Let’s get to the point

Every scandal the right manufactures has something simple at its core: a stained blue dress, a long-form birth certificate, a Budhist temple. What is with Benghazi? I haven’t figure it out yet.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit






166 replies
  1. 1
    MattF says:

    Hillary Clinton.

  2. 2

    Benghazi is the villain in Star Trek II.

  3. 3
    Lawrence says:

    Apparently they think they can score with “Who changed the talking points, and when were they changed?” And they wonder why they can barely get their base to care about it.

  4. 4
    22over7 says:

    MattF is right, this is about Hillary Clinton. But also too, I think lots of republican pols are still embarrassed as fuck about the way Romney handled the thing when it happened, and are trying as hard as they can to find some reason to believe that he was justified in his dumbass statements that day.

    The question is, can they drum up enough outrage beyond the 27%, and can they keep it going for another three years?

  5. 5
    Xenos says:

    Nothing. They just love their dead, gay, ambassador.

  6. 6
    srv says:

    Hillary is setting him up.

  7. 7
    Tonal Crow says:

    What is the Republican theme? That Obama hates America, so he cut security staffing, then covered it up so Mitt Romney wouldn’t win.

    Do you have writer’s block today or what?

  8. 8
    Xantar says:

    Blah people

  9. 9
    GrammyPat says:

    What MattF says: Word

    It’s a preemptive strike on the presumptive 2016 Dem frontrunner

  10. 10
    jl says:

    We might lose in 2016!

    Edit: Or, We are skeered of 2016!

  11. 11
    gocart mozart says:

    @Lawrence:

    “Who changed the talking points, and when were they changed?”

    Bill Ayers

  12. 12
    matt says:

    The simple thing at the core of Benghazi is the story that the black guy in the white house slacked off and got people killed.

  13. 13
    Tonal Crow says:

    @gocart mozart: Obama himself. Before he was not-born, by influencing his father through his dreams.

  14. 14
    El Cid says:

    The black bowing Muslim-named Jihad-friendly foreign-born Barry Husssseeeeinnnn Obama was laughing while that cold bitch Hillary Clinton (that man-hating feminist who so far wasn’t able to have the UN invade the USA and take all our guns and make us all gay) finally could let Americans get killed by their foreign Muslim terrorist friends, because they hate America and Americans so much.

    It is their mental image of that.

    That’s exactly what it is. It’s what the freakerati think and it’s what the freak-herders push.

  15. 15
    Suffern ACE says:

    As far as I can tell, the administration attempted to cover up CIA activities within Libya by blaming the attack on a demonstration related to the Mohammed Video created by our “godbothering sharia law is a coming if we don’t stop it” nuts. Now, there were riots in Pakistan and Egypt because of that video, but really the ones in Libya were about something else that we’re not going to talk about because its classified. We won’t much get to the something else, but the right initially was pissed that there might be consequences involved when one pillories the prophet in a movie and since nothing is ever their fault, it must be Obama. Or something.

  16. 16
    dmsilev says:

    They apparently think that changing the talking points used by the administration on shows that barely anyone watches anyway is Worse Than Watergate(tm).

    At the rate the GOP is devolving, by the time 2016 rolls around their talking points will be to stand around and occasionally grunt “Hillary Bad”.

  17. 17
    beltane says:

    @22over7: The low-info Republicans my husband works with rant and rave about a lot of things, mostly guns and immigrants, but Benghazi is not one of them. I guess it lacks the deep emotional resonance of a semen stained blue dress.

  18. 18
    Roger Moore says:

    What is with Benghazi?

    It sounds cool when you repeat it. That, and it’s the closest thing to an actual scandal they can find. I blame Obama for failing to provide enough real scandals for them to focus on.

  19. 19
    raven says:

    Two d’s in Buddhist.

  20. 20
    EconWatcher says:

    I asked this very question of my brother, who used to be an apolitical guy who just wanted the government to keep its hands out of his pockets, but now has turned into a full-bore wingnut, thanks to Fox News.

    His answer: Obama’s people tried to cover up that it was a terrorist attack, rather than a random mob attack, because a terrorist attack on his watch might have cost him the election.

    I said, isn’t there usually a rally-around-the-flag reaction to terrorist attacks, that actually helps the President? Wasn’t George Bush at his highest popularity right after 9-11? How does this theory of motive make sense? My brother then changed the subject.

  21. 21
    patroclus says:

    The core is the 4 dead Americans; especially including Chris Stevens, who is clearly heroic. The problem for the Republicans is that there isn’t anything scandalous about what happened – it was a terrorist attack on a lightly defended consulate. So they’ve ginned up the scandal; initially targeting Susan Rice, but now aiming for Hillary Clinton as a pre-emptive political strike (like others have said). So, while it was legitimate to inquire into what happened, it’s been taken to ridiculous levels with the allegations of scandal.

  22. 22

    I was going to say “Hillary Clinton”.

    I’m not convinced there’s a whole ton of strategery behind this, though. There was an attack under murky circumstances, we didn’t get everything right right away, so, everyone scream real loud.

    David Bernstein at the Phoenix noted during the campaign last year that the structure of the right-wing infotainment complex necessitates a stream of outrage:

    [Movement-conservative marketplace outlets] have all day to fill up with radio gab and blog posts and twitter banter and so on. It’s actually not that easy to keep the audience hooked hour after hour. To keep it fresh and have people tuning in and calling and tweeting back, they constantly need things to be outraged about. And the truth is, campaigns tend to be a lot of the same thing over and over most of the time; fresh new outrages don’t always track to the lifespan of the last outrage. …

    So that’s a big part of the reason why, for example, the Romney campaign (presumably) dropped an old Obama “I believe in distribution” clip on Drudge the other day — not because it’s useful to the overall goals of the campaign, but because they needed to give the movement-conservative marketplace something to focus their outrage on, before they either start losing interest in hating Obama, or start talking really, really, crazy batwankery.

  23. 23
    the Conster says:

    My sister’s wingnut friends in Florida say Obama killed 4 people. Because they’re both well on the way to being demented she thinks they think he did it with his bare hands, but I think the real shorter that they’ve misinterpreted from Fox is he watched them die in real time with his feet up on the desk. Why? Because that’s what secret Muslims do. Duh.

  24. 24
    Johnny Coelacanth says:

    I thought the crux of the matter was “At first they said it wasn’t a terrorist attack but it totally was.” See, Obama tried to cover up a terrorist attack during an election because it would have been bad for his poll numbers, and we all know how the electorate punishes presidents who let terrorist attacks happen on their watch…

    ETA: EconoWatcher beat me to it.

  25. 25
    Sad_Dem says:

    “Benghazi” and “Whitewater” are words that belong in the kind of novel you’d buy in an airport.

  26. 26
    22over7 says:

    @beltane:

    I meant the politicians and hangers-on who had to deal with Romney’s performance, not the rank-and-filers. But give your husband my deepest, heartfelt sympathy.

  27. 27
    flukebucket says:

    @MattF:

    Agree completely. It is a pre-emptive strike at Hillary. Even Rush said the other day that Benghazi effectively ends her chances of winning the White House. And as far as the 27% is concerned it does. The other 73% do not give one fuck about it.

  28. 28
    Suffern ACE says:

    Yep. What I’ve learned is that an administration that using talking points with the press is up to no good and its unprecedented whatever it is. That kind of preparation by administration officials before an interview is unheard of. Until 2012, all press interviews were completely spontaneous.

  29. 29
    Turgidson says:

    I think the main goal is to smear Hillary, and the overriding hope is that if they keep digging and yelling and kicking sand in the air for long enough, they’ll discover something they can impeach Obama with. Which I think they’re planning to do regardless of what they actually find.

  30. 30
    priscianus jr says:

    “What is with Benghazi? I haven’t figure it out yet.”

    They haven’t either. That’s why they must get to the bottom of it, if it’s the last thing they do. Kind of like Whitewater, except way more serious.

  31. 31
    FlipYrWhig says:

    I think it’s all just a way to attempt to negate the success of finding and killing bin Laden. If BENGHAZI!1eleven can stick, they can go back to saying that when Democrats are president Muslims will probably kill you. If they can re-convince everyone that Democrats are politically correct wussies who don’t take Islamofascism seriously, maybe they’ll have something to run on besides guns, babies, babies with guns and slutty slutty slut-sluts.

  32. 32
    Chris says:

    @Johnny Coelacanth:

    To be fair, the rally around the flag effect would never have happened with a Democrat in office – certainly not to the same extent. If 9/11 had happened on a Democrat’s watch (especially with that “Bin Laden Determined To Strike” memo), it would’ve been a miracle if the president hadn’t been successfully impeached.

  33. 33
    beltane says:

    The thing is, people have become accustomed to Americans dying in the Middle East. It is a seemingly daily occurrence. Being that we have been conditioned, post-Iraq, to accept Americans dying in the Middle East as an almost routine event, it is hard to see what makes this so special.

    This is a vrey esoteric witch-hunt by GOP standards.

  34. 34
    BGinCHI says:

    It has something to do with Ben Gazzara, but I haven’t worked out what it is yet.

    It might be related to what he writes on the notepad in The Big Lebowski.

  35. 35
    catclub says:

    @Sad_Dem: ““Benghazi” and “Whitewater” are words that belong in the kind of novel you’d buy in an airport.”

    Although Bongwater and White nazis appear in some of the other ones on the shelf. Telling which are serious and which are farce is the hard part.

  36. 36
    Kman says:

    His answer: Obama’s people tried to cover up that it was a terrorist attack, rather than a random mob attack, because a terrorist attack on his watch might have cost him the election.

    That’s what I understand it to be about (for the wingnuts), too.

    Although, I’m forced to ask: why can’t a “random mob attack” also be a “terrorist attack”? Is there some pre-determined amount of pre-planning that gets done before we use the T-word?

    Giving the GOP the benefit of the doubt that this isn’t just craven politics, the BEST argument they have for an actual scandal turns out to be nothing more than semantics.

  37. 37
    FlipYrWhig says:

    Here’s a great piece from Bob Cesca about similar deadly attacks under Bush: 13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush’s Watch Without a Peep from Fox News.

  38. 38
    TAPX486 says:

    @Sad_Dem: Many of the same crowd from Whitewater are back with Benghazi.

    If they can’t get Hillary maybe they can drum up an impeachment. Huckleberry seems to hope so.

    Same old wine in the same old bottles.

  39. 39
    jl says:

    Anger and outrage and feigned sincere concern is getting old for the GOP. They should go for pity. Harding’s complaint would come in handy. “One man comes in and says one thing, another man comes in and says something else. I don’t know who to believe!”

    Edit: And hold their heads in their hands, and cry. I forgot those parts. Poor Harding.

    They need to leave out the “Oh Gawd I hate this job” part, though. Since they don’t, and it won’t work. More funner to play master thespian Intrepid Congressional Muckraker than do any work.

