Crazy Uncle's Embassy In Benghazi Snorts Koch—Blasts Hillary

There are a lot of reasons people might have to not vote for Hillary Clinton for president. But her performance regarding the Benghazi attack on September 11, 2012 is simply not a pertinent issue. Republican insistence on playing the Crazy Uncle card on Benghazi is only going to make them appear stupid and hopeless—which they are.
The Republican Party at this point is 100% committed to playing the Crazy Uncle—the relative who tortures everyone with insane conspiracy theories about how sinister parts of the government are doing, or are failing to do, terrible things we should all care deeply about.

While there are plenty of things about the sinister government we should actually care deeply about—like Obama's NSA police state apparatus—the thing Crazy Uncle is going off about this week, Benghazi once again, is stupid, and boring!

Nevertheless, because the right is absolutely terrified of Hillary Clinton getting the Democratic nomination for president, BECAUSE the Republicans can not match up against Hillary's strong appeal to the majority demographic, women, the Koch brothers and their right-wing operatives are trying to craft some kind of swiftboat attack on Hillary that will tarnish her long before the 2016 campaign gets officially underway.

Last week, it was Rand Paul reminding us that White House interns would once again be vulnerable to aging, frail, Bill Clinton's randy rowdiness, should he become First Big Daddy. That ancient history sludge Paul wants to beat Hillary with is boobytrapped to blow up all over the stupid Republicans. Just recall, every single time they try to beat the Clintons with the gnarly old GOP shamestick, the Republican fools just end up squatting on the smelly thing themselves.

And NOBODY wants to see Rand Paul doing that!

The Benghazi weapon has been equally useless for the Republicans. Over and over again, they've attempted to employ it, first against Barack Obama in the 2012 election—Candy Crowley's famous torpedoing of Mitt Romney's Benghazi battleship in the second debate will not soon be forgotten.

And now the Republicans are going Benghazi all over Hillary, or they are trying to anyway.

The Republican attack line amounts to this: Hillary did not personally lead a Marine contingent into the US consulate compound in Benghazi, Libya the night of September 11th, 2012, to save her good friend, Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who was pleading with her to save him from swarming hordes of evil terrorists! Worse still, after Hillary betrayed Stevens, and her oath of office to do everything Republicans claim she should do, the entire Obama junta cooked up some crazy talk about the whole thing being about a silly video!

OK, now, that is pretty much the Republican story. And that story is pack of lies. And the Republicans have been repeatedly caught lying on their Benghazi narrative, because the Republican Benghazi narrative has never had anything to do with facts, or with a concern about the national interests of the USA. The Republicans, basically imploding with senility and stupidity, are looking for anything they can twist into a counter to stop the simply more appealing candidates offered by the Democrats.

The truth about Benghazi is still not completely understood, but the basic fact-based narrative, is that Chris Stevens, following his standard operating assumption, that US diplomatic missions should not be fortresses, waved off an offer of extra security from the US military. When Stevens went to Benghazi, he understood there was a much greater security risk for himself, but he accepted that risk because he thought it was necessary to properly do his job—which was again diplomacy and not war.

When the infamous anti-Islamic video led to the protests against the USA in Cairo, the Benghazi team protecting Ambassador Stevens should have implemented a tighter, better, security plan. In part, because the State Department wanted to convey trust in some of the apparently pro-USA militias in Benghazi, security watches in and around the consulate compound were handled by Libyans. Let's just say, some of those elements were not exactly motivated, or apparently even friendly to the US.

Bottom line, the moment the Cairo situation developed, the CIA headquarters in Benghazi should have extended its security cordon to protect the US ambassador. But this didn't happen. Indeed, nobody even wanted to talk about the CIA being in Benghazi. So, yes, the US security response to the threat in Benghazi was not optimal. Everyone has admitted that.

But that is a far cry from saying Hillary Clinton's personal failure in the matter was the main problem. Clearly, that was not the case. The failures were much more local, in Libya.

Lastly, on this point, and as I have noted in the past, if you want to talk about seemingly lax attitudes on the evening of the attack against the Benghazi compound, you might want to go west a bit on the map, but not all the way to Washington, D.C.. Instead, you might want to go west a bit to Tripoli, the US embassy headquarters for Libya, and Chris Stevens' second in command, Gregory Hicks.

Hicks' behavior that night, and his changing stories about what exactly he did and when, do raise questions about whether some people (not called Barack or Hillary), might have saved Stavens' life by acting sooner and with more vigor. For Hicks, just picking up the telephone might have made all the difference—just maybe.

But that isn't going to be part of the Crazy Uncle Benghazi story. For the Republicans, it's craft the Benghazi tale as an improvised anti-Hillary device, and the relevant facts about Benghazi either serve the political end, or the GOP has no interest in them.

Comments