The fake scandals and conspiracy theories dreamed up by conservatives have always been vapid at best. From the beginning the faux outrage, the shrill cries of wrong doing concerning Benghazi have been entirely based on juvenile nitpicking and finger-pointing while pearl clutching. The first ‘scandal’ was that president Obama and the administration did not say the word terrorist fast enough. That sounds like I’m being facetious, but that was is still is large part of the feigned outrage. President Obama called the attack an act of terror. Yet once again the president failed to call the loony language police to check his speech first (Michele Malkin, Jim Hoft, Fox’s resident racist Eric Bolling – all the people who lied to the USA about 9-11, Iraq, WMD, al Qaeda connection, the Housing Bubble, Fannie May, birth certificates and so on ). I am not aware of a left of center major blogger or politician who not only lies , but actually lives their lies day in and day out in an echo chamber of mendacity. Benghazi is part of an ongoing, sure to be endless campaign to try and hang some scandal around the neck of an administration that has been remarkably scandal free. Republicans talk a lot about values, Democrats actually have them and it infuriates Conservatives to no end, What Benghazi Is about: Scandal Envy – Republicans are livid that Obama hasn’t had his major scandal yet.
The real scandal is that Susan Rice went on television soon after and amid all kinds of “based on the best information we have”s and “we’ll have to see”s, said one thing that turned out not to be the case: that after the protests in Cairo, there was some kind of copycat protest in Benghazi, which was then “hijacked” by extremist elements using heavy weapons to stage an attack.
A sane person might say, OK, she was obviously given some incorrect information at that time, but it’s not a particularly meaningful deception. As people have been pointing out for weeks now, it’s not as though not using the word “terror” or saying there was a protest before the attack gave the White House some enormous political advantage. If you’re going to have a cover-up, there has to be something you’re covering up.
But now, some Republicans, particularly John McCain and Lindsay Graham, are essentially saying that this horrifying cover-up was quite possibly the greatest crime in the history of the United States government, and if we’re going to get to the bottom of it nothing short of a select committee—a “Watergate-style committee,” as it is being referred to by reporters—will do. Who knows what it might uncover? Were there CIA whistleblowers whose bodies are now lying at the bottom of the Potomac? Was David Petraeus being blackmailed? Are William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright involved? Did Susan Rice fly to Tripoli, have a steamy liaison with a clone of Ayman al-Zawahiri created in a secret underground laboratory, then go to Benghazi where she personally killed Ambassador Chris Stevens with a hat pin? We won’t know unless we spin this out into a multi-week story!
One thing that Waldman left out was that the administration very likely checked with the CIA and knew that some of the personnel involved were CIA. Not saying anything about that has in 20/20 hindsight probably hurt the White House in terms of later revelations, but it was the right thing to do in terms of national security at the time. It was a no win situation for a Democrat. Regardless of how they told the public the Right was going to spin the story. The Mind-blowing Hypocrisy of John McCain(R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC): WMD Lie is Good, Repeating Intelligence is Bad
Hypocrisy alert: John McCain supported Condoleeza Rice who misled the public on WMD, causing thousands to die, but now attacks Susan Rice.
Remember when Condoleezza Rice misled the public about Iraq’s WMDs and over 4,000 Americans died? John McCain doesn’t seem to. McCain is trying to sell the idea that Susan Rice appearing on TV to tell the American people what the intelligence community had ascertained about Libya on September 18 was wrong. She should have chosen not to speak on the subject without more certainty, he and Lindsay Graham claim.
Yet, Susan Rice’s statement made it clear that things were not certain. Here, once again, is her statement to the media on September 18 (emphasis mine):
RICE: Well, first of all, Chris, we are obviously investigating this very closely. The FBI has a lead in this investigation. The information, the best information and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack… Obviously, we will wait for the results of the investigation and we don’t want to jump to conclusions before then. But I do think it’s important for the American people to know our best current assessment.
Even if no one else in the Bush-Cheney administration had not been endless sources of disinformation, Condi Rice alone was a virtual lie factory. Excepting liberal concerns about drone strikes against terrorists that might be killing civilians, President Obama has a stellar national security record compared to Bush and when Bush was president conservatives scolded us for supposedly politicizing national security, Under Bush, Hannity Denounced “Politicizing” National Security. With Benghazi, Hannity Can’t Stop. To have values, values worth having anyway, one has to have some consistent standards. Republicans only have one consistent standard, malevolence. Fox News, a subsidiary of a multi-national foreign-owned corporation, keeps moving the time-line of events around to spin things in the worse light. This just came in from CNN and of course the Conservative Noise Bubble is claiming vindication, leaving out some details. Ex-CIA chief Petraeus testifies Benghazi attack was al Qaeda-linked terrorism
Earlier, close observers said they thought Petraeus would tell lawmakers that the CIA knew soon after the attack that Ansar al Sharia was responsible, according to an official with knowledge of the case. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject matter.
Ansar al Sharia is more of a label than an organization, one that’s been adopted by conservative Salafist groups across the Arab world.
Related: What is Ansar al Sharia?
It’s unclear to media whether Petraeus spoke specifically about Ansar al Sharia.
After the hearing, Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Maryland, blamed confusion over two seemingly different versions of the consulate violence — was it caused by a protest or by terrorists?
He said there were essentially two threads of violence: one caused by the protest, which was chaotic, and a second that was orchestrated by terrorists, which was highly coordinated.
There were “two different types of situations at play,” Ruppersberger said, explaining that in the hours and days after the attack, it was naturally difficult to clearly discern what happened.
Intelligence evolves, he said, and new information comes out when agents obtain it. He downplayed the idea that there was something untoward going on.
Petraeus: I did not pass on classified information
The former CIA chief has said there was a stream of intelligence from multiple sources, including video at the scene, that indicated the group was behind the attack, according to an official with knowledge of the situation.
Meanwhile, separate intelligence indicated the violence at the consulate was inspired by protests in Egypt over an ostensibly anti-Islam film that was privately produced in the United States. The movie, “Innocence of Muslims,” portrayed the Prophet Mohammed as a womanizing buffoon.
There were 20 intelligence reports that indicated that anger about the film may be to blame, the official said.
The CIA eventually disproved those reports, but not before Petraeus’ initial briefing to Congress the day after the attack when he discussed who might be behind the attack and what prompted it. During that briefing, he raised Ansar al Sharia’s possible connection as well as outrage about the film, the official said.
Earlier an official said that Petraeus’ aim in testifying was to clear up “a lot of misrepresentations of what he told Congress initially.”
President Obama almost immediately, though not two seconds after it happened, called the attacks an “act of terror.” Which is probably what everyone thought on first hearing the news. When a temporary embassy compound is attacked and people killed that is a pretty obvious conclusion. The details of who and why were not sorted out until later, there being a total of “20 intelligence reports.”
Back in April, after ABC News quoted Jerome Corsi as an authority in an article on so-called “birth tourism,” Media Matters’ Todd Gregory pointed out how low ABC had sunk:
Jerome Corsi is the guy who co-wrote Unfit for Command, a book so infamously inaccurate that it helped spawn the term “swiftboating” as a description of a political smear campaign.
That alone should tell you everything you need to know about Corsi, but there are so many other reasons he’s not a credible figure. There’s the birtherism. The appearance on a “pro-White” radio show. The bigoted comments on Free Republic. The promotion of laughable conspiracy theories about global government and the “North American Union.” The failed Obama smear book.
What has Corsi done since? Well, there’s this:
Yeah, that’s Corsi at the WorldNetDaily Convention last weekend, saying President Obama has engaged in “identity theft” because he has “stolen the identity of a natural born citizen” by “using someone else’s Social Security number.”
He also called for Obama to “renounce Lucifer.” Seriously.
It is tempting to dismiss Corsi as juts another wacko. The problem with calling far-right zealots like Corsi crazy is that it relieves them of some responsibility for what they say. Corsi is not your crazy uncle – at least I hope he’s not. He is a calculating malicious liar. He seems to relish his role as a kind of false prophet of the Right. He believes that he and the other true believers in the cult of conservatism are dispensing the one and only truth, even though there are no facts to make his case. Facts themselves are the enemy. They interfere with the righteousness of the cause. If honor, truth and virtue have to be beaten senseless and left in a ditch, than so be it. Just think General Petraeus, who conservatives had considered a presidential hopeful not only worked for a president who embraced Lucifer and is guilty of the single biggest case of identity theft in history, but the general’s wife still does.
Getting tired of eating at Chick-Fil-A every day to express your hatred of liberals? Well, now you have a couple more options. You can chow down at Applebee’s, where the CEO of their New York franchises went on TV to declare that he won’t be doing more hiring because of the costs Obamacare would impose. Or you can head over to Papa John’s, whose CEO, John Schnatter, has said that Obamacare could add as much as—brace yourself—10 cents to the cost of a pizza, and since obviously customers would never tolerate such price gouging, he’ll just have to cut back employees’ hours.
[ ]….And there’s something else to keep in mind: Nearly all companies with over 50 employees already offer health coverage to their employees, even though this provision of Obamacare doesn’t take effect until January 2014. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 98 percent of companies with over 200 employees offer coverage, as do 94 percent of companies with between 50 and 199 employees. That means when you see some CEO come out and decry the costs of Obamacare, the person you’re looking at is one of the jerks, the guy who treats his employees like crap and is angry that the law is going to force him to be a little more humane.
Depending on the day I’m not sure conservatives have won the argument in terms of getting everyone to look at business the way Papa John’s does. Though there is definitely pressure not to question such business attitudes. It is scandalous in some quarters to wonder how ethical these business models are that do not provide employees health insurance. This is a good related essay about people who think like John Schnatter and the CEO of Applebees new York, from 1937, Essay by Then Senator Harry Truman
“ONE OF the difficulties, as I see it, is that we worship money instead of honor. A billionaire, in our estimation, is much greater in these days in the eyes of the people than the public servant who works for public interest. It makes no difference if the billionaire rode to wealth on the sweat of little children and the blood of underpaid labor. No one ever considered Carnegie libraries steeped in the blood of the Homestead steelworkers, but they are.
We do not remember that the Rockefeller Foundation is founded on the dead miners of the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company and a dozen other similar performances. We worship Mammon; . . .
It is a pity that Wall Street, with its ability to control all the wealth of the nation and to hire the best law brains in the country, has not produced some financial statesmen, some men who could see the dangers of bigness and of the concentration of the control of wealth. Instead of working to meet the situation, they are still employing the best law brains to serve greed and selfish interest. People can stand only so much, and one of these days there will be a settlement. We shall have one receivership too many, and one unnecessary depression out of which we will not come with the power still in the same old hands. . . . (emphasis mine)