Benghazi Deniers – Inside the Punchbowl


At Salon, they don’t just drink the Kool-aid, they swim in that shit:

Benghazi derp’s chief enablers: Why pundits’ fear to call out liars has grave consequences
The real scandal: GOP’s bad-faith opportunism, and White House reporters’ refusal to focus on what actually matters

One of the cardinal rules of punditry states that when a conflict can be said to have two sides, blame shall be apportioned in such a way that both sides shall be made to seem culpable. Then, and only then, can your take be deemed smart. With both Benghazi and the Affordable Care Act topping the news this week, the volume of pox-on-both-houses punditry is seeing a short-term spike.

Let’s turn first to Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, who wrote a column arguing that “if Republicans succeed in turning the Benghazi ‘scandal’ from a nothingburger into a Double Big Mac, the Obama White House can blame its own secrecy and obsessive control over information.” If you haven’t been following the latest Benghazi news, the new development is that Republicans are freaking out over a previously unreleased email from a White House aide that was intended to help prepare Susan Rice for her post-Benghazi Sunday talk show circuit. The Republicans think that this email is proof of a cover-up conspiracy of some sort because it wasn’t included in a previous batch of Benghazi-related documents released by the White House.

Why that email wasn’t included in the previous document dump is a legitimate question to ask. But that’s where the legitimacy of all this begins and ends. The email itself is decidedly uncontroversial. As Kevin Drum’s neat summation of the affair makes plain, its contents don’t deviate from the CIA’s position at the time. All it shows is that “like any administration, the Obama White House wanted to put the best face on its Middle East policy.” Not exactly earth-shaking stuff.

And yet, its release prompted Republicans to form a House select committee on Benghazi and, as Milbank writes, “a White House press briefing was dominated for a third time by questions about Benghazi.”

Milbank himself acknowledges that the Benghazi “scandal” is the weakest of weak tea. “The Republican allegations,” he writes, “even if true, don’t amount to much.” If that’s the case, then what he’s describing is an opposition party and a White House press corps obsessively hounding the administration over failing to release in a more timely fashion a document that, ultimately, isn’t important.

Sure, let’s agree the White House should be more transparent. All for that. But what’s driving this current round of Benghazi-mania — and every round that preceded it — is the opportunistic bad-faith behavior of the Republicans and the inability of the White House press corps to focus on stories that actually matter.

Now let’s turn to Ron Fournier of the National Journal, who was very upset with the New York Times’ Paul Krugman for calling out the House Republicans who lied about the number of Obamacare enrollees who had paid their first month’s premiums.

The article then continues for several paragraphs discussing the alleged perfidy of the GOP regarding Obamacare enrollment statistics. Not another peep about Benghazi.

The author of that piece is Simon Maloy. Simple Simon doesn’t actually work at Salon, despite having published quite a few articles there. Simple Simon works for Media Matters (MMFA) which is a Democratic Party propaganda outlet. That’s what I say anyway. According to MMFA they are a watchdog group that is “dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media”.

The other day I discussed why Benghazi really is a scandal. I listed seven separate sub-scandals and later it was pointed out that I missed at least one. So I thought I would grant equal time to the other side and post this as a rebuttal of sorts.

So let us dissect and analyze Simple Simon’s counter-argument.

The title and subtitle are technically not part of the argument, but what (or who) is the “Benghazi derp?” The first paragraph is just fluff. It’s an intro with a nice strawman, but it doesn’t state a real thesis.

The second paragraph presents some alleged facts after quoting Dana Milbank. Milbank is hardly a right-wing pundit. He’s a left-wing hack who works for the Washington Post. Again, no thesis statement is given.

The third paragraph goes “opinion, opinion, opinion, vague factual assertion, opinion, opinion. Still no thesis statement.

The fourth and fifth paragraphs quote Milbank to prove . . . something. The sixth paragraph is a strawman argument, and I just put the seventh in there to show you that Simple Simon changes the topic at that point.

If you had just arrived here from another planet would you have any idea what Simple Simon is talking about? Is there anything in that article that mentions why Benghazi was the least bit controversial in the first place? Anything about four dead Americans and a foreign policy fiasco followed by a cover-up?

