i really think that unless you're comfortably within the rightwing media bubble, the benghazi scandal makes no sense at all. i've been trying to make sense of it, even asking rightwing friends point-blank for them to explain it to me. some of what i get are along the lines of "obama watched the attack live in the situation room!" a theory that was floated early on but just doesn't hold up to the actual timeline.
then there's the "cover-up" which largely centers on whether the administration said the attack was triggered by demonstrations against that youtube video as opposed to a "terrorist attack." which also makes no sense because even if the attack was inspired by a youtube video, it still is a terrorist attack. so even if the administration did state the wrong inspiration for the attack, that doesn't mean it wasn't terrorism. oh and also the guy responsible for the attack stated that the attack grew out of the protest against the video. so it doesn't even look like the administration was wrong about the attacker's motives after all.
so now there's a retaliatory demotion charge. which could actually be true. i guess it's too easy to tell for sure. but overlooked in all of this is that gregory hick's testimony about the attack itself didn't reveal anything all that damning for the obama administration.
and yet, it won't matter. fox news et. al. will continue to treat this as the second coming of watergate no matter what happens in these hearings. and the people watching fox news are going to be convinced that there must be something shady going on here, even if they can't articulate what that is to anyone who is not already on board. so we will be hearing "benghazi" at least until the obama administration leaves office, and at least 4 years after that if clinton wins in 2016.
then there's the "cover-up" which largely centers on whether the administration said the attack was triggered by demonstrations against that youtube video as opposed to a "terrorist attack." which also makes no sense because even if the attack was inspired by a youtube video, it still is a terrorist attack. so even if the administration did state the wrong inspiration for the attack, that doesn't mean it wasn't terrorism. oh and also the guy responsible for the attack stated that the attack grew out of the protest against the video. so it doesn't even look like the administration was wrong about the attacker's motives after all.
so now there's a retaliatory demotion charge. which could actually be true. i guess it's too easy to tell for sure. but overlooked in all of this is that gregory hick's testimony about the attack itself didn't reveal anything all that damning for the obama administration.
and yet, it won't matter. fox news et. al. will continue to treat this as the second coming of watergate no matter what happens in these hearings. and the people watching fox news are going to be convinced that there must be something shady going on here, even if they can't articulate what that is to anyone who is not already on board. so we will be hearing "benghazi" at least until the obama administration leaves office, and at least 4 years after that if clinton wins in 2016.
