The Daily Show gave Fox News just what they deserved last night over their Benghazi hypocrisy last night. From excusing Bush administration lies over Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction to attacking those who criticized Donald Rumsfeld’s cavalier comment about going to war “with the army you have, not the army you might want,” Stewart caught some of Fox’s loudest mouthpieces and Republican pals in flagrante delicto!
Really brilliant and devastating. Why can’t any so-called “Democratic strategists” that go on Fox ever be so right on target and effective?
Do you like this post?
Kevin Koster commented
2014-05-07 15:55:32 -0400
· Flag
Bemused, thank you for the kind words.
Tom, it took me all of five minutes to do a Google search on the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the “longwarjournal” blog that they post online. Thomas Joscelyn and Bill Roggio are the guys who are at the top of both ideas. The FDD has been roundly criticized for trying to push military solutions at all possible junctures, and for pushing inaccurate information – such as Roggio saying that terrorists known to have been killed in drone strikes were actually somehow alive.
As for the interview with Tommy Vietor, I’m assuming you mean the attempted “gotcha!” by Bret Baer, wherein Vietor was asked to go back through the whole play-by-play of questions that have been asked and answered. He very clearly told Baer that the Rhodes email is a standard campaign email, one that should be recognizable to any political reporter, and that it’s clear that Rhodes is referring to the regionwide protests in the one bit of language that Fox News has sadly chosen to emphasize. When Baer tried to bait Vietor with the bit about “Where was the president if he wasn’t in the Situation Room?”, Vietor responded that he honestly didn’t know what room in the White House the President was in at every minute. He also responded that asking minutiae about this stuff was difficult to respond to, given that we’re talking about things that happened two years ago. Fox News of course decided to focus just on the line “Dude, that was two years ago.” To my mind, Fox News and Bret Baer owe Vietor a humble apology.
BTW it’s begun to occur to me that the GOP must have another reason to run around yelling “Benghazi! Benghazi!” again. Could it be that they’re seeing polling numbers they don’t like, and that perhaps they’re trying to rally their base for the midterms?
Tom, it took me all of five minutes to do a Google search on the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the “longwarjournal” blog that they post online. Thomas Joscelyn and Bill Roggio are the guys who are at the top of both ideas. The FDD has been roundly criticized for trying to push military solutions at all possible junctures, and for pushing inaccurate information – such as Roggio saying that terrorists known to have been killed in drone strikes were actually somehow alive.
As for the interview with Tommy Vietor, I’m assuming you mean the attempted “gotcha!” by Bret Baer, wherein Vietor was asked to go back through the whole play-by-play of questions that have been asked and answered. He very clearly told Baer that the Rhodes email is a standard campaign email, one that should be recognizable to any political reporter, and that it’s clear that Rhodes is referring to the regionwide protests in the one bit of language that Fox News has sadly chosen to emphasize. When Baer tried to bait Vietor with the bit about “Where was the president if he wasn’t in the Situation Room?”, Vietor responded that he honestly didn’t know what room in the White House the President was in at every minute. He also responded that asking minutiae about this stuff was difficult to respond to, given that we’re talking about things that happened two years ago. Fox News of course decided to focus just on the line “Dude, that was two years ago.” To my mind, Fox News and Bret Baer owe Vietor a humble apology.
BTW it’s begun to occur to me that the GOP must have another reason to run around yelling “Benghazi! Benghazi!” again. Could it be that they’re seeing polling numbers they don’t like, and that perhaps they’re trying to rally their base for the midterms?
Tom Berger commented
2014-05-07 15:08:42 -0400
· Flag
I thought thomas had some pretty good qualifications from reading about him on wikipedia.
What about that interview with Tommy Vietor, what do you think about that interview?
What about that interview with Tommy Vietor, what do you think about that interview?
Bemused commented
2014-05-07 14:24:36 -0400
· Flag
I agree fully, Sandman2. It’s the hypocrisy that I take exception to. And the both sides do it is a typically RW position, the aim being to justify their own behavior while ignoring that the culprits on their side outnumber the other side’s by a large margin.
Bemused commented
2014-05-07 14:17:11 -0400
· Flag
Always a pleasure to read your posts, Kevin. I had started printing them until I realised that I could call them up by clicking on your name. I also remain in admiration at your patience with the puppies.
Sandman2 commented
2014-05-07 12:13:54 -0400
· Flag
I didn’t see Stewart’s “bit” as a both sides do it. I saw the “bit” showing that the same pundits, politicians, and mouth-breathers who not only didn’t criticize the previous Administration for there failure’s, but, in some cases praised them. Stewart showed clips of the same people taking a complete 180 on similar events.
That is what Stewart was pointing out. He clearly wasn’t trying to point out any kind of “both sides do it” scenario, since no Administration could possibly compare to the documented dishonesty of the Dumbya Administration.
That is what Stewart was pointing out. He clearly wasn’t trying to point out any kind of “both sides do it” scenario, since no Administration could possibly compare to the documented dishonesty of the Dumbya Administration.
Kevin Koster commented
2014-05-07 10:52:02 -0400
· Flag
Tom, your posts indicate you may not have actually read the submissions I made below. Please do so and you may learn something about this issue.
