The Benghazi Follies

It’s not the first time an American president has lied for political purposes.

If you have been following the Benghazi story—and what flag-waving American patriot hasn't?—then you know Republicans were giddy jubilant surprised saddened and troubled recently when an email surfaced that might help them torpedo Hillary Clinton’s presidential prospects get to the bottom of this political gold mine terrible tragedy.

Republicans have been pursuing this case with the monomania of Captain Ahab because they are convinced there is a smoking gun somewhere that will lance the festering pustule at the heart of this scandal. Or at least a bayonet on the end of a gun that will do it. They think the email, by deputy national security adviser Benjamin Rhodes, is that smoking bayonet. Written Sept. 14, 2012—two days after the attack that killed four Americans at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, and seven weeks before the presidential election—it sought to craft the message Ambassador Susan Rice would deliver on the Sunday-morning talk shows.

Republicans say the email proves what they have known all along. And that is ... wait, you had better sit down for this. It is pretty astounding stuff, so brace yourself. All set? You sure? OK then. The email, Republicans say, proves that the Obama White House lied to the American people for political purposes.

Almost too incredible to believe, isn’t it? Has there ever been an administration in U.S. history that has ever misled the American public before? Even one?

The allegation is all the more shocking because it comes from the GOP. Republicans have been sticking up for Barack Obama's honesty and integrity ever since a few crackpots started questioning the validity of his birth certificate during the 2008 presidential race.

The administration coughed up the Rhodes email in response to a freedom-of-information request by the conservative group Judicial Watch. Conservatives are aghast that it had not surfaced before. They say withholding it until now amounts to a cover-up of a cover-up.

The first cover-up was the attempt to portray the Benghazi attack as a spontaneous eruption of outrage over an obscure YouTube video rather than as a deliberate terrorist attack, which would have given ammunition to GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney. The second cover-up was the attempt to deny that the first cover-up was politically motivated. Unlike Watergate, which involved the cover-up of an actual crime, Benghazi involves the cover-up of a cover-up of ... what, exactly? At this point in the conversation Republicans respond that—hey, look, a squirrel!

Mystified Democrats can't see what all the fuss is about. Yes, Americans died (unlike in Watergate)—and yes, mistakes were made. But as Hillary Clinton herself said, "What difference, at this point, does it make?" Why not let bygones be bygones?

After all, when the Nixon administration tried to cover up the Watergate break-in, did Democrats make a big fat deal out of it? Of course not. They forgave and forgot.

When the Reagan administration sold arms to Iran to fund the Nicaraguan Contras, did Democrats drag officials before Congress to answer a bunch of questions on live TV? Of course not.

When detainee abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq came to light, did Democrats waste everyone’s time trying to prove that responsibility went all the way to the top—or did they simply accept the explanations that were tendered at face value and let it go?

For that matter: When George W. Bush took the world to war based on a false premise about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, were there any political repercussions? Heck no. As countless bumper stickers put it, "Bush Lied, People Died—But What Difference, at This Point, Does It Make?"

Liberals have no interest in trying to embarrass future presidential prospects. When certain political appointees in New Jersey orchestrated a massive traffic jam at the George Washington Bridge, everyone had a good chuckle and then let it go. Nobody—least of all Democrats or the media—tried to pin it on Gov. Chris Christie.

Democrats are now spluttering with outrage that the House will convene yet another committee to investigate Benghazi. This comes on top of the three Senate investigations and four House investigations that have investigated Benghazi already. Talk about overkill!

This reaction is refreshing. It's nice to know that after 21 federal food-aid programs, 27 cash-assistance programs, 33 federal housing programs, 49 federal job-training programs, eight federal health care programs, several hundred federal agencies (nobody knows for sure), 74,000 pages of federal tax rules, and 78,000 pages of federal regulations, liberals have discovered government bloat. Their concern is completely sincere, and motivated entirely by their long-standing passion for protecting the president's backside improving the efficiency of federal operations.

This article originally appeared in the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

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.

  • John||

    Unlike Watergate, which involved the cover-up of an actual crime, Benghazi involves the cover-up of a cover-up of ... what, exactly

    How the Obama Administration and the DOS under Hillary put a US ambassador in an unsecured compound and left him to die and then did nothing about it in the aftermath? That is kind of a big deal.

    Jesus Tap Dancing Christ, are you auditioning for a job at Politico? Seriously Barton, do you think your readers are that fucking stupid?

  • Pro Libertate||

    He's probably talking about whatever was going on there that created the need for a cover-up in the first place. Something was up, likely, as everyone suspects, something covert and embarrassing. That's also how they're probably keeping people quiet, because the underlying matter is one of "national security."

  • John||

    That is the good example of the "heads I win tails you lose" mentality of the media. If Republicans made the accusation that something bad was going on there, Hinkle would accuse them of being crazy conspiracy theorists. As it is they only say "we want to know what happened" and Hinkle accuses them of having no answers and just being on a witch hunt.

    Like I said, Hinkle is auditioning for a job at Politico.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I think there's a lot of sarcasm in that article, much directed at the Democrats. Then again, maybe I'm just reading that into it.

