Rightbloggers: Had Enough Benghazi? Too Bad!
Had enough Benghazi? Too bad! Last week rightbloggers whooped up "explosive" "bombshell" "revelations" that turned out to be more or less what everyone already knew, but were good enough for Republicans to call yet another Congressional committee with which they will finally get the American sheeple to face the truth: That President Obama and his henchmen murdered those people at Benghazi, or if they didn't murder them are nonetheless complicit in their murders because they mentioned a video among the reasons they were killed, which was part of a cover-up to hide the fact that they murdered those people at Benghazi, or if they didn't murder them are nonetheless complicit etc.
Let's look at this latest iteration of the brethren's second favorite Lost Cause.
You may recall that Congressional Republicans held Benghazi hearings a year ago, which revealed that though the Administration offered the anti-Islam video Innocence of Muslims -- which had reportedly caused a attack on a U.S. embassy in Cairo -- as a cause of violence that killed four Americans in the Benghazi consulate, there was also evidence that Al Qaeda operatives had wanted to attack the place regardless.
This would be unsurprising to anyone who was following America's fortunes in the Middle East, but conservatives insisted it meant that Obama was engaged in a "cover-up," though what crime the President was supposed to be covering up, none of them has ever coherently explained.
Those hearings did not lead to the popular uprising for which the brethren hoped, but in the interim they have done their best to keep Benghazi alive, helped greatly by Fox News, which finds reasons to bring it up daily, not excluding the recent Flight 370 story ("The network news doesn't want to cover important stories, like the IRS and Benghazi," railed Bill O'Reilly, "but they can cover the airliner without any political consequences").
Republican politicians are in on the gag, too, occasionally dragging Benghazi witnesses like former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell back to Capitol Hill to see what they can shake out of them, or saying things like what Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said in March about the Ukraine crisis: "When you tell the world we're gonna find the people who killed our four Americans in Libya, including the ambassador, and you do nothing about it... it sets in motion exactly what you see." Benghazi, like original sin, poisons all it touches.
Even Putin knows the truth -- why are Mr. and Mrs. America not getting it? Maybe because skeptics, not to mention Wikipedia, have noted that there have been lethal raids on American diplomatic missions abroad for decades, yet opposition parties have not previously made the kind of stink about them Republicans are making now. This suggests to cynical minds like ours that the brethren are animated by purely political considerations, though they insist it's just because they want to impeach Obama, which is simple patriotism.
Since last year's hearings, every so often a little Benghazi would break through rightbloggers' gloom, only to leave them disappointed yet again. In October, for example, 60 Minutes ran a report on Benghazi which had the brethren forgetting every mean thing they'd said about the Lame Stream Media; alas, the report turned out to be bullshit, and they fell back into dark mutterings and bitching about SNL sketches about Benghazi. Even reliable rightwing talking-point force-multiplier Charles Krauthammer told his comrades it was time to hang it up.
But last week, conservative investigators Judicial Watch got some White House Benghazi files they'd FOIA'd, and among these was an email that White House Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes had sent to former UN Ambassador Susan Rice after the attack, stating the Administration's "goals" for her when she went before the public on Benghazi. Among these: "To convey that the United States is doing everything that we can to protect our people and facilities abroad. To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not in a broader policy failure," and other, similarly anodyne ass-covering sentiments.
In other words, the White House accentuated the positive, just as we had originally seen and just as Administrations always do -- as when, for example, Ronald Reagan told America about the Challenger, "they have slipped the surly bonds of earth" instead of "NASA fucked up and killed those poor bastards." But ecstatic rightbloggers described it as the smoking gun they'd been waiting for.
"Benghazi email 'a smoking gun,'" charged the Savannah Morning News. "JW Finds Benghazi Smoking Gun!" own-horn-tooted Judicial Watch." "Benghazi Smoking Gun Exposed," cried FrontPageMag. "Why Sean Hannity Believes This Is the 'Smoking Gun' on Benghazi" was The Heritage Foundation's stop-the-presses headline.
Even Charles Krauthammer was ready to get the Benghazi band back together. "It's to me the equivalent of what was discovered with the Nixon tape," said Krauthammer. Which was a smoking gun!
In their newly-reinvigorated Benghazi offensive, rightbloggers dismissed any possible mitigating circumstances: They took it on faith, for example, that no one at the White House ever believed the anti-Islam video had anything to do with the sudden violence -- though the smarter among them were circumspect in giving this impression, e.g.:
"WHITE HOUSE TO SUSAN RICE: BLAME THE VIDEO FOR BENGHAZI ATTACK," announced Breitbart.com's John Sexton. "...the messaging goals offer insight into how senior advisers in the White House saw the video as an important scapegoat, a way to direct public attention away from questions about the president's foreign policy toward another cause... As we now know (as the administration should have known almost immediately), the truth about what had happened in Benghazi did not quite fit the mold. In fact, a more accurate account would have undercut the White House's messaging goals." And you know what the opposite of an accurate account is? A lie!
"The memos all center around the efforts of the White House, State Department and CIA to prep United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice prior to her infamous appearances on the Sunday talk shows," said Doug MacEachern of The Arizona Republic -- "the ones in which she blamed an Internet video for causing the attacks. The totally made-up explanation, that is." Well, we did say the smarter ones.
"Email Shows White House Planned Benghazi Video Deception," headlined Neil Munro at The Daily Caller. "White House officials consciously planned to spin the successful 2012 jihadi attack on the Benghazi diplomatic compound... In her Sunday appearances, Rice implemented the White House's spin... The email is black-and-white evidence of deception and spin... Clearly, it is a problem for Obama, whose poll ratings are sliding amid his failure to block Russia's advance in Ukraine, and his decision to lie about the impact of Obamacare on Americans' legal ability to keep their preferred health plans..." Benghazi and Ukraine and Obamacare in one "news" story! Munro will never miss a meal.
At National Review, Andrew C. McCarthy said "the administration's 'Blame the Video' fairy tale" went even further than elsewhere reported -- because Obama was lying about the Cairo uprising as well as the Benghazi one. "When Benghazi comes up, the administration -- President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Jay Carney, et al. -- loves to talk about the Cairo 'protests,'" seethed McCarthy. "Why? Because the media, and thus the public, have bought hook, line, and sinker the fraudulent claim that those 'protests' were over the anti-Muslim video."
That's weird: Several newspapers, here and in Egypt, thought the Cairo riot was video-related; in fact, the State Department officials at the Cairo embassy apparently thought so, too, since they distanced themselves from the video on Twitter the day of the riot. Ah, but that was just a ruse, said McCarthy -- the Cairo embassy people were covering for Obama on Benghazi, even before it happened: "The transparent purpose of the State Department's shrieking over the video," he charged, "was to create the illusion that any security problems at the embassy (violent rioting minimized as mere 'protests') were attributable to the anti-Muslim video, not to President Obama's policies and patent failure to quell al-Qaeda." They're all in on it! Why, when Ambassador Stevens refused extra security at Benghazi the month before the attacks, probably he was preemptively covering for Obama too.
"But as damning as Rhodes's email seems to be, Democrats don't seem too worried," said Jeffrey S. Tobin at Commentary, and he knew why: No, not clear consciences, but because "the story is being largely ignored or downplayed by most of the same mainstream media that helped foster the narrative that Republicans were nuts to claim the White House was covering something up." And what else could explain that except pro-Democrat spin?
"This is a media that are deliberately... suppressing the news from their audiences," claimed Brent Bozell on Fox News. "The George Soros-funded left-wing propaganda mill known as Media Matters continues its campaign to whitewash the Obama administration's Benghazi failures and cover-up," charged David Horowotz-sponsored propaganda mill FrontPageMag.
"Will the news media come through for the Democrats?" asked John Hinderaker at Power Line. "For the most part, of course they will. This morning, NBC offered Will.I.Am as a foreign policy expert on Meet the Press. There is no depth to which the Democratic Party media will not sink." Yeah, it's not like when the first Bush Administration put Charlton Heston on TV to debate Christopher Hitchens about the first war on Iraq (the location of which Heston did not seem to know). For one thing, will.i.am is black.