It’s unfortunate that you’ve chosen to cite the Foundation for Defense of Democracies material, since that’s a known and avowed right wing organization promoting military action in the Middle East. The funny part about the post you cite is that it actually discusses the “Innocence of Muslims” video in connection with rioting the area although it insists that the protests are somehow organized by al Qaeda. The issue with that group is that they’re so determined to find al Qaeda operatives everywhere, they keep reporting various dead terrorists as still being alive. It makes their reporting quite suspect, so your citation of them invalidates your attempt to ignore the video’s role in upending the region.
You also seem to be forgetting the timeline of what happened on 9/11/2012. The Cairo Embassy protest happened BEFORE the Libyan Consulate attack. As you should know, Fox News was gleefully covering the Cairo protest on all their pundit shows that day, specifically so people like Hannity to make comments about the “failure” of President Obama’s foreign policy. Hannity actually went so far as to declare “The Middle East is on FIRE! Where is President Obama?” Because Fox News saw this as a way to attack Obama and promote Mitt Romney, with an election only 2 months away. It was only AFTER the Consulate attack that Fox News shifted their focus to Libya and acted like it had never promoted the earlier protests.
I agree, by the way, that there were protestors at the Cairo Embassy who wanted to yell about the Blind Sheik. But that crowd didn’t show up and overrun the walls for the Blind Sheik. They were out in the streets because they were angry about the “Innocence of Muslims” video, as were thousands of other people across the Middle East. And you may wish to deny it, but the fact is that over 50 people died in those riots across multiple countries, and countless people were injured. It may not be convenient to your narrative to admit it, but that video caused a massive amount of violence and misery throughout the region. Fox News and its supporters do not get to walk back their enthusiasm about those riots.
The other part of this narrative that’s patently ridiculous is this notion that somehow the Obama Administration was lying and covering up “the truth” so that it could win an election. Are you not aware that the matter, and that very accusation, was extensively discussed through September and October of 2012, including at the Presidential Debates? Are you aware that these questions were answered at that time? Are you aware that the American public was well-informed about this issue when they went to the polls in November 2012? The implication that Fox News wants to make here is that somehow the Obama Administration pulled the wool over everyone’s eyes for two months. Nonsense. Even President Obama discussed this at the time, noting that if there was a right wing theory that he was denying terrorism was involved, it made little sense since they were all quickly talking about it anyway. If the criticism was “but it took two weeks!”, that ignores the investigations that were happening on the ground, and ignores that through that time and afterwards, the media and both campaigns were discussing terrorism and this attack.
You’re also ignoring that Fox News and the GOP was desperately trying to spin the Consulate attack as a signal that somehow President Obama was “weak”, so that they could promote Mitt Romney’s failing presidential campaign. Except that this wasn’t accurate. The Obama Administration responded as we saw publicly at the time, and see in these emails, by noting the rioting going on all over the region, noting the cause for the unrest (the video), and noting how they responded. Fox News didn’t like that response and continued attacking. Mitt Romney thought he’d take up that idea in the second Presidential Debate and wound up with egg on his face instead. Not only did he get publicly scolded for attacking the President at that moment (something that Fox News would have destroyed anyone for doing to Bush), but he wound up with egg on his face for getting his facts wrong. On the other hand, one could see this as emblematic of what happened to the right wing during the 2012 election. They didn’t want to see the facts of what was happening in front of them, and they wound up with egg on their faces, as Dick Morris was forced to admit on his own website the morning after.
Finally, the Jon Stewart line: “Imagine the outrage if there had been a second intelligence failure right after that one that tragically led to even more Americans losing their lives,” Stewart said. “But you’re not concerned about that. You’re just concerned about this one intelligence failure. You’re upset that an administration, in its haste to get re-elected, pulled some dodgy, face-saving sh*t. That’s what you’re afraid of.” Tom, you do realize that Stewart was slyly referring to the BUSH Administration there, since while he was saying those words, he was showing imagery of Valerie Plame and then Bush on the aircraft carrier with the ill-advised “Mission Accomplished” banner. So yes, Stewart was noting that the Bush Administration had engaged in this behavior, going on to discuss how Tom Ridge had been accused of manipulating the “Terror Threat Level” to panic voters before the 2004 election.
It’s unfortunate that you’ve chosen to cite the Foundation for Defense of Democracies material, since that’s a known and avowed right wing organization promoting military action in the Middle East. The funny part about the post you cite is that it actually discusses the “Innocence of Muslims” video in connection with rioting the area although it insists that the protests are somehow organized by al Qaeda. The issue with that group is that they’re so determined to find al Qaeda operatives everywhere, they keep reporting various dead terrorists as still being alive. It makes their reporting quite suspect, so your citation of them invalidates your attempt to ignore the video’s role in upending the region.
You also seem to be forgetting the timeline of what happened on 9/11/2012. The Cairo Embassy protest happened BEFORE the Libyan Consulate attack. As you should know, Fox News was gleefully covering the Cairo protest on all their pundit shows that day, specifically so people like Hannity to make comments about the “failure” of President Obama’s foreign policy. Hannity actually went so far as to declare “The Middle East is on FIRE! Where is President Obama?” Because Fox News saw this as a way to attack Obama and promote Mitt Romney, with an election only 2 months away. It was only AFTER the Consulate attack that Fox News shifted their focus to Libya and acted like it had never promoted the earlier protests.
