Benghazi update, 5/4

We’re really starting to roll now!  And even better – House hearings on May 8 should be quite interesting.

Benghazi Impeachment Suddenly Not So Far-Fetched

Barack Obama is bloody lucky he’s a Democrat, because if he were a Republican, he’d be in deep trouble right now, close to the brink of extinction.  Only his increasingly pathetic loyal media claque can save him.  It will be interesting to see if they do so at the expense of their own reputations.

Of course the reputations of the State Department need to be considered as well, that same State Dept that, according to Hayes (and this is corroborated by emails he publishes), bowdlerized and censored all references to al-Qaeda involvement in the Benghazi events before they could reach the fragile American public in an election year, almost even as they were happening.  This was before Susan Rice made her dog-and-pony performance on the Sunday shows, asserting it was all caused by a video nobody watched, and long before the oleaginous Candy Crowley famously covered up for Obama on Benghazi at the presidential foreign-policy debate.

[O]n the CIA side, a fellow named Mike Morell, their deputy director, “cut all or parts of four paragraphs of the six-paragraph talking points — 148 of its 248 words. Gone were the reference to ‘Islamic extremists,’ the reminders of agency warnings about al Qaeda in Libya, the reference to ‘jihadists’ in Cairo, the mention of possible surveillance of the facility in Benghazi, and the report of five previous attacks on foreign interests.”

How far will it go?  We will soon, no doubt, be in the period of “limited hangouts.”  (The attempt by Jay Carney, Obama’s press secretary, to play the “Benghazi happened a long time ago” dodge on Wednesday arguably fits this definition.) Who will be the John Dean, the Erlichman, and Haldeman?  Is “Deep Benghazi Throat” talking at this moment?

While we are making Watergate analogies, it’s worth noting this is far worse than that noxious moment in American history or the other recent impeachment episode — Clinton.  In the former, some dumb zealots broke into the campaign headquarters of the opposition party in an election that wasn’t remotely close.  Nevertheless, the paranoid Nixon destroyed himself by trying to cover up the idiocy.  Clinton wagged his finger at us and lied about sex under oath, while his wife — an important figure in Benghazi where she has already been caught dissimulating — similarly lied by publicly blaming her husband’s philandering on the “great right-wing conspiracy.” (What power!)

Benghazi, on the contrary, was an important battle in the Global War on Terror, which has now reached our shores more than once. It will undoubtedly do so again.  Those who take this casually in the slightest are conscious or unconscious traitors or fools — or so self-interested as to be beneath contempt.

The Congress must be unstinting in pursuing the truth of Benghazi wherever it leads and however high it goes.  If they do not, our country will be weakened, probably beyond recognition.

Will Congressional Committees Pull Together for One Benghazi Probe?

“If we’ve had a Select Committee on the House Beauty Shop, we can certainly have one on Benghazi.”

Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) introduced a House resolution in early December to establish a select committee. It attracted 34 co-sponsors and never made it out of the Rules Committee.

When Wolf reintroduced his measure with the dawn of the 113th Congress in January, as many as 135 — at his last count — Republican lawmakers piled on board as co-sponsors. Fifteen signed on after last week’s release of the House’s interim progress report on Benghazi. No Democrats have joined the resolution.  [And which party is completely tied to marching in lockstep?  Think ObamaCare…Ed.]

“I think if you had a select committee it would be bipartisan,” Wolf told PJM on Thursday. “I don’t think it has to be a political partisan thing. Treat Democrats fairly; let them call witnesses they want to call.”

To highlight the ridiculousness of Congress not appointing a select committee to dig into the attack on the American diplomatic facility, Wolf points out that in 1976 there was the Select Committee on the House Beauty Shop, which issued an 8-page report. Congress has also called select committees to regulate parking on the Hill and to study global warming and voting irregularities.

Wolf said he’s reserving judgment on the administration’s culpability on Benghazi until it can be probed by a select committee, but finds plenty of fault with recent assertions such as Jay Carney’s dismissal of Benghazi as happening a long time ago — “I don’t think the families feel that way,” Wolf said — and President Obama’s continued insistence that al-Qaeda has been crushed.

“I don’t think anybody really believes it, that they got al-Qaeda,” he said. “It’s just mutated, it’s growing, it’s spreading — and while bin Laden is dead you can’t say al-Qaeda is dead, and I don’t think they really believe it.”

The congressman sees it as a fault that the White House is treating Benghazi “like a law enforcement issue” while it sent a drone after Anwar al-Awlaki.

…and we thought we’d throw yet more proof of the Old School Media’s over-the-top bias for liberals, because it is certainly relevant to the coverage of the Benghazi Massacre:

MSM News: Reporting with Eyes Wide Shut

Well, there can only be one answer really: the Narrative. Miss Lanker-Simons is justified because even though her post wasn’t true…  well, isn’t that just what those knuckle-dragging, rape-loving conservatives are like? We remember this logic. It’s not confined to mixed-up college girls. It’s a version of the “fake but accurate” argument that some used to defend Dan Rather’s flogging of forged documents in his attempt to slime President George W. Bush’s National Guard service. It’s the argument Newsweek‘s then assistant managing editor Evan Thomas made after the magazine essentially condemned Duke lacrosse players for a racist rape they did not commit: “The narrative was right, but the facts were wrong.”

In other words, in left-wing media world, if the facts don’t fit what you “know” to be true — i.e. if they don’t confirm your imagination — you have a right to make stuff up that does.

Or keep stuff silent, more to the point. Because most of the narrative-confirming lies told by the networks and the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times and other like-minded mokes are lies of omission. The “Fast and Furious” scandal, for instance.  The nation’s chief law enforcement officer perjured himself before Congress and was then protected from investigation by an indefensible presidential invocation of executive privilege — but it was no big deal to the networks. The Benghazi killings barely existed in the New York Times when the news might have had an adverse effect on Barack Obama’s election campaign. And the story is still being downplayed to the point that the president feels he can plausibly tell the public he’s “unaware” of what’s going on.

The mainstream media’s coverage of stories that don’t fit the Narrative is less coverage than coverage-up.

Stay tuned here – we’ll publish everything relevant we can find.  It should be an interesting, if bumpy, ride.

Tags: , ,

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 86 other followers

%d bloggers like this: