Remember the aluminum tubes, vials of fake Anthrax, and persistent 9/11 conspiracy theories that sold the Iraq War to the American public? Benghazi — the fake scandal that consumed all the oxygen in Washington in 2013 — is not any better than that.
‘Benghazi’ was contrived by a right wing neoconservative echo chamber for the sole purpose of taking power. That purpose is evident in the timing of the post-election Friday night news dump of the House Intelligence Committee’s final report debunking all the things your obsessive Fox News viewer “knows” about the 2012 Benghazi attacks.
The final report, from Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Michigan, and ranking member Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Maryland, concludes there was no intelligence failure prior to the attack, no stand-down order to CIA operatives trying to go assist at the besieged consular building and found conflicting intelligence in the wake of the attack about the motive and cause, which were reflected in early public comments by the administration.
[…] The declassified version of the report attempts to knock down other accusations about the Benghazi incident and aftermath, finding no evidence of CIA employees being intimidated from testifying and also no indication the CIA presence in Benghazi was partially to secretly ship arms from Libya to Syria.
The entire Benghazi ‘controversy’ has been a fake. A fraud. A fugazi. Like the Nigerian yellow cake uranium that helped sell the Iraq War, the headlines and discussion on what is supposed to be mainstream, legitimate, ‘liberal’ media have been no help at all for most people to understand the facts of the attack on the Benghazi consulate.
This was not the first, or the second, but the sixth Congressional committee to determine that none of the right wing fantasies about the Benghazi attack are remotely true. Yet they remain ‘true’ in the minds of people who made up their minds a long time ago that President Obama is the secret Manchurian-candidate antagonist in a really terrible paperback novel.
Meanwhile, the ‘courageous’ reporters of conservative media have never stopped framing rumors and innuendo to maximum effect, and they are not about to do so now. Instead of retracting any part of their past hysterics, Fox News is still acting as though they have been vindicated.
To read the Fox story, the House Intelligence Committee confirmed rather than refuted the over-the-top allegations that Fox has been peddling for so long. Someone reading that Fox story and only that Fox story would not have the slightest idea that in fact the House intelligence panel had thoroughly rejected almost every aspect of the Fox version of Benghazi.
[…] It’s one of the more awesome examples of diversion and denial that I have ever seen. The Fox philosophy seems to be that they have lied so often to their viewers on this story that hey, what’s one more, right? The alternate universe must not be compromised by reality no matter what.
Indeed, that alternate universe smashed through a cognitive barrier and took over the ‘liberal’ media universe like an episode of Fringe. Who can forget Lara Logan interviewing a charlatan for 60 Minutes? Who can forget Sheryl Attkisson, whose anti-vax propaganda has undoubtedly killed more Americans than the Benghazi attackers, waving her Benghazi fantasies around as journalistic credentials while she dished on ‘”liberal bias” at CBS?
The answer is that none of it is precisely forgotten in the right wing universe, it is merely remembered differently. This, too, will be remembered differently. Contrary to what some people suggested immediately after the report from Associated Press, this fraudulent controversy will never, ever die out on its own.
In the fullness of the weekend, network Sunday shows did not correct the record on Benghazi, Sen. Lindsey Graham got angry and incoherent on CNN, and Fox News bobbleheads still broadcast the same discredited talking points.
When you meet your right wing relatives over Thanksgiving turkey, they will not know that the Benghazi hoax has been exposed as a fraud. Worse, further information about the Benghazi hoax will not convince them that it is, in fact, a fraud.
The only thing that will burst their bubble is pure, sharp, pointed ridicule: no, there was no stand-down order. No, there was no conspiracy in Susan Rice’s talking points. You sound like a raving street lunatic when you say that these false things are true. Stop muttering about Hillary and Huma Abedin or I will drop a quarter in your cup and walk away.
If you’re thinking, “that sounds like a terrific way to ruin Thanksgiving,” you’re right. There is unfortunately no polite way to eradicate the Benghazi hoax from the American consciousness.
The ‘liberal’ media organizations have failed us as completely this time as they did a dozen years ago, and they are still not set up to educate us on what is actually true. Sunday shows are not about to start telling Republicans they’re wrong on climate change, for instance, so why would ‘the facts’ about Benghazi matter to them?
I have some real questions about the interim report that was put out last year. A interim report is supposed to be the information that has been learned at that point in an investigation. But as it turned out none of the claims in that report were accurate in the slightest. All we have heard from the Right is the word “accountability” but that’s a two way street. Whoever promoted this report as factual should be held to account. Fox News which trashed the president, Susan Rice and Hilary Clinton on a daily basis for months should also be held to account. Dick Cheney who accused Clinton of not being cooperative- something which the definitive final report absolutely rejected- should be held to account. Allen West who said: The administration’s perpetually changing narrative deserves merciless scrutiny, and President Obama must be held accountable for what he has cynically dismissed as a ‘phony’ scandal.” >/i? sjould
You are correct about Iraq:
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
–Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
— Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
” Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
— Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace
and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range
missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by: — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering
— Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
— Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
— Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
— Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some
stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
— Sen. Robert K K K Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat
to our security.”
— Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years… We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weap0ns of mass destruction.”
— Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
— Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to build his
chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terr0rists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked,
Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
— Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and
storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
— Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is
miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction …
So the threat of Saddam Hussein n with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny
Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to
deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
–President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force,
our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s
weapons of mass destruction program.”
–President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here.
For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we
The aluminum tubes were fake. The Nigerian yellow cake was fake. None of the supposed WMD programs still supposedly going on in Iraq were real — they were all fake. Saddam’s previous WMD programs were known and verified when officials talked about them in the 1990s. Those are the same WMDs that the Bush administration covered up because they weren’t the magic, new WMDs that had been sold to the American public. But please do keep trying to pretend they’re the same thing, because it really helps everyone understand what you are.
I guess all those people were wrong then . . . Imagine that? Nothing pretend here, keep up the good work Matt, thank you for your service and I appreciate all Veterans.
Thank you for completely ignoring what I just said and once again proving what you are.
Except I directly “unmasked” your statement and used facts . . . Thank you for your service.
The Republican faithful have the attention spans of fruit flies, thus rendering their leadership immune from the effects of hypocrisy that would destroy a Democrat. As long as they’re being told what they want to hear, the truth simply doesn’t matter.
Kinda like Robert Byrd, Bull Conner, etc. Fruit fly much?
Hey Pedro, they’re doing an end of the day head count at Deadbart Daycare. Shouldn’t you be running along?
Thank you for your “insight”.
I am completely disgusted by the whole thing. People should be more scandalized than they are. The lies and misrepresentation forced down the throats of the American public is almost traitorous.
We can blame the Republicans for this circus but they weren’t the only ones with monkeys in the act. It’s time to hold the media accountable for the so-called ‘facts’ that they report, too.