I agree, by the way, that there were protestors at the Cairo Embassy who wanted to yell about the Blind Sheik. But that crowd didn’t show up and overrun the walls for the Blind Sheik. They were out in the streets because they were angry about the “Innocence of Muslims” video, as were thousands of other people across the Middle East. And you may wish to deny it, but the fact is that over 50 people died in those riots across multiple countries, and countless people were injured. It may not be convenient to your narrative to admit it, but that video caused a massive amount of violence and misery throughout the region. Fox News and its supporters do not get to walk back their enthusiasm about those riots.
The other part of this narrative that’s patently ridiculous is this notion that somehow the Obama Administration was lying and covering up “the truth” so that it could win an election. Are you not aware that the matter, and that very accusation, was extensively discussed through September and October of 2012, including at the Presidential Debates? Are you aware that these questions were answered at that time? Are you aware that the American public was well-informed about this issue when they went to the polls in November 2012? The implication that Fox News wants to make here is that somehow the Obama Administration pulled the wool over everyone’s eyes for two months. Nonsense. Even President Obama discussed this at the time, noting that if there was a right wing theory that he was denying terrorism was involved, it made little sense since they were all quickly talking about it anyway. If the criticism was “but it took two weeks!”, that ignores the investigations that were happening on the ground, and ignores that through that time and afterwards, the media and both campaigns were discussing terrorism and this attack.
You’re also ignoring that Fox News and the GOP was desperately trying to spin the Consulate attack as a signal that somehow President Obama was “weak”, so that they could promote Mitt Romney’s failing presidential campaign. Except that this wasn’t accurate. The Obama Administration responded as we saw publicly at the time, and see in these emails, by noting the rioting going on all over the region, noting the cause for the unrest (the video), and noting how they responded. Fox News didn’t like that response and continued attacking. Mitt Romney thought he’d take up that idea in the second Presidential Debate and wound up with egg on his face instead. Not only did he get publicly scolded for attacking the President at that moment (something that Fox News would have destroyed anyone for doing to Bush), but he wound up with egg on his face for getting his facts wrong. On the other hand, one could see this as emblematic of what happened to the right wing during the 2012 election. They didn’t want to see the facts of what was happening in front of them, and they wound up with egg on their faces, as Dick Morris was forced to admit on his own website the morning after.
Finally, the Jon Stewart line: “Imagine the outrage if there had been a second intelligence failure right after that one that tragically led to even more Americans losing their lives,” Stewart said. “But you’re not concerned about that. You’re just concerned about this one intelligence failure. You’re upset that an administration, in its haste to get re-elected, pulled some dodgy, face-saving sh*t. That’s what you’re afraid of.” Tom, you do realize that Stewart was slyly referring to the BUSH Administration there, since while he was saying those words, he was showing imagery of Valerie Plame and then Bush on the aircraft carrier with the ill-advised “Mission Accomplished” banner. So yes, Stewart was noting that the Bush Administration had engaged in this behavior, going on to discuss how Tom Ridge had been accused of manipulating the “Terror Threat Level” to panic voters before the 2004 election.
Kevin Koster commented
2014-05-07 10:23:59 -0400
· Flag
MM, there really isn’t a way for the Bush Administration and its supporters to get around George W. Bush heavily intoning “the proof could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” He knew full well what the intelligence was on Iraq, and he knew that he was saying something almost patently ridiculous. The purpose of that whole PR campaign was to convince the American people that we absolutely had to support an invasion of Iraq. This also included a show & tell done by Colin Powell at the UN that was almost immediately debunked. You could make a convincing argument that the Bush Administration thought that they’d be welcomed by the Iraqi people, and that they thought this would be an easy, winnable war. Since they took this course to take care of old business and to promote the GOP brand at home, such an invasion would have cemented their position in the White House for over a decade. But it didn’t work out that way, did it?
Again, regarding the embassy attacks and all the Americans who died as part of the Bush Administration’s unfortunate policy choices, Fox News NEVER did the kind of blind attacks they’ve thrown at President Obama on a weekly and daily basis. As I noted, anyone who did criticize Bush was immediately labeled as anti-American, unpatriotic or treasonous. Fox News has no way to explain its record of attacking Clinton, defending Bush and then attacking Obama (and Clinton). It’s plainly obvious that they are doing this for partisan purposes.
Again, regarding the embassy attacks and all the Americans who died as part of the Bush Administration’s unfortunate policy choices, Fox News NEVER did the kind of blind attacks they’ve thrown at President Obama on a weekly and daily basis. As I noted, anyone who did criticize Bush was immediately labeled as anti-American, unpatriotic or treasonous. Fox News has no way to explain its record of attacking Clinton, defending Bush and then attacking Obama (and Clinton). It’s plainly obvious that they are doing this for partisan purposes.
Tom Berger commented
2014-05-07 09:47:44 -0400
· Flag
Look, Bush did it, he lied about this and that, he ignored this and ignored that. This is the Both sides do it argument.
He was using Bush as a scapegoat to excuse the Obama administration of lying to the American people after their embassy had been attacked on September 11, 2012.
He was using Bush as a scapegoat to excuse the Obama administration of lying to the American people after their embassy had been attacked on September 11, 2012.
Tom Berger commented
2014-05-07 09:25:45 -0400
· Flag
No comment on the jihadists wanting the get their man out of the klink? Even John stewart said that the president was “dodgy” about it.
Tom Berger commented
2014-05-07 08:21:22 -0400
· Flag
@kevin,
Cairo was all about the jihadists wanting to get back the Blind Sheikh, not about some stupid video.
The administration lied about Cairo, there was no “protest” going on there about a video. When Benghazi comes up, the administration is like, hey, let’s blame the Cairo “protests” on this video. You have to ask yourself, Why? “Because the media and the public, have bought hook, line, and sinker the fraudulent claim that those “protests” were over the anti-Muslim video. The administration calculated that if you buy “Blame the Video” as the explanation for Cairo, it becomes much more plausible that you will “Blame the Video” as the explanation for Benghazi, or, at the very least, you will give the administration the benefit of the doubt that they could truly have believed the video triggered Benghazi, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary.”
Weeks before September 11, 2012, the jihadists wanted to screw with the U.S. embassy in Cairo. The Blind Sheikh’s son wanted to kick the embassy ass, snatch up the Americans and do a trade for their BFF, Blind Sheikh. Other jihadists threatened to burn the embassy to the ground and it was reported in the Egyptian press the day before the September 11 “protests.” Again, Cairo rioting was driven by the jihadists who were pissed and wanted the Blind Sheikh’s release. The jihadists have been threatening for weeks to raid the embassy.
Al Qaeda’s expansion into Egypt was the cause of these rioting’s. The rioting was a pro al qaida event from the start. There has been at least three other senior al Qaeda-linked jihadists who helped the “protest”: Tawfiq Al ‘Afani, ‘Adel Shehato, and Rifai Ahmed Taha Musa. Al ‘Afani and Shehato, all are longtime EIJ ideologues and leaders. These guys are all BFF’s with the Blind Sheikh, Obama bin laden and Ayman al Zawahiri.
Tom Joscelyn was right, “The video fraud enabled the administration and Obama’s reelection campaign to stay on offense – aggressively pummeling the strawman of “Islamophobia” – rather than in the defensive crouch required to explain, or try to explain, the Obama administration’s performance in Egypt, Libya, and the broader Middle East. It worked: The Romney campaign was cowed and accountability for the Benghazi massacre would have to wait many months.”
Hence, that email “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an internet video and not a broader failure of policy.”
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2014/02/al_qaedas_expansion.php
Cairo was all about the jihadists wanting to get back the Blind Sheikh, not about some stupid video.
The administration lied about Cairo, there was no “protest” going on there about a video. When Benghazi comes up, the administration is like, hey, let’s blame the Cairo “protests” on this video. You have to ask yourself, Why? “Because the media and the public, have bought hook, line, and sinker the fraudulent claim that those “protests” were over the anti-Muslim video. The administration calculated that if you buy “Blame the Video” as the explanation for Cairo, it becomes much more plausible that you will “Blame the Video” as the explanation for Benghazi, or, at the very least, you will give the administration the benefit of the doubt that they could truly have believed the video triggered Benghazi, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary.”
Weeks before September 11, 2012, the jihadists wanted to screw with the U.S. embassy in Cairo. The Blind Sheikh’s son wanted to kick the embassy ass, snatch up the Americans and do a trade for their BFF, Blind Sheikh. Other jihadists threatened to burn the embassy to the ground and it was reported in the Egyptian press the day before the September 11 “protests.” Again, Cairo rioting was driven by the jihadists who were pissed and wanted the Blind Sheikh’s release. The jihadists have been threatening for weeks to raid the embassy.
Al Qaeda’s expansion into Egypt was the cause of these rioting’s. The rioting was a pro al qaida event from the start. There has been at least three other senior al Qaeda-linked jihadists who helped the “protest”: Tawfiq Al ‘Afani, ‘Adel Shehato, and Rifai Ahmed Taha Musa. Al ‘Afani and Shehato, all are longtime EIJ ideologues and leaders. These guys are all BFF’s with the Blind Sheikh, Obama bin laden and Ayman al Zawahiri.
Tom Joscelyn was right, “The video fraud enabled the administration and Obama’s reelection campaign to stay on offense – aggressively pummeling the strawman of “Islamophobia” – rather than in the defensive crouch required to explain, or try to explain, the Obama administration’s performance in Egypt, Libya, and the broader Middle East. It worked: The Romney campaign was cowed and accountability for the Benghazi massacre would have to wait many months.”
Hence, that email “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an internet video and not a broader failure of policy.”
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2014/02/al_qaedas_expansion.php
Aria Prescott commented
2014-05-06 22:40:24 -0400
· Flag
As for the “both sides do it” meme, I think our right wing friends can come up with something better than that."
They aren’t doing it because they think “Both sides do it” is a genuinely valid point. They’re doing it to try getting even for Bush being such a criticized president, some of the ones on other sites even admit this is supposed to be “shoe on the other foot” for the “Clinton lied about a blowjob” meme.
