Wingnut Wrapup- Special Benghazi Edition
Benghazi is over? Not likely. The Republicans cannot leave it at this point, with Hillary having stomped them into the ground and made them look like the dishonest demagogues they are, on national TV for eleven hours. They were reeling a bit after the end of the hearings, but they have to begin the task of rewriting history to blot out this colossal humiliation.
And remember something I have said before: the number of people who saw any part of these hearings, or any other political event, is very small compared to the number that will be told by the right wing media what happened. In the end, their constituency will jump at any chance to believe the worst about Hillary; obviously, without that being true, the Benghazi frenzy could have never existed at all.
So, on the day after the hearings, here's how things stand:
No they don't. They stopped doing that about two days after the attack, when they figured out that early reports were wrong. But that seems to be all the people at Red State could think of to blame Hillary for, so they are running with it.
Again, not one word about the eleven hours of partisan grilling that Hillary withstood; just one more misleading smear designed to trigger the Pavlovian responses of the wingnuts.
And, let's be clear about one thing: Hillary, learning lessons is not something Republicans do.
Finally, a lie that Hillary told! Trey Gowdy alone lost more sleep than Hillary, salivating about the chance to make himself a right wing hero by humiliating her in public.
The horror! Walking through the evidence! Surely the Democrats can count on the Republican majority to present the evidence in a non-partisan, even handed way, right? I mean, the Republicans are only after the truth- they told us so themselves.
And what were the three DAMNING ITEMS?
And? I guess the Republicans weren't interested in what really happened there, just in whatever they could manufacture to tar Hillary. Otherwise, maybe they would have brought that up. But no, Sidney Blumenthal was a far greater threat to the country than Al Qaeda.
Of course, that certainly was brought up, but dropped like a hot potato when Hillary started to talk about the $500 million that Congressional Republicans cut from the State Department's funds for embassy and consulate security.
They "plotted" to blame the video: i.e. for the first couple of days, they thought the video was a major factor, because that is what our intelligence agents believed. I.E. they "plotted" to tell the truth; a major crime to Republicans. And Jim's big conclusion:
After the Republicans' pathetic performance on their big day in the sun, they are lucky that she didn't dance out of the room in a tutu.
And this selection of random posts from Jim:
All of this "serial lying" revolves around the White House's initial understanding of what happened, and the famous anti-Muslim video. Three years, and that- a claim which has been totally discredited a thousand times- is all they came up with. Good work, guys. Now, how about giving our $4.7 million dollars back?
And as for you, Jim, isn't repeating a lie once enough? You have to devote four posts to it? I guess there's a reason they call you the Stupidest Man on the Internet.
And? What's your point?
Here's a little more from Jim Koury:
Joseph Goebbels. What else can you expect? If you've got nothing else, compare your enemies to Nazis. That's always a good strategy. And by the way, who could read the list of articles in this one post of mine and not see which party is marching in lockstep?
Bombshell. Again, this pathetic lie about the video is all they have. The facts behind its influence on the situation in Libya have been known for three years, and they do not support the right wing claims. But I guess you have to go to war with the bombshell you have, not the one you spent millions of dollars and the time of eight committees to find.
And this article from just before the hearings:
Whoops, Andy. I guess he didn't read your column. Because instead he focused on Sidney Blumenthal. How did that work out for him? Even your normally uncritical supporters in the mainstream press haven't been able to turn yesterday into anything but a rout.
And again. Three years, and this pathetic distortion is all they have. But it is enough for them.
Again. It is all they've got- a simple lie about what Obama and Hillary did. Just to add insult to injury, Patricia adds this:
"every Western intelligence agency agreed"... now there really is a lie worth talking about. And Bush's response to Saddam's having murdered thousands of Iraqis? Why, to murder hundreds of thousands of them, just to prove who is boss, I guess. Anyway, there is a shred of truth to what Patricia says: we don't blame George W. Bush; we blame Bush and Dick Cheney.
The same thing again. They are pinning their entire years long smear campaign on a long discredited claim about what was known in the first day after the attack, and claiming a Republican victory in the hearings for having brought it up.
And the most deluded comment of them all:
You just keep telling yourself that, buddy.
Enough. I could go on and on with this. Three years, countless millions of taxpayer dollars stolen, eight "investigations," and all they have found is that, in the first day after the attack, Hillary and Obama thought the anti-Muslim video played a larger part in inciting the Benghazi attack than it actually did; a misperception which they corrected within a couple of days, but is now being trumpeted as some massive, deliberate lie told for partisan purposes (which, of course, they have never been able to explain.) Certainly, anyone who has followed politics, or school shootings, or much of anything else in the news knows that, immediately after the event, our understanding of what happened is likely to be wrong. Obama and Hillary wasted no time in correcting their public statements about their understanding of the Benghazi attack. To adjust your statements in accord with known facts should be an act deserving of praise; but not to Republicans, whose chief virtue seems to rest in telling the same lies year after year; and this is just one more example.
I am confident that, in coming days and weeks, as Conservative shellshock from the drubbing they received in front of the nation wears off, we will hear even more disingenuous, far-fetched explanations of why Hillary deserves to be destroyed. But even if it stops here, their lies have significantly damaged the public's perception of her, so as disgusting as their behavior is, as Kevin McCarthy accidentally pointed out, it has accomplished their goal.
__________________________________________________________________________
Meanwhile, it is helpful to see the right wingers try to blow the death of a single U.S. soldier in a successful rescue of 70 hostages held by ISIS, into the next Benghazi:
A Soldier died! No praise for saving 70 people from certain death. No mention of the 5,000 soldiers that Bush and Cheney killed for nothing, or of Bush and Cheney having essentially created ISIS through their political and military incompetence. AND, the Pentagon calls it by a funny name instead of calling it "Operation Exterminate the Muslims" or something. That proves that Obama (and Hillary too, I am sure) are lying about something. Let's spend a few years trying to pin this one on them.
And remember something I have said before: the number of people who saw any part of these hearings, or any other political event, is very small compared to the number that will be told by the right wing media what happened. In the end, their constituency will jump at any chance to believe the worst about Hillary; obviously, without that being true, the Benghazi frenzy could have never existed at all.
So, on the day after the hearings, here's how things stand:
Caleb Howe, Red State: "Back To The Past: Dems Still Blame A Video For Benghazi"
No they don't. They stopped doing that about two days after the attack, when they figured out that early reports were wrong. But that seems to be all the people at Red State could think of to blame Hillary for, so they are running with it.
Bridget Johnson, PJ Media: "Hillary to Benghazi Committee: You Need to Learn ‘Lesson’ of the YouTube Video"
Again, not one word about the eleven hours of partisan grilling that Hillary withstood; just one more misleading smear designed to trigger the Pavlovian responses of the wingnuts.
And, let's be clear about one thing: Hillary, learning lessons is not something Republicans do.
Bridget Johnson, PJ Media: "Clinton to Benghazi Committee: ‘I’ve Lost More Sleep Than All of You Put Together’
Finally, a lie that Hillary told! Trey Gowdy alone lost more sleep than Hillary, salivating about the chance to make himself a right wing hero by humiliating her in public.
Debra Heine, PJ Media: "How Democrats Are Politicizing the Benghazi Investigation...Democrats plan to "walk through evidence that is favorable to Clinton"
The horror! Walking through the evidence! Surely the Democrats can count on the Republican majority to present the evidence in a non-partisan, even handed way, right? I mean, the Republicans are only after the truth- they told us so themselves.
Jim Hoft (of course,) Gateway Pundit: "PATHETIC GOP Forgot to Ask Hillary About These Three DAMNING ITEMS on Benghazi"
And what were the three DAMNING ITEMS?
"1.) Al-Qaeda presence in Benghazi was undeniable."
And? I guess the Republicans weren't interested in what really happened there, just in whatever they could manufacture to tar Hillary. Otherwise, maybe they would have brought that up. But no, Sidney Blumenthal was a far greater threat to the country than Al Qaeda.
"2.) Ambassador Stevens’s final journal entry on the September 11, 2012, was a request for more security."
Of course, that certainly was brought up, but dropped like a hot potato when Hillary started to talk about the $500 million that Congressional Republicans cut from the State Department's funds for embassy and consulate security.
"3.) There is email evidence first reported at Judicial Watch that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton plotted to blame the Benghazi terrorist attack on the “God versus Allah” video by Pastor Jon Courson before they settled on the “Innocence of Muslims” YouTube video."
They "plotted" to blame the video: i.e. for the first couple of days, they thought the video was a major factor, because that is what our intelligence agents believed. I.E. they "plotted" to tell the truth; a major crime to Republicans. And Jim's big conclusion:
"Republicans forgot to ask these questions on Thursday. And Hillary walks."
After the Republicans' pathetic performance on their big day in the sun, they are lucky that she didn't dance out of the room in a tutu.
And this selection of random posts from Jim:
"CONFIRMED: Hillary Clinton Repeatedly Lied Under Oath During Benghazi Committee Hearing"
"Rudy Giuliani on Hillary’s Benghazi Testimony: This Seals the Case “She’s Lying”
"Benghazi Victim’s Uncle: “Hillary Clinton Is a Serial Liar” – Should Resign from Running for Office"
"SMOKING GUN! FOX Analyst Reports on Bombshell Benghazi Evidence That Sinks Hillary Clinton"
All of this "serial lying" revolves around the White House's initial understanding of what happened, and the famous anti-Muslim video. Three years, and that- a claim which has been totally discredited a thousand times- is all they came up with. Good work, guys. Now, how about giving our $4.7 million dollars back?
And as for you, Jim, isn't repeating a lie once enough? You have to devote four posts to it? I guess there's a reason they call you the Stupidest Man on the Internet.
Jim Kouri, Renew America: "Clinton and news media treat Trey Gowdy like a 'bimbo eruption'
And? What's your point?
Here's a little more from Jim Koury:
"Unfortunately, thanks to Democratic Party's lock-stepped stonewalling and media-generated tactics, Gowdy and his panel have been attacked and their efforts to getting to the truth labeled a witch hunt by some reporters and pundits...Hillary Clinton is benefiting from an in-house propagenda machine coupled with a news media that would greatly impress Reich Minister Joseph Goebbels..."
Joseph Goebbels. What else can you expect? If you've got nothing else, compare your enemies to Nazis. That's always a good strategy. And by the way, who could read the list of articles in this one post of mine and not see which party is marching in lockstep?
Brendan Bordelon, National Review: "Benghazi Committee Bombshell: Clinton Knew ‘Attack Had Nothing to Do with the Film’
Bombshell. Again, this pathetic lie about the video is all they have. The facts behind its influence on the situation in Libya have been known for three years, and they do not support the right wing claims. But I guess you have to go to war with the bombshell you have, not the one you spent millions of dollars and the time of eight committees to find.
And this article from just before the hearings:
Andrew McCarthy, National Review: "Hillary Clinton has done Trey Gowdy an enormous favor. In anticipation of her testimony on Thursday before the Benghazi select committee he chairs, and with a lot of Republican help, she has framed the committee as a partisan political witch-hunt obsessed with dashing her presidential ambitions. To regain credibility, all Gowdy needs to do is demonstrate that it is not. Meaning: all Gowdy needs to do is focus on why the United States had its officials stationed in Benghazi, one of the world’s most dangerous places for Americans."
Whoops, Andy. I guess he didn't read your column. Because instead he focused on Sidney Blumenthal. How did that work out for him? Even your normally uncritical supporters in the mainstream press haven't been able to turn yesterday into anything but a rout.
Daniel John Sobieski, American Thinker: "Hillary and the Video Lie"
And again. Three years, and this pathetic distortion is all they have. But it is enough for them.
Patricia McCarthy, American Thinker: "Ambassador Stevens is Dead, Hillary is Alive, and the Truth is on the Run...We are supposed to believe that the Benghazi hearings are a partisan exercise to bring down Hillary Clinton. A State Department outpost for which she was responsible was violently attacked by terrorists. It was a planned attack. She knew that immediately but lied to the public and even dithered about which YouTube video to blame."
Again. It is all they've got- a simple lie about what Obama and Hillary did. Just to add insult to injury, Patricia adds this:
"To this day the Left continues to besmirch George W. Bush for his invasion of Iraq even though every Western intelligence agency agreed that Saddam indeed did have weapons of mass destruction and was likely to use them...And he was a genocidal maniac who had murdered thousands..."
"every Western intelligence agency agreed"... now there really is a lie worth talking about. And Bush's response to Saddam's having murdered thousands of Iraqis? Why, to murder hundreds of thousands of them, just to prove who is boss, I guess. Anyway, there is a shred of truth to what Patricia says: we don't blame George W. Bush; we blame Bush and Dick Cheney.
"John Nolte, Breitbard: "Timeline: Gowdy Committee Verifies Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi Coverup"
The same thing again. They are pinning their entire years long smear campaign on a long discredited claim about what was known in the first day after the attack, and claiming a Republican victory in the hearings for having brought it up.
And the most deluded comment of them all:
Thomas Lifson, American Thinker: "Both sides can claim triumph on Hillary's Benghazi testimony"
You just keep telling yourself that, buddy.
Enough. I could go on and on with this. Three years, countless millions of taxpayer dollars stolen, eight "investigations," and all they have found is that, in the first day after the attack, Hillary and Obama thought the anti-Muslim video played a larger part in inciting the Benghazi attack than it actually did; a misperception which they corrected within a couple of days, but is now being trumpeted as some massive, deliberate lie told for partisan purposes (which, of course, they have never been able to explain.) Certainly, anyone who has followed politics, or school shootings, or much of anything else in the news knows that, immediately after the event, our understanding of what happened is likely to be wrong. Obama and Hillary wasted no time in correcting their public statements about their understanding of the Benghazi attack. To adjust your statements in accord with known facts should be an act deserving of praise; but not to Republicans, whose chief virtue seems to rest in telling the same lies year after year; and this is just one more example.
I am confident that, in coming days and weeks, as Conservative shellshock from the drubbing they received in front of the nation wears off, we will hear even more disingenuous, far-fetched explanations of why Hillary deserves to be destroyed. But even if it stops here, their lies have significantly damaged the public's perception of her, so as disgusting as their behavior is, as Kevin McCarthy accidentally pointed out, it has accomplished their goal.
__________________________________________________________________________
Meanwhile, it is helpful to see the right wingers try to blow the death of a single U.S. soldier in a successful rescue of 70 hostages held by ISIS, into the next Benghazi:
Cortney O'Brien, Town Hall: "US Soldier Killed in Iraq Hostage Raid, Pentagon Calls it an 'Advise-and-assist Mission'
A Soldier died! No praise for saving 70 people from certain death. No mention of the 5,000 soldiers that Bush and Cheney killed for nothing, or of Bush and Cheney having essentially created ISIS through their political and military incompetence. AND, the Pentagon calls it by a funny name instead of calling it "Operation Exterminate the Muslims" or something. That proves that Obama (and Hillary too, I am sure) are lying about something. Let's spend a few years trying to pin this one on them.
Comments
They're even luckier they weren't arrested and frogmarched out of the room for impersonating legitimate congressional representatives.