  • John||

    There is. And he is hard on the Democrats for whining. Hinkle's point seems to be that the Republicans are chasing shadows here and the Democrats are wrong to whine because both sides do that. The underlying assumption seems to be there is no reason to investigate this. And that, I think is bullshit concern trolling.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Well, whatever he intends, this is a big scandal, not a little one. We've been lied to, people died without any attempt to protect them (before or during), etc. Someone needs to be held accountable, even if the worst parts are only due to incompetence.

  • DFG||

    But held accountable how? The Dems will boycott the committee, the media will cover for them by portraying the investigation as more political bullshit, and unless the Reps manage to catch someone lying under oath it will all come down to the obvious fact that the Obama Admin lied when on TV, which is not illegal. People are used to that and really won't care.

    Watergate was about obstruction of justice following a (politically motivated) burglary. Benghazi was a fuck up followed by ass covering, aka politics as usual. Unless there is a major surprise out there that hasn't even been hinted at yet I don't see anything coming out of this besides more people registering as independents.

  • OneOut||

    What was the Commander n Chief doing when the people he was in command of were under attack for 8 hours ?

    The most recent talking head, the one who said , "dude, that was two years ago." admitted that the CnC wasn't in the situation room but refused to say where he was. Someone knows and for some reason it is being hidden as to where he was and what he was doing.

    They were under attack for 8 hours and we couldn't send them any help ? Not only was no help sent we actually told people, who claimed to be ready and willing to go, to stand down. Strangely no one can remember who gave the order either.

    There seems much to be rotten here and the stench isn't going away.

  • sasob||

    I thought I had read that he was off giving another campaign speech somewhere across country.

  • Lord Humungus||

    it's a strangely written article - at first I was wut? And then I realized it was all supposed to be sarcasm. Or something.

  • Drake||

    Somebody has to develop the balls to ask WTF the CIA and State were doing there.

  • John||

    It would be nice.

  • Mike M.||

    When you start digging too deep into those kinds of questions, you end up like Andrew Breitbart and Michael Hastings.

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    the bengazi scandal involved the deaths of four Americans which is worse than a burglary in the Watergate scandal in which nobody died. Not only was the Administration(Hillary and Obama in particular) grossly negligent in not protecting these men after they repeatedly asked for support before, and during the attack. No forces were deployed to aid even though there were plenty in the region. They engaged in a coverup to steal the election by hiding these facts from the American people.
    So we have high level administration officials lying to congress and the American people on National TV and not a single person has been fired or held accountable for this, least of all Obama and Hillary. That is why the hearings need to go forward.

  • John||

    We need to create some kind of national shaming mechanism. The Republicans would agree to not have this committee and in return Hillary would admit her full responsibility as DOS for the deaths of four people and then spend say dawn to dusk for five straight days in stocks in front of the Capitol as people hurled food and insults at her. Then the country could move on.

  • Sudden||

    I wonder if the GOP just wants to get enough ammo to fire at her (this is all proverbially speaking, for any NSA watchers) come general election without damaging her chances of securing her party's nomination.

    I view Hillary in the same regard as Jeb Bush: I simply cannot imagine any statistically significant number of people actually being motivated to so much as mail in an absentee ballot with her name indicated as the choice for the presidency.

  • John||

    I hope you are right about Hilary. She would be a horrible President.

  • ||

    Part of me hopes she gets nominated easily and then loses the general to Rand Paul because we know she really wants it and deserves to be snubbed. But part of me is scared to death that she would win.

  • Sudden||

    I think she beats Jeb Bush. But I cannot see her beating anyone else the GOP might throw up there. Then again, I may be woefully overestimating my fellow citizens or woefully underestimating the powerful allure of the FREE SHIT BRIGADE.

  • ||

    What you are underestimating is the cravenness of the Republican party.

  • Mike M.||

    But part of me is scared to death that she would win.

    Dude, it's a done deal and she's going to be the next president; she has already been selected by Wall Street.

  • OneOut||

    "I simply cannot imagine any statistically significant number of people actually being motivated to so much as mail in an absentee ballot with her name indicated as the choice for the presidency."

    That's strange. I can imagine numerous people willing to send in numerous absentee ballots with her name on them.

  • sasob||

    I can even imagine numerous imaginary people willing to send in numerous absentee ballots with her name on them.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    It’s not the first time an American president has lied for political purposes.

    And never holding them accountable for that means govt will never be limited (that doesn't suit govt's "political purposes" and that govt will keep getting worse, as those in charge know they can get away w/ anything since "they all do it".

    The future is a boot, stomping on A. Barton Hinkle's face, forever.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I've said this a hundred times here, but "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion." We should turn on politicians and government officials if there's a hint of impropriety, and we should expect and demand resignations without waiting for overwhelming proof of their guilt. I'm not talking about charging them with crimes; I'm just talking about them losing their positions. The prosecutions, if needed, can come later.

    When in doubt,
    Kick the bastards out.

  • John||

    Yes. It is like the IRS scandal. If the IRS scandal never gets to the White House but ends in Lois Lerner going to prison, that will be a great result. In fact it would be a better result than it getting the White House. If Lerner goes to prison, every civil servant will be on notice that committing crimes to benefit their political masters can land them in prison. That sounds like a good message to me.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Govt would cease to exist. NTTAWWT.