Here’s the problem with that, though- When Obama’s doing something genuinely wrong, and it’s not just normal political BS?? The left is out there screaming just as hard as the right. Hell, when Clinton did something wrong, both sides were outraged the same, something records show can’t be said for Reagan, and can only be said for Bush I because of his closing military bases and the final drafting of NAFTA.
Did you see a Republican criticize Bush II- For anything? That’s how I knew who was registered as what, because no one who criticized Bush was registered as, or even identifying themselves as a Republican. Yet, when we get ouraged with our guy, it’s never good enough. We have to be over the moon, gun in each fist, firing in the air and bellering like Yosemite Sam to make them happy.
And even then, they’d probably find bias in what gun we were using.
They aren’t doing it because they think “Both sides do it” is a genuinely valid point. They’re doing it to try getting even for Bush being such a criticized president, some of the ones on other sites even admit this is supposed to be “shoe on the other foot” for the “Clinton lied about a blowjob” meme.
Here’s the problem with that, though- When Obama’s doing something genuinely wrong, and it’s not just normal political BS?? The left is out there screaming just as hard as the right. Hell, when Clinton did something wrong, both sides were outraged the same, something records show can’t be said for Reagan, and can only be said for Bush I because of his closing military bases and the final drafting of NAFTA.
Did you see a Republican criticize Bush II- For anything? That’s how I knew who was registered as what, because no one who criticized Bush was registered as, or even identifying themselves as a Republican. Yet, when we get ouraged with our guy, it’s never good enough. We have to be over the moon, gun in each fist, firing in the air and bellering like Yosemite Sam to make them happy.
And even then, they’d probably find bias in what gun we were using.
Kevin Koster commented
2014-05-06 21:38:27 -0400
· Flag
There’s a heck of a lot of spin going on in this thread! I have to believe that there are some Fox News fans who don’t like watching their favorite talking points getting completely debunked.
Let’s take these in no particular order.
Facts about Benghazi: The attack on the Consulate happened simultaneously with a large number of protests and riots in the Middle East, spurred by an offensive video called “The Innocence of Muslims”. Faced with a situation like this, the US Military responded as quickly as it could, but not in time to save the lives of the 4 people who were killed. In the same way, the US Military was unable to prevent the US Embassy in Cairo from being overrun. Following the attack, an ARB report was put together by veteran military and intelligence staff, which noted and heavily criticized some oversights that could have helped avert the killings.
GOP spin attempts about Benghazi: As soon as the rioting began in the Middle East, Fox News and the GOP immediately began trumpeting the footage, saying that it was proof that President Obama was weak on foreign policy, and clearly pushing for Mitt Romney to be elected to somehow provide better leadership. As soon as the Consulate was attacked, the coverage was shifted to focus completely on Benghazi. Suddenly, the overall riots were discounted and we were instead meant to believe that this was an isolated situation where President Obama was either incompetent or “just didn’t care” about the safety and welfare of US diplomats overseas. On more than ten occasions, the GOP and Fox News announced major congressional hearings in which a huge “smoking gun” would be revealed about the Consulate attack. And on each case, either we just heard a State Dept staffer with an axe to grind, or we heard a rehashing of the same talking points heard the last time.
GOP/Fox News narrative about Benghazi: Fox News has repeatedly pushed several notions about the Consulate attack. They have played up the notion that security requests were turned down or ignored – something that was discussed at length in the ARB report. But if you were to hear it at Fox News, you’d have to conclude that Hillary Clinton personally chose to hang the Ambassador out to dry and that Barack Obama personally approved. Which is of course nonsense. Fox News has repeatedly discounted the “Innocence of Muslims” video and has even tried to champion the man who inflicted it, even after we’ve seen the facts about all the rioting through the area and over 50 people having died in those riots. Fox News has played up a notion that somehow the military was told to “stand down” and not go help the people at the Consulate – even though this has been refuted by military commanders. (One presumes that Fox News and the GOP expected the military to re-prioritize the various units’ assignments during a moment when ALL the embassies in the area were in clear danger. And if they had done so, and another embassy had been hit, you can bet that Fox News would have pounced on this.) Fox News has repeatedly tried a meme about “where was President Obama during the attack?”, which is an offensive question for obvious reasons. Its clear origin is the old “who do you want to be getting that call at 3am” campaign trope that was supposed to get voters to go with John McCain rather than Obama in 2008. And it’s already been asked and answered – President Obama was in the White House, regularly being updated as to what was happening. Fox News and the GOP have regularly attacked the ARB report and even their own prior hearings, saying that “Hillary Clinton needs to be asked questions” or that more questions need to be asked of other people. Except that she already answered those questions. The GOP just wants to put her back on the stand to see if they can take some cheap shots at her before 2016. They know there isn’t any further information they can provide.
