Narratives of Benghazi Hoax True Believers Debunked (Part 1)

...there's no evidence in the emails that the idea of spontaneity was initiated by anyone associated with Obama, the White House, or the president's wider political fortunes. Did Obama benefit from the spontaneity narrative? Yes. But to embrace intelligence from your CIA that is favorable to you - when you have no reason to doubt your intelligence service - is not the same as making up a false story. It's not even a sin ~ John Dickerson; an American journalist. He is chief political correspondent for Slate magazine and political director of CBS News. Before joining Slate, Dickerson covered politics for Time magazine for 12 years, serving the last four as White House correspondent.

This commentary is in response to a post on the site of a Libertarian blogger who asserts 35 witnesses and survivors of the Benghazi terrorist attack will tell us - if only the administration were not stifling their desire to tell the American people the truth - that President Obama has "patently lied" to us. The "lies" are spelled out by the Libertarian Willis V. Hart (WTNPH) as follows...

Willis Hart: They will tell us that a) there wasn't any protest outside of the consulate (and hence no spontaneous eruption resulting from it), b) the weaponry that was used was of a high-powered nature (mortar, AK-47s, etc.) and not the type of shit that an individual would simply have in their back-pocket, c) a terrorist splinter cell was claiming "credit" for the attack WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING, d) the terrorists knew where everything was and had obviously cased the facility well prior to the attack (in other words, THEY PLANNED IT), and e) the consulate itself was being used as a conduit to a gun smuggling operation into Syria and that many of the weapons probably landing into the hands of al Qaeda - none of which this President wants the American public to hear, obviously. (2/5/2014 AT 9:43pm).

According to WTNPH this was a "cover-up"; but he lies. There was no "cover-up", at least in regards to things that don't concern national security (which I'll get back to), but there are logical explanations for the issues raised by Hart, which I will address point by point, starting with his assertion that "there wasn't any protest outside of the consulate" with the rest of this commentary (assertions B through E will be addressed in a subsequent post).

First of all, The Obama Administration NEVER said there was a "spontaneous eruption" outside the Benghazi Mission; or Susan Rice (who was tasked with presenting the official White House response). On 9/16/2012 then United States Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice "appeared on five major interview shows to discuss the attacks". In delivering her CIA talking points, Rice asserted the following...

Susan Rice (relaying CIA/State Dept Talking Points): Based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is - as of the present - is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy—sparked by this hateful video. ...we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned. (Wikipedia/2012 Benghazi attack/U.S. government response).

Notice that then ambassador Rice referred to "what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo". Rice didn't claim there were protests outside the American diplomatic mission at Benghazi, although there were reports at the time that the attack was in response to the Innocence of Muslims video (IOM), as this excerpt from a 10/15/2012 Huffington Post article points out...

Michael Calderone, writing for HuffPo: On Sept. 12, Reuters reported that there were protesters present when the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was attacked and described the assailants as "part of a mob blaming America for a film they said insulted the Prophet Mohammad". (Reuters' Early Report Of Protesters At Libya Attack Raises Questions, 10/15/2012).

The book The Benghazi Hoax cites this Huffington Post article, and further points out that "Reuters correspondent Hadeel al Shalchi... "reported what people told me they saw that day, all of whom she met face to face" [The Benghazi Hoax, Page 30]. So there actually WAS a question regarding whether or not the attacks were in response to the IOM video, however, "State Department officials said they never concluded that any protests over the video took place near the Benghazi mission on Sept. 11 (and the Rice talking points referenced protests in Cairo, NOT Benghazi, as I already pointed out) [quote from Calderone HuffPo article cited above].

And former White House correspondent John Dickerson concludes that there was no cover-up, because, as he writes in a 5/16/2013 Slate article...

Michael Calderone: In the initial round of emails, one CIA official reports that the White House signed off right away on the full initial CIA assessment. ... So rather than being the authors of the bowdlerizing effort, the White House was just fine with the fully caffeinated version that mentions [Islamist militia group] Ansar al Sharia, al Qaeda, and that the CIA had produced numerous warnings about extremists in Benghazi. White House aides reviewed the talking points, made no substantive changes, and moved them along. (I Was Promised a Cover-Up, 5/16/2013).

"Bowdlerize", according to Dictionary.com is "to expurgate (a written work) by removing or modifying passages considered vulgar or objectionable", and John Dickerson says the emails don't show that the White House did that. So, how did the terrorism references get bowdlerized (and the IOM video and the attack being a "spontaneous eruption" get the blame)? John Dickerson says "when the language does eventually change in the talking points, it is clear that it is at the behest of State Department officials, not anyone in the White House" [same article as quoted above].

I think that pretty much proves that the following assertion by WTNPH has very little merit...

Willis Hart: ...the Obama people... pushed this imbecilic narrative about a spontaneous eruption... from some stupid-arsed Youtube video and then continued with it for weeks. Yes, the Republicans are playing some politics here but so, too, is the Obama administration (their brazen attempt to convince us that Al Qaeda was somehow on the run). (5/12/2013 at 11:44:00am, From the "Rational Nation USA" blog).

They may have "pushed" it, but they didn't author it - and there was no narrative about Al Qaeda being on the run. WTNPH's assertion that the Obama campaign was claiming this (in order to help win the election) echoes statements made by Senator John McCain, who, on the 11/14/2003 airing of Greta Van Sustern's "On the Record", said "it interferes with the president's narrative, We got bin Laden, al Qaeda's on the run, therefore, I'm a great commander-in-chief".

In regards to the supposed "brazen attempt to convince us that Al Qaeda was somehow on the run", David Brock and Ari Rabin-Havt (authors of The Benghazi Hoax) put forward the facts that squash this lie concerning a narrative the Obama White House didn't have a hand in creating...

Excerpt, The Benghazi Hoax: Obama had never sought to declare an early end to America's stepped-up operations against terrorism... Conservatives claimed that Obama didn't want to discuss "terror" because he wanted to fool voters into thinking Al Qaeda had been vanquished. Yet at the president's acceptance speech at the Democratic convention in Charlotte several days before the Benghazi attack, he said: "[F]or all the progress we've made, challenges remain. Terrorist plots must be disrupted". (Page 23).

But, back to the corruption of the talking points, which, as I already pointed out, originally contained terrorist references WTNPH says were removed so the Obama Administration could push a narrative of Al Qaeda being on the run. That allegation, as I have just proven, is false. It was the State Department, as John Dickerson revealed, which modified them, specifically Victoria Nuland, a former Dick Cheney aide at the State Department.

It was Nuland who pushed for the revisions because she worried members of Congress [might] "beat the State Department for not paying attention to agency warnings", and why, Nuland asked, "would we want to seed the Hill?".

So, in conclusion... the talking points were NOT "all about the administration protecting Mr. Obama's narrative". This is simply more bunk from the Hartster. Even Fox News admits this with a 5/10/2013 article titled "Benghazi attack: State Department pushed for changes in the administration's talking points" (Note: the article is via the Associated Press, but the link is to Fox's website), and emails the White House released prove this to be the case. Also, there was evidence to suggest the attacks were indeed a "spontaneous eruption" in response to the IOM video (the on-the-ground Reuters reporting by Hadeel al Shalchi).

Given these facts, was it a lie to go with the talking points as modified by the State Department's Victoria Nuland and present them to the American people - while noting that "This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated" (as Susan Rice did)? I say NO.

The Obama administration may have accepted a spin that benefited them (as pointed out by John Dickerson in the quote at the top of this post), but they originally signed off on the "fully caffeinated version", so when State came back with the version that said the attack began spontaneously in Benghazi in reaction to the earlier Cairo protests over the IOM video, the administration going with that story for the time being (until the investigation was complete) "is not the same as making up a false story". What IS a false story (and a canard) is WTNPH's dishonest narrative that President Obama "patently lied".

At worst I think the administration could be criticized for taking the politically safe road (if you believe the argument that the original talking points that included the terror references would have hurt them in the election) by accepting the talking points as modified by State (at the hands of Victoria Nuland), but you can NOT say the president "patently lied". He patently did NOT lie, as the facts I just presented unequivocally prove.

1/28/2016 Update: Despite this post being labeled "part 1" and me promising a "part 2" in the body of the commentary... I haven't yet authored a second installment. Anyway (given the fact that a 2nd installment likely will not be forthcoming)... to answer the other point raised by WTNPH concerning the assailants having weapons "of a high-powered nature" that they wouldn't have "in their back pockets", I heard that people were there with those weapons because (at least ostensibly) to turn them over under the weapon recovery program (Source).

SWTD #230, wDel #50.

