Sunday, May 12, 2013

Angry John McCain Shameful Benghazi Lies Due To Republican Sore Loserness

The biases the media has are much bigger than conservative or liberal. They're about getting ratings, about making money, about doing stories that are easy to cover ~ Al Franken the junior Senator from Minnesota, serving since 2009. Prior to serving in the Senate, he was an acclaimed writer and performer for the popular television show Saturday Night Live. After SNL Franken acted in TV and movies, hosted a nationally syndicated political radio talk show and authored six books.

I've previously given my take on an article by Sean Hannity butt kisser Dylan Stableford of Yahoo! News, and this is going to be another one. Although, I did not notice that Mr. Stableford was the author until I finished reading. I was not all that surprised, however, as it gives just the Republican perspective on the Benghazi so-called cover-up. In his Republican-version-of-events-only article Stableford reports on what former (and still angry about losing) presidential contender John McCain has to say dissemble about the tragic events that took place in Benghazi.

Following are some excerpts from the Stableford story (which concerns how the Republicans are spinning Benghazi for political advantage Democrats are covering up their lying after Benghazi so they wouldn't lose the presidential election) and my commentary regarding said excerpts...

Dylan Stableford Reports: Sen. John McCain continued his criticism of the White House's handling of the Sept. 11 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, calling for a select committee to investigate what he called the Obama administration's "cover-up".

My Commentary: There was no cover-up. There have already been 3 investigations! Is that not enough to get all the facts out? Answer - YES it is! The only reason to drag this out further is for political advantage. McCain (along with all the other Republicans) want to use this for political advantage in the 2014 midterms and for political advantage in 2015 if Hillary Clinton decides to run.

DS Reports: McCain [says] "We are in the midst of a presidential campaign. The narrative by the Obama campaign is that bin Laden is dead, that al Qaeda is on the run, not to worry about anything, and here comes this attack on Benghazi.

My Commentary: Obama did get bin Laden. Clearly that chafes McCain's hide - and he realizes that YES, it did help Obama in the election - and that really makes McCain mad, as he remembers it was the bush financial crisis that helped Obama defeat him. McCain just can't believe Obama's luck. And this time Obama stole the mantle of "strong on national security" from the Republicans! No wonder McCain is so enraged.

But, yes, it appears as though the Obama administration did downplay the Benghazi attack for political reasons. However, as we all know, the Republicans would have used did use Benghazi to try and help Mitt Romney win. So what if the Obama administration downplayed the events at Benghazi for political reasons to head off an attack by the Republicans done for political reasons? It turned out to be the wrong decision, but I don't blame them too much for their (totally justified) concern that Republicans would play dirty. And, MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT, they are playing very dirty.

DS Reports: James Inhofe suggested President Obama could be impeached for his role in the case [saying] "of all the great cover-ups in history - we're talking about the Pentagon Papers, the Iran-Contra, Watergate [blah, blah, blah]".

My Commentary: This bullplop from Inhofe is about as credible as his "global warming is a hoax" conspiracy theories. The voters of Oklahoma should be embarrassed that they've been sending this nut back to Congress since 1987!

DS Reports: "The president didn't call it an act of terror... In fact, two weeks later, before the U.N., he was talking about hateful videos and spontaneous demonstrations. What he did say the day after was he condemned acts of terrorism, but then that night... and throughout the next two weeks, he kept saying that it was caused by a spontaneous demonstration sparked by a hateful video. [blah, blah, blah, "cover-up"]. McCain said he'd like to see former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton... testify again.

My Commentary: Translation... I'm so mad that Obama kicked my ass in 2012! Remember when I said I'd follow bin Laden to the gates of hell? That should have been ME that killed him. Obama stole the mantle of national security from the Republicans and we want it back. We'll go on and on about this fake "cover-up" for as long as it takes. I missed my turn, and Hillary sure as hell isn't going to get another shot on my watch!

Remember when McCain skipped a hearing on Benghazi (11/14/2012) to hold a press conference expressing his outrage over Benghazi? I think that proves his "outrage" is political in nature, and has nothing to do with the Americans who died (including ambassador Christopher Stevens). This is about McCain being a sore loser. What he's outraged about is that Obama won a first term (thumping him) and then a second (thumping Romney).

Also, as reported by Think Progress, Obama did refer to Benghazi as an act of terror. Not just in that Rose Garden speech, but multiple times after that.

Stableford also mentions that "McCain did not invoke the i-word [impeachment], although he still strongly believes that "we need a select committee". No, we don't. Three hearings are more than enough. Obviously the Republicans think they can just keep holding hearings until they get the result they want. But McCain knows Obama isn't going to be impeached (he's smarter than Inhofe in that regard)... he just wants to inflict as much damage on Obama as he possibly can.

Finally, in regards to the author of the referenced article... good job getting the Republican talking points out on this Dylan! Your article was very "fair and balanced" in that, NOT ONCE, did you mention how the Democrats are responding to these bogus "cover-up" charges. Instead he lets McCain and Inhofe's allegations go unchallenged.

ABC News does a slightly better job (thanks "Liberal Media") by including a quote from the Democratic Senator of Rhode Island, Jack Reed, who said "absolutely not" to the cover-up allegation; then blamed all the revising of the talking points on "efforts to form a consensus document that avoided all of the difficult issues"... which does NOT amount to any kind of cover-up, just a careful consideration of what was said before an investigation had even begun (with the results of the upcoming presidential election in mind... sure).

Dylan concludes with a quote from McCain about maybe not impeaching Obama... McCain said, "I don't know what level of scandal this rises to". Then McCain again calls for a "select committee" because "the American people deserve it". Let me guess... "Select" means the Republicans select the members who will conclude there was a cover-up? And by "deserve" he means the American people deserved a Republican in the White House, but in consolation they'll settle for exacting revenge on Obama for stealing the mantle of national security from the Republicans AND mopping the floor with the last two candidates they ran for president?

SWTD #148


  1. McCain is an angry, old, loser. He was a lousy pilot and a lousy politician. He is one of many republicans that we should not even waste our time listening to.

  2. Problem is, people do listen to him. He is on the TV almost 24-7 pushing the "Benghazi cover-up" hard. People like dmarks eat this kind of conspiracy theory nonsense up.

    BTW, what's up with your blog Jerry? Taking a break or have you called it quits?

  3. I am kind of on hiatus for now. I've lost the interest in posting although I still enjoy commenting on a few blogs.

    When it was my own post, I felt more responsibility to respond the commenters, even the real dumb ones. When I comment I feel freer just to ignore the idiots and the ones who's comments have nothing to do with what I said.


Comment moderation has temporarily been suspended. Although I may be forced to reinstate it if the trolls take advantage.