Context on Benghazi: The Fox News spin about the attack is that President Obama somehow lied about it as a campaign strategy. Memos about campaign strategy are thus used as yet another route of right wing attack. Except that President Obama already addressed these exact questions during the campaign and during the debates – noting that if this was supposed to be a cover-up, it wasn’t a very good one, since he was talking about terrorists by the next day, and since everyone was clearer on what had happened in a fairly short time. Keep in mind that the attack happened two MONTHS before the 2012 election. This stuff was discussed in presidential debates – it’s not like it was being hidden. And we can’t forget the part that Fox News played from the beginning of the riots – spinning the situation as “yet another failure of the Obama presidency”. It shouldn’t be a surprise to Fox News that the Obama Administration responded that this was not in fact the case.
Context re George W. Bush: Fox News supporters can spin all they like, but the fact is that there were multiple deaths at embassies during the Bush presidency, and not once did Fox News go on the attack like this about any of them. In fact, if any journalists dared to ask questions about things like the Downing Street Memo (showing that the Bush people were pushing so hard for an Iraq invasion that they were fixing the facts to their preset conclusions), Fox News and the GOP would attack the journalists for being unpatriotic during a time of war. Fox News hopes that regular viewers might forget Ari Fleischer infamously musing out loud that people “need to watch what they do, watch what they say”.
Criminal Context re the Bush Presidency: Fox News would also like its viewers to forget the very real criminal problems that occurred within the George W. Bush presidency. And it’s not just the Wilson/Plame matter or the forced resignation of Alberto Gonzales in disgrace. The conduct of the Bush Administration was troubling enough that there are several members of Bush’s cabinet along with Bush himself who are limited in their travel options – as there are warrants out for them in Europe over their use of torture and inhumane treatment. So to mask this really bad aftertaste, they’ve taken the same approach they did with Bill Clinton in the 90s – they’ve tried to find a “smoking gun” scandal with which they can smear President Obama. This is why every week or two, you get another story on Fox News about, let’s see, Joe Sestak, Fast & Furious, Solyndra, IRS, NSA, and yes, Benghazi. What do they all have in common? That there was no criminal activity, and that Fox News and the GOP have continued to jump up and down about them hoping they can find some fire in there somewhere.
Tom Berger’s thought that the George W. Bush presidency didn’t mislead the public is a nice one, but it doesn’t line up with the facts. The Bush people certainly knew what the capabilities of Iraq were at the time we invaded. A lot of the American public knew as well, which is why they were calling and writing their congresspeople on a scale of 10:1 and even 100:1 to say DON’T DO THIS. Sadly, the congresspeople allowed Bush to have his invasion, and we’ve seen how things played out since. I don’t doubt that many people in government who believed the Bush line, but there were plenty of people who saw it for what it was – a trumped-up pretense to justify an invasion. Tom may not remember the infamous line “…for those asking for proof, the proof may come in the form…of a mushroom cloud.” That was a fairly direct act of deception, and it cost the lives of a lot more people than those who died in the consulate in Benghazi.
I would add that Trey Gowdy isn’t going to find anything, and he isn’t looking to do so. He’s looking to do what Darrell Issa has been doing for the past three 1/2 years: Yell at some Obama Administration staffers on television, throw a tantrum, and do so as a campaign commercial for himself in the midterms. Gowdy has repeatedly claimed to have “new information” about Benghazi but has yet to provide anything. It’s almost at the level of ludicrosity of Glenn Beck’s pronouncements but Gowdy hasn’t dragged out a chalkboard yet…
As for the “both sides do it” meme, I think our right wing friends can come up with something better than that. Particularly after getting flayed in this manner by Jon Stewart.
Let’s take these in no particular order.
Facts about Benghazi: The attack on the Consulate happened simultaneously with a large number of protests and riots in the Middle East, spurred by an offensive video called “The Innocence of Muslims”. Faced with a situation like this, the US Military responded as quickly as it could, but not in time to save the lives of the 4 people who were killed. In the same way, the US Military was unable to prevent the US Embassy in Cairo from being overrun. Following the attack, an ARB report was put together by veteran military and intelligence staff, which noted and heavily criticized some oversights that could have helped avert the killings.
GOP spin attempts about Benghazi: As soon as the rioting began in the Middle East, Fox News and the GOP immediately began trumpeting the footage, saying that it was proof that President Obama was weak on foreign policy, and clearly pushing for Mitt Romney to be elected to somehow provide better leadership. As soon as the Consulate was attacked, the coverage was shifted to focus completely on Benghazi. Suddenly, the overall riots were discounted and we were instead meant to believe that this was an isolated situation where President Obama was either incompetent or “just didn’t care” about the safety and welfare of US diplomats overseas. On more than ten occasions, the GOP and Fox News announced major congressional hearings in which a huge “smoking gun” would be revealed about the Consulate attack. And on each case, either we just heard a State Dept staffer with an axe to grind, or we heard a rehashing of the same talking points heard the last time.