PJ Media CEO Roger L. Simon, who had previously called for Obama to resign under the headline, "Was Benghazi Not Enough?," demanded answers as to "rumors of gun running, MANPADs and on and on" that only he and other Benghazi obsessives knew about, and called Benghazi "a hundred times worse than Watergate and Monicagate" and "an absolute threat to the democratic principles of our republic," before declaring that "American 'liberalism' and the mainstream media are now on trial" (why no scare-quotes for "mainstream," we wonder? Doesn't Simon believe Americans prefer PJ Media?) and that patriots would soon bring them both down. "Never give up," Simon said. "Every one of us has to stay the course on Benghazi until this gets sorted out. Keep the media and the left on trial. Remember, even OJ didn't get away with it in the end." Yyyyyyyeah, we get the analogy.
But that's okay -- citizen journalists will cut through the Lame Stream Media fog! "I made this music video because I want low-info voters to get it," said Tea Party fixture Lloyd Marcus at RenewAmerica, and we believe him, because if Marcus has enough contempt for his intended audience to call them "low-info voters," he may also believe a rewrite of Neil Young's "Ohio" with Benghazi lyrics will sway them (Sample: "Three times they called for rescue/Angry terrorists at their door/Obama's min-i-ons said 'Forget you'/Four Americans are no more").
In this state of Benghazi bliss, many rightbloggers tried to distinguish themselves in a crowded field by sniping at various Administration targets. A favorite was presumed 2016 Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, aka "Source of the Benghazi Video Lie," per Some Guy at RedState. "Now that we know that the White House was actively involved in pushing a blatant lie about the genesis of the Benghazi attack in order to deflect blame," said Some Guy, "it is only fair to ask who came up with the story to begin with... Hillary as Ground Zero for the Internet video lie... Sometime after 10:30 pm on September 11, the official policy of the United States became the lie of the internet video... the gravity of the lie seems to have been weighing on Clinton... 'it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is,'" etc. We'd say Some Guy will never miss a meal either, but we suspect he's doing this for free, poor fellow.
Press Secretary Jay Carney's weary defense of the Administration in yet another press conference gone Benghazi had rightbloggers giving him the Ron Ziegler treatment. "Watch Jay Carney try to defend White House lies," announced Betsi Fores of rare.us. "JAY CARNEY LIES ABOUT THE BENGHAZI EMAIL," roared John Hinderaker at Power Line. Jay Carney's Big Fat Lie: Emails Not About Benghazi," cried Investors Business Daily, who also compared Carney to Winston Smith in 1984, a book they perhaps have only heard about.
Others picked on former Former National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor, who responded quite understandably to Fox News' questions about his work on the Benghazi talking points, "Dude, this was like two years ago. We're still talking about the most mundane process." The Washington Free Beacon was shocked that "Vietor addressed Fox News Special Report host Bret Baier as 'dude'" and claimed Vietor "got amnesia" without adding "so I showed him my gat to improve his memory" as tradition demands. (The Beacon also slipped in that the White House had been trying to "bolster the false idea that the attack was the spontaneous result of a riot against the video.")
Glenn Beck's The Blaze called Vietor's response "Almost Unbelievable" and jumped on the fact that "Vietor also revealed that President Barack Obama was not in the situation room during the Benghazi attack." That means Obama could have been in another room of the White House at that crucial time, where it might have taken minutes to reach him -- or with Monica Lewinsky! ("BOOM!" commented Jim Hoft of The Gateway Pundit, in keeping with the gravity of this revelation.) Other rightbloggers spurted reproachful "dude" Twitter messages, as recorded by Michelle Malkin's alternate-universe Twitter site Twitchy, and they're every bit as hilarious as you would imagine.
But we all know who the real Public Enemy #1 is here. Buoyed by their new Benghazitude, rightbloggers are raising the fallen standard and seeking the ultimate price. Already one prominent Republican had called for Obama's impeachment: Judge Jeanine Pirro. Also, Lyndon LaRouche.
Okay, so they're not A-listers. But it's still early! Just wait till they get a load of Lloyd Marcus' video, or the stirring speeches of patriots such as Frank Salvato of the Virginia Beach Examiner. "That the Obama Administration has no problem lying to the American people in the pursuit of its agenda should be troubling enough," said Salvato, "but now we have the issue of their complicity in covering-up the deaths - the murders - of four Americans. Anyone else executing the same rhetorical maneuvers would be charged with obstruction of justice, perjury and accessory to murder."
"While there is no hope of ever holding these people to account in the way they deserve, which would entail many years in a super-max prison," wrote Some Other Guy at RedState, "we can try to hold them politically and economically accountable by ensuring wherever they go for the rest of their lives Benghazi is shadowing them like Banquo's ghost."
"So despicable is all this that the fact that the national news is not abuzz with the (now racist) word 'impeachment' is itself an unmitigated outrage," rambled Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom. "I don't recognize this country. But I can tell you this: I'm not alone... It's the ruling class vs. the rest of us. And but for a brief blip in history when the US was founded, in has always been thus. - None of which means we have to take it. The question is, will we...?"
Now that's the kind of rhetoric that's sure to have an effect on the American public.
Let's look at this latest iteration of the brethren's second favorite Lost Cause.
You may recall that Congressional Republicans held Benghazi hearings a year ago, which revealed that though the Administration offered the anti-Islam video Innocence of Muslims -- which had reportedly caused a attack on a U.S. embassy in Cairo -- as a cause of violence that killed four Americans in the Benghazi consulate, there was also evidence that Al Qaeda operatives had wanted to attack the place regardless.
This would be unsurprising to anyone who was following America's fortunes in the Middle East, but conservatives insisted it meant that Obama was engaged in a "cover-up," though what crime the President was supposed to be covering up, none of them has ever coherently explained.
Those hearings did not lead to the popular uprising for which the brethren hoped, but in the interim they have done their best to keep Benghazi alive, helped greatly by Fox News, which finds reasons to bring it up daily, not excluding the recent Flight 370 story ("The network news doesn't want to cover important stories, like the IRS and Benghazi," railed Bill O'Reilly, "but they can cover the airliner without any political consequences").
Republican politicians are in on the gag, too, occasionally dragging Benghazi witnesses like former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell back to Capitol Hill to see what they can shake out of them, or saying things like what Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said in March about the Ukraine crisis: "When you tell the world we're gonna find the people who killed our four Americans in Libya, including the ambassador, and you do nothing about it... it sets in motion exactly what you see." Benghazi, like original sin, poisons all it touches.
Even Putin knows the truth -- why are Mr. and Mrs. America not getting it? Maybe because skeptics, not to mention Wikipedia, have noted that there have been lethal raids on American diplomatic missions abroad for decades, yet opposition parties have not previously made the kind of stink about them Republicans are making now. This suggests to cynical minds like ours that the brethren are animated by purely political considerations, though they insist it's just because they want to impeach Obama, which is simple patriotism.
Since last year's hearings, every so often a little Benghazi would break through rightbloggers' gloom, only to leave them disappointed yet again. In October, for example, 60 Minutes ran a report on Benghazi which had the brethren forgetting every mean thing they'd said about the Lame Stream Media; alas, the report turned out to be bullshit, and they fell back into dark mutterings and bitching about SNL sketches about Benghazi. Even reliable rightwing talking-point force-multiplier Charles Krauthammer told his comrades it was time to hang it up.
But last week, conservative investigators Judicial Watch got some White House Benghazi files they'd FOIA'd, and among these was an email that White House Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes had sent to former UN Ambassador Susan Rice after the attack, stating the Administration's "goals" for her when she went before the public on Benghazi. Among these: "To convey that the United States is doing everything that we can to protect our people and facilities abroad. To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not in a broader policy failure," and other, similarly anodyne ass-covering sentiments.
In other words, the White House accentuated the positive, just as we had originally seen and just as Administrations always do -- as when, for example, Ronald Reagan told America about the Challenger, "they have slipped the surly bonds of earth" instead of "NASA fucked up and killed those poor bastards." But ecstatic rightbloggers described it as the smoking gun they'd been waiting for.
"Benghazi email 'a smoking gun,'" charged the Savannah Morning News. "JW Finds Benghazi Smoking Gun!" own-horn-tooted Judicial Watch." "Benghazi Smoking Gun Exposed," cried FrontPageMag. "Why Sean Hannity Believes This Is the 'Smoking Gun' on Benghazi" was The Heritage Foundation's stop-the-presses headline.
Even Charles Krauthammer was ready to get the Benghazi band back together. "It's to me the equivalent of what was discovered with the Nixon tape," said Krauthammer. Which was a smoking gun!
In their newly-reinvigorated Benghazi offensive, rightbloggers dismissed any possible mitigating circumstances: They took it on faith, for example, that no one at the White House ever believed the anti-Islam video had anything to do with the sudden violence -- though the smarter among them were circumspect in giving this impression, e.g.:
"WHITE HOUSE TO SUSAN RICE: BLAME THE VIDEO FOR BENGHAZI ATTACK," announced Breitbart.com's John Sexton. "...the messaging goals offer insight into how senior advisers in the White House saw the video as an important scapegoat, a way to direct public attention away from questions about the president's foreign policy toward another cause... As we now know (as the administration should have known almost immediately), the truth about what had happened in Benghazi did not quite fit the mold. In fact, a more accurate account would have undercut the White House's messaging goals." And you know what the opposite of an accurate account is? A lie!
"The memos all center around the efforts of the White House, State Department and CIA to prep United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice prior to her infamous appearances on the Sunday talk shows," said Doug MacEachern of The Arizona Republic -- "the ones in which she blamed an Internet video for causing the attacks. The totally made-up explanation, that is." Well, we did say the smarter ones.
"Email Shows White House Planned Benghazi Video Deception," headlined Neil Munro at The Daily Caller. "White House officials consciously planned to spin the successful 2012 jihadi attack on the Benghazi diplomatic compound... In her Sunday appearances, Rice implemented the White House's spin... The email is black-and-white evidence of deception and spin... Clearly, it is a problem for Obama, whose poll ratings are sliding amid his failure to block Russia's advance in Ukraine, and his decision to lie about the impact of Obamacare on Americans' legal ability to keep their preferred health plans..." Benghazi and Ukraine and Obamacare in one "news" story! Munro will never miss a meal.
At National Review, Andrew C. McCarthy said "the administration's 'Blame the Video' fairy tale" went even further than elsewhere reported -- because Obama was lying about the Cairo uprising as well as the Benghazi one. "When Benghazi comes up, the administration -- President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Jay Carney, et al. -- loves to talk about the Cairo 'protests,'" seethed McCarthy. "Why? Because the media, and thus the public, have bought hook, line, and sinker the fraudulent claim that those 'protests' were over the anti-Muslim video."
That's weird: Several newspapers, here and in Egypt, thought the Cairo riot was video-related; in fact, the State Department officials at the Cairo embassy apparently thought so, too, since they distanced themselves from the video on Twitter the day of the riot. Ah, but that was just a ruse, said McCarthy -- the Cairo embassy people were covering for Obama on Benghazi, even before it happened: "The transparent purpose of the State Department's shrieking over the video," he charged, "was to create the illusion that any security problems at the embassy (violent rioting minimized as mere 'protests') were attributable to the anti-Muslim video, not to President Obama's policies and patent failure to quell al-Qaeda." They're all in on it! Why, when Ambassador Stevens refused extra security at Benghazi the month before the attacks, probably he was preemptively covering for Obama too.
"But as damning as Rhodes's email seems to be, Democrats don't seem too worried," said Jeffrey S. Tobin at Commentary, and he knew why: No, not clear consciences, but because "the story is being largely ignored or downplayed by most of the same mainstream media that helped foster the narrative that Republicans were nuts to claim the White House was covering something up." And what else could explain that except pro-Democrat spin?
"This is a media that are deliberately... suppressing the news from their audiences," claimed Brent Bozell on Fox News. "The George Soros-funded left-wing propaganda mill known as Media Matters continues its campaign to whitewash the Obama administration's Benghazi failures and cover-up," charged David Horowotz-sponsored propaganda mill FrontPageMag.
"Will the news media come through for the Democrats?" asked John Hinderaker at Power Line. "For the most part, of course they will. This morning, NBC offered Will.I.Am as a foreign policy expert on Meet the Press. There is no depth to which the Democratic Party media will not sink." Yeah, it's not like when the first Bush Administration put Charlton Heston on TV to debate Christopher Hitchens about the first war on Iraq (the location of which Heston did not seem to know). For one thing, will.i.am is black.
PJ Media CEO Roger L. Simon, who had previously called for Obama to resign under the headline, "Was Benghazi Not Enough?," demanded answers as to "rumors of gun running, MANPADs and on and on" that only he and other Benghazi obsessives knew about, and called Benghazi "a hundred times worse than Watergate and Monicagate" and "an absolute threat to the democratic principles of our republic," before declaring that "American 'liberalism' and the mainstream media are now on trial" (why no scare-quotes for "mainstream," we wonder? Doesn't Simon believe Americans prefer PJ Media?) and that patriots would soon bring them both down. "Never give up," Simon said. "Every one of us has to stay the course on Benghazi until this gets sorted out. Keep the media and the left on trial. Remember, even OJ didn't get away with it in the end." Yyyyyyyeah, we get the analogy.
 |
| An oldie but goodie. (Via.) |
In this state of Benghazi bliss, many rightbloggers tried to distinguish themselves in a crowded field by sniping at various Administration targets. A favorite was presumed 2016 Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, aka "Source of the Benghazi Video Lie," per Some Guy at RedState. "Now that we know that the White House was actively involved in pushing a blatant lie about the genesis of the Benghazi attack in order to deflect blame," said Some Guy, "it is only fair to ask who came up with the story to begin with... Hillary as Ground Zero for the Internet video lie... Sometime after 10:30 pm on September 11, the official policy of the United States became the lie of the internet video... the gravity of the lie seems to have been weighing on Clinton... 'it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is,'" etc. We'd say Some Guy will never miss a meal either, but we suspect he's doing this for free, poor fellow.
Press Secretary Jay Carney's weary defense of the Administration in yet another press conference gone Benghazi had rightbloggers giving him the Ron Ziegler treatment. "Watch Jay Carney try to defend White House lies," announced Betsi Fores of rare.us. "JAY CARNEY LIES ABOUT THE BENGHAZI EMAIL," roared John Hinderaker at Power Line. Jay Carney's Big Fat Lie: Emails Not About Benghazi," cried Investors Business Daily, who also compared Carney to Winston Smith in 1984, a book they perhaps have only heard about.
Others picked on former Former National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor, who responded quite understandably to Fox News' questions about his work on the Benghazi talking points, "Dude, this was like two years ago. We're still talking about the most mundane process." The Washington Free Beacon was shocked that "Vietor addressed Fox News Special Report host Bret Baier as 'dude'" and claimed Vietor "got amnesia" without adding "so I showed him my gat to improve his memory" as tradition demands. (The Beacon also slipped in that the White House had been trying to "bolster the false idea that the attack was the spontaneous result of a riot against the video.")
Glenn Beck's The Blaze called Vietor's response "Almost Unbelievable" and jumped on the fact that "Vietor also revealed that President Barack Obama was not in the situation room during the Benghazi attack." That means Obama could have been in another room of the White House at that crucial time, where it might have taken minutes to reach him -- or with Monica Lewinsky! ("BOOM!" commented Jim Hoft of The Gateway Pundit, in keeping with the gravity of this revelation.) Other rightbloggers spurted reproachful "dude" Twitter messages, as recorded by Michelle Malkin's alternate-universe Twitter site Twitchy, and they're every bit as hilarious as you would imagine.
But we all know who the real Public Enemy #1 is here. Buoyed by their new Benghazitude, rightbloggers are raising the fallen standard and seeking the ultimate price. Already one prominent Republican had called for Obama's impeachment: Judge Jeanine Pirro. Also, Lyndon LaRouche.
Okay, so they're not A-listers. But it's still early! Just wait till they get a load of Lloyd Marcus' video, or the stirring speeches of patriots such as Frank Salvato of the Virginia Beach Examiner. "That the Obama Administration has no problem lying to the American people in the pursuit of its agenda should be troubling enough," said Salvato, "but now we have the issue of their complicity in covering-up the deaths - the murders - of four Americans. Anyone else executing the same rhetorical maneuvers would be charged with obstruction of justice, perjury and accessory to murder."
"While there is no hope of ever holding these people to account in the way they deserve, which would entail many years in a super-max prison," wrote Some Other Guy at RedState, "we can try to hold them politically and economically accountable by ensuring wherever they go for the rest of their lives Benghazi is shadowing them like Banquo's ghost."
"So despicable is all this that the fact that the national news is not abuzz with the (now racist) word 'impeachment' is itself an unmitigated outrage," rambled Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom. "I don't recognize this country. But I can tell you this: I'm not alone... It's the ruling class vs. the rest of us. And but for a brief blip in history when the US was founded, in has always been thus. - None of which means we have to take it. The question is, will we...?"
Now that's the kind of rhetoric that's sure to have an effect on the American public.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.