  • Pro Libertate||

    We'll never get perfection, but this is part of that vigilance we're supposed to have. Don't tolerate anything bad, whether it's someone from your team or the other one. Heck, you should have higher standards for those who represent you.

  • Vincent Milburn||

    My team's already spotless so I don't have to worry about it. It's only those other people who tell lies.

  • Bardas Phocas||

    But She's all they've got.
    ... and maybe 50-60 million other people that could run for prez in '16.

    But really, fuck them - it's HER turn!

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    By all means, GOP, go all out on this fake scandal right up to the first Tuesday in November.

    You picked the perfect lead "investigator", Trey Gowdy, a sniveling little Southern accented mini-Newt type too.

    You got it going now!

  • John||

    Looks like some little retard got his talking points this morning.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I saw Trey on one of the news shows. He looks like Annie Lennox.

    Don't worry, I am sure he won't get tiring.

  • John||

    Yes, all the trolls will be out slandering him. We know the talking points retard.

  • soflarider||

    I must be mistaken. It appears that despite your mindless team blue devotion, you're an unabashed bigot. Denigrating people because of their appearance or accent is every bit as bad as doing it on the basis of race, ethnicity or sexual preference. It's obvious that you need to return to reeducation camp.

  • ||

    FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL! FAKE SCANDAL!

  • Alice Bowie||

    So, do u think this is a fake scandal?

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Hey Weigel.

  • ||

    Got your talking points eh? Smear Goudy before he even starts. Nobody saw that coming. Heh.

    They are gonna go all out, it is gonna sink Hillary. And Goudy, whom I don't know if I like or not, is a real nut-cutter the likes of which your craven masters would do well to avoid going up against.

    geez you would think that the proggys would sick a better troll on us than shreek.

  • Agent Cupcake||

    Were those also fake flag-draped coffins at Dover Air Force Base? Just curious.

  • mplspolitics||

    Oh hey pumpkin! I can smell the shame and patchouli on your OFA 3x5's from way over here. You are just precious.

  • Alice Bowie||

    So the people that supported a war that killed over 6,000 Americans are making a lot of noise over these five people killed in Bhemgazi.

    I go to a gym where FOX NEWS Is on and all I hear is Bhemgazi. I don't hear it anywhere else.

  • John||

    Yeah Alice, you don't like the war in Iraq, you know the war that huge numbers of Democrats, including Hillary supported, so that gives Obama the right to allow Ambassadors to be murdered and then lie about it and throw some innocent filmmaker in prison.

    Yeah, that makes sense. Good thing you cleared that up.

  • Alice Bowie||

    I'm voting for Gary Johnson again.

    I voted for Obama in 2008 and was very disappointed that he continued the war.

  • John||

    Good for you. That doesn't make this any more or less of an outrage.

  • Alice Bowie||

    It is not a small thing but to me this is just ann another casualty of war.

    Just because an embassador got killed doesn't make it a bigger news than someone's son or daughter getting killed in war.

  • John||

    Yes it does. It doesn't make it more of a tragedy but it makes it more news.

    Moreover, this guy was killed in Libya, the war that Obama got us into illegally and all on his own.

  • Alice Bowie||

    I am n objector of war. I was not happy wth Luba thing. However, Obama didn't establish the hostility that lybians have against us.

  • Jordan||

    I was not happy wth Luba thing.

    Sweet jesus...

  • Sevo||

    Alice Bowie|5.7.14 @ 11:34AM|#
    ..."However, Obama didn't establish the hostility that lybians have against us."

    No, he just hung some people out there to die without any hint of caring about them.
    Nice guy, right?

  • ||

    I think you are a bit confused Alice.

    This is not about whether or not we should be at war, about how many were killed, who supported or did not support the war etc.

    This is about the character and competence of a person who wishes to be POTUS. This is about the character and competence of the current POTUS.

  • sasob||

    This is about the character and competence of the current POTUS.

    As someone before me said, "a Nobel Peace Prize laureate with his own kill list."

  • Michael S. Langston||

    I'm stealing that - might use it as a tag line every time I invoke Obama...

    Like... reminds me of that recent speech by Obama (Nobel Peace Prize recipient with a kill list), on...

    Yeah, I like that - Thank you.

  • ||

    Lol

    "Democratic Underground isn't covering this at all, how could it be real?"

    I bet everybody you know voted for McGovern, eh?

  • Jordan||

    Tu quoque. Fucking logic, how does it work?

  • ||

    "I go to a gym where FOX NEWS Is on and all I hear is Bhemgazi. I don't hear it anywhere else."

    I don't think this means what you think it means.

  • albo||

    I don't think Hillary Clinton has every had a non-political thought, gesture or action in her entire adult life. Everything she does is as calculated as a math equation.

    To Hillary, Bengazi isn't about the world's most powerful nation letting one of its ambassadors get killed by primitive screwhead terrorists, it's about the evil GOP plot to get her.

  • John||

    Hillary has never held a single job in her life that she didn't fuck up. The only thing she has ever succeed at was lying to protect the more powerful men in her life. She is a feminist icon.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Fuck Hillary. If she were not female she would be forgotten.

  • ||

    Yeah? Lets see what you have to say in 2016. You will be diving her muff just like you slobber all over O's cock now.

  • Mr. Soul||

    eww.

  • sasob||

    In 2016, if she wins, he'll be changing his handle to Hillary's Cigar.

  • ||

    As Hinkle clearly demonstrates, politically motivated investigations never turn up anything of objective value or expose actual impropriety. So meta breh, so meta.

  • John||

    I know. Look at what a waste of time those Watergate and Iran Contra investigations were.

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    by your estimation we shouldn't hold anyone accountable if it is even the slightest bit politically motivated.
    Makes alot of sense.
    Btw nobody has been fired or punished in any way for this mess and fraud perpetrated on the American people that left four Americans dead and helped steal a Presidential election.

  • Tony||

    Until someone can articulate exactly what wrong was committed by someone other than terrorists, this thing is not like the others.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Articulate? OK.

    1. Left Americans to die, because rescue would draw attention to terror attacks when those attacks would be politically harmful in an election.

    2. Covered up the cause of the attack, terrorists, w/ a BS story about a YouTube video because a terrorist attack would be politically harmful in an election.

  • Tony||

    Both of those are lies, though.

    There's been more investigation into this incident than the JFK assassination. Facts don't become facts only once they start implicating Democrats.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

  • Tony||

    Even if we accept that in the days following it, the attack was wrongly described as a spontaneous response to a video, why does that rise to the level of Watergate or the Iraq occupation? This has been investigated thoroughly, and Hillary Clinton took personal responsibility. What crime was committed? Politics, at worst?

  • sarcasmic||

    What crime was committed?

    Ah, went from "wrong" to "crime." Gotta keep those goalposts moving.

  • Jordan||

    What crime was committed when Bush lied about Iraq? Some of us understand that legality and morality are not the same thing.

  • Tony||

    Some of us understand that, morally speaking, it's worse for a president to get 5,000 Americans killed over lies than for a president to have nothing to do with 4 Americans getting killed except having talking points in the aftermath.

  • Jordan||

    Some of us understand that tu quoque is a logical fallacy.

  • sarcasmic||

    Some of us understand that, morally speaking, it's worse for a president to get 5,000 Americans killed over lies than for a president to have nothing to do with 4 Americans getting killed except having talking points in the aftermath.

    Bengazi doesn't matter because BOOOOOOOOOSH!

    Fucking shit you're stupid.

  • Jordan||

    So, any lies having to do with Iraq didn't matter because of the Gulf of Tonkin, right?

  • Sevo||

    Tony|5.7.14 @ 11:40AM|#
    "Some of us understand that, morally speaking, it's worse for a president to get 5,000 Americans killed over lies than for a president to have nothing to do with 4 Americans getting killed except having talking points in the aftermath."

    Give us an update Tony; how many have died in the, oh, 6 years that Obo's been keeping the killing going on?

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Hillary resigned immediately after Benghazi, or is this "taking responsibility" in the progressive sense of it costing you nothing?

  • Tony||

    Of course I'm only playing dumb. I realize that the real crime here is Democrats having the gall to be president.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Of course I'm only playing dumb.

    You're clearly a Method actor.

  • Thea||

    +5

  • sasob||

    Of course I'm only playing dumb. I realize that the real crime here is Democrats having the gall to be president.

    Didn't you really mean to say a black man having the gall to be president? Oh wait, Hillary isn't black, is she? Tsk, tsk.

  • OneOut||

    Tony
    'This has been investigated thoroughly, and Hillary Clinton took personal responsibility."

    HaHaHaHaHa

    You're funny.

  • soflarider||

    If this has been investigated thoroughly, why did the e-mail that triggered the current brouhaha, just surface recently?

    If you have nothing against lying in furtherance of your point, it's pretty likely that you have nothing against the current administration lying to save their election chances and you're probably not qualified to comment.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    There's been more investigation into this incident than the JFK assassination.

    That is laughable, fantastical thinking - in no way is this remotely true.

    Just as a minor refutation - they interviewed roughly 25,000 witnesses for the Warren Report alone.

    But whatever you do - keep using the source that gave you this tidbit. Cause I'm sure, 110% even, that this is just a mistake in their otherwise perfect, unvarnished truth telling that just so happens to agree with every single belief you have.

  • Jordan||

    3. Pressured Google to censor the video.

  • ||

    And sent a man to prison on a flimsy pretense and scapegoated him to cover themselves and conceal what they were actually doing there in the first place.

  • ||

    Tony doesn't mind in the least if several people have to die so the right TOP MEN can be elected.

  • John||

    Until someone can articulate exactly what wrong was committed by someone other than terrorists,

    1. The abassador asked for more security and DOS didn't give it to him.

    2. No one has ever explained why he was in an unsecured compound in Bengazi, what was going on there or why there were CIA people there.

    3. The administration did nothing for 8 hours while the compound was under attack and specificlly told the military to stand down and not try to help.

