Finally an explanation for the Benghazi Obsession

[Jacob]

I never could wrap my head around the obsession with Benghazi, but finally here's an explanation that makes sense:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/05/09/the-real-lesson-of-benghazi/
http://prospect.org/article/demand-side-scandals
http://theweek.com/article/index/243922/yes-there-is-a-benghazi-conspiracy

Basically, there's no incentive to lay out a coherent explanation to non-Republican-diehards, so none is offered.

[Admiral Yi]

Only read the first link.

The problem with that dude's argument is, if you're going to say a particular case is symptomatic of some broader trend, it's nice to have more than one data point.

[Razgovory]

I think one of the GOP's main beefs with Benghazi is that it didn't benefit it them.  Obama should have been discredited and Mitt Romney should have won.  This didn't happen.  I think the GOP believes that the President covered up this terrorist attack (by suggesting it was part of some protests), and prevented the majority of Americans from knowing about it and allowing Mitt Romney to rightfully sail into the White House on a wave of blood and bodies.

[Zanza]

Not that I care much for the whole thing as I didn't follow it, but I saw this linked somewhere else:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/40811/13-benghazis-happened-under-president-bush-and-fox-news-said-nothing

[Jacob]

Only read the first link.

The problem with that dude's argument is, if you're going to say a particular case is symptomatic of some broader trend, it's nice to have more than one data point.

Second link adds the Fast and Furious as a second data point.

[Admiral Yi]

Second link adds the Fast and Furious as a second data point.

Do you really think that works as an example of Republicans fabricating a scandal over nothing?

[sbr]

Only read the first link.

The problem with that dude's argument is, if you're going to say a particular case is symptomatic of some broader trend, it's nice to have more than one data point.

[Jacob]

Second link adds the Fast and Furious as a second data point.

Do you really think that works as an example of Republicans fabricating a scandal over nothing?

No. Nor do I think the contrary.

I'm merely saying the second article claims it as a second data point to support the thesis they're setting out.

[Admiral Yi]

No. Nor do I think the contrary.

I'm merely saying the second article claims it as a second data point to support the thesis they're setting out.

I thought you were trying to pitch us the thesis.

[Jacob]

I thought you were trying to pitch us the thesis.

It is the most coherent explanation I've come across so far.

I tossed it into the pit at languish to see if it could survive the fierce scrutiny of our leading political intellects.

[Razgovory]

Second link adds the Fast and Furious as a second data point.

Do you really think that works as an example of Republicans fabricating a scandal over nothing?

A scandal for Obama?  Yeah...

[CountDeMoney]

I like the new commercials they've been running about the cover up.  And it's not even an election year.

[merithyn]

Not that I care much for the whole thing as I didn't follow it, but I saw this linked somewhere else:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/40811/13-benghazis-happened-under-president-bush-and-fox-news-said-nothing

This is the argument that I most often hear from the right:

You obviously are missing the point about Benghazi...

People are more so pissed off the that Obama and his clown for a sec. state lied about the situation knowing damn well it was not due to some stupid youtube video.

THAT is why Republicans, and more importantly, the families of the victims want answers.

No rational person expects the govt to prevent every last act of terrorism, but to lie about the facts will get you get out of office or impeached in a heart beat. Just ask Nixon or Clinton.

Except that no one with any sense believes that Obama or Clinton "lied". Most acknowledge that they made a mistake in the statements that they made, though Obama never even implied that it stemmed from the video. He just called it a "terrorist attack" which is what it was.

But no amount of explanation, no amount of showing the videos of what was actually said, seems to matter. It is, as Jacob says, the scandal that the Republican right want and need, because it's really the only one they're going to get.

Obama's been squeaky clean, the antithesis of Bill Clinton. He's made mistakes, he's done things I wish he hadn't, he's not been the strongest president, but no matter how one might feel about him, one cannot say that his presidency has had any real scandal. Mistakes - usually acknowledged - but scandal? No.