GOP/Fox News narrative about Benghazi: Fox News has repeatedly pushed several notions about the Consulate attack. They have played up the notion that security requests were turned down or ignored – something that was discussed at length in the ARB report. But if you were to hear it at Fox News, you’d have to conclude that Hillary Clinton personally chose to hang the Ambassador out to dry and that Barack Obama personally approved. Which is of course nonsense. Fox News has repeatedly discounted the “Innocence of Muslims” video and has even tried to champion the man who inflicted it, even after we’ve seen the facts about all the rioting through the area and over 50 people having died in those riots. Fox News has played up a notion that somehow the military was told to “stand down” and not go help the people at the Consulate – even though this has been refuted by military commanders. (One presumes that Fox News and the GOP expected the military to re-prioritize the various units’ assignments during a moment when ALL the embassies in the area were in clear danger. And if they had done so, and another embassy had been hit, you can bet that Fox News would have pounced on this.) Fox News has repeatedly tried a meme about “where was President Obama during the attack?”, which is an offensive question for obvious reasons. Its clear origin is the old “who do you want to be getting that call at 3am” campaign trope that was supposed to get voters to go with John McCain rather than Obama in 2008. And it’s already been asked and answered – President Obama was in the White House, regularly being updated as to what was happening. Fox News and the GOP have regularly attacked the ARB report and even their own prior hearings, saying that “Hillary Clinton needs to be asked questions” or that more questions need to be asked of other people. Except that she already answered those questions. The GOP just wants to put her back on the stand to see if they can take some cheap shots at her before 2016. They know there isn’t any further information they can provide.
Context on Benghazi: The Fox News spin about the attack is that President Obama somehow lied about it as a campaign strategy. Memos about campaign strategy are thus used as yet another route of right wing attack. Except that President Obama already addressed these exact questions during the campaign and during the debates – noting that if this was supposed to be a cover-up, it wasn’t a very good one, since he was talking about terrorists by the next day, and since everyone was clearer on what had happened in a fairly short time. Keep in mind that the attack happened two MONTHS before the 2012 election. This stuff was discussed in presidential debates – it’s not like it was being hidden. And we can’t forget the part that Fox News played from the beginning of the riots – spinning the situation as “yet another failure of the Obama presidency”. It shouldn’t be a surprise to Fox News that the Obama Administration responded that this was not in fact the case.
Context re George W. Bush: Fox News supporters can spin all they like, but the fact is that there were multiple deaths at embassies during the Bush presidency, and not once did Fox News go on the attack like this about any of them. In fact, if any journalists dared to ask questions about things like the Downing Street Memo (showing that the Bush people were pushing so hard for an Iraq invasion that they were fixing the facts to their preset conclusions), Fox News and the GOP would attack the journalists for being unpatriotic during a time of war. Fox News hopes that regular viewers might forget Ari Fleischer infamously musing out loud that people “need to watch what they do, watch what they say”.
Criminal Context re the Bush Presidency: Fox News would also like its viewers to forget the very real criminal problems that occurred within the George W. Bush presidency. And it’s not just the Wilson/Plame matter or the forced resignation of Alberto Gonzales in disgrace. The conduct of the Bush Administration was troubling enough that there are several members of Bush’s cabinet along with Bush himself who are limited in their travel options – as there are warrants out for them in Europe over their use of torture and inhumane treatment. So to mask this really bad aftertaste, they’ve taken the same approach they did with Bill Clinton in the 90s – they’ve tried to find a “smoking gun” scandal with which they can smear President Obama. This is why every week or two, you get another story on Fox News about, let’s see, Joe Sestak, Fast & Furious, Solyndra, IRS, NSA, and yes, Benghazi. What do they all have in common? That there was no criminal activity, and that Fox News and the GOP have continued to jump up and down about them hoping they can find some fire in there somewhere.
Tom Berger’s thought that the George W. Bush presidency didn’t mislead the public is a nice one, but it doesn’t line up with the facts. The Bush people certainly knew what the capabilities of Iraq were at the time we invaded. A lot of the American public knew as well, which is why they were calling and writing their congresspeople on a scale of 10:1 and even 100:1 to say DON’T DO THIS. Sadly, the congresspeople allowed Bush to have his invasion, and we’ve seen how things played out since. I don’t doubt that many people in government who believed the Bush line, but there were plenty of people who saw it for what it was – a trumped-up pretense to justify an invasion. Tom may not remember the infamous line “…for those asking for proof, the proof may come in the form…of a mushroom cloud.” That was a fairly direct act of deception, and it cost the lives of a lot more people than those who died in the consulate in Benghazi.
I would add that Trey Gowdy isn’t going to find anything, and he isn’t looking to do so. He’s looking to do what Darrell Issa has been doing for the past three 1/2 years: Yell at some Obama Administration staffers on television, throw a tantrum, and do so as a campaign commercial for himself in the midterms. Gowdy has repeatedly claimed to have “new information” about Benghazi but has yet to provide anything. It’s almost at the level of ludicrosity of Glenn Beck’s pronouncements but Gowdy hasn’t dragged out a chalkboard yet…
As for the “both sides do it” meme, I think our right wing friends can come up with something better than that. Particularly after getting flayed in this manner by Jon Stewart.
Aria Prescott commented
2014-05-06 20:57:24 -0400
· Flag
TOM! Nice to see you, after all you mysteriously stopped wanting to debate Benghazi on the threads where we talked about Fox News admitting they’re pushing a narrative to fabricate outrage. Especially since you you were so gun-ho on other threads about it.
I even asked where you were, but you never showed up- Where were you, man?! I figured you’d have all those threads at 100+ comments.
I even asked where you were, but you never showed up- Where were you, man?! I figured you’d have all those threads at 100+ comments.