  40. 40
    Alex S. says:

    The serious answer is that they want to inoculate their base against potential sympathies for Hillary. After all, she was, for a short time, the great white hope of the suppressed white barely-middle class against the Obama juggernaut. So in three years, when these white voters have to decide between Hillary and some pale republican challenger, they just need to hear BENGHAZI and they know what to do.
    On the other hand, maybe Benghazi is just their new religion. The first law is: Benghazi proved that Obama failed. The second law: Why did he fail? Well, because BENGHAZI. There is no reason, it just requires faith. If you BENGHAZI, you are one of the 27%.

    Edit: There might be a third angle: It’s a manufactured scandal to undermine the concept of liberal interventionism (as opposed to neo-conservative foreign policy).

  41. 41
    catclub says:

    @Chris: Well never is a long time. Obama does get more popular as consoler in chief, after Newtown, Aurora and Boston, but I admit the press is not fawning as much as they might be.

  42. 42
    gene108 says:

    What is with Benghazi?

    4 people died! Worse than Watergate!

    Simple enough rallying cry, if you don’t stop to think about it.

  43. 43
    Trollhattan says:

    ALL four killed in Syria were named Vince Foster. You could look it up.

  44. 44
    Hoodie says:

    What is with Benghazi?

    I think they want to build it up like a USS Cole, evidence that Obama and Clinton didn’t take terrorism seriously enough. I guess that means they’re hoping for another 9/11, so they can relive the glory days of GWB. Sick fucks.

  45. 45
    Howie S says:

    It is two fold.

    1) One it’s that Obama Cheated in the 2008 election by not allowing the “facts” to be known by the public. Had the public known the “facts,” they would have defeated the Kenyan Strongman at the polls. The Wingers are mad.

    2) Next it is about Hillary in 2016. The Wingers are desperate.

  46. 46
    Supernumerary Charioteer says:

    The only simple thing I can think of is that both the establishment and the jingoist part of the base are trying, desperately, to get the Muscular Foreign Policy Daddy Party crown back, and are attempting to use any hint of a failure on Obama’s part to do it.

    It’s not sticking because it’s pretty plain that the situation’s not simple, and it’s been drilled into our heads over the last twelve years that North Africa/West Asia is a place where no amount of planning is going to prevent bad things from happening.

    The effort that they’re spending is out of proportion to the rewards that they’re getting out of it, but the compulsions of the base and the short-term calculations of the establishment are preventing them from making the obvious move.

  47. 47
    Trollhattan says:

    Pierce catches the Dark Lord saying the following:

    ‘They should have been ready before anything ever happened,’ Cheney told MailOnline exclusively during a party in Georgetown celebrating the launch of a new book by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld…’When we were there, on our watch, we were always ready on 9/11, on the anniversary,’ he recalled.

    http://www.esquire.com/blogs/p.....azi-050813

  48. 48

    @Hoodie:

    Clinton didn’t take terrorism seriously enough.

    Anyone seriously making that argument needs to concede Bush took terrorism less seriously than Clinton (if they are honest).

  49. 49
    EconWatcher says:

    @Chris:

    Ah, yes, but you’re talking reality. We’re trying to understand wingnut motives, so you have to put your wingnut thinking cap on, in which the Dem, not the Republican, always gets a break from the press.

    So if you point out that Bush benefited from “rally around the flag” phenomenon, so Obama would have too–that’ll stump them.

  50. 50
    Alex S. says:

    @Trollhattan:

    They knew 9/11 was a terrorist attack before it happened! And Cheney was SO ready to hide in an undisclosed location.

  51. 51
  52. 52
    catclub says:

    @Trollhattan: “ALL four killed in Syria were named Vince Foster. You could look it up.”

    Not Syria, Liberia. Get your facts straight.

  53. 53
    beltane says:

    @Trollhattan: Wow, it sounds like Cheney is claiming responsibility for 9/11. Somewhere in Dagestan Mrs. Tsarnaev is shrieking “I told you so.”

  54. 54
    raven says:

    @catclub: Slyberia and the Familt Stone.

  55. 55
    Pokeyblow says:

    @Xantar: I agree. Obama’s skin is reason enough.

  56. 56
    priscianus jr says:

    @22over7: I think lots of republican pols are still embarrassed as fuck about the way Romney handled the thing when it happened, and are trying as hard as they can to find some reason to believe that he was justified in his dumbass statements that day.

    No, I believe you’ve got it backwards. First of all, Republicans are never embarrassed.

    Second of all, they don’t look for reasons. They already have the reasons and then seize on any events that supposedly show those reasons to be true. And I emphasize the word “supposedly”.

    And third of all, the reason Romney handled the thing that way when it happened is because his constituency were already there. He was just throwing red meat to the Tea Party masses.

    Ergo, they are not trying to find some reason to believe Romney was right that day. They had the reason, and they still have it. And it has nothing essentially to do with Romney. The wingnuts supported the idea of “l’affaire Benghazi” then and they support it no less now, because they have always supported it.

    In a sense, they supported it before it even happened, because they have long been convinced that Obama has a radical Muslim ideology and is both evil and incompetent.

  57. 57
    Alex S. says:

    @catclub:

    Liberia? The George W. Bush Liberia?

  58. 58
    Snarla says:

    As I understand it, Barry Hussein Obama Bin Laden would have called it by its proper name, terrorism, if he weren’t in on it because he is, like the attackers were, Muslim. And as everyone knows, all Muslims are trying to kill Americans at all times.

  59. 59
    p.a. says:

    Frontrunner? She will be 69 by election day 2016.

  60. 60
    Trollhattan says:

    @Alex S.:

    Yup, he used the Force to keep his own arse safe, SAFE I tell you. I’ll bet Richard Clarke would do anything for just one hunting trip with ol’ Dick.

    Have always imagined Al Hague wandering his kitchen on 9/11 muttering, “As of now, I am in control here.”

  61. 61
    Mike says:

    @EconWatcher: You’re exactly right. The public would have rallied to the Prez if they thought it was another terrorist attack. And then the Reps would be talking about how Obama played politics with a terrorist attack to win.

    Reason can’t win.

  62. 62
    catclub says:

    @FlipYrWhig: yeah, but none of them happened on Sep 11, so there.

  63. 63
    askew says:

    At this point, I really think the House may impeach Obama over this. I had thought this was just going to fade away like the other non-scandals of the Obama administration that the GOP has tried to capitalize on, but I guess they feel they can milk Benghazi for more.

  64. 64
    Jay C says:

    @dmsilev:

    At the rate the GOP is devolving, by the time 2016 rolls around their talking points will be to stand around and occasionally grunt “Hillary Bad”.

    Assuming Mrs. Clinton is indeed the nominee in 2016, the Republican campaign is likely to be only a marginally-more-sophisticated version of this anyway, so what else is new…?

  65. 65
    Trollhattan says:

    @catclub:

    Heh.

  66. 66
    GregB says:

    So apparently getting killed while fighting them over there instead of over here no longer has currency among the GOP shitheel caucus.

  67. 67
    David says:

    The backwards “B” Ashley Todd scratched into her face was really for “Benghazi.”

  68. 68
    Roger Moore says:

    @Certified Mutant Enemy:

    Anyone seriously making that argument needs to concede Bush took terrorism less seriously than Clinton (if they are honest).

    I think I see the problem with this line of analysis. Hint: it’s hiding in parentheses.

  69. 69

    What is with Benghazi? I haven’t figure it out yet.

    DOUG!! Fucking ay man. It’s about taking Hillary Clinton out of the picture before 2016. Jesus effin Christ I can’t believe you haven’t seen it yet.

    It’s so fucking obvious. Everything always has a political motivation with these jackwads. They can’t win the White House without hanging “ZOMG we’re all gonna DIE” around Hillary’s neck.

    It’s the same crap they do every single fucking time there’s a presidential election. Fear fear fear. We’re gonna die, liberals are weak on defense, soft on terra, etc. etc.

    Jesus. Wake up and smell the ratfucking, people.

  70. 70
    22over7 says:

    @priscianus jr:

    Ok, fair enough. Republicans have become immune to embarrassment, facts, public opinion that doesn’t agree with what the voices in Louie Gohmert’s head said today, and any kind of common sense.

    My cynicism is always trying to catch up…

  71. 71
    catclub says:

    @David: I thought it was a backwards O.

  72. 72
    Kay says:

    @Trollhattan:

    during a party in Georgetown celebrating the launch of a new book by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

    That’s the best part.

  73. 73
    Birthmarker says:

    I think they are angling now for the midterm elections.

  74. 74
    feebog says:

    From all accounts, this morning’s hearing produced a whole lotta nada. At this rate, Darrell Issa is going to have to back to his day job.

  75. 75
    jimmiraybob says:

    What is with Benghazi?

    I would refer you to the War of The 1960s. See especially, The Battle of Summer of Love, sometimes simply referred to as ’67. The toll on the John Birch psyche was devastating – shredded and smoldering souls as far as the eye could see.

  76. 76
    belieber says:

    The answer there your post Doug of the BJ Doug. Because you keep pointing and asking why they keep talking about it then proceed to talk about it.

    You are part of the problem. Something you and all the other posters here at BJ seem utterly incapable of understanding.

  77. 77
    Roy G. says:

    There are regularly scheduled flights from Mena, Arkansas to Benghazi. Ron Brown flew there regularly. You don’t know this? Blame the lamestream media!

  78. 78
    Roy G. says:

    There are regularly scheduled flights from Mena, Arkansas to Benghazi. Ron Brown flew there regularly. You don’t know this? Blame the lamestream media!

  79. 79
    Birthmarker says:

    The House impeaches (brings charges) and the Senate tries and removes or doesn’t remove from office.

    There wouldn’t be a chance of removal unless the midterms go really badly.

  80. 80
    Roger Moore says:

    @EconWatcher:

    so you have to put your wingnut thinking cap on

    Funny how the wingnut thinking cap is conical…

  81. 81
    Turgidson says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    That’s the thing. Not to minimize that Benghazi was a tragedy, but…American embassies get attacked somewhat regularly. I think the non-wingnut population more or less understands that – it’s regrettable and if mistakes made can be identified and fixed, they should be. But it’s not Pearl Harbor. It’s a risk we have to run when we have diplomatic outposts in unstable areas of the world.

    I think, for neocon fake tough guys like Huckleberry Graham, they had to sit through almost the entire Obama first term with nothing of any consequence whatsoever they could sustain a coherent attack on him for in the foreign policy arena other than “why hasn’t he bombed Iran yet?” which just made them look like blood-gargling psychopaths.

    And they had to sit there and pretend to be happy when THAT ONE got Osama after their hero C+ Augustus spent almost his entire presidency chasing his figurative tail and fucking everything up in the Middle East.

    Then Benghazi happened. And they can’t help themselves – the four years’ worth of “Obama/Dems are soft on terror, can’t be trusted, want terrorists to win” they’d been bottling up had to come out. Despite Benghazi being an unfortunate but reasonably common event in recent US/Mideast foreign policy.

    And for Issa, well, he’s a real asshole. As soon as the Teabaggers took the House in 2010, it was a fait accompli that he’d drum up some sort of impeachment circus. This is as good as any for him, I suppose.

  82. 82
    Hoodie says:

    @Southern Beale: That goes without saying. I think Doug was commenting more on the fact that Benghazi doesn’t have much in the way of sex appeal. Maybe they’re having this flurry of activity now so that Fox can pull out the tapes from the archive, doctor them to rewrite history and try to sell that as unfinished business in 2016. Hell, they might try to weave it into some down the rabbit hole narrative about Benghazi -> Boston Marathon bombing, “OMG, Obama and Clinton are not keeping America Safe!” You have to realize their target audience comprises morons, racists and misogynists, and that they have no scruples. It also gives them something to waste time on so they won’t have to do anything on, say, unemployment.

  83. 83
    Roger Moore says:

    @feebog:

    At this rate, Darrell Issa is going to have to back to his day job.

    Would you be talking about arson, or grand theft auto?

  84. 84
    The Other Chuck says:

    Blackness.

  85. 85
    Robert Paehlke says:

    Finding a symbol will be much harder since most of them could not find Benghazi on a map, let alone know much about the place.

  86. 86
    EconWatcher says:

    I’m hoping they go whole hog and try impeachment. The Dems picked up seats in the ’98 midterms because of this. We would this time, too.

  87. 87
    Trollhattan says:

    @Roger Moore:

    Heck, why choose–both!

  88. 88
    Bokonon says:

    The lack of something simple on Benghazi is because of … COVERUP! COVERUP!

    Besides, the right wing noise machine has already distilled this to something even simpler – “Obama deliberately killed four patriotic Americans.”

    Killed them. Killed them dead. Deliberately. Cause and effect be damned.

  89. 89
    replicnt6 says:

    I think they’re hoping that, in 2016, if Hillary is the nominee, they can refer to her “scandal-plagued” tenure as SoS, with BENGHAZI! as the example. People will dimly remember that there was some controversy but not remember any detail and have this vague sense that “yeah, that sounds vaguely familiar. I think I’ll vote for the stupid white man.”

  90. 90
    Jay in Oregon says:

    9/11 + Benghazi = BOTH SIDES DO IT

  91. 91
    muddy says:

    Benghazi sounds like it could be in Kenya. You know there’s a connection there.

  92. 92
    muddy says:

    @Jay in Oregon: An elephant and an ant are being weighed. They both have mass, and so both sides are equal.

  93. 93
    ChrisNYC says:

    It’s just something for the GOP electeds to do. If they damage Obama or Hillary great. But really, they don’t do anything — nothing. They vote to repeal Obamacare every couple of months. They name post offices. They come out to carp about jobs numbers. McCain and Graham say war war war on Sundays. But that’s it.

    This not doing anything gig, while good, great even, becomes obvious. Voters have an inkling that Congress is supposed to be doing something. Et voila: Benghazi. That’s what they’re doing.

  94. 94
    beltane says:

    A guilty verdict was just reached in the Jodi Arias trial. If Darrell Issa wants attention, I suggest that he try jumping up and down in front of the cameras while wearing a clown suit.

  95. 95
    The Other Chuck says:

    Why do you think there needs to be any connection to facts, logic, reason, or even meaning? They hate our tribe. BENGHAZI is simply their ritual chant.

  96. 96
    Patrick says:

    @askew:

    At this point, I really think the House may impeach Obama over this. I had thought this was just going to fade away like the other non-scandals of the Obama administration that the GOP has tried to capitalize on, but I guess they feel they can milk Benghazi for more.

    And if they do, it is likely to be a repeat of Clinton’s impeachment and backfire massively.

    As with Clinton, the economy (and the stock market) is finally starting to improve. And unlike Clinton, Benghazi is way too difficult to understand for the average voter. And this is why literally NOBODY cares about the issue. And as with Clinton, with an improving economy voters don’t want to rock the boat.

    I do hope Hillary runs in 2016. She and the Dems could really clean up depending on how stupid tactically the Republicans try to be.

  97. 97
    SatanicPanic says:

    @beltane: This is their problem. You can’t on the one hand scream about countries full of terrorists and then expect people to be surprised that people die there.

  98. 98

    Ha ha, nice headline:

    White House: Republicans Trying to Politicize Benghazi Probe

    orly

  99. 99
    piratedan says:

    @catclub: he was there when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

    lets not forget that these are the same guys cutting the State Dept budgets because of security concerns…. ummm, wait a minute….

  100. 100
    Trollhattan says:

    @Patrick:

    Couple months ago Sippy Cupp was on Maher and generally behaving herself until somebody–she or Maher I can’t recall–uttered Benghazi and like switch thrown, she instantly started shrieking about nobody caring FOUR PEOPLE WERE DEAD!

    I blame Frank Luntz.

  101. 101
    Felinious Wench says:

    Obama didn’t want to call it a terrorist attack to protect his Muslim terrorist friends.

    And Hillary Clinton, also too.

  102. 102
    Trollhattan says:

    @beltane:

    Does this mean Alex Rodriguez won’t be able to date her?

  103. 103
    Comrade Nimrod Humperdink says:

    @Roger Moore: Benghazi IS his day job now. If it doesn’t stick there’s always that sweetheart deal Obummer got on his house from his Chicago cronies, or decoding the jihadist messages in Jeremiah Wright’s “Christian” sermons, or Bill Ayers, or…. shit, this is really all they’ve got without going full Alex Jones isn’t it? What are they paying Jerome Corsi, PhD for these days anyway?

