Yesterday I blogged about how President Obama, his administration, and his Accomplice Media – led by the New York Times – is desperately trying to shift the subject from the Benghazi and IRS scandals to climate change.
Why are they doing this? Because either by design or dumb luck (this being Republicans, I\’m more inclined toward dumb luck), both scandals have reached points where it is virtually impossible for mainstream media to keep shoving them under the rug…and this is happening as we go into the midterm election season.
For Obama supporters and/or the political left (yes, there is a ton of duplication here), this could be terrifying…
…which probably explains the near-hysterical editorial in this morning\’s New York Times. Let me show you the first two paragraphs:
Thehottest competition in Washington this week is among HouseRepublicans vying for a seat on the Benghazi kangaroo court, alsoknown as the Select House Committee to Inflate a Tragedy Into aScandal. Halfthe House has asked to “serve” on the committee, which isunderstandable since it\’s the perfect opportunity to avoid any realwork while waving frantically to right-wing voters stomping theirfeet in the grandstand.
Theywon\’t pass a serious jobs bill, or raise the minimum wage, orreform immigration, but House Republicans think they can earn theirpay for the rest of the year by exposing nonexistent malfeasance onthe part of the Obama administration. On Thursday, they voted tocreate a committee to spend”such sums as may be necessary” to conduct an investigationof the 2012 attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The daybefore, theyvoted to hold in contempt Lois Lerner, the former InternalRevenue Service official whom they would love to blame for theadministration\’s crackdown on conservative groups, if only theycould prove there was a crackdown, which they can\’t, because therewasn\’t.
Lets see:
-Four Americans dead, as the result of a terrorist attack in a country that, in no small part due to President Obama\’s half year of extra-constitutional bombing, had gone from being a horrific dictatorship to a lawless, terrorist-infested swamp. The attack occurs on 9/11, the one day of the year when terrorists would most like to strike us – but security was not on high alert, and there were no contingency plans to protect our personnel if such an attack took place. Instead, after the damage was done, there were nothing but lies about why it happened…until four months later, when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton famously snarked out “what difference, at this point, does it make”. But the New York Times cannot find a problem there.
-And the IRS, where the head of its tax-exempt division first copped the 5th to protect herself against self-incrimination regarding the targeting of groups with social and political issues at odds with the administration, and then suddenly “retired” when incriminating emails become public – followed, this week, by the news that donors to those groups were 10 times as likely to be audited as the general population. But the Times cannot find a problem there either.
This would need remedial help to rise to the level of pathetic. And the rest of the editorial is at least as bad, maybe even worse.
Here, let me show you one more excerpt:
NowRepublicans are frothing about anewly released email message showing that the White House wantedSusan Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations at thetime, to go on television in 2012 and make the case that the attackwas not a failure of administration policy. The message should havebeen turned over earlier because all it shows is a routine attempt tospin the news in the most favorable way to the White House…Democratswho are now debating whether to participate in the committeeshouldn\’t hesitate to skip it. Their presence would only lendlegitimacy to a farce.
Have these geniuses collectively spent even one second thinking about why the email was not turned over earlier? Are their heads burrowed so far up their rectums that they cannot figure out that, although they have somehow convinced themselves this email does not reek of a coverup, most people would understand that it does? So they are encouraging that a legitimate select committee be boycotted. For what? To avoid having to deal with that email, or the quality of professionalism and competence we got during Hillary Clinton\’s time as Secretary of State – which is to say near zero?
Assuming the New York Times editorial board, en masse, is not under the influence of drugs or liquor, I conclude that they are so terrified of the public\’s reaction to what actually happened in Benghazi and at the IRS, that it had to come up with something – anything – no matter how ridiculous. And this is what it came up with.
It is bad enough that this bunch makes fools of themselves. But worse, still, if they make fools of the rest of us as well.
Let\’s not let it happen.