That first paragraph mentions something about an argument having two sides, but he doesn’t tell you anything about either side. The only controversy he mentions is the smoking gun email, which he then declares to be uncontroversial. Then he tries to change the subject to something that he says “actually matters.”

If I was grading this article I would have to give Simple Simon an “F”.

There is an old saying in the legal profession that “When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. If you don’t have either one, pound the table.” All Simple Simon and his compatriots in the Big Democratic Noise Machine have been doing this week is pounding the table.

They have their talking points and they are sticking to them. It’s a phony scandal, a big waste of time, all the questions have been answered, let’s move on.

Hillary Clinton says she is satisfied that she knows all the answers to Benghazi, but I still have questions.

So does Trey Gowdy.

About Myiq2xu - BA, JD, FJB

I was born and raised in a different country - America. I don't know what this place is.
This entry was posted in Benghazi and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

112 Responses to Benghazi Deniers – Inside the Punchbowl

  1. The Klown says:
  2. DeniseVB says:

    Newsbusters has the transcript of Hillary’s ABC interview, was asked about the Benghazi investigation….she’s definitely carrying the new talking points….

    KARL: But as Hillary Clinton steps closer to another presidential run, Republicans preparing to launch a special congressional committee to investigate the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya while she was secretary of state. Mrs. Clinton told Robin she sees no reason for another investigation, because there have already been several investigations.

    ROBERTS: Benghazi, the new investigation. Are you satisfied with the answers and are you content with what you know what happened?

    CLINTON: Absolutely. I mean, of course, there are a lot of reasons why, despite all of the hearings, all of the information that’s been provided, some choose not to be satisfied and choose to continue to move forward. But they get to call the shots in the Congress.

    Read more:

    • 49erDweet says:

      Q1: Who gave the stand down order to the two groups of forces an hour away?
      Q2: When (during the 7 hour battle) was it given?
      Q3: Why was POTUS not in the WH Sit Rm?
      etc., etc., etc., etc.

      • lyn says:

        The information provided has some huge holes in it, Hillary. Why don’t you flick Obama’s fleas off you and try again.

  3. DeniseVB says:

    Oops ? And this is from the Daily Beast ……

    The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hampered the American government’s ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls…..more

    Could a President Hillary keep us safe ?

    • Lulu says:

      Hillary is the scapegoat. What I find appalling is that she didn’t see that coming after the shit she ate in 2008. I think she thinks she is clever but can’t play defense three steps ahead. And I wonder that Bill didn’t warn her. Or she ignored him. When you play at this level I got no sympathy.

  4. Lulu says:

    That Salon article by Media Matters is a good example of closed group thinking. Not only do they not allow out of group ideas, questions, doubts, or information they get crazy if anyone else does. They speak in a language and syntax most outside of the group cannot follow, is illogical, sneering, and self protective. It is a bunker mentality and preaching to the choir. Polling says they are loosing but they won’t recognize it. They have reached the point which they are unable to engage with anyone else and their world is getting smaller.

    • The Klown says:

      During WWII there was a German radio station that broadcast Nazi propaganda in English. The British called their main announcer “Lord Haw-Haw.” The Germans tried to spread propaganda like reporting bogus numbers of Allied casualties to lower British morale.

      It didn’t work.

      • helenk3 says:

        well the dems have harry lord ha ha reid and nancy axis sally pelosi. some things never change

  5. votermom says:

    OT this amazing story is just what I needed to read this week

  6. votermom says:

    If you thought hashtag foreign policy was bad …

  7. DeniseVB says:

    There he goes again, because Republicans…..

    President Barack Obama railed against Republicans during an event in Los Angeles Wednesday night, saying the GOP’s willingness “to say no to everything” makes the upcoming midterm elections especially important.

    “Their willingness to say no to everything — the fact that since 2007, they have filibustered about 500 pieces of legislation that would help the middle class just gives you a sense of how opposed they are to any progress — has actually led to an increase in cynicism and discouragement among the people who were counting on us to fight for them,” Obama said……more

    So, remind me again, other than Ocare, what did Obama accomplish in his first two years with a super majority?

  8. The Klown says:

    Via Hot Air:

    On Wednesday, Clinton said that the abduction of the girls by Boko Haram was “abominable, it’s criminal, it’s an act of terrorism and it really merits the fullest response possible, first and foremost from the government of Nigeria.” Clinton said that as Secretary of State she had numerous meetings with Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan and had urged the Nigerian government to do more on counterterrorism.

    What Clinton didn’t mention was that her own State Department refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the UN headquarters in Abuja. The refusal came despite the urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over a dozen Senators and Congressmen.

    “The one thing she could have done, the one tool she had at her disposal, she didn’t use. And nobody can say she wasn’t urged to do it. It’s gross hypocrisy,” said a former senior U.S. official who was involved in the debate. “The FBI, the CIA, and the Justice Department really wanted Boko Haram designated, they wanted the authorities that would provide to go after them, and they voiced that repeatedly to elected officials.”

    In May 2012, then-Justice Department official Lisa Monaco (now at the White House) wrote to the State Department to urge Clinton to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. The following month, Gen. Carter Ham, the chief of U.S. Africa Command, said that Boko Haram provided a “safe haven” for al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and was likely sharing explosives and funds with the group. And yet, Hillary Clinton’s State Department still declined to place Boko Haram on its official terrorist roster.

    • elliesmom says:

      Wasn’t one of her expressed goals when she became SOS to work to improve the lives of women and girls around the world? I’ve had a lot of disappointments in my life, and Hillary Clinton is right up there near the top of the list.

      • jeffhas says:

        I have a theory (fantasy) that if she had won in 2008, she would have been a great leader at a time when we needed a great leader most… But when she lost (and she lost with great courage, strength and dignity), she then ‘compromised herself’ and laid down with dogs that had fleas…

        She has been ‘compromised’ and compromising ever since… And it will likely go on for the rest of her political career.

        • DeniseVB says:

          I think staying in the Senate, then run for NY governor would have been a better career path. Everything she pointed out about Obama in the primaries came true, especially the Presidency isn’t for on-the-job training. Why she chose to work for such an incompetent was indeed poor judgement on her part.

        • elliesmom says:

          I used to believe that, too, then I woke up and realized if she was willing to compromise her principles for the man who cheated her out of her win and a party who treated her like shit, then maybe she had no principles to begin with. In that light her relationship with Bill makes more sense, too. I never thought her run for the presidency was totally altruistic. She was entitled to want it for herself more than anything else, but I believed she wanted to be president for the ambitions of our granddaughters, too. I no longer think she was doing anything other than paying lip service to that to get my money, my time, and my vote. I harbor her no ill will. She’s just another sleazy politician, and I’m a little less starstruck.

        • Lulu says:

          She is getting beat up from both sides. Dems are damning her with faint praise and the Repubs are honing in on her failures. “Ready for Hillary” and fawning media attention after she is washed up is the godfather’s kiss for loyal and faithful service. Surely she understands this if I do and why she is playing along is rather sad. Compromised and still shilling after getting kicked in the teeth.

          • votermom says:

            Yup. My prediction – some Dems will actually let investigations into Benghazi & other State Dept failures go thru to take her down.
            Biden, for one, has nothing to lose from the Benghazi investigation, and he is one mean old man.

      • foxyladi14 says:

        Sadly you are not alone EM 😦

  9. The Klown says:
  10. The Klown says:
  11. DeniseVB says:


  12. The Klown says:
  13. The Klown says:
  14. votermom says:

    OT. Dems trying to kill charter schools in PA in a sneaky defunding way

    • DeniseVB says:

      I read DeBlasio in NYC is doing the same by just shutting down the schools. I wonder if this is union related ?

      • elliesmom says:

        Some charter schools are formed to promote a political or religious agenda. Their success is measured by the satisfaction of the parents. Most teachers’ unions couldn’t care less about the success or failure of those schools. But other charter schools are founded by people who believe they have a better way to do exactly what the public schools are doing. Their success is threatening to the unions. It’s easier to get people to agree charter schools are bad if you focus on the ones with the “wrong political agenda”. What parent wouldn’t support a school that taught English, math and science better? But convince them most charter schools refuse to teach evolution, and now you can get them to rally round closing charter schools down. Are the unions behind this? Of course.

        • DeniseVB says:

          Thanks, ‘splains a lot 🙂

        • votermom says:

          Here’s what the bill does

          This legislation would essentially affect 95%-98% of all charter school special education students. Special education students are entitled under IDEIA and ADA to receive the same level of services regardless of what type of public school or building they choose for being educated. These bills devalue the services needed by and entitled to special needs children by making it appear that choosing School A is better for the student because School A gets more money to support your child’s needs. If they enroll in School B, the school that gets less money, the student may not receive the same services. This is not possible. If the student needs the services…they need the services regardless of where they are choosing to be educated. As a public school, we are required to provide those services at whatever the cost even if it exceeds tuition dollars received.

          The bill would effectively cut off special ed funding for charters, while the charters are still required to provide special ed for any special needs enrollees. Effectively forcing the charters to use non-special ed money for special ed programs. This will drive charters into bankruptcy.

          • elliesmom says:

            When you enroll your child in a Catholic school, they’re pretty upfront about telling you they have no special education services in the way that has come to mean, but they will do everything they can to help your child succeed. And in many, many cases kids who would be “pullouts” in public school thrive in the parochial school classroom. But when a parent takes her “special needs” student to enroll in a public charter school, all of the state and federal education laws still apply. Complying can be expensive, results aren’t always required, and parents can be very demanding. In fairness regular public schools face the same dilemma of how to balance the needs of the regular students vs the needs of the SPED kids when the budget isn’t unlimited. Taking away a charter school’s special education funding, while requiring them to accept special needs kids and comply with the state and federal laws is essentially defunding charter schools. However, there would be nothing keeping charter schools from only offering parents assurance they will comply with the minimum requirements and nothing more. Many SPED kids get services beyond what is actually required. I’m not saying doing more is a bad thing- just that a school doesn’t legally have to.

          • votermom says:

            I find it so reprehensible that they are using special ed dollars to attack charters.
            I guess I shouldn’t be surprised – the left really doesn’t like special needs kids, seeing as how they normalize aborting “less than perfect” babies.

    • helenk3 says:

      just sent this to my grand daughter who lives in PA. her oldest is in school now.

  15. helenk3 says:

    is this the new normal in this country? victim chic

    • lyn says:

      Obama doesn’t realize that his administration’s incompetence is the source of dysfunction.

      • swanspirit says:

        Even if he did , he doesn’t care , he is just spinning wheels at this point until his term is over , and he can , without interruption ,party on , dude .

  16. The Klown says:
  17. DeniseVB says:

    Those death threats sure haven’t phased our Trey Gowdy !

  18. DeniseVB says:

    I thought I’d just toss this meaty bone for myiq to chew on. Would love to see him debate these Obama admin marching orders/talking points from WaPo……

  19. helenk3 says:


    thank you to all who served

  20. The Klown says:

    Pedestrian Question – What is Gluten?:

  21. The Klown says:

    Krauthammer: Global Warming Junk Science Is Like Indian Rain Dance:

  22. helenk3 says:

    watching the democrats on tv today, I am more and more ashamed that I was ever a democrat. do they really believe the BS they are spewing?

  23. votermom says:

  24. mothy67 says:

    If anyone has a pet with behaviour issues. I found this stuff called Stop That made by Sentry. Tried muzzles shock collars obedience school. Nothing would work. She is just bad. At the pound they kept her in a cage a hundred feet away from the other dogs. This stuff is a miracle. All have to do is show her the can and she settles down

  25. DandyTIger says:

  26. helenk3 says:

    some really good questions on why was there no outcry over what these sick animals did before they kidnapped the girls in Nigeria

    • votermom says:

      The article quoted the scene in the book – I have to say that is very graphic and completely inappropriate for a 9th grader.
      Personally as an adult I find it way too graphic.
      I wonder if anyone has asked Picoult her opinion of this brouhaha.

      • elliesmom says:

        The New Hampshire Union Leader did – “Author Jodi Picoult says she’s glad this incident started a debate, but she doesn’t think there should be this much fuss over her book.
        She tells the New Hampshire Union-Leader all three of her kids read the book in high school. Picoult said the goal is to teach people about tolerance, bullying and gun violence.
        “The fact that people are reacting to the book means it’s striking home. When you push someone on these issues, that’s when change occurs.”

        I’m not an English teacher. I taught science, but I attended a lot of school board meetings. If I sound jaded about this, it’s because parents complained routinely about the books their kids read. On the list were “The Diary of Anne Frank”, “Hiroshima”, “The Great Gatsby”, “Catcher in the Rye”, “Romeo and Juliet”, “A Farewell to Arms”, “The Kite Runner”, “Beloved”, “The Outsiders”, “Harry Potter” and the list goes on. There is very little worth reading that some parent doesn’t object to. More often about sex and offensive language, but graphic violence does get some parents upset, which was the complaint of parents about “Hiroshima”. Even Judi Blume takes a hit because she lets the secret behind Santa Claus out of the bag in her “Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing” series. English teachers can sanitize the required list to meet every parent’s sensitivities, but then you’re likely to end up with classroom assignments most of the kids decline to read. The safe path is to buy an anthology to use in the classroom that only has excerpts from books carefully chosen not to offend. If the kids are interested they can read the rest of the book on their own. Which means some of the kids get through high school w/o ever reading a whole novel – and get A’s.

        • votermom says:

          Did you read the excerpt?
          I would object to not letting my 13 or 14yo opt out of it.

          “‘Relax,” Matt murmured, and then he sank his teeth into her shoulder. He pinned her hands over her head and ground his hips against hers. She could feel his erection, hot against her stomach

          “… She couldn’t remember ever feeling so heavy, as if her heart were beating between her legs. She clawed at Matt’s back to bring him closer.

          “‘Yeah,’ he groaned, and her pushed her thighs apart. And then suddenly Matt was inside her, pumping so hard that she scooted backward on the carpet, burning the backs of her legs. … (H)e clamped his hand over her mouth and drove harder and harder until Josie felt him come.

          “Semen, sticky and hot, pooled on the carpet beneath her.”

          I have a whole other thought going on about this heavy “issue” books that are pushed on kids .. I need more time to write it though.
          Short version – if the school needs to discuss an issue, discuss facts and actual accounts, not novelizations.

    • helenk3 says:

      to me she was taught speak out and go to jail. not a lesson that should be taught

  27. The Klown says:

    CNN Anchor and guest battle it out over hashtag activism:

    • gumsnapper says:

      Geezus what an irritating panel. No wonder CNN’s ratings are in the toilet. Who wants to tune in and listen to arguing and people talking over one another and interrupting their guests.

  28. mothy67 says:

    Becausr I can make a wet mop seem intelligent Iam unable to copy Tyler Perry’s post. He was out for a run and he met a 79 year old woman. Guy has some glass. A world of faux vox outrage it is nice to see some realnesz.

  29. mothy67 says:

    Oops forgot to say it is on Facebook

  30. The Klown says:

    Gohmert on Comcast-Time Warner Cable Merger:

    • mothy67 says:

      Guy is a liar. If the Comcast deal goes through they will contol Usa tbs tnt cnn nbc and a slew of other networks Gets even worse if you examine the relationship between verizon and Comcast. Benghazi is only reported cause one woman had a lot of guts. What will happen when just a couple of companies own all the media.

  31. mothy67 says:

    Jay Carney needs to get a job at Comcast

  32. The Klown says:

    Carly Rae Jepsen CALL ME MAYBE – Rolanda & Richard (Parody):

  33. The Klown says:
  34. helenk3 says:

    House approves Benghazi committee

  35. gumsnapper says:

    That “dysfunctional” speech Obama gave at a Hollywood fundraiser and that is reported in Variety–well, Variety just deleted over a thousand comments on it and left only a handful of pro-Obama comments on their comments board under the story. Obviously they have a very partisan moderator.

    • Lulu says:

      They are afraid that their sources will dry up if they cross the vile progs who run everything there. Same thing with the WH and ass kissing media in DC. I’m sure they got a bunch of screaming phone calls about the comments. We are entering into the era of full censorship.

Comments are closed.