  104. 104
    SatanicPanic says:

    Republicans are clearly ignoring the maxim if you’re explaining you’re losing.

  105. 105
    Patrick says:

    @Trollhattan:

    Interesting that Sippy Cupp didn’t care about US embassy personnel killed during Bush. Hell, there were 10 people killed in Pakistan in 2002. Just to mention one.

    http://mediamatters.org/resear.....h-o/189890

    If these hypocrites are going to impeach Obama, then they will retroactively have to impeach Bush as well.

    But why stop there? Reagan would have to retroactively be impeached as well; there were 17 Americans killed at the Lebanon embassy under Reagan in 1983.

  106. 106
    Comrade Nimrod Humperdink says:

    @beltane: he does that on Maher’s show a couple times a year, may as well drop the pretense

  107. 107
    RareSanity says:

    This not doing anything gig, while good, great even, becomes obvious. Voters have an inkling that Congress is supposed to be doing something. Et voila: Benghazi. That’s what they’re doing.

    @ChrisNYC:

    I’ll be damned. I think you’re on to something here.

    The fact that Republicans in Congress were just being obstructionists, began to seep into the media narrative during the Presidential campaign.

    This gives them cover to continue obstructing, but to publicly say, “We’re not voting on/passing anything until the President comes clean on BENGAHZI!”

    Same tactics, different justification.

    I don’t think it will work, because no one outside of the 27% are buying it. But, when all you listen to, is your own echo chamber, you get fooled into thinking that it’s a brilliant plan that is working perfectly.

  108. 108
    Bill E Pilgrim says:

    I’m not so sure that there always is one. Acorn, Fast and Furious, ClimateGate, The New Black Panthers — I guess I can think of images (two guys outside a polling place) that became sort of iconic in some of those, but it seems like some of them don’t really have one object or even clear idea. What they do always have is a simple and catchy phrase or nickname that everyone repeats, but when asked to explain it, like in those Tea Party interview videos, it’s clear that many people haven’t much of a clue what it was even about beyond the name and some vague idea of what it means. Aside from “black!” of course.

  109. 109
    Loneoak says:

    I’d say it’s also the birth certificate in Benghazi.

  110. 110
    RareSanity says:

    @Trollhattan:

    Sorry, I may be a little behind on some of the Balloon-Juice lexicon but, who is Sippy Cup? Since whomever she is was on Maher, then exploded about Benghazi(!), I’m gonna guess…Ann Coulter?

  111. 111
    Roger Moore says:

    @SatanicPanic:

    Republicans are clearly ignoring the maxim if you’re explaining you’re losing.

    I think they remember it but don’t understand. They’re interpreting it to mean “don’t bother explaining what you’re talking about” rather than “people shouldn’t need an explanation”. Or maybe they’re merging the two, so the wingnuts actually do understand without explanation but to the rest of us they might as well be speaking in Basque.

  112. 112
    Hoodie says:

    @RareSanity:

    I don’t think it will work, because no one outside of the 27% are buying it. But, when all you listen to, is your own echo chamber, you get fooled into thinking that it’s a brilliant plan that is working perfectly.

    They have to keep the 27% happy because that’s who votes in Republican primaries. Otherwise, they get restless. Bread and circuses for the base.

  113. 113
    Keith G says:

    @reflectionephemeral:

    I’m not convinced there’s a whole ton of strategery behind this, though. There was an attack under murky circumstances, we didn’t get everything right right away, so, everyone scream real loud.

    I think that’s about it. It’s a “gotcha” moment, or perceived to be. And it’s right out of Rove’s playbook – attack your opponent’s strength.

    Also this card would be played by the GOP no matter who the Prez was, so interjecting race into this is a bit naive or maybe a tad delusional.

  114. 114
    SatanicPanic says:

    @Roger Moore: Maybe they’re so used to glossolalia they think it doesn’t matter

  115. 115
    Trollhattan says:

    @RareSanity:

    Sorry, I get caught up in the snark vortex too often.

    S.E. Cupp, a compensated RW talking head. Confess I don’t know much about her, other than she’s always popping up on my teebee machine. She’s 50% less shrieky than Coulter, which is why I notice when she kicks into a higher octive.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._E._Cupp

  116. 116
    piratedan says:

    @RareSanity: SE Cupp, is a Coulter/Malkin/Kelly wannabee Republican shill who is on MSNBC’s the Cycle. She’s one in a growing line of Conservative media mouthpieces that are the epitome of Palin’s “lipstick on a pig” to sell the message to low information dudes and dudettes.

  117. 117
    muddy says:

    But, but, she wears serious glasses!

  118. 118
    Bubblegum Tate says:

    @Lawrence:

    And they wonder why they can barely get their base to care about it.

    Oh, their base cares about it. But they are the only ones.

  119. 119
    Death Panel Truck says:

    @Birthmarker: They would need 67 senators to vote for conviction, a number they know they’d never get. Obama won’t be removed from office, and they know it. This is all about damaging Hillary Clinton, and nothing else.

  120. 120
    Roger Moore says:

    @SatanicPanic:

    Maybe they’re so used to glossolalia they think it doesn’t matter

    They’re confusing speaking in their own private dialect with true glossolalia. They really expect to be able to say “Solyndra” or “Benghazi” and have everyone understand that it’s a horrible scandal without having to explain or give any details. Yeah, the teabaggers know what they’re talking about, but most voters just don’t get it. It’s kind of like dogwhistles, except that the ordinary people are just confused instead of getting a harmless message.

  121. 121
    Nancy says:

    It’s all about Hillary. If they can get Obama and other Dems with it, so much the better. And they will never stop.

  122. 122
    Keith G says:

    @Birthmarker: Actually, the House impeaching this President might the the best thing for Obama and even better for the Democrats, but they won’t.

  123. 123
    eemom says:

    omg yes……DO let’s rooolllll another joint.

    Haven’t read the thread, so maybe someone’s been there already, but I adore that song.

  124. 124
    Roger Moore says:

    @Death Panel Truck:

    This is all about damaging Hillary Clinton, and nothing else.

    I think it’s also about playing to the cameras and looking like they’re doing a serious investigation of something that needs looking into.

  125. 125
    RaflW says:

    The latest Benghazi Bullshit is that four special forces troops from Tripoli wanted to dash to Benghazi to help. Can you imagine in there had been a second attempt in rapid succession and the four guys were en route? (It was acknowledged, at least by non-posturing non-republicans that the 4 wouldn’t have made the trek in time).

    The scandal is the Republican security budget! That’s the F*king scandal! Can Democrats not play hardball? W.T.F. man.

  126. 126
    ChrisNYC says:

    @RareSanity: It may be, right? I always think they have no masterful plan other than, “hey, let’s do this nonsense and see what comes of it.” I think the Obamacare cases started that way.

  127. 127
    Trollhattan says:

    @muddy:

    Makes her fer sure seriouserer. I think because she also has the pecularity of being a Republican atheist, Maher and a few others who should know better cut her some undeserved slack.

    Speaking of Maher GFs, I hope folks have seen TBogg’s Christine O’Donnell twitter catch today. “Adorable muffinhead” FTW.

    http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2.....ll-to-you/

  128. 128
    Chris says:

    @RaflW:

    The latest Benghazi Bullshit is that four special forces troops from Tripoli wanted to dash to Benghazi to help

    Four special forces troops, armed with, if I recall correctly… handguns.

  129. 129
    Hal says:

    I agree that this is all about Hillary, but there is no way the GOP can sustain this BS for the next 3 1/2 years. Unless your a friend of Southern Bell Lindsay Graham, or a worshiper of faux news, you probably don’t care.

    I’m just wondering when Chris Christie is going to start talking Benghazi.

  130. 130
    Baud says:

    @Chris:

    Four special forces troops, armed with, if I recall correctly… handguns.

    It’s cuz Obama took away their guns. It’s all connected, man.

  131. 131
    Fax Paladin says:

    @Roger Moore: Turns out they’re pronouncing it wrong. It’s supposed to be “BEN-gay-zee.”

    … where are my dragons?

  132. 132
    Trollhattan says:

    @Hal:

    I’m just wondering when Chris Christie is going to start talking Benghazi.

    “Benghazi: worse than Sandy” is going to be a tall sell, even for a blowhard like Christie.

  133. 133
    Svensker says:

    @matt:

    The simple thing at the core of Benghazi is the story that the black guy in the white house slacked off and got people killed.

    Elegant and to the point.

  134. 134
    RareSanity says:

    @Trollhattan:
    @piratedan:

    Thanks.

    I guess Balloon-Juice has grown into, “miss a day, miss a lot” territory.

  135. 135
    the fake fake al says:

    Issa is pissed. They promised him a chairmanship if he recalled Davis (CA Gov), now that he has it, he gets the most scandal-free admin in history. I’d be pissed too, that recall cost a lot of car-alarm money.

  136. 136
    muddy says:

    @Trollhattan: Are those sentences supposed to mean something?

  137. 137
    jl says:

    A GOP squish Senator bales himself out of the show. What?

    Top Republican ‘Fairly Satisfied’ With White House’s Account Of Benghazi’

    “We need to know were these people culpable or not. If they were, why are they still on the payroll? Other than that, I’ve been able to read all the cables. I’ve seen the films,” Corker told MSNBC. “I feel like I know what happened in Benghazi. I’m fairly satisfied.”

    http://livewire.talkingpointsm.....es-account

    Why is the Grinch Corker trying to ruin Benghazi Day?

  138. 138
    MTiffany71 says:

    Black guy in the White House.

  139. 139
    GxB says:

    @Roger Moore: I was seeing something like the old football fan standby two can holder with pliable straw. The beverages being Brawndo and Old English 400 – natch.

  140. 140
    Trollhattan says:

    @muddy:

    They boggle. I guess it’s some kind of inverted IQ test: “If you can’t make sense of this, then great!”

  141. 141
    Trollhattan says:

    @jl:

    MMmmmm, somebody didn’t read their memo.

  142. 142
    Tonal Crow says:

    @Sad_Dem:

    “Benghazi” and “Whitewater” are words that belong in the kind of novel you’d buy in an airport.

    Like this?

    It was shocking. Truly shocking. It never occurred to me that the President of the United States would be involved in such a thing. And yet he was….

  143. 143

    @Hoodie:

    I think Doug was commenting more on the fact that Benghazi doesn’t have much in the way of sex appeal.

    Oh, well, it’s all they’ve got. They’ll keep throwing pasta at the wall and see what sticks. Benghazi is the sexiest so far — it’s Hillary, it’s an American diplomat killed, they’ll try to sell the idea that Hillary fucked up and you can’t trust her to keep the homeland safe if she becomes president because Lady Parts.

    I think it’s perfect for them, actually. Remember: the reason Mitt Romney lost the election was because “Democrats defined him early,” according to the CW. They’re trying to define Hillary.

  144. 144
    Roger Moore says:

    @GxB:

    I was seeing something like the old football fan standby two can holder with pliable straw.

    That seems plausible, too, though I suspect they’ve put something stronger than electrolytes into their Brawndo. Let’s just say that the wingnut thinking cap is not exactly the diadem of Ravenclaw.

  145. 145
    Catsy says:

    @askew:

    At this point, I really think the House may impeach Obama over this.

    FSM does not love me enough for them to be this stupid.

  146. 146
    Tonal Crow says:

    @Catsy:

    At this point, I really think the House may impeach Obama over this.

    FSM does not love me enough for them to be this stupid.

    I’m not so certain. They’ve been itching to impeach since it became likely that he’d beat McPalin, and his resounding re-election has quadrupled their enthusiasm for blood.

  147. 147
    Triumph says:

    …a black dude in the White House?

  148. 148
    jl says:

    @Triumph:

    ” …a black dude in the White House? ”

    OK, you better sit down and take a deep breath. Get some smelling salts and strong whisky, you won’t believe this… but…

  149. 149
    bcinaz says:

    2 things:

    Hillary! 2016

    Bush 9/11

  150. 150
    SatanicPanic says:

    @Tonal Crow: You think so? They must know they’ll never get it past the Senate and they’d have a tough time getting a simple majority in the House. I think. I could be wrong.

  151. 151
    Birthmarker says:

    @Keith G:
    @Death Panel Truck:

    I thought during the Clinton debacle the stories about the cost were particularly helpful. What was it, 125 million? 140 million?

    At the end of the day–50 votes to remove from office-priceless.

  152. 152
    JWL says:

    Really? You haven’t figured it out?

    “It” is H. Clinton & the year 2016, Einstein.

  153. 153
    Roger Moore says:

    @SatanicPanic:
    I think they can probably get a simple majority in the House, which is all they need. They have zero chance of getting a conviction in the Senate, but that won’t necessarily stop them. The point is the spectacle, the chance to throw mud, and (as somebody astutely pointed out earlier) to undermine the viability of impeachment for the next time a Republican president really deserves it.

  154. 154
    Tonal Crow says:

    @SatanicPanic:

    @Tonal Crow: You think so? They must know they’ll never get it past the Senate

    Yeah, just like the, what, 45th attempt to repeal Obamacare?

    and they’d have a tough time getting a simple majority in the House.

    Why? They own the House.

  155. 155
    TAPX486 says:

    @Patrick: Don’t forget the Marine Barracks attack that killed over 250 on Reagans watch

  156. 156
    Uncle Cosmo says:

    @Trollhattan: Love TBogg’s tag for it: SHUT UP DUMB LADY. Also the classic comment from GWPDA: “Who knew 140 characters would be too many?”

  157. 157
    Patricia Kayden says:

    @22over7: Not sure if Romney has anything to do with this at all. Republicans have always been crazy when it comes to trying to scandalize Democrats. Look at how they treated President Clinton over Whitewater (what was that about anyways? Never understood it), Monica Lewinsky, etc.

    I think Republicans are desperate to find a scandal as big as Watergate, which forced Nixon to leave office. Unfortunately for them, Barack Obama is a smooth Brother. He’s just not scandalous. They have nothing on him.

  158. 158
    pluege says:

    republicans are still in the formative stage of Benghazi. They haven’t found their talking points. They’re still baying at the moon hoping someone will listen.

  159. 159
    Lurking Canadian says:

    I suppose it might be Clinton 2016, but generally when in doubt, the answer is probably the president’s ethnic heritage. It seems to be the wellspring of infinite madness.

  160. 160
    MazeDancer says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    I think it’s all just a way to attempt to negate the success of finding and killing bin Laden.

    Very good point.

    Combine with the also excellent points of Kill Hillary and Lindsey Graham needs to look macho and get re-elected.

    Plus talk radio and Fox need a stand-in issue for “He’s still black and probably a Mooslim”.

    And mainstream media always loves a right wing wacko talking point.

    As long as Graham and McCain want to yap about it, media will cover.

    So why would anyone want to “get to the bottom of it”, then there would be no publicity anymore.

  161. 161
    Patricia Kayden says:

    @flukebucket: Did Rush cite any polls to prove that Benghazi has killed Secretary Clinton’s chances of winning in 2016? Beyond his guts, what was the basis for this claim?

  162. 162
    Patricia Kayden says:

    @FlipYrWhig: Yet Muslim terrorists killed over 3000 Americans on 9/11. So I gather when Republicans are in power many more Americans will die than when Democrats are in power.

  163. 163
    Patricia Kayden says:

    @FlipYrWhig: Thank you. Stephanie Miller read a list of over 60 diplomats who had been killed during the 8 years of Bush’s presidency. We didn’t hear a peep from Republicans back then.

  164. 164
    Heliopause says:

    Every scandal the right manufactures has something simple at its core

    Except for the vast suite of scandals that can generically be called “Whitewater”.

  165. 165
    Fred says:

    Come on guys. If a Democrat does it, it is by definition a scandal. Republican politicans on the other hand, could gang rape Mother Teresa and that would be OK. See the difference?

  166. 166

    […] at 2:48 on May 9, 2013 by rss@dailykos.com kos What Benghazi is all about. DougJ: Every scandal the right manufactures has […]

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] at 2:48 on May 9, 2013 by rss@dailykos.com kos What Benghazi is all about. DougJ: Every scandal the right manufactures has […]

Comments are closed.