Tom Berger commented
2014-05-06 16:18:27 -0400
· Flag
I think the Republicans are pissed that the administration misled the public about the attack. I don’t know if there was any misleading by the bush administration on those 13 that died. Maybe that’s why there was no coverage or little coverage. I think the republicans are keeping this alive because of Hillary running for pres, like the democrats delayed this story till after the elections. Politics is ugly. I wonder what Trey is going to find. This is a good thing because we can put a fork in it, and put this thing to bed!!!
Tom Berger commented
2014-05-06 16:02:57 -0400
· Flag
Cenk, gets pissed that to much coverage is being given to benghazi, when it should go to a ton of other problems the administration is having. Toward the end of the video, do you believe that Cenk is using the same theme here as Stuart. Is he using the Fox news Cliche?
Tom Berger commented
2014-05-06 15:48:40 -0400
· Flag
Well, I believe the president was being evasive or tricky. Even Stewart agrees with me on that. Although funny as hell, I disagree with his point, "this doesn’t matter because of bush and the Iraq war. Anyways, he needs the ratings. This is the “both sides do it, so it doesn’t count”, thing.
About the 13, I don’t think there was anything dodgy going on in the administration, when that went down. I could be wrong on that.
About the 13, I don’t think there was anything dodgy going on in the administration, when that went down. I could be wrong on that.
Bemused commented
2014-05-06 15:35:41 -0400
· Flag
Jon Stewart really hit that nail of hypocrisy on the head. Fox News hosts couldn’t care less about what they may have said when GWB was in office. By comparison with almost everything murky done by that administration, the handling of Benghazi was pretty transparent.
There are times when I feel that the kookier among the Republicans and the vast majority of the hosts on their spokes-channel FNC really do think that President Obama is all-seeing and all-powerful. Wish that were true but it ain’t.
There are times when I feel that the kookier among the Republicans and the vast majority of the hosts on their spokes-channel FNC really do think that President Obama is all-seeing and all-powerful. Wish that were true but it ain’t.
Tom Berger commented
2014-05-06 15:07:18 -0400
· Flag
I got it bob. I noticed that his ratings are in the toilet, and so is Colbert. I wonder why nobody watches him. He is a great comedian. I think he’s better than cobert. Even his online presence is in the toilet. Like this guys video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DuYw5hOB_8&feature=g-pop&context=G2066498YPAAAAAAAIAA smokes the daily show clips. I just don’t get it.
Bob Roberts commented
2014-05-06 14:45:00 -0400
· Flag
Sorry, my greater than sign didn’t appear. Stick it in between Libya and 3,000+. Oh hell, you all know what I was trying say.
Bob Roberts commented
2014-05-06 14:43:18 -0400
· Flag
@ Tom Berger……..I understand…….4 in Libya>3,000+ in New York City on American soil. And by the way, Faux plays the “both sides do it” card every day on their opinion shows. I assume you believe that the Faux hosts reflect a desperate wish to somehow justify some form of unethical behavior, namely their so-called “reporting” of what they deem as facts.
truman commented
2014-05-06 14:21:56 -0400
· Flag
Despite the 24/7 partisan propaganda spewed out by Fux Noise and the Teabagging Repugs, Benghazi is not a scandal in any reasonable meaning of the word.
Have to love the faux sensibilities of Ms. Lindsey Graham. Fully expect Ms. Graham to come down with a case of the vapors when Benghazi is even mentioned.
Have to love the faux sensibilities of Ms. Lindsey Graham. Fully expect Ms. Graham to come down with a case of the vapors when Benghazi is even mentioned.
Tom Berger commented
2014-05-06 13:56:14 -0400
· Flag
“The “both sides do it” argument is – by definition – a pretty lame one. Such arguments are typically used by 3-5 year olds in a desperate attempt to justify doing something they are only just realising may be wrong.
When used by anybody older than that, they reflect a desperate wish to somehow justify some form of unethical behavior.”
When used by anybody older than that, they reflect a desperate wish to somehow justify some form of unethical behavior.”
Sandman2 commented
2014-05-06 12:58:53 -0400
· Flag
Ellen wrote:
Really brilliant and devastating. Why can’t any so-called “Democratic strategists” that go on Fox ever be so right on target and effective?
Read more at http://www.newshounds.us/_jon_stewart_scorches_fox_news_over_benghazi_05062014#zlH8rhEoj0ILFHcu.99
Because they wouldn’t be a Fox News Democratic strategist for very long if they fought back and didn’t follow the script!
Great takedown by Stewart, as usual!
Really brilliant and devastating. Why can’t any so-called “Democratic strategists” that go on Fox ever be so right on target and effective?
Read more at http://www.newshounds.us/_jon_stewart_scorches_fox_news_over_benghazi_05062014#zlH8rhEoj0ILFHcu.99
Because they wouldn’t be a Fox News Democratic strategist for very long if they fought back and didn’t follow the script!
Great takedown by Stewart, as usual!
NewsHounds
posted
about Jon Stewart Scorches Fox News Over Benghazi
on NewsHounds' Facebook page
2014-05-06 12:13:05 -0400
Why can’t any so-called “Democratic strategists” that go on Fox ever be so right on target and effective?