Benghazi Bullshit

Thomas E. Ricks “is a Pulitzer Prize-winning former reporter for the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post…he currently writes on defense topics, has a blog at ForeignPolicy.com” and basically knows whereof he speaks.

37 thoughts on “Benghazi Bullshit

  1. Savage Brit on said:

    Well played.

  2. Wow! Fox News just got totally pwned! By Fox News!

    Remember when mindlessly rebelling against authority and being anti-establishment was kinda cool?

  3. Zing!

    They got pwned! Epic Fail!

    That dude rules. I can’t wait till he goes on all the other networks and calls them out for over-hyping Dog on the Roof-Gate, Binders Full of Women-Gate, Big Bird-Gate and 47 Percent-Gate.

  4. Oh Travis…

    You know, if any of those things were relevant to the discussion, he just might.

    You see, one does not have to dole out politically equal and opposite condemnations (solely to make everybody feel better, in this case, you) in order to make a point.

    But hey, you’re probably just a troll anyway, so who gives a shit. Your comments are always so petty and forcibly contrary to whatever even slightly makes Republicans look bad that at this point I struggle to understand how you could even take yourself seriously.

    That said, I admire your dedication to being HE’s resident clown. It keeps things lively. If I didn’t know Jeff better I’d say you might even be him. It’d be a great way to goad people into commenting. Hell, it got me, didn’t it?

  5. Wow, so we have another asshole Liberal who DOESN’T WANT ANYONE TO EVER ASK QUESTIONS OF THIS ADMINISTRATION!

    Remember when journalists were supposed to hold those in power accountable? Remember when journalists wanted to get to the bottom of a story? Nowadays, Liberal journalists want to protect Liberal administrations at any cost, with a “nothing to see here” mentality to ANYTHING that looks suspicious.

    This administration, for TWO WEEKS, lied about what they knew, and repeated the lie about someprotest and some “movie,” and if a Republican said anything to oppose this lie, they were branded as nuts and crazies. And now that it has been exposed as a lie, the Libs don’t give a shit, because the Obama admin said they had to lie so the terrorists wouldn’t know we were on to them. Think about that, they admit they were lying and the press DOESN’T HAVE A SINGLE QUESTION!!! They just believe whatever those in power tell them. Why?

    And as far as FoxNews goes, kudos for having someone on who opposes them. Can you ever imagine MSNBC doing that? They have the same 5 Communist douchebags go on all their shows and say the same exact thing, which is whatever the hosts told them to say.

    Bottom line, Liberals used to be suspicious of those in power, now they protect the powerful. At any cost.

  6. Obviously FOX didn’t know Ricks was going to go off-book or they wouldn’t have given him the bum’s rush after a minute and a half.

    And the Benghazi thing is just such a non-starter with non-conspiracy buffs that the refusal to stop harping on it is getting a little pathetic. “Four Americans die in the Middle East” is such a dog bites man story that it just doesn’t hold an average person’s interest.

    And the Romney stuff with the dog and the binders and Big Bird stuck because it was funny. Nobody was asking for congressional inquiries about any of it.

  7. Sleep. Obey. Sleep. Obey.

    Just trust the powerful, never question them.

    What has become of the Liberals in this country, that not only do they not mind being lied to, they actually defend the ones doing the lying.

    And no one is saying the actual attack could have been stopped (except monday morning QB idiots), it is the LYING to the American public that is the problem. Don’t any of you see that?

    For two weeks the Obama admin, and Obama himself, lied and tried to say it was a “natural protest” that arose out of an offensive “movie.” None of you have a problem with that?

  8. Jeffmc2000, that’s the whole point. MSNBC would NEVER have someone on that could in any way go off script. They don’t have people on who may go one way or the other, they only have on reliable Leftists that will parrot what the host wants them to say. MSNBC is just as much propaganda and lies as Fox, but you’d be hard pressed to find a Liberal that would admit to that.

  9. When “Liberals” are suspicious of those in power they’re called traitors. When “Conservatives” are suspicious of those in power they’re called patriots.

  10. When “Liberals” are suspicious of those in power they’re called traitors. When “Conservatives” are suspicious of those in power they’re called patriots.

    In other words, “Hey, we’re just like those guys!”

    It’s probably a good thing nobody tried the “who cares if there was intentional misinformation, it’s just a dead US ambassador and three other dead Americans?” approach before the election.

    I have no dog in this fight. I enjoy watching rabid Republicans and weasely Democrats go after each other. They’re both so full of shit. If the intelligence community had intentionally released misleading information during a Republican administration, the biggest whiners on both sides would have the same complaints their opponents do now.

    That said, I really wish the toxic morons claiming that this totally predictable fracas is really about the race and gender of Susan Rice would stop puking off of the balcony onto the rest of us.

  11. THUNDER REDUX SAYS…

    Oh Jeffmc2000, you are just too cute for words.

    [opens Final Draft, writes "Sam Worthington cameo here!" on page 15 of MAN ON A LEDGE sequel, goes to sleep satisfied with self]

  12. When “Liberals” criticize those in office they’re praised for speaking “truth to power”.

    When “Conservatives” criticize those in office they’re called “racists”. (or “sexists”, etc)

    “Nobody cry when Jaws die. People gonna cry when my big monkey die”.

    “You know his mind is not for rent”.

  13. It’s funny how Liberals can’t answer a simple question, why is it okay for those in power to lie and fabricate a story for weeks before revealing the truth?

    Obama went in front of the UN, the Libs favorite institution, and knowingly LIED about Benghazi and what caused it. He went in front of the American people and LIED for weeks. And to Liberals, this fact is a right wing fantasy.

    Amazing.

  14. Here’s your answer Dulouz: He wasn’t lying.

    (Jesus Christ, Dulouz…you’re a bigger whiner than Darla Hood’s Dad on his birthday).

  15. George, care to explain?

    What wasn’t a lie? That there was a protest outside the consulate? That a movie was the cause of the attack?

    You’re saying these things were true? Or are you saying the Obama admin had no idea? So they’re either liars or extremely incompetent in their data gathering. Hard to believe the latter as they had VIDEO of the attack and eyewitness accounts that there was no protest.

    The admin admitted they lied to protect “intelligence.” Someone deleted the reference to terrorism in the CIA’s memo. Why?

  16. Duluoz and Travis are just the most adorable little creatures. George Bush could have personally slaughtered their entire families and they’d give him a pass. But if Obama toilet papered their front yard they’d want him thrown in prison for the rest of his life.

  17. “And the Romney stuff with the dog and the binders and Big Bird stuck because it was funny. Nobody was asking for congressional inquiries about any of it. ”

    Such common sense logic is lost on zealots like Dulouz and Travis.

  18. “And the Romney stuff with the dog and the binders and Big Bird stuck because it was funny. Nobody was asking for congressional inquiries about any of it.”

    That’s not actually correct. Whether or not it was “funny” didn’t matter at all.

    The Romney stuff “stuck” for the same reason anything “sticks” in politics — it enforced a PRE-EXISTING belief about someone. For most of the campaign, Romney’s negatives were higher than his positives according to the pollsters. How was he portrayed? As selfish, amoral, clueless, out of touch with most Americans. That he only cared about the wealthy, about making money, about paying as little tax as possible. And while Duluoz will argue otherwise: that was entirely due to his fellow Republicans during the primaries. Lest anyone forget: it was Rick Perry who coined the term “vulture capitalist” in the primaries. Not some wily Democrat over the summer.

    So let’s consider the examples cited above, as well as the 47% video that the Right thinks was “totally blown out of proportion by the Lame-stream Media!”

    - the dog: Americans love their pets. The idea that anyone would subject their pet to a many-hour rooftop car ride in a crate seems pretty inhumane. FEEDS THE NARRATIVE.

    - the binders: the idea that Mitt Romney — super-powerful businessman with decades of experience in business — couldn’t think of even one woman who might play a role in his cabinet, seemed clueless and out of touch. FEEDS THE NARRATIVE.

    - Big Bird: kids, and families, on both sides of the political fence, LOVE Sesame Street. Many have grown up with it and know the characters well. So the idea that Mitt would cut funding to PBS, and risk getting rid of SS — which many see as offering a public good — seemed cruel and heartless, especially when PBS doesn’t actually get that much from the govt in the first place. FEEDS THE NARRATIVE.

    - the 47% tape: not much explanation needed. When someone secretly films you talking unscripted to potential donors, saying what you “really think” away from public scrutiny — and you make a minute-long case that a healthy percentage of Americans are moochers who just want the govt to give them free stuff, so you may as well write them off — you sound like a total asshole. FEEDS THE NARRATIVE.

    Now, no one is arguing that Team Obama didn’t play on that image, to great effect. But December, January and February were not at all good months for Team Romney… because the other Republican candidates were constantly painting him as selfish, deluded, out of touch, etc. Obama took the ball and ran with it. The original choice pre-primary was for Obama to go after Romney as a flip-flopper; but they were able to scratch that and paint him as the guy who was capital-C Conservative enough to win the primary. And it worked.

    Now, how’d Team Romney try to hit Obama? By acting like it was 2008 and voters didn’t really know him. Sympathetic to terrorists… making the economy worse… a Socialist at heart… claims that run COUNTER to four years of evidence. It didn’t stick. Soft on terror? Tell the to Osama and countless drone victims. Economy worse? No, actually getting better. Socialist at heart? Tell it to his Wall Street cronies. Obama’s narrative after all this time? He cares about people; inherited a shitty economy and has been trying to make it better; and is a cool, intelligent guy. What did Romney’s attacks NOT do? Yes… FEED THE NARRATIVE.

    Team Romney’s problem was that many of their attacks on Obama were taken out of context, and people figured that out pretty early. “You didn’t build that” could have been worse… except when you heard Obama’s actual statement, talking about how businesses don’t become successful without healthy public schools to educate their workers… roads and bridges with which to transport their goods… and an Internet with which to sell their products.

    That, coupled with a steady stream of self-inflicted wounds, is why Romney had hardly any chance of winning.

  19. Quit lumping me with Dulouz! (no offense, Dulouz, but…well, you know how it is…)

    re: #23 Good on him. Consistency, it’s a good thing! (…of course his comment about MSNBC won’t be the HuffPo “Hot Topic” for two weeks running and I doubt I’ll see it linked a dozen times on Facebook..but at least he said it)

    So Redbeard….since things are lost on me…. explain something. The non-Fox news outlets over-hyped the Romney stuff (with the dog and the binders, etc) because it was funny. That’s cool. But they didn’t talk much about Benghazi, (or at ALL in the case of MSNBC), because………….. it wasn’t funny? Wuh?

    I love Fox. Not because I watch it, (I don’t really watch it a great deal), but I love how it drives so many people just flat-out loonybins.

    Movies.

  20. Everytime I read the word “Benghazi”, I see “Whitewater”. It’s a cover-up in the same way that Vince Foster’s suicide was a cover-up, right? Or maybe just another attempt to create a scandal by the same people that keep going on about Obama having secret plans to force us all to become Muslims, or to nationalize all corporations, and to believe that he was really born in Hawaii (wink, wink).

    Hey, maybe it really is an outrageous scandal, but there’s been so much crying wolf over the years I’m no longer interested in hearing about any stories that are only being covered by Fox News.

  21. “It’s funny how Liberals can’t answer a simple question, why is it okay for those in power to lie and fabricate a story for weeks before revealing the truth?”

    It isn’t ok. But nobody gives a gives a shit about this because the supposed lies and bad intelligence didn’t CAUSE the death of FOUR Americans.

    How does any sensible person hold this administration accountable for what basically amounts to a crappy explanation, when no one was held accountable in the last administration for invading a country and indirectly killing over FOUR THOUSAND Americans over lies and/or bad intelligence?

    Where was Fox News and their CRUSADE FOR TRUTH in 2003?

    Face it. The Iraq War and the Bush administration basically indemnified all future Presidents from accountability due to the monumental incompetence of it all. Everything else will seem trivial by comparison.

  22. Republicans manufacture scandals for Democrats, and why not? They clearly excel at scandals (Iraq, views on rape, gay bashing, etc)…may as well put their talents to use.

  23. “So Redbeard….since things are lost on me…. explain something. The non-Fox news outlets over-hyped the Romney stuff (with the dog and the binders, etc) because it was funny. That’s cool. But they didn’t talk much about Benghazi, (or at ALL in the case of MSNBC), because………….. it wasn’t funny? Wuh?”

    Well, for one, while they did over-hype the dog and binders (yes, because they were funny) – they still LET IT GO. The dog story was played out months ago. The binders gag lasted, what, a week? FOX has been droning on about Benghazi for months now.

    And why did the other news nets not cover it as much? Perhaps becase the realized that the story didn’t warrant an undying obsession.

    Its rediculous equivications like that which lead to your frequent comparison to dulouz.

  24. I have to say, as annoying and predictable as Travis can be, he doesn’t deserve to be linked with Duluoz. I say this as someone that unfairly linked them in this very thread.

    Duluoz is a special brand of racist, delusional, hypocritical, asshole.

  25. Yeah, don’t lump together Travis and Duluoz. Travis actually has decent opinions on movies. Duluoz’s taste is as shit in movies as it is in politics.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>