It’s funny because, unlike David Ignatius, I did not think the emails on the Benghazi talking points read like a spy novel or disclosed any real incompetence whatsoever. What they showed was mainly that the entire national security community was genuinely under the misimpression that the Benghazi attacks had begun as spontaneous demonstrations that had been inspired by the protests at our embassy in Cairo. While they had some intelligence that al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda affiliated groups might have been involved, they didn’t know that with certainty at that point in time.
I have never quite understood why it really mattered if there was a demonstration or not. Our people were dead either way. The mistake was understandable. That September 11th, our national security team was mainly focused on the safety of the people in our Cairo Embassy, not some CIA outpost in Benghazi. And the demonstrations in Cairo were related to an anti-Islamic YouTube video.
The other part of this so-called scandal is the accusation that the president refused to acknowledge that we had suffered a terrorist attack. I have never quite understood this argument, either. First of all, he repeatedly called it an act of terror. But insofar as also made some noncommittal remarks about whether terrorists were behind it, I don’t see what the problem is with that.
Ordinarily, it’s not called terrorism when armed gunmen attack foreigners who are operating in their country against their will. It’s called war. Terrorism is a tactic designed to frighten people. Shooting at people and lighting their building on fire aren’t designed to frighten people. They’re designed to kill them. Terrorism is normally practiced on civilians, not CIA outposts. The fact that the gunmen also happened to be radicals with ties to al-Qaeda justifies calling them terrorists, but they didn’t set off a bomb on a civilian bus or kill by suicide. They weren’t trying to prove a point. They were simply murdering people because they wanted those particular people dead.
The Benghazi emails show how speculative talking points about possible al-Qaeda links were removed from the list. They weren’t sure such accusations were solid and they didn’t want to have to walk them back later.
What’s most disturbing is how the Republicans were so eager to try to exploit the tragedy in Benghazi for political gain. That they’re still trying to do that is infuriating. It’s like they think the election was fraudulent because the president didn’t say “terrorism” instead of “act of terror.”
The Reps don’t infuriate me so much anymore. They’re reliably lying, infantile scum and always will be. What keeps my blood pressure at spontaneous combustion levels is how the press, even much of “ours”, continues to buy into the meme. Even MSNBC, TPM, Huffington, etc. insist on lumping it into the “three scandals that he administration is enmeshed in”, despite there being no scandals involved at all. But since the wingnut propagandists are yapping about “worse than Watergate”, and on and on, the intrepid journalists decide to “balance” the story with “three scandals” but not unprecedented, not Watergate. I should expect it by now, but journalism still holds a special place for me, and it’s disgusting to see what passes for it these days.
I’m old enough to remember Edward R Murrow taking McCarthy apart on TV. I remember when Network news “got it right” before putting it on the air. The old guys must be rolling over in their graves these days.
The assumption that our media has not long ago capitulated to the incentives and aspirations of their corporate decision makers is untenable. The occasional journalist or media organisation which resists this trend are mostly unwittingly participants in the essential public strategy of airing uncomfortable dissent just enough to enable marginalisation and dismissal.
Seems to me we’re in the third or fourth generation of this mechanism with no alternatives on the horizon.
The only ‘scandal’ maybe worth a damn is the AP one. Benghazi is a huge nothingburger, and if the press did its job, maybe they’d realize that one of those toadies in their midst (Jon Karl at ABC) is just a cheap-ass stenographer for the GOP who got suckered by doctored emails.
The whole IRS thing is due to the agency being understaffed and unable to do its job in a timely fashion. The end result is going to be that a few civil servants (starting with the former acting head who was already forced to fall on his sword) are going to get canned because they were trying to do their jobs in a more efficient manner.
The whole AP thing is potentially more relevant, but it’s also too nuanced for the dumbass public to get their tiny little minds around.
The AP thing won’t get any attention next week. Benghazi – I honestly don’t think anyone outside of the Village Circle-Jerkoff cares. The IRS one is the only thing that potentially has any political ‘legs’, in the same way that a person with 2 broken legs has the ability to walk more than a person paralyzed below the waste. It’ll be dead in a couple weeks, and I look forward to the Republican tears then, because they have practically been yelping in anticipatory ecstasy since all these stories broke…and it’s clear that there’s basically nothing behind them. Heck, it’s mainly their fault that diplomatic missions and the IRS are underfunded.
Too bad we can’t blame it all on them, mainly because the general population of Americans is too stupid to figure out how to get from Point A to Point C.
My prediction is that the GOP will not pursue the AP seizure as a “scandal” because it makes too nice a precedent should they ever gain the Presidency again.
The AP phone records may become a non issue if they help produce the name of the leaker.
This…especially when it’s revealed that the leaker was a Republican.
There was an interesting post at http://www.wonkette.com regarding the Beghazi emails and whether the information was classified when leaked. If so, then whoever the Republican was that provided the information to Jonathon Karl likely broke the law.
I’d have to say it’s the IRS one.but the scandal is not that groups applying for 501c(4) status were investigated. The scandal is that they are getting sacked and attacked for doing what they swore oaths to do, namely obey and enforce the law. That Obama has joined the attacks instead of defending the IRS is the scandal.
Tea Party = Americans for Prosperity = Koch jerks.
We have damn good reason for anti-tax, anti-government organizations to be scrutinized. In the mean time we need top notch macro-economic accountants to keep up with corporate cheating overseas. Budget cuts should keep IRS understaffed. Repuglicans have declared war against tax collection. Any bullshit reason fits their agenda. Don’t be bullied by people that hate our government!!!
Our IRS are heroes in the face of organized resistance and seem to have their priorities straight.
As I like to say to the few righties I talk to these days “Patriots Pay Taxes”. They usually respond with confused silence, or they are completely PO’d.
Exactly. That’s what fries me the most about the coverage of this whole fake scandal. Did I miss the part where any news organization, any Dem/liberal outlet with a megaphone, considers just the possibility that the rightwing “social welfare” outfits are cheating more than anyone else? That their behavior justifies closer scrutiny? That would certainly fit their general mode of operations. But no, they were investigated more, so it must be a partisan scandal.
If investigation shows any evidence that the IRS intended to harass the wingnut propagandists for ideological reasons, there’s cause for alarm on every side of the political spectrum. But despite fairly close following of the story, I see nothing to indicate that that’s the case. All I see is press release journalism and craven surrender on the part of Obama and the rest of the Dems. The whole thing is kind of like investigating Nigeria instead of Kentucky for piracy and then apologizing for targeting people in Nigeria but not Kentucky..
I was wondering why Obama was so quick to condemn the IRS myself, but then it occurred to me that Organizing for America is a 501(c)(4) too. Could that have something to do with it?
Read your link and it is clear that OFA is a political organization rather than a social welfare organization.
What struck me was how much each of the agencies was trying to psych out what would satisfy “HPSCI”.
The GOP nitwits should frame these emails as trophies. Instead they continued the vanity search for an impeachable issue. As the experience with George W. Bush proved, they couldn’t find an impeachable issue if it sat right down in their midst.
It is quite a panic in the GOP House, so much so that they might have accidentally created a bypass around the debt limit. Check out Section 2 that creates a new kind of government debt that is exempt from the debt limit. What kind of incompetence is that?
The GOP nitwits should frame these emails as trophies. Instead they continued the vanity search for an impeachable issue.
I think about what a competent political operation with its head screwed on straight could have done to Bill Clinton over the Lewinsky affair and deposition weaseling.
The Republicans have only gotten less competent and screwier since then.
ever since the gop went after the usurper for his nobel prize and his olympic bid, i stopped mining their outrage for substance. it’s all noise, no signal, blaring “ATTACK!!! ATTACK!!! ATTACK!!!”
i think their antics actually amuse our decadent press and continually gives them something fun to talk about instead of boring old policy stuff and jobs.
as padmé said: “So this is how liberty dies… with thunderous argle bargle derp.”
Typical Republicans: when there was a leak in May 2012 about a foiled terror plot, the Republicans were up-in-arms and accused the Democrats of using our nation’s security for political gain and calling for an investigation into the leak.
Fast forward a few months to Benghazi, and you had Mitt Romney criticizing the President for political gain – gloating at the death of our Ambassador.
Last week a reporter released emails regarding Benghazi that were supplied to him by a confidential source and painted the State department in a negative light.
Soon thereafter, the AP announces that they have been the subject of an investigation on the failed-terror plot, in which their phone records were subpoenaed, and the Republicans are crying foul because it threatens the confidential sources that journalists use.
Yesterday, CNN reports that the confidential source that released the emails was a republican that manipulated/changed the emails.
I can’t keep track of what is a scandal, and what is not…
The facts they have don’t rule that out. The admin just dropped it because it incensed the GOP and their rubes in the country. Thus, there will be no investigation into that video that did provoke demonstrations in Cairo and many other cities. A shame really because their was nothing spontaneous about the release of the that time in either time or place.
Oh, and Obama made the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan worse.
How did Obama make the situation in Iraq worse? Iraq was pretty much screwed after Brenner dissolved the Iraqi army. I’m not aware of Obama having much of an impact on developments in Iraq. (Yes, he tried to get the US military to stay, so he ended the occupation against his will, but that’s neither here nor there.)
An addendum to my comment on what Rummy said in his “Market Place” interview – Ryssdal didn’t let him expound on that one.
oops — added it to the wrong comment.
double oops — wrong thread — should have been attached this this comment
How long did it take the Bush administration to figure out that the attacks of 9/11/01 were perpetrated by Al Qaeda and not Saddam Hussein? I seem to remember it being weeks. Now these assclowns have set loose the dogs of scandal because the Obama team had confusion in the early hours after the attack on their watch.
In what universe is that not laughable and pathetic?
Only after they accepted that it couldn’t be pinned on Iraq or Iran. All those Saudis on the planes were inconvenient facts.
However, they wasted no time asserting that Saddam could be behind anthrax letters. Science defeated them on that one — no wonder we got the war on science after that.
Actually, I don’t recall them saying ANYTHING about Saddam NOT being tied to 9/11. I seem to recall them using very careful, intentionally misleading language guaranteed to give the impression that he WAS involved and supporting Al Qaeda. They knew in their heart-of-hearts (a phrase perhaps not applicable to Darth) that he wasn’t involved at all, and was actually opposed to Al Qaeda, but, hey, supporting Palestinian suicide bombers is just the same, right?
And the Baggers are STILL convinced there were WMDs.
That we are talking about a “scandal” that supposedly arises from assigning definitive blame for an attack within several days of its occurrence makes clear that the whole thing is preposterous. But that’s for the thinking people.
With both Woodward and Ignatius now acting as though the Benghazi emails are a “serious matter”, with Woodward likening the emails to Nixon’s secret transcripts(!), it is clear that major elements of the corporate press has decided to enter into a much more hostile relationship with the Admin. They will be pushing this story and anything else the Repubs blabber about. The actual merits of these stories are not part of the calculation, they never are with propaganda.
The question is what Obama and his PR team decide to do to counterattack against this irrational and hostile attitude of the corporate media. Open confrontation with reporters and direct charges of bias and partisanship were one method Repubs used in getting control over the corporate press. It’s something Dems almost never do.
The talking points e-mails are unsavory in that they appear to be concerned more with “face” rather than legitimate foreign policy/security concerns. But I agree that’s not a scandal or every damn politician is involved in a scandal.
We’ve had an election since the Benghazi attack. The people re-elected the man who was in charge at that time.
In a democracy, we usually call that case closed. For example, the nincompoops in South Carolina, strong values voters and devout Christians all (I’m sure), just elected a man they know for a fact is an adulterer, thief, and misuer of public funds. It’s their choice, whether much of the rest of the country agrees with it or not.
The problem with that argument is that the people on the right believe that the election results were fraudulent because “Obama lied about Benghazi” and “Candy Crowley saved him during the debates”.
They believe that if the “truth” about the terror attacks had come out, then Obama would have been defeated since he would be soft on terrorism.
The truth is they could care less about truth. If they did they wouldn’t watch Faux News or listen to any of the rightwing bloviators.
And the demonstrations in Cairo were related to an anti-Islamic YouTube video.
Not just in Cairo – there were copy-cat demonstrations in other countries throughout the region, some of which involved people breaching the security barrier at the American embassy and attacking the building.
Al Jazeera was reporting the attack in Benghazi as a demonstration that turned into a riot, too, the day after it happened.