Yawning over the Hearings on Benghazi

After numerous false starts and dress rehearsals the off Broadway presentation to be known as the House Oversight Committee’s Hearings into the Benghazi Affair has now opened for what promises to be a limited engagement.  Although it is true that the subject matter is truly of import  the problem for most of us is that we not only already know the story line, but we also know the ending.  Ask yourself these questions:

1. 1.  Are any of the facts pertaining to the affair seriously in dispute?
2. 2.  Does anyone doubt that those in the Obama Administration were fully aware of what was happening?
3. 3.  Does anyone doubt that those in the Obama Administration failed to defend their representatives on the ground in Benghazi?
4. 4.  Does anyone doubt that those in the Obama Administration lied to the American People?
5. 5.  Does anyone doubt that the “Main-Stream Media”* was fully complicit in the campaign of disseminating false information?
6. 6.  Does anyone doubt that every Democrat will put their party’s objectives above national interest?
7. 7.  Does anyone seriously believe that the Republicans are anything more than paper tigers?
8. 8.  Does anyone seriously believe that these hearings represent anything more than political theater with both sides playing their parts as prescribed prior to attending the bi-partisan reception after the curtain comes down on the final act?
9. 9.  Will those responsible be affected in any serious way?
10. 10.  Not really a question, but……who wants to argue against the suggestion that the final outcome will be to require that “serious efforts be made to ensure that such a scenario doesn’t happen again”?

————————————

Note how prescient George Washington was when he spoke about parties when one considers that those in Congress are more loyal to their party than the institution of which they are members.

————————————

* The Benghazi hearings: what’s new and  what’s not

And the Washington Post has the audacity to publish the article linked above…..!

Readers who are just tuning into the Benghazi story may be a little confused about what is new — and what is not. As a reader service, here’s an effort to help readers through some of the fog of charges and countercharges that emerged at the House hearings on Wednesday.

As I read the article I really had to make an effort not to begin laughing hysterically….No confusion….Nothing really new…..Nope…..not really any “fog of charges and countercharges”….I’ve noticed that liberals seem to equate false statements with truthful ones as if they should both be given equal weight and thus they always seem to “be confused”.

But the attack occurred shortly after violent protests outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, which muddied the news reporting and may have shaped official perceptions.

I see the Obama Administration is not the only entity attempting to cover their behind, much less attempting to continue the cover-up and “muddy the waters” on why their statements and reports were without foundation and, in fact, were lies.

This was the account in The Washington Post on Sept. 12, the day after the attack:   “U.S. diplomatic compounds came under attack in two Muslim countries on Tuesday, with a State Department employee killed in the assault on a consulate in Libya…. In both Cairo and Benghazi, protesters said they were demonstrating against a U.S.-released film that insulted the prophet Muhammad.”

Really?  Care to provide a bone fide source for that claim?  As those who have been paying attention from the very beginning already know, this claim was debunked at that time and numerous times subsequently.

But it turns out there were no demonstrations in Benghazi; it was a terrorist attack, pure and simple. This has been well established in various official documents, including the Accountability Review Board, which declared: “The Board concluded that there was no protest prior to the attacks, which were unanticipated in their scale and intensity.”

Whoops, major egg on the face here when those readers that the Washington Post has left realize that the WaPo’s reporting was completely false and, further, apparently made up out of whole cloth.

The report cited “two emails from the State Department Diplomatic Security Operations Center on the day of the attack, September 11, and the day after, September 12, 2012, characterized the attack as an ‘initial terrorism incident’ and as a ‘terrorist event.’” Moreover, as early as Sept. 15, the team that had been in Benghazi reported there has been no protest; the FBI also conducted face-to-face interviews with people who were in the compound during the attack and they reported there was no protest. So it is not new that there was no protest. That’s been officially well established. It is also not new that many officials knew it was a terrorist attack.

If this were pre-war Japan it would seem to me that those at the Washington Post would be seriously be considering hari kari….and yet they continue as if nothing has happened….somehow believing that their reputation and credibility remains unblemished.  How truly embarrassing for what once was considered a reputable newspaper! In any event, if you really wish to subject yourself to more poor reporting and partisan reasoning feel free to read the rest of the article….as for me?  I’ve had enough and am reminded as to why I quit reading the Post quite some time ago…… An article that continues to spin a report on why the truth was spun in the first place.   Sad.

Advertisement