    4. No one to this day know what the fuck President gotta reduce my handicap was doing this whole time.

    5. They administration knew it was a terrorist attack and lied about it throwing an innocent person in prison for a probation violation and getting its various media operatives to call for restrictions on free speech.

    6. To this day the administration has done nothing to find and capture the people who did this. Nothing. It is almost like they don't want these people found because they might say something embarrassing.

    That is a pretty big cocktail of incompetence and wrong doing.

  • Tony||

    You gotta turn off FOX News man. Truly, it rots the brain.

  • John||

    Yes Tony, just scream Fox News, as if anyone on here watches it. Whatever you do don't argue the point because you have no argument.

    If any of that is untrue, say why. The fact that you didn't do that and reverted to the typical screaming monkey routine FOXNEWS!!! is just you admitting it is all true and you just don't like it.

  • sarcasmic||

    Dang it John! You're not supposed to judge truth based upon the merit of the information! You're supposed to judge it by the source! FOX says those things, so they must be untrue! Because FOX! And the Koch brothers! Judge the source, not the information!

  • Sevo||

    Tony|5.7.14 @ 11:20AM|#
    "You gotta turn off FOX News man. Truly, it rots the brain."

    FOX NEWS!
    BUSH!
    FOX NEWS!
    BUSH!
    We got it, Tony; the mantra's been used up.

  • soflarider||

    You forgot to add RACIST!

  • OneOut||

    Tony|5.7.14 @ 11:20AM|#

    It really shows weakness when Fox News is your only comeback.

    Nos. 3 and 6 get to the crux of this issue in my opinion.

    Care to respond to either of them Tony ?

    What might the perps say that allow them their freedom ?

    A few days/weeks after the incident one of them was in a hotel lobby publicly bragging that the US didn't want to arrest him in fear of what he had to say.

    Looks like he knew what he was talking about.

    Looks like arming Al Queda or swapping the Ambassador for the blind sheik seem to be running neck and neck.

  • Tony||

    They're both lies.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    I do believe everything you say Tony - but just to confirm - citation please.

  • Drake||

    Who relieved Carter Ham of Africom Command - and order his reaction force to stand down? Why?

    Pretty much the smoking gun - only 2 legal choices - President or the SecDef.

  • Tony||

    Here, just read.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Snopes? What's next, People Magazine?

  • Tony||

    I've said it before, it must be terribly liberating being able to pick and choose what counts as a reliable source depending on what you want to believe.

  • ||

    I've said it before, it must be terribly liberating being able to pick and choose what counts as a reliable source depending on what you want to believe.

    Says the guy who has referred to every post in this thread with which he disagrees as a Fox News talking point with no reference whatsoever.

    You're beautiful babe, don't ever change.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Snopes?

  • sarcasmic||

    Says the guy who accuses anyone who disagrees with him of getting all their information from FOX.

  • Tony||

    It's just deduction. Clearly it can be other vapid rightwing bullshit factories such as can be found on the Internet. But the only possible reason to believe in a conspiracy about the Benghazi attack is to have had it fed to you by partisan operatives. Because it's a big bullshit pie and everyone knows it but you sheep.

  • sarcasmic||

    it must be terribly liberating being able to pick and choose what counts as a reliable source depending on what you want to believe.

    Tell us. Exactly how terribly liberating is it? After all, you assert that nothing from FOX News is reliable because of what you want to believe. You are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing. So, how liberating is it?

  • Tony||

    Nothing from FOX is reliable because it is a propaganda outlet for the Republican party and it has been found to be lying so often that nobody even bothers fact checking it anymore.

  • sarcasmic||

    You didn't answer the question. How liberating is it?

  • Sevo||

    Tony|5.7.14 @ 11:53AM|#
    "Nothing from FOX is reliable because it is a propaganda outlet for the Republican party and it has been found to be lying so often that nobody even bothers fact checking it anymore."

    So it's a pale shadow of the administration of your fave lying piece of shit?

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    But the only possible reason to believe in a conspiracy about the Benghazi attack is to have had it fed to you by partisan operatives.

    Snowball or Goldstein?

  • Sevo||

    Tony|5.7.14 @ 11:37AM|#
    "I've said it before, it must be terribly liberating being able to pick and choose what counts as a reliable source depending on what you want to believe."

    Yeah, Tony, I notice how you are open to sources such as, oh, Fox News.

  • Tony||

    I'm open to reliable sources and I'm educated enough to know what counts and what doesn't.

  • OneOut||

    Tony|5.7.14 @ 11:20AM|#

    You gotta turn off FOX News man. Truly, it rots the brain.

    Tony|5.7.14 @ 11:37AM|#

    I've said it before, it must be terribly liberating being able to pick and choose what counts as a reliable source depending on what you want to believe.

    Tony did you just project yourself on "others" ?

    Did you just pick Fox to be unreliable because of what you believe ?

  • Tony||

    FOX is unreliable because it's so obviously unreliable. Can't you tell partisan propaganda when you see it?

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    FOX is unreliable because it's so obviously unreliable.

    Do you realize how incredibly stupid that is?

    My point is valid because its obviously valid.

    My scientific theory is valid because its obviously valid.

    My shit don't stink because its obviously doesn't stink.

    You are one incredibly stupid fuck.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Tell us Tony - how does one know any news outlet is always unreliable if one never watches said outlet.

    You must have been trained by that guy who talks to dead people, right?

  • Drake||

    So no big deal if Ham and everyone else involved testify under oath? Nobody loses and pension or gets Court Martialed?

    While we are at it, why not invite all those CIA and State "survivors" nobody can locate in to testify and meet the press?

    Nothing to hide, right? Let just shine some light on this innocent misunderstanding, then we can all say Tony was right all along.

  • ||

    ^This.

    I know the behavior of guilty liars when I see it.

    Go fuck yourself Tony.

  • Tony||

    If they want to waste our tax dollars and time with more investigations, fine.

    The problem is neither they nor you care about getting to the truth. They care about finding something out that can damage the current and/or future president. That's the entire point of this farce and you goddamn well know it.

  • sasob||

    It doesn't matter what the point is. What matters is that the guilty and incompetent pay some goddamned consequences for their actions just for a goddamned change.

  • Bgoptmst||

    The point I Romney would have been President if Obama had not damage controlled everything he did for 2012. Imagine him saying "you probably can't keep you dr and bengahzi happened because covert stuff was required." Oh yeAh, the IRS might be targeting you if your on th right.

    We should at least require our politicians to be ashamed when caught being dishonest.

  • Tony||

    Romney was never going to be president.

    It's the economy, fuckface.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Tony and Weigel/PBPlug believe as progressives they are the Most Important People on Earth. As such, if a few people have to die in Libya for their benefit, what better cause could they give their lives for?

  • Tony||

    You don't even know why you're angry about this do you?

    Tell me, because I'm genuinely curious. Do you actually get and remain angry as you watch those moron bobbleheads on FOX vomit lies all day, or is the whole point to outsource your anger to them?

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Maybe I'm just angry about being lied to by you and your ilk constantly. I don't watch Fox.

    I love how you guys lie constantly then say anyone angry at you for that clearly has anger issues, instead of legit reasons to be angry at your total lack of personal integrity.

  • Tony||

    Be angry at the actual murderers like a sane person. Remember when we used to blame terrorism on terrorists? The only outrageous thing going on here is Republicans using the dead in a partisan witch hunt.

  • ||

    Lol

    BOOOOOOOSH!!!!!!!!!!

    But, uh, like, move on man!

  • Sudden||

    But, uh, like, move on man!

    Exactly. Because what difference, at this point, does it really make?

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    I can be angry at the actual murderers and their accomplices in the White House, just like y'all were at Bin Ladin and also the Bush admin for ignoring warnings about an impending attack.

  • Tony||

    The difference is the Obama administration updated its assessment of the facts as new facts came in. The Bushies never really admitted they were wrong about anything.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    The facts were in for Obama's original, lying, assessment.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|5.7.14 @ 11:50AM|#
    'The difference is the Obama administration updated its assessment of the facts as *the danger of political damage was reduced*'

    Fixed; your lies are called on this site. It ain't your mommy giving you a pass anymore, liar-boy.

  • OneOut||

    Tony|5.7.14 @ 11:50AM|#

    The difference is the Obama administration updated its assessment of the facts as new facts came in.

    A few weeks after the election the administration began to dribble out carefully selected bits of info.....

    fixed that for you Tony.

  • Jordan||

    Remember when we used to blame terrorism on terrorists?

    Was that before we blamed it on videos?

  • Tony||

    There were violent protests going on at the same time in Egypt, Sudan, and Yemen that were clearly motivated by the video. Even if Susan Rice was 100% wrong about the video playing a role in Libya, it wasn't an unreasonable thing to believe considering what was going on in the rest of the Middle East. Which is to say, who gives a fuck? Republicans are bitching that Obama played politics with the attack, so what are they doing? Fact finding?

  • Jordan||

    Three weeks. That's how long they persisted, even though sources in both the U.S. and Libyan governments indicated that they knew it was false within 1 day. And then they pressured Google to censor it. All in a day's work for the Most Transparent Administration in history, right?

  • ||

    There were less than 200 views on that video when the attack took place.

    Jesus you are a mendacious bastard. It doesn't bother you to lie your ass of constantly on behalf of people that are utterly lacking in character?

    Don't answer that, I was stupid for even asking.

  • Tony||

    If only you guys would spend the time you take to learn about bullshit conspiracy theories to learn about the real world.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|5.7.14 @ 12:07PM|#
    "If only you guys would spend the time you take to learn about bullshit conspiracy theories to learn about the real world."

    So you're called on all your lies, and the best you can do is claim 'conspiracy!'?
    Lame, even given your low standards.

  • creech||

    OK, so let's see the daily security bulletins given to OGL. If they initially supported the video protest conjecture, then we will all be cool with OGL believing what his ntelligence folks told him.

  • mplspolitics||

    So how exactly did 30,000 people in Benghazi know what POTUS and the entire fucking intelligence community claims didn't happen?

    Kill yourself you mendacious fucking scum bag.

    http://www.denverpost.com/ci_2.....-militants

  • sasob||

    There were violent protests going on at the same time in Egypt, Sudan, and Yemen that were clearly motivated by the video.

    Oh? Clearly? And just how did all those poor people in third world shitholes get access to the internet for one, and for two, to Youtube videos on an internet that is highly censored in their countries?

  • Tony||

    Fine let's pretend the video had nothing whatsoever to do with the wave of protests. What difference does it make?

    Radical Muslims do not believe in Jeffersonian rights, and anyone is capable of being outraged by a video, especially people who believe strongly in the concept of blasphemy. It's not wrong, and is in fact merely speech responding to speech, for the president to condemn an inflammatory video that could cause people to die.

    The worst crime you're describing is misattributing a cause to a terrorist attack. Well fuck me, hang em all. That's unprecedented!

  • sasob||

    Fine let's pretend the video had nothing whatsoever to do with the wave of protests.What difference does it make?

    No pretense is necessary, since it is highly unlikely that the protests were occasioned by an internet video. Apparently it must make some difference to your argument ration of bullshit though or you wouldn't have mentioned it.

  • sasob||

    Republicans are bitching that Obama played politics with the attack, so what are they doing? Fact finding?

    Yeah, playing politics and fact finding. But unlike your idol in the White House, so far their incompetence hasn't gotten anyone killed.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|5.7.14 @ 11:36AM|#
    "Be angry at the actual murderers like a sane person."

    Translated from dipshit:
    "Ignore the guy who caused them!"

  • Tony||

    Oh, please tell me this is what you're doing. The FOX News thing. Where they conflate everything into a stew of bullshit and somehow conclude that a scandal about the president's response to a terrorist attack means the president was responsible for the attack itself.

  • sasob||

    What response? Where the fuck was he at the time, genius?

  • jmomls||

    *moron bobbleheads on FOX vomit lies all day,*

    Lies, huh?

    Which news agency fabricated documents in an attempt to defeat Bush in the 2004 election? Was it Fox? No, it was CBS.

    Which news agency edited a 9-1-1 tape in attempt to incite a lynch mob to harm an innocent man in Florida? Was it Fox? No, it was NBC.

  • Tony||

    As I said, nobody bothers to fact check FOX (except occasionally Jon Stewart) because everyone but its idiot viewers understands that it's partisan propaganda misinfo-tainment channel. It lies all day long. And it tells you that everybody else--the entire mainstream press, academia, science, and entertainment--are in a conspiracy against you. Because that's what cult-like propaganda outfits do.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    As I said, nobody bothers to fact check FOX...

    lol - umm... there are several organizations who have set themselves up for this very exact purpose. Of course they fabricate and exaggerate to prove most of what they call "lies" on Fox, but of course Fox is wrong and sometimes they're right about it.

    But to say no one does this is laughable - this is basically the only reason Media Matters exists.

    Not to mention the several other fact check groups, most political, one or two semi-non-partisan, who consistently fact check all news outlets selectively.

    Additionally, one would guess - the more viewers to any program, the more likely objections to inaccuracies might exist.

    You might think that wrong - but you'd be stupid - if you could get some character on some high ranked prime-time show to do something completely out of character - there would be riots.

    Do that on comedy central at 3 AM and hardly anyone notices.

    But don't fear - you can continue to believe your source for all this brilliantly stupid and easily refutable facts are still 110% correct on everything else.

    After all - they agree with your pre-held beliefs constantly - so they must be right. You can just feel it, can't you?

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Anything to discredit Hillary before she runs for President, if she does. None of this will prevent her from running, to include Monica L. resurfacing. All it will do is enhance her reputation as a long-suffering political martyr.

    Get ready for a possible Hillary or Elizabeth Presidency. I think Condi Rice should run in 2016 also. That's it, three women (and more) running for the Presidency. We need a woman in the White House anyway. What the Hell!

    They can't f*** up the country any worse than the men have done anyway, including that stink hole in Libya. That disaster is the fault of those who thought we just had to have an embassy there even though they must have known something would happen.

  • ||

    "...Monica L. resurfacing."

    Yes, maybe now we can finally find out if Hillary really did smoke that infamous cigar.

  • OneOut||

    "That disaster is the fault of those who thought we just had to have an embassy there even though they must have known something would happen."

    You must not be up to date on the current talking points of the left.

    It wasn't an embassy, it wasn't even a consulate.

    So, no big deal. Fake scandal.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

  • Sevo||

    Does one of those include "FOX NEWS!"?

  • KDN||

    "Dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge."

  • ||

  • GILMORE||

    "The first cover-up was..."

    How about referring to the site of the attack as a 'consulate' in the first place?

    Which has persisted for much longer than the bullshit idea that 'protestors' happen to happen to travel at night with pre-sighted mortars.

    I also happen to object to the use of the term 'tragedy', which aside from the dramatic-greek connotations, is something generally considered 'unexpected'.

    Call me crazy, but mixing oneself up in shady CIA deals on the anniversary of 9/11 in a city overwhelmingly populated by Islamic militants in a country we'd recently participated in bombing is NOT a context in which 'being attacked' should provoke a great deal of surprise.

    Also, regarding this =

    "Benghazi involves the cover-up of a cover-up of ... what, exactly? At this point in the conversation Republicans respond that—hey, look, a squirrel!?"

    People have pretended "there's nothing to cover up" while simultaneously asserting "we don't know what the CIA was doing!".

    A weird rhetorical combination. A lot like how Tony Vietor both asserted that, 'the military could not be sure there was a 'terror attack' from mere drone footage' AND 'any reasonable person would assume that the YouTube video was part of the motivation'...

    until there's an 'investigation' that asks what the CIA mission in Benghazi was doing, and what Amb Steven's role/involvement was, then you can assume all statements surrounding the issue are similar complete bullshit.

  • Tony||

    The CIA mission, if there was one, was to facilitate the smuggling of arms to anti-Assad groups in Syria. Mystery solved. Though the House Intelligence Committee reported, on the record at least, that this was not the case.

  • sasob||

    but mixing oneself up in shady CIA deals on the anniversary of 9/11 in a city overwhelmingly populated by Islamic militants in a country we'd recently participated in bombing is NOT a context in which 'being attacked' should provoke a great deal of surprise.

    That would be true for most anyone except an incompetent and inexperienced control freak like Hillary, who evidently thought international politics is played by the same rules as domestic ones are here at home.

  • sasob||

    Well, Hinkle, you can ridicule the Republicans' motives in this investigation all you like. But ask yourself - if they don't investigate what happened, who will? Who else is in a position to do so?

  • Drake||

    The free press?

    I crack myself up.

  • Tony||

    You don't mean investigations such as the ones that have already happened, right? Not State's ARB, not in Congress, not in the press? You mean the investigation that finally turns up something that will harm Hillary Clinton politically.

  • sasob||

    You mean the investigation that finally turns up something that will harm Hillary Clinton politically.

    At this point what goddamned difference does it make?

    Because, let's face it, she is never going to live that question down. Maybe she should have addressed that remark to the family members of the corpses in the flag-draped caskets when she spoke to them.

  • Tony||

    Your complete misapprehension of the meaning and context of those words is your own fault.

    Or else you explain what fucking difference it makes what the administration said was their current understanding prior to having a better understanding?

    What utter shamelessness to invoke the dead while engaging in totally empty partisan politics centered on exploiting those same dead.

    From the same paragraph of her remarks:

    "[I]t is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime."

    She was expression her well earned frustration at the empty soulless partisan bullshit going on instead of focusing on the actual issue.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    lol - Tony the only one not reading that correctly is you.

    Let me translate - the "innocent" one, in a "fake" scandal, is trying to avoid any investigation at all.

    Now let's see - would anyone in her position potentially benefit from the lack of an investigation?

    Certainly they would if any such investigation might reveal incompetence, ethical issues, lies, etc.

    So if such wrongdoings took place (& for the purpose of this argument I'm assuming they haven't) - it's logical to think the person most likely to be responsible for them would be trying to prevent any discussion or investigation into those events.

    Therefore, rational people say that when someone doesn't wish to find out who's at fault for something, at it's quite possible that person is the one who is at fault, that this is a reason to investigate further.

    You however see it as an innocent and obvious statement from a hardworking public servant who was being actively prevented from pursuing America's enemies by even submitting to Congressional inquiry.

    Bravo Tony - this is like a new high for you.

    Whatever you do - don't quit the insanity - as at the very least I can count on your comments to actually make me laugh at loud at least once and as they say, laughter=best medicine.

  • sasob||

    I watched her testimony that day, Tony - I have no misunderstanding at all of what she said - or of what she was attempting to do. It was clearly an attempt to dodge the question and to deflect any responsibility on her part for what had happened, by drawing herself up in false outrage and raising her voice to intimidate the questioner - best defense is an aggressive offense sort of thing. I've seen that tactic before - seems to be a favorite of termagants.

    "[I]t is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime."

    Yes, from her perspective, I'm certain she would rather concentrate on the militants (or were they video protesters?) than on whether someone's incompetence - either hers or her subordinates - were the cause of the fiasco. As to "what was going on" - they knew goddamned well it wasn't just some guys out for a walk who felt like killing some Americans, and it certainly was not some morons protesting a Youtube video that hardly anyone had seen. (It still hasn't come to light who was responsible for the bullshit story about a Youtube video being the cause.)

  • sasob||

    What utter shamelessness to invoke the dead while engaging in totally empty partisan politics centered on exploiting those same dead.

    It isn't partisan politics on my part - I despise the woman regardless of the party to which she belongs. She's a psychopathic control freak who is morally unfit and incompetent to hold public office. Her sex predator husband isn't much better, though he at least has some competence.

    You want to talk shamelessness? What do you call it when the Secretary of State gives a speech at a memorial service and tells the family members of the guys in the coffins that their loved ones died as a result of a protest over a Youtube video, when she knows that story to be utter bullshit? Spare me your false indignation.

  • Bruce Majors Libertarian4Mayor||

    If only Clinton had thought to blame his sticking cigars into Ms. Lewinsky on an internet video. That might even have been true.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement