If you're a sane person, you might think this takes what wing there is out of the sails of the #BENGHAZI!!! "scandal":
The White House released more than 100 pages of e-mails on Wednesday in a bid to quell critics who say President Barack Obama and his aides played politics with national security following the deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.So the talking points weren't massaged to protect Hillary Clinton's reputation. And, as jonathan Bernstein notes, it's absurd to argue that any spin the White House was doing could have had any impact on the 2012 election:
The exchanges detailing discussions between top Obama administration officials from multiple agencies suggest the CIA took the lead in developing talking points to describe the attack last September 11 that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans....
You want to know what would have been a coverup? If the administration had maintained that Ambassador Chris Stevens slipped and hit his head on the sink on the way to a celebration of Libya's love for the United States (and if it then paid off those on the scene to go along with the story). In other words, trying to pretend that no policy fiasco had happened. Or if it later emerges that Osama bin Laden, alive after all, was personally leading the attack. That really would have contradicted an important campaign story line.So will Republicans just drop this now?
That it was an act of terror, instead of terrorism? That it was extremists, instead of terrorists? That it was planned or spontaneous, a reaction to an immediate event or something coordinated in advance? There’s not a single voter who would have cared at all. Not one.
Nahhhh....
BTW there are at least 25,000 docs they have but won't give us @jaketapper @cnnsitroom #benghazi
— Jason Chaffetz (@jasoninthehouse) May 15, 2013
"Release all the Benghazi Emails." For a WH that claims to want the whole story told, where's the transparency? weeklystandard.com/blogs/release-…
— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes) May 14, 2013
Obama released #Benghazi emails to distract from #IRS # AP scandals. @ericbolling @greggutfeldMommy Jarrett strikes again Told Yah!
— Snipr (@SniprFire1) May 15, 2013
What is so bad about #Benghazi that Obama let the #IRS and #AP stories surface to distract us from it? #tcot #OpSLAM #ocra #p2 #uniteblue
— Greg Howard (@GregWHoward) May 15, 2013
Lt Gen Mclnerney on #Benghazi Scandal: ‘There Is Only One Person Who Can Say-Stand Down – And That’s The President’thegatewaypundit.com/2013/05/lt-gen…
—SpreadButter (@SpreadButter) May 15, 2013
Yes it's ultimately about the stand down orders.. it's unconscionable. No lying can be as bad as leaving our men to die. #Benghazi #TheFive
— Kathryn S. (@kayms99) May 15, 2013
If Barry's daughter was at the #Benghazi consulate, think there would've been a stand down? #BenghaziGate #p2 #tcot #p2moron> @herbdoom
— BarrysLies (@BarrysLies) May 15, 2013
The first two tweets above are from a right-wing congressman and a right-wing reporter. The others are from random wingnut citizens. Yeah, random citizens post all kinds of nonsense online. But the GOP is still all about stirring up the base and then pleasing the base by focusing attention on whatever ridiculous thing has been ginned up to stir up the base.
So more attention will just shift to whatever hasn't been released, and -- especially -- to the absurd notion that the president could have saved four lives and refused to do so. I don't think Republicans can restrain themselves -- they're going to keep at this.
8 comments:
...they're going to keep at this...
Yes, they certainly are. You have made the point many, many times, Steve, that the GOP never forgets one of its smears, no matter how minor.
Take, for example, the smear that Chris Hayes hates our troops and wants them to die, because he once tried to have a question about what the term 'hero' really means if we automatically apply it to every single person who ever wore a uniform. Only one possible conclusion: He hates the troops. Okay, two conclusions: He hates America, too.
And the other day you said that all the scandals won't reach their frenzied conclusion until the day Obama leaves office. Until that moment, the foaming at the mouth, the fever-pitched frenzy, will just grow and grow and grow. We have *years* of this to look forward to.
How do we know this? Because we've seen it before. It's call "the Clinton presidency."
Your average wingnut can name, off the top of their head, a dozen jailable offenses committed (they imagine) by this president. They are simply *astonished* that it's not as obvious to everyone else as it is to them.
These people are a blight on the nation. Someday we're going to have to figure out a way to deal with them. To paraphrase Lincoln, we cannot long endure half sane and half teabag lunatic.
Yesterday I asked what are the repubicients so ghastly afraid of to flog this carcass, and today we have reports the deficit is shrinking far faster than previously anticipated. That's the sail slack.
But this smear thing, Jack, kinda' touches on something I'm still trying wrap words around: the white dogs are doing everythimg they can to assign Obama responsibility for Bush's behavior, or turn something of his into something "just as bad." First they tried to (and still are) turn it into 9/11, and when that dog didn't bark they are blurring the lines with AP scandal so as to leave the kool-aid guzzling rubes wih the impression this is Obama's Valerie Plame. (it is at core, an asset in the field was compromised, compromising the entire operation) Now they point and say "AWOL wasn't that bad, Obama does it!" The considerable difference between the two 9/11s, or the sixty dead in thirteen assaults on American consulates under AWOL's watch escapes them, but they are Ambien, Prozac, Viagra and crotch-shots on CNN/Fox Kool-Aid guzzling rubes, the epitomy of stupid.
No fear.
Conservatives are like rabid hydra-headed pitbulls, capable of gnawing forever on any number of different femur's.
Btw - I can't watch Cup O' Schmoe's Morning Zoo Crew Sh*t-show anymore - they're too predictable.
I'm back to occasionally watching Imus's Morning Zoo Crew for my daily dose of Reichwingium - at least amidst the predictable, there's a laugh once in a while. Of course, sometimes it's in really bad taste, but...
Imus is the typical Conservative - old, white, male, loud and proud, wrong and proud of it - except he's occasionally funny, and does some good work with his charity.
Ok, now I turned Imus off.
He had Stuart Varney come on and continue to try beat the Benghazi, IRS, and AP, "scandals" like he was a rhythm-challenged tone-deaf teenage boy given his first drum kit and harmonica.
If that guy isn't the dumbest motherf*cker with an English accent, I don't know who the hell is.
Now I remember why I didn't start watching him until earlier this week, after his "Nappy-headed Ho's" line that got him the boot off of WFAN in NY, and MSNBC, nationwide.
Of course Uber Reichwing ABC Radio in NY, and FOX 'n Sucks Business News rushed 'right' in and picked him up.
Ignore what I said earlier.
Stuart Varney, YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESH!!!
Easy there Vic, I rescue pitbulls. They didn't ask for this.
Eyup, no fear.
Ten Bears,
No insult intended to pitbulls.
Maybe I'll change that in the future, to "rabid jackals."
And as the scandals fizzle in realtime, the true believers feel free to crank up the conspiracy theory mill to MIHOP. I've already seen speculations that Obama and Hillary had Stephens murdered to cover up arms sales to America's enemies.
Post a Comment