Yahoo Going Nooz Route In Aggregating Glenn Beck The Blaze Right-wing Nuttery

By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise ~ Adolf Hitler (4/20/1889 to 4/30/1945) dictator of Nazi Germany from 1934 to 1945. Hitler was at the center of Nazi Germany, World War II in Europe, and the Holocaust.

The Yahoos at Yahoo News appear to be at it again. If they aren't hiring Fox Nooz butt kissers like Dylan Stableford, then they're cozying up to Right-wing nutjob Glenn Beck's The Blaze. "Scandals Have Snowballed Through the Obama Years and More May Be Coming" is the nooz story I discovered a link to prominently featured on the Yahoo home page. Did Yahoo News pay for this Obama bashing tripe by "assistant editor" (and former Paul Ryan staffer) Christopher Santarelli, or are they just conferring to The Blaze some legitimacy by aggregating their nooz?

"Nooz" as I define it (and I think many on the Left would agree here and use the word similarly) is Right-wing propaganda masquerading as actual news. The term is (of course) in reference to Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, otherwise known as Fox Nooz or Faux Nooz. Now, I have noticed that on this occasion (as well as others) Yahoo News is going the "nooz" route, in that they seem to be catering to the far-right with one-sided news (or "nooz") stories authored by "reporters" actually employed by Yahoo, or by aggregating nooz from far-right sources, as is the case with this article from The Blaze.

Following are some excerpts from The Blaze story in which Glenn Beck employee Christopher Santarelli interviews writes about an interview of TN Representative Marsha Blackburn by Mallory Factor (Blaze contributor and not a woman despite the feminine name). Blackburn, one of the nuttier members of the House, believes the Affordable Care Act (AKA ObamaCare) to be "a government run, government ensured, government financed, government delivered healthcare system" (it isn't), and that it might include death panels (it doesn't).

Santarelli: Rep. Marsha Blackburn says the growing controversy involving HHS Secretary Kathy Sebelius trying to raise money from companies that her department regulates ranks among the major scandals that are plaguing the administration. The funds raised would go to nonprofits that help people enroll in and get excited about Obamacare.

My Commentary: According to Steve Benen of the Maddow Blog funds are needed to promote the health care law. The more people that sign up, the larger the pool and the lower the costs per person... but the Republicans won't provide any funds for this necessary promotion, so Sebelius has been soliciting "private-sector health executives and non-profit organizations" for some cash to fund the promoting. It's all quite legal so long as there is no quid pro quo.

Santarelli: "A lot of people have said it sounds like Iran-Contra - to me, I think it's probably a little bit worse", Blackburn said in a video interview with TheBlaze contributor Mallory Factor.

My Commentary: No, it isn't "a bit worse". You only think that because you're a nutter. The two situations are actually not comparable in the least. With Iran-Contra individuals in the Reagan administration were raising money via the sale of weapons to Iran to fund Nicaraguan rebels. It was all very illegal, while Sebelius asking for donations to promote the health care act is totally legal. One was a scandal that should have resulted in Regan going to jail, while the other isn't a scandal at all.

Blackburn does, however, appear to be on the same page as the other Tennessee Rs. Regarding the fundraising, Senator Lamar Alexander says "the legal analogy with Iran-Contra is strong", and that it "should cease immediately and should be fully investigated by Congress". Fu#k you Lamar. Intelligent people recognize this as yet another Republican attempt to undermine the president's health care legislation. Also, shame on the voters of Tennessee who elected these far-right kooks (a group that does not include me. I live in TN, but didn't vote for either of these dumbasses).

Santarelli: Blackburn told TheBlaze that scandals have "snowballed" through the Obama years, now coming to a head with... Benghazi, the Department of Justice caught surveilling lawful media outlets like the Associated Press and Fox News, the IRS targeting conservative groups, and this latest controversy with Sebelius and the HHS. Blackburn told TheBlaze that she has even heard of more whistleblowers set to step forward regarding scandals at the EPA.

My Commentary: That Republicans cut funding for protecting our embassies and consulates is a valid concern and should be addressed. The real scandal regarding the IRS "targeting" conservative groups is that they were all approved, even though the law says 501c4's "must operate exclusively for the promotion of social welfare" and not allowed to "specifically endorse any political candidate".

So the IRS found that no tea bag group was violating this rule? What bull. In any case, the real reason groups like these want the 501c4 status is so they can "avoid having to reveal their contributors". I agree with Senator Ron Wyden who says politically active groups (like the tea party groups that were "targeted") "ought to be 527 organizations [that] must disclose their donors" (they would still be tax exempt).

As for the Justice Department seizing of AP phone records, concern over that is right and just, but Republicans have previously opposed a media shield law, while it has broad support from Democrats. Republicans simply want to have their cake and eat it too in regards to this issue; i.e. criticize the administration but not "hamstring" future (Republican) administrations when it comes to going after the media's reporting of White House leaks. What is needed here is some serious reforms to ensure freedom of the press, and it does not appear as though (the hypocritical) Republicans are willing to go far enough.

Regarding Blackburn's assertion that individuals within the EPA are going to whistleblow, I'm not sure what she is referring to. However, given Blackburn's abysmal voting record when it comes to Oil/Energy/The Environment, she's probably referring to the EPA's attempt to regulate CO2... that is, actually do something about Global Climate Change given the fact that Congressional Republicans refuse to do a damn thing to address this serious problem.

Santarelli: Blackburn said that along with colleagues in Congress she will investigate these cases methodically and responsibly, subpoena individuals when necessary, and "make certain power grabs like this don't take place".

My Commentary: It isn't responsible to exploit non-scandals for political advantage Marsha! It isn't that I think Congress should ignore these issues, as I am a believer that it is the role of Congress to provide oversight, but that isn't the Republican goal here. The goal is to embarrass the Obama Administration, use these "scandals" for political advantage (in the upcoming midterms and in the next presidential election) and to stymie the Congressional Democrats and President's agenda. Proof of that will be their failure to pass any meaningful reforms.

I predict that the IRS scandal will open the door to further abuse of 501c4s. These groups will now be able to openly politick and hide who their donors are (which is what the Repubs want). The AP/Fox scandal might result in some legislation that provides some protections to reporters, but passage of the media shield law the Dems want is unlikely. The Benghazi hearings might lead to better protections for our overseas diplomats, but I haven't actually heard any talk of restoring any of the cut funding.

Finally, in regards to the "little bit worse" worse than Iran-Contra issue of funding for the implementation of ObamaCare... the Repubs object to the use of funds from outside sources, but they won't approve any government funding (thus eliminating the need of the administration to rely on donors), because the goal here is to sabotage it (the implementation). My prediction here is that nothing will happen - the Repubs won't stop Sebelius nor will they restore funding.

In other words, the Repubs will fail utterly to make any of these faux scandals stick. Although I'm sure some of them know that, but will press ahead anyway due to the fact that regardless of the outcome they will achieve their primary objective of obstructing. And that, folks, is why this recovery has been so weak, and we get ignorant Keynesian-bashing comments such as the following...

Willis Hart: There have only been 2 sharp economic downturns in U.S. history that haven't been followed by a sharp economic recovery; the Great Depression under Hoover... and FDR and this current malaise under Bush and Obama. I would strongly argue that it (the fact that both were responded to via an interventionist government) is hardly a coincidence (5/5/2013).

No. I'd argue the problem is not enough intervention. With this idiotic statement Mr. Hart completely ignores the fact that the Republicans have been working hard to stymie a recovery via actual sabotage. That is the REAL intervention that is taking place here... intervention by the Republicans aimed at making the economy worse!

So what we have here, IMO, is far-Right propaganda coming from a individual who presents himself as "Moderate" and from a supposed "news" organization which some might mistake for unbiased straight reporting. But who really gives a crap what one deluded individual thinks (Willis Hart), or even one deluded individual with a small audience (Glenn Beck) thinks. I find it far more troubling that Yahoo News is lending it's legitimacy to this type of extremist nuttery. I've never seen a MSNBC story on Yahoo.

Also, don't forget that Beck was fired by Fox for, among other things, claiming that the president hates White people. Fox has more legitimacy IMO than Beck, and remember I made the case earlier that Fox traffics in Right-wing propaganda. The Blaze is loony-toon paranoid propaganda which should be shunned by all of us normals (both on the Left and on the Right).

Just as Dish Network adding The Blaze to its channel lineup was a very bad idea, so is Yahoo adding it to it's news feed a bad idea. Both these companies need to rethink these decisions. Glenn Beck may be able to make a buttload of money catering to far-Right nuts, but that doesn't mean anyone else should even acknowledge the existence of The Blaze. I'm not saying search engines should censor their results as I do not support censorship, but placing stories from The Blaze alongside stories from legitimate news sources (and thereby lending The Blaze credibility) is, I think, a little troubling.

SWTD #156

Benghazi Irrationality

The rational mind of man is a shallow thing, a shore upon a continent of the irrational, wherein thin colonies of reason have settled amid a savage world ~ Wilford O. Cross, a quote from Prologue to Ethics.

The following statement is from the self-proclaimed "Moderate" Mr. Willis V. Hart (whom I have covered on this blog previously) via the Libertarian rAtional nAtion website...

Willis Hart: This was all about the administration protecting Mr. Obama's narrative (right before the election, no less) that Al-Qaeda was on the run and all that crap... We were lied to... and I don't particularly like being lied to whether it's Dick Cheney or Obama. This was a bald-faced lie of a story line that they didn't pawn on us once or twice but dozens of times and for over 2 solid weeks. And it was absurd, a spontaneous eruption... (condensed from two of Mr. Hart's comments).

But it wasn't Obama who lied (or authored the talking points that contained the lie, at least), not according to the NYT's David Brooks, who, on the 5/12/2013 airing of "Meet the Press" shared his assessment of how the talking points were formulated (and by whom) in the aftermath of Benghazi...

David Brooks: My reading of the evidence is a very terrible event happened at a CIA facility, they went into intense blame-shifting mode, trying to shift responsibility onto the State department, onto anywhere else, and the state department pushed back. ... Out of that bureaucratic struggle, all the talking points were reduced to mush and then politics was inserted into it.

So, was it the Obama Administration who wanted to "protect their narrative" of "Al-Qaeda on the run" and therefore lied to us, or is David Brooks right about this "narrative" being constructed by the CIA in an attempt to cover their ass? And why did former Dick Cheney aid at State Victoria Nuland ask for the removal of references to Al-Qaeda and the CIA's warnings about the dangers to US diplomats in Libya? (more on that later).

Brook's take on Benghazi is interesting because Mr. Hart is a huge fan. On 8/29/2012 Willis composed a commentary titled "On David Brooks", in which he said...

Willis Hart: Liberals think that he's a conservative. Conservatives think that he's a liberal. Yeah, you better believe that I can identify with him.

Willis identifies with him because he thinks Brooks is a "Moderate" like him. Willis' "Moderate" position on Benghazi is that he does not like being lied to "whether it's Dick Cheney or Obama". But Willis' hero David Brooks doesn't think President Obama lied. So where does this leave Mr. Hart, I wonder? "Respectfully" disagreeing, I'd guess. Or (more likely) he'd argue what Brooks said does not indicate President Obama didn't lie.

Also, in regards to Brooks and Hart being fellow Moderates... Mr. Brooks, prior to his NYT gig, "worked as reporter and later op-ed editor for The Wall Street Journal [and] as senior editor at The Weekly Standard from its inception". The Weekly Standard "is an American neoConservative opinion magazine [whose] founding publisher [is] News Corporation [Rupert Murdoch/Fox Nooz]".

OK, got it. Willis identifies with David Brooks because he perceives him to be a Moderate like (he perceives) himself to be a Moderate. But David Brooks isn't a Moderate. Would a "Moderate" work at the neoConservative Weekly Standard? What's odd here is that the Hartster does not identify as neoConservative (he has spoken against the neoCons). While he was gung-ho in his support for bush's Afghanistan invasion, he says he did not support the occupation and nation-building in Afghanistan, or the invasion of Iraq.

But David Brooks is a neoCon (or leaned in that direction while employed by the Weekly Standard, and, since leaving that publication, soured on neoConservatism. I'm not sure.)...

Wikipedia: ...before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Brooks argued forcefully for American military intervention, echoing the belief of commentators and political figures that American and British forces would be welcomed as liberators. [However] In the spring of 2004, some of his opinion pieces suggested he had tempered his earlier optimism about the war. [Also] Brooks' public writing about the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is similar to those by neoConservatives, according to a Salon article by Glenn Greenwald, that labels Brooks as a neoConservative.

My conclusions are that [1] The Obama Administration may have been aware that the CIA/State talking points were not entirely accurate, but for political reasons decided to go with them until the investigation revealed otherwise. [2] It's Mr. Hart's "Moderation" that causes him to go with the Conservative talking points on this and label this "lying", and [3] Mr. Hart is not that Moderate. In fact, I think it is quite appropriate that he is a contributor over at the Libertarian rAtional nAtion blog.

Now, back to the former Dick Cheney aide who worked at State and asked "for the removal of references to Al-Qaeda and the CIA's warnings about the dangers to US diplomats in Libya". The State department spokesperson being referred to is Victoria Nuland, and regarding her "Republican party pedigree" Salon says...

Salon's Alex Seitz-Wald: Nuland is married to Washington Post columnist and neoConservative historian Robert Kagan, who helped sell the case for the Iraq War, advised both Mitt Romney and John McCain's presidential campaigns, and co-founded the Project for a New American Century think tank with Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol...

So she's a former Cheney aid with a Republican pedigree AND there is also a neoCon connection? Could this possibly be sabotage, in that Nuland purposefully corrupted the talking points so the Republicans could later claim a cover-up? I'm thinking probably no... but this is a rather odd coincidence, to say the least.

The Washington Post (the same paper Nuland's husband works for) says Nuland is the one who, "after reading the first draft of the State Department talking points that stated the incident was a coordinated terrorist attack", pushed for the revisions because she worried members of Congress [might] "beat the State Department for not paying attention to agency warnings". She asked, "why would we want to seed the Hill?".

Does this revelation take at least some of the wind out of the sails of those (like Hart) who are absolutely convinced this was an Obama administration conspiracy to lie to the American people in order to sustain their "narrative"? Or do the irrationals on Mr. Nation's blog have their own agenda? I think the following exchange suggests they do...

Jersey McJones: If there was some misinformation intentionally trotted out to the public... then there should be reasonable consequences. But this issue is not worth a snotty rag compared to the horror the last administration perpetrated while the cons sat silent. (5/13/2013 AT 01:42:00 AM EDT). rAtional nAtion: GWB was a poor President overall IMNHO and did more damage to conservatism than perhaps any prior conservative President. Having said this [Jersey McJones] seems to be stuck in time. But I suppose it is understandable. (5/13/2013 AT 09:20:00 PM EDT).

Yea, I understand why Irrational wants to sweep bush's war crimes and lies about WMD that were not found under the rug. If bush had been prosecuted (as he should have been) it would have been extremely damaging for the Republican brand. Not that Mr. Nation is ever going to get the Libertarian government he wants, but he surely does not want to see things swing in the other direction (toward the Democrats). He doesn't want Hillary (or some other Democrat) to win the presidency in 2016. Which is why he's on board with Willis in using Benghazi to damage Obama and Hillary.

Dictionary.com defines irrational as, [1] without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason; [2] without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment; [3] not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical", and that is how I view Mr. Hart's outrage over the president's supposed Benghazi "lies". It is very irrational to expect politicians to not act to protect themselves politically. Yet he has no outrage at all when it comes to the Republicans who are using this to ATTACK the Obama administration for political reasons.

It is the Republican lies for which there is FAR greater reason to be outraged, IMO. The truth came out in short order (the Benghazi attack was not a result of a spontaneous attack sparked by the "Innocence of Muslims" video). Obama still would have won the election. Also, nobody died because "the talking points were reduced to mush" (as David Brooks put it)... unlike when bush lied about WMD in Iraq. Mr. Hart isn't outraged about that at all. Quite the contrary, he has authored multiple posts defending bush lying about WMDs, which Willis says there is no evidence of!

When I said, "bush lied when he said we needed to invade Iraq to disarm it... even though all the evidence said Iraq was already disarmed", the Hartster's response was complete denial...

Willis Hart: You gave me no evidence that Bush KNEW that there weren't weapons of mass destruction and then lied to the American public... No testimony. No paper trail. Zero (7/10/2012).

There is "no evidence" bush lied about WMD? Sure. The Downing Street Memo isn't evidence. The Senate Intelligence Committee report that found the bush administration "deliberately misled the American public about Saddam's relationship with al Qaeda and led the nation to war on false premises"... that isn't evidence either.

NO outrage over bush's NARRATIVE that Iraq had WMD and needed to be disarmed, just willful ignorance... but plenty of outrage over Obama's "bald-faced lie"? Willis did mention Dick Cheney lying, but about what I don't know. I tried to comment on the Irrational blog but it appears as though the Irrational fellow won't be publishing my comment. Not that it would matter, because ever since Willis banned me from his blog he refuses to acknowledge any words from me on any site we may both happen to comment on.

SWTD #150, wDel #24.

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