    Son of a fucking bitch. My laptop just entered that and closed the screen for no reason, and then did the same thing again as I was re-typing. Let me try this for a third time:

    As Marshall Gill caught, my "supernatural" comment was a jab at Communism. Perhaps I should have said, "dogma" instead.

    The problem I have with counting communist genocide as atheist actions is that those killings were carried out in the name of ensuring the dominance of Communist dogma, and not to eradicate religion. After all, many Communists have permitted "pet" religions (see: Lenin and Islam) and they were in the business of killing EVERYBODY, not just the religious. Marx's hatred of religion always struck me as being more sour grapes that someone had beaten him to his brilliant plan to assert totalitarianism and blind collectivist obedience through faux-benevolence and the promise of eventual utopia by several thousand years, Communists hating competition and all.
    Put another way, it's less, "Die for having belief" and more "Die because you believe this instead of my belief".

    Perhaps I'm approaching True Scots territory, but to me it's telling that the only examples of mass killings of the religious by (supposed) nonbelievers have occured in Communist regimes.

  • Marshall Gill||

    The problem I have with counting communist genocide as atheist actions is that those killings were carried out in the name of ensuring the dominance of Communist dogma, and not to eradicate religion. After all, many Communists have permitted "pet" religions (see: Lenin and Islam)

    I think the question is more the lack of freedom of religion. Religious views are in direct contradiction with Communism, the State being all. I see the Communists as not so much atheist, as opposed to any competing dogma, as you say.

    The danger of mass murder comes with the suppression of Liberty, not religion in itself. I think that any time a group who denies others their freedom of conscience they are at the beginning of genocide.

    The Unibomber committed a large number of murders in the name of a belief system that didn't include a "god".

  • triclops||

    My understanding was the the guy who made the video really did violate parole. Is that not correct? I just wanna make sure my story is bullet proof when I confront some of my Team Blue friends.

  • PapayaSF||

    Yes, he did.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Yes. He did. By using the computer to upload the movie. That was the extent of his violation. To establish that he, in fact, uploaded the movie, FBI agents were sent out from DC to work on the case. We all know that the FBI sends agents out to cover every non-violent parole violation.

  • TommyD||

    I'm sure the media is thrilled that arias was convicted yesterday, and for the horrible atrocity that happened in Cleveland. Little to no coverage of the Benghazi hearings, but lets cover Jodi arias 24/7. The average American has no idea that Benghazi wasn't a result of that video. Ask any low information voter why our embassy was attacked. They have no idea. And yes, we will be "blessed" with Hillary for 8 years.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    For those who can stomach the NYT, what's their take on yesterday's hearings?

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    So. Obama is incompetent and a liar? Now it's really impossible to distinguish him from Bush.

    Actually, for me anyway, I'll never let him live down that first debate. Not even Bush on his worst day matched such abject meekness.

  • Pulseguy||

    Obama had just spent 3 days in Las Vegas with Jay Z and Beyonce. What are the chances he wasn't doing coke and partying hard? He showed up wasted. Or, hung over really badly.

    Not that he can debate at the best of times, but he showed up and couldn't focus.

  • Tony||

    It's gonna be a fun day when y'all realize you're upset over yet another Darrel Issa witch hunt. The man is not fit to wipe Joe McCarthy's face sweat.

  • triclops||

    other than "hillary and obama will get away with it", why are you so happy that lying about a terrorist attack by repeatedly calling it a demonstration in a way that incites further problems in the world and threatens the first amendment is going to go unpunished?

  • Tony||

    That's not what happened, and you don't know what you're talking about.

    But if we want to talk about nonpunishment for lying about terrorist attacks, I can think of another far more significant one that merits attention first.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    So you're refuting the mounting evidence that the administration tried to pull a fast one? I'm not getting what you're saying. There seems to be a lot of confusion from the original excuse which anyone with a pea brain would know was BS all the way to the stand down orders.

    Don't you want to get to the bottom of it? Why is it a witch hunt? Who is going to question the government?

  • triclops||

    refuting means disproving. all he can do is say "nuh uh!"

    but then hilariously, he tacitly admits that it is true, but follows up with "but team red did it worser!"

    classic tony

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    Beautiful, as it's all in the same post. Usually the below step are separated by a few months.

    ----
    Step 1: Deny any wrongdoing by The One
    Step 2: "But Bush! Fox News!"

  • Tony||

    Get to the bottom of fucking what?

    You know what the worst case scenario here is? The administration decided it wasn't worth risking more lives and decided to cut losses. Except there were reinforcements. For all we know, they did everything in their power. Remember when terrorist attacks used to be blamed on terrorists?

    It's a political witch hunt because only FOX News cares about it and Darrel Issa is on the case, just as he was for Fast and Furious and Solyndra--all nonscandals that went nowhere. Blame the liberal media, but that's generally the last refuge of the idiot.

  • Pulseguy||

    Yeah, you got it. Fast and Furious was a non-issue. No one did anything wrong there. Move on people. Solyndra? No big deal. So, a big supporter got his loans covered before investors did. So what? Repubs are worse, so therefore....this isn't worth talking about.

    Now what? Benghazi? Okay, a few people lied, a few people died. The populace was misled for a couple of crucial weeks, so what? Get over it. The important thing is the right guy won. He is useless, but it isn't his fault. It is George's. Because George secretly is still in power.

  • JWatts||

    That's not what happened, and you don't know what you're talking about.

    That's exactly what happened. Did you not even bother to read the article? Here is the first paragraph:

    Yesterday's dramatic congressional testimony about the deadly Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attacks on U.S. interests in Benghazi, Libya convincingly corroborated what was widely reported within days of the attack: that senior American officials on the ground knew immediately, despite the Obama administration's storyline to the contrary, that the assault did not arise out of a "spontaneous" demonstration outside the U.S. Consulate in protest of an obscure YouTube trailer of a homemade anti-Islam movie called Innocence of Muslims.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    JWatts, how much are the Koch brothers paying you to write this? Because it's been discovered doesn't mean it's evidence! What does it matter? We have bigger problems to deal with! Like figuring out other things to blame Bush for.

    Tony.

  • Homple||

    Several people mention "Mohammed". They forgot to append to his name the obligatory phrase, "Peace be upon him and the white camel he rode in on".

  • Namvet 66/67 USMC||

    The left liberals have and will continue to discredit and vilify those State Department witnesses. Those left liberals won't admit or acknowledge; the Benghazi Massacre blood is on Hillary's and Obama's hands Those left liberals, don't care that those 4 men died violently, pleaded and never got any help. Those left liberals main job is to vigorously defend and protect Hillary and Obama, any way they can and will to gates of hell, if need be..

  • Tony||

    13 embassy attacks under Bush. Guess which ones FOX News obsessed about for months.

  • triclops||

    how many did bush blame on an obscure youtube video?

  • JWatts||

    Yes and how many ambassador's died? And how many times did Bush come out and blame the attacks on a third party?

    I know it's hard, but think for a moment. This was a worse attack on an embassy than anything that happened during Bush's tenure and Bush didn't attempt to deflect blame to a third party to avoid the political fallout.

    This story wasn't made up by Fox News. It actually really happened. And Susan Rice most definitely lied about in the following Sunday.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    They're piecing together the timeline. They're getting at the TRUTH. Yet, Boooosh!

    It's asinine. It's like talking to a seven year-old. Literally.

    Actually, a seven year-old sometimes exhibits some reasonable thoughts. Liberals do gibberish.

  • grey||

    Will Hillary be able to skip right over Obama and blame Bush? I bet so.

  • Tony||

    Five people killed in Calcutta consulate. Twelve killed in Karachi consulate. Nine Americans, 36 people total, killed in Riyadh diplomatic compound. Nine killed in US consulate in Jeddah. Karachi again, US diplomat David Foy killed along with three others. Six killed in Istanbul consulate. Sixteen killed at US embassy in Sana'a, Yemen.

    There are more. So Benghazi was worse than all of those? Individually and put together?

    Rice didn't lie, Rice had wrong information. If only Bush's lies resulted in such negative consequences (getting Steve Doocy all upset).

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    No one is arguing that. They're arguing how badly Benghazi was handled.

  • Tony||

    The point is the others were scarcely "handled" at all--because there wasn't a nakedly partisan witch hunt going on about them.

  • triclops||

    all the responses to this article have been agreeing that the response to the attack was not a cut-and-dry mistake.
    yet you choose to focus on that part and then trot out fox news.

    or maybe you think nixon's only mistake was the watergate break-in, and that his coverup was NBD, right?

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    It really points to a rigid mindset. Just invoke Fox News into everything you disagree with. It's clear something went wrong - OWN UP TO IT.

    Yet, the irony is, Fox isn't as bad as painted by the left. In fact, I would argue they offer MORE different points of views than other major networks. It's more balanced than say, MSNBC.

  • Tony||

    MSNBC is indeed more partisan, but FOX News lies a lot more. As in, consistently.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    This is quite hilarious even for you. Lies more? Show me a study where it does that. Meanwhile, it's quite interesting to note, though, that CBS and NYT were caught in lies and Fox never was.

    I spent three years listening to Limbaugh because I was tired of listening to second opinions from liberal outlets. Guess what I found out. They fucking lied and distorted at every turn when it came to him. They never were interested in debating his points. They hate the messenger so much whatever he says is to be pounded to the ground; facts and logic be damned.

    Not saying I agree with him, just saying more often than not, liberal outlets are bigger whining assholes who lie when they have to. Something about ends justifying the means or something in their squirrel-sized brains.

    You just hate the message and kill the messenger. It's what you leftists do. Don't agree with someone? Build an entire case on strawman and flimsy past evidence and shout 'racist' or 'liar' or 'extremist' and presto! Pseudo-intellectualism.

    Contemporary liberalism is a shit stain.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Tony, be that as it may but did Bush go out and blame those attacks on a god damn movie? Really, think how absurd that was!

  • Tony||

    If only that was all he blamed it on.

    You know, instead of the wrong country, which was subsequently made war with for a decade.

  • Jim in Denver||

    And how many under Bill Clinton? What's your point?

    It's not about the attack(s) it's about how they were handled and why.

    Also, I'm not sure why you keep forgetting this, maybe you should put a sticky note on your monitor, but most of us here aren't huge fans of Pres. Bush nor Fox News.

    Idiot.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    They obsess because none of those were disastrously and incompetently handled. There's a real possibility they failed to help and prevent the attack. I thought they were all for "prevention."

  • triclops||

    Tony, you probably think you acquit yourself quite well, but you really are a terrible ambassador for the left with all of your attacks on straw men, ad hominems, conflations, etc.
    You are not an intellectual, you are a sad little parrot. Krugman gives his opponents a fairer representation than you do.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Triciops, wo, easy there camel. Krugman gives a fairer representation?

    Choosing between Tony and Krugman is like choosing between Fry and Ralph Wiggum.

    It tastes like burning.

  • Tony||

    I blush at being mentioned in the same sentence as the great Paul Krugman, the person who is right about everything you guys are consistently wrong about. But that's ok! What matters is that you feel right in your heart, not that the numbers and facts of the real world actually say you're right.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Tony, you SHOULD blush at that assertion!

  • Reggie1971||

    The media for the most has either minimized the importance of the story, or ignored it completely. Others, like the Stewart & Colbert fake media, have mocked it as nothing more than a partisan witchhunt.

    So we are pretty much left with Fox News and the blogosphere to battle this odious bunch. We'll see how that will work against the old guard.

  • Tony||

    The media, which includes FOX News, has covered the matter far more extensively than it deserves. Not because the lives lost are unimportant, but because the fake outrage exists for one reason and one cynically partisan reason only.

    Otherwise it would be somewhere other than FOX News.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Than it deserves? Says who? You? I'm sure many are thoroughly interested in what went on so speak for yourself.

  • Tony||

    No they aren't.

  • Edohiguma||

    How'd you know?

    It's funny. This is on a bigger level than Watergate and yet you say that people aren't interested? You know, in times where education is not about useful things and facts but rather about how we feel about something, where talentless hacks can drive under influence and the media pays more attention to them than actual issues, where all politicians do is lie and the media (formerly known as 4th power, to keep the other three in check) nods approvingly (while knowing the lies to be lies), you might actually be right.

    Today's voters are zombies, retards, stupid. They're not educated. They're indoctrinated.

  • ΘJΘʃ de águila||

    War criminal Obama lies more than war criminal Bush, in fact he lies to cover up for Bush's crimes.

    Tony shamelessly lies to cover for warmonger Obama: violence, war and mass death are all good as long as they are perpetrated by the Obama administration.

    Really, who else besides Tony cares if FOX lies "more" than MSNBC. Silly.

  • Reggie1971||

    Yeah they are. A lot of people are interested in the story. This is because most people don't like to be lied to repeatedly, especially when it is a lie told about the deaths of their fellow Americans strictly for the purpose of bettering a politician's chances for reelection. So you are incorrect, and intellectually dishonest. These seem to be your two most prominent characteristics.

  • Edohiguma||

    So let's say they were right. It was that silly video's fault. Let's just assume this totally ridiculous idea for just a second...

    Then why don't we see mass murder in the streets whenever Life of Brian and Holy Grail are shown somewhere? Those two movies, just like several of the TV sketches performed by Monty Pythons, mock Christianity up and down and show no mercy to anything. Yet... I know plenty of Christians who love the two movies.

    Why is that?

    Because of course 1) the fairy tale pushed by Obummer and his willing minions is a load of horse manure. And 2) because islam is as fascist as it can get. There is no system more vile, violent, brutal and fascist against everyone who's not a male mohammedan. Women are third class beings, often ranking under goats and camels and those who refuse to follow allah, well, under islamic "law" that's a crime worse than murder or rape.

  • Tom Beebe||

    'Innocent mistakes': the IRS targets groups with "Tea Party" or "conservative" or "constitution" in their names. Bloomberg (yes, hizzoner's company) accesses client's personal records for use by reporters. The State Department ignores pleas for additional security against terrorists on the eve of an election, when Obama is claiming that his administration has "Alqaida on the run." Who is held responsible for these mistakes? And when that is determined, what are the penalties to be imposed? A President named Clinton had his Secretary of Defense quit when Security failed in Mogadishu (remember "Black Hawk Down"?). Another Clinton wants to be President. If you vote for her, what do you tell the families of those killed in Benghazi? Who in the IRS will receive even a reprimand for snooping on the President's opposition? Can Bloomberg be sued for opening his client's records to snoops? Will there be a Watergate style hearing? Let YOUR conscience be your guide. Speak out.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement