I understand there are readers here who, by now, think I’m a hyper-partisan neurotic writer wanna-be prima donna asshole. Hi, thanks for reading. Partisan and the other stuff, yeah maybe. Hyper? Probably not. And imo I’m moderately partisan for a good reason; we have a party deeply compromised by big money that fucks over their base from time to time causing everything from short term disgust to permanent nausea, and then there’s a bug fuck crazy party composed of scads of lunatics and — not sure if this is worse or better — sociopathic grifters shamelessly peddling mind numbing, bug fuck crazy destructive nonsense for a shred of profit of any kind. It’s an easy choice at the ballot box.
Maybe that does color my perception. I’m intellectually honest enough to recognize the possibility. Then something like right-wing Benghazi-hysteria rears its ugly head on a regular basis and reminds me that, no, I’m right and they really are shameless destructive sociopaths:
Daily Kos — So while Rove’s video claims that Hicks was informing Clinton that that al Qaeda was behind the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans, the reality is that neither Hicks nor Clinton yet knew that Stevens was dead. Instead, they were trying to find him—and protect other American personnel.
As you might guess, Rove’s first distortion was designed to establish the basis for a second distortion: The claim that Clinton personally blamed Benghazi on an internet video despite knowing that it was actually the work of religious extremists. Follow the below fold to continue exploring Rove’s attempted sleight-of-hand.
The Hill — “Of all the great cover-ups in history — the Pentagon papers, Iran-Contra, Watergate, all the rest of them — this … is going to go down as most egregious cover-up in American history,” Inhofe said.
When Humphries suggested that the Democratic-controlled Senate would not impeach the president, Inhofe said that was true. He said that Benghazi would “endure” and impeachment could come after the 2014 midterm elections, when Republicans hope to retake control of the upper chamber.
Republicans have accused the Obama administration of changing the “talking points” about last year’s attack in Benghazi for political gain in the heat of the 2012 presidential election.
OK, first of all, if you want people like me to take this seriously, if you want it objectively thought thru outside of the Fox News/Moonie Times/Rush Limbaugh axis of evil, Karl Rove is not the person you want talking to persons like me. He and a whole skadoodle of his like-minded pals have been utterly discredited, time and time again, and that’s saying it politely. He is the last one among the dozen top finishers for last ones you want.
The greatest cover up in American history? R-r-r-really W-w-w-ilber? Even when I step back from the brink and try to roll this around in my brain like a morsel on the tongue, clinically, checking for any taste of fact, it comes up blander than unflavored gum. At the worst, a President in an election year may have put some minor spin, within hours of a tragic, confusing event before releasing better info, i.e., changing the talking points, over the next few days? That’s the worst case scenario, it’s debatable if that much even happened, and excuse the sarcasm … that’s the greatest cover up ever?!? Or the many examples of mythology that has grown around it, like the President wasn’t quick enough to call it an act of terror?
Let’s go to the tape and see how well that strategy worked out the last time it was presented in an objective format where facts count.
On people like Karl Rove as the messenger (Or Inhofe for that matter): the guys and gals who won elections based on scaring us shitless to disastrous effect, who rammed neocon policy after neocon policy down our throats to disastrous effect, who stacked regulatory orgs with lobbyists to disastrous effect, who clearly and intentionally hyped a traumatic, terrifying terrorist incident and used it to stampede an already tweaked out panicked nation into a pointless bloody, unending trillion-dollar war to disastrous effect, those same guys are bitching about anything? Let alone about politicizing terrorism for electoral or legislative, policy purpose?
There is no sarcasm up to the task.
There are plenty of ways to get me pissed off at Obama. You could talk about drones and Afghanistan, or GITMO, or the drug war, or social security chained CPI, etc. But you’ll never get me to vote for your guy on any of those, you are so far out in the wingnut weeds on every single one of them that the light from Obama would take a million years to reach your perch.
Conservatives, I tell you this from the bottom of my heart, for Benghazi to take off in the non wingnut universe, the way you seem to want it to, you must have an actual deplorable, documented disgusting conspiracy/ideology that crashes and burns hotter than the Hindenburg to even come close to out doing your own recent record. There has to be some there there; in fact it now has to be even worse because you’ve built it up so much anything truthful and significant would get lost in a morass of arm-waving fictional noise at this point. Like someone claiming aliens probed them in bed last night.
It’s just pitiful.