One would think that Jennifer Rubin would be exhausted after her shrill, months-long, Romney-pumping, Maxwell Smart-like campaign against America's Satan, Barack Obama; so exhausted, she might even give her paranoid hysteria a rest. At least a brief one. But no, not the Washington Post's Jen Rubin. Indeed, she's foaming and frothing more than ever.
Her latest screed trumpets the Benghazi Affair as "a full-blown scandal." Rubin cites a "blockbuster" Washington Guardian story which, she explains, "indicates that the president certainly knew that Benghazi wasn’t a rogue movie review gone bad." She quotes from the story:
Most of the details affirming al-Qaida links were edited or excluded from the unclassified talking points used by Rice in appearances on news programs the weekend after the attack, officials confirmed Friday. Multiple agencies were involved in excising information, doing so because it revealed sources and methods, dealt with classified intercepts or involved information that was not yet fully confirmed, the officials said.
Rubin then writes--and this is mindblowing--"How could the president and his senior staff then have allowed (or rather, sent) Rice to go out to tell an entirely different tale to the American people on Sept. 16 on five TV shows?"
Yet she had already answered that in the very quote she led with: Multiple agencies were involved in excising information, doing so because it revealed sources and methods, dealt with classified intercepts or involved information that was not yet fully confirmed.
The devastating consequences of the White House prematurely announcing to the perpetrators that the former knows who the latter are, and thus are hot on their trail, seem not to have occurred to the fevered Ms. Rubin--who was once an amusement but is now only an abomination.
I must be stupid. For the life of me, I can't see where this whole Benghazi thing has any legs in Main Street.
Assume they are correct. So what? A government official said something deliberately untrue to cover up the fact that the responsible parties didn't know what the fuck was happening at the time.
Big Deal. Why is this actionable or even remarkable?
As far as I can tell, no one is accusing the State Department of bribing malcontents to burn down a CIA house they didn't want near their consulate office.
Like I said, I must be stupid.
Posted by: DerFarm | November 17, 2012 at 10:26 AM
Can someone please tell me WHY Obama would cover up the fact that al Qaeda was behind the attack. I will concede two of the rudimentary elements of a crime, means and opportunity, but WHY would he do this?
Then go one step further. WHY would everyone else involved risk their careers and reputations hiding this fact?
Is blaming crazy students for the attacks and murders somehow more politically beneficial? Were they all paid to lie? Are they all Manchurian candidates?
They wouldn't let this plot into a porno movie.
Or so I've heard. ;-)
Posted by: Robert Lipscomb | November 17, 2012 at 10:31 AM
Look, it's simple: Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a Muslim Socialist Muslim liberal Muslim Kenyan Muslim who hates America and is doing his empty-suit, Telepromptering Chicago thug best to destroy The Greatest Country On Earth by whatever means come to hand. If that means conspiring with MUSLIMS to kill four Americans and then lie about it, why then, that's just what he'd do. Because he hates America.
Now, shut up and eat your Fox News.
Posted by: Janicket | November 17, 2012 at 10:41 AM
@Janicket; Sorry, my bad. I forgot.
BTW, has it ever been PROVEN that Obama was never part of an international MUSLIM pedophile sex slave trading ring?
I didn't think so.
Posted by: Robert Lipscomb | November 17, 2012 at 12:07 PM
I have yet to see, hear, or read about a coherent reason this "scandal" has legs in the heartland.
The professional ODS victims need no reason. The mayor of Grand Junction, CO DOES.
Where is this thing going to play outside the crazy beltway?
Posted by: DerFarm | November 17, 2012 at 12:13 PM