THE BENGHAZI “SMOKING GUN” EMAIL AND SLATE.COM

Let me start by assuring President Obama, his people, and very especially Hillary Clinton, that they have little to worry about.  Their Accomplice Media are burying this story, just as they have buried everything else about the Benghazi massacre once they could not blame it on the video anymore.  Illustratively, The Today Show this morning gave it two or three sentences, 15 minutes into the show.

That said, this morning we have John Dickerson, chief correspondent for slate.com, providing an article titled “Lies, Damned Lies, and Garden-Variety Self-Deception”, sub-headed with “Why the new Benghazi emails aren\’t a \’smoking gun\'”.

So I\’m reading this piece expecting to find that the email, written by Obama deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes, did not suggest that the administration intended to lie to, or in any way, deceive the public about Benghazi.

Incredibly, however, I found these excerpts:

TheObama administration\’s story has never been straight on theBenghazi attack. Press Secretary Jay Carney once said the WhiteHouse and State Department had only been involved in changing oneword in crafting the first public response about the attack-theinfamous Susan Rice talking points. Emails released in May showedthat wasn\’t the case. This new batch underscores the White House\’sinvolvement in shaping the story. The Obama administration leftthe impression that everything related to the Benghazi attack hadbeen released to the investigating committees months ago. That isalso clearly false. There have been other instances where theWhite House line on Benghazi has also earnedit Pinocchios.

Onthe theory that repeated false statements should initiate morequestions, it\’s obvious questions should continue to be asked.

The”smoking gun,” according to Sen. Lindsey Graham and others,is an emailfrom deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes. (Rhodes isthe brother to CBS News President David Rhodes; I also work for CBS.)The email shows that the White House was engaged in acoordinated effort to cover the president\’s backside. Anyone watchingSusan Rice talk about Benghazi knew that the White House, with anelection just months away, was desperate to frame this event as anextraordinary and unpredictable one, not a policy failure. 

Wasit a cover-up, or was the White House practicing garden-varietyself-deception?

So,the top White House national security spokesman, communicating to thepublic about a national security emergency, made covering for thepresident\’s political fortunes his top priority. Bad. Spin and theinstinct to protect at all costs rather than inform are perniciousinstincts in this administration and those that came before it.Throughout the Benghazi story there has been a greasy effort to showboth that the president is resolute, on the case, and a strong leaderand that this wasn\’t an act of terrorism that could in any way beused to argue that his policies were to blame. 

OnWednesday, Carney said that the Rhodes email had not been releasedbecause “this document was not about Benghazi.” I suppose itdepends on what your definition of the word Benghaziis. The email is not about Benghazi specifically, that\’s true, butthe email was about preparing Rice for the Sunday talk shows, whichcame the week after an attack in which four Americans were killed inBenghazi. That was the biggest issue on the table. Protests in Yemenwere not close.

This, incredibly, is in an article trying to convince us the email is not a “smoking gun”.  Call me dense, but, regardless of what the rest of the article says (and I urge you to use the link I\’ve provided to read every word), the above excerpts take me to the opposite conclusion.

And I\’m thinking to myself:  “If this is what someone trying to debunk the “smoking gun” claim says, why is he trying to debunk the smoking gun?  Does John Dickerson read his own writing”?

Oh, one other thing:  I thought you might want to see how one of the Slate commenters reacted to Mr. Dickerson\’s story:

DeenoC5ptsFeatured
7 hours ago

Aterror attack occurs on American soil, planes hitting our tallestbuildings in our most populous city, another plane hitting the veryheart of our “defense” system. Over 3000 Americans arekilled and the nation is traumatized. The sitting president and his”defense” team are caught flat-footed, a massive failure ofintelligence and preparedness.

Still,not one democrat demands investigations or answers as to how such amassive failure occurred. 

AnAmerican embassy is attacked in a hostile country undergoing aquasi-revolution. Four Americans die. As a result, republicans go ona multi-year witchhunt to try and tie the tragic event to the sittingpresident and use it to damage his credibility, patriotism be damned.

THISis why I HATE republicans and wish they could have ALL been at thatembassy that night.

Lovely.  Aside from the “facts” this genius got wrong about 9/11 and the Democrat reaction, how do you like his/her last sentence? 

Sad to say, the kind of mindless, sick hatred you just read is far from uncommon on the internet.  And my experience is that, if we\’re talking about credible web sites on the left and right, it is far more prevalent on the left.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *