Politico: The Benghazi-Industrial Complex

Down vote.

quote:

---

Individual quotes would not provide adequate context and just end up in a "gotcha-fest" on both sides. So...for those with a few minutes, enjoy the whole thing.

---

I would tend to agree, it meanders a bit but is a good read. i especially like this quote

quote:

---

And yet in truth, if I were a Republican strategist (which I’m not), I would advise conservatives to scandalize away. I’d also advise the Koch brothers and other deep-pocketed conservatives to underwrite the BIC as the messaging campaign for 2016 gets started. Not because they’re ever going to prove anything nefarious (though hey, you never know), but they may well be able to successfully if cynically exploit the soft spot in Hillary Clinton’s ambitions for the White House: her utter disgust with the Washington political game and the willingness of the media to play along

---

This scandal is a nothingburger, but I doubt it hurts republicans and they should push away for a better chance in 2016.

I do think Rex is right, they are just flat out terrified of a HRC candidacy. So they are throwing out as much as they can now to dissuade her from running. Much like the current hits on Chris Christie.

He left out White Water, the insider trading, and losing documents.
Hillary learned a lot while working on Watergate.

Previous Benghazi article by Michael Hirsh:


"Five myths about Benghazi
By Michael Hirsh, Published: May 16, 2013

"1. U.N. Ambassador Susan E. Rice gave a deliberately false account of the attack."

Uh-oh, should have waited before using this one.



"2. A faster military response would have saved at least some of the four Americans."

He starts his explanation with this ... "We will never know for sure."

No one with a brain would contend that either Stevens or Smith could have been saved that night once the attack began. The debate has been about Doherty and Woods, and I for one have never said that they could have been saved. For the same reason as Hirsh said - "we will never know". For me, it's a hypothetical question and 50 years of think tank guys discussing it would only come back to ... "we will never know". (If the Select committee focuses on this, they will be shooting themselves in the foot, and get hopelessly bogged down.)


"3. Obama and Clinton should not be blamed."

Remember, he's saying these are Benghazi MYTHS. And his first sentence after that is, "This is the Democrats’ favorite myth." Later he adds: "In fact, the Obama administration did appear to be playing down or ignoring security threats in Libya at the time. Then this : " In congressional testimony in January, Clinton said that she didn’t read an Aug. 16 cable from Stevens that raised questions about security and that she didn’t know about a decision to reject a request for more security. “I didn’t see those requests. They did not come to me. I did not approve them. I did not deny them,” she said. If so, it’s fair to ask: Why wasn’t Clinton involved? "

"4. The Benghazi attack could not have been predicted." Remember, Hirsh is saying these are MYTHS. "Why was Stevens allowed to travel to such an unsecure place?"


"5. Benghazi is a pseudo-scandal manufactured by the GOP." Hirsh is saying in May of 2013 that the belief that Benghazi is a pseudo-scandal manufactured by the GOP is a MYTH. His full explanation:

"Republicans have blown Benghazi out of proportion. It doesn’t appear to have been a cover-up, but neither can it be dismissed. It represents a tragic failure of U.S. policy, one that should spark a larger discussion about whether the government has responded poorly to the Islamist threats that have emerged since the Arab Spring. It is reasonable to ask whether the Obama administration, starting with the president himself, created the conditions for Benghazi by being overconfident about the destruction of al-Qaeda and playing down the significance of extremist elements, possibly linked to al-Qaeda, that had emerged in Libya and elsewhere. Unless these threats are better understood, it is easy to imagine a similar disaster happening elsewhere.

Because Benghazi cost precious American lives, it should be investigated carefully rather than politicized endlessly."

Kind of a generic, mixed-bag there.

Quite a turnaround from October 24, 2012, six weeks after Benghazii, when Hirsh wrote this story, headlined

"The Real Libya Story: There Is No Story
Michael Hirsh --- Oct 24 2012, 5:29 PM ET "

Hirsh has been all over the place covering this story. .Seven months after saying there is no story, he writes there IS a story.

Now, with Benghazi really heating up, he's falling nicely into line.

Your linked story, "The Benghazi-Industrial Complex:
Will the pseudo-scandal be enough to stop Hillary from running?
"
By MICHAEL HIRSH

May 04, 2014"

Go back up to Hirsh's acknowledged MYTH #5 - " Benghazi is a pseudo-scandal manufactured by the GOP."

So a year ago ,he himself said it was a MYTH that Benghazi is a "pseudo-scandal" and now he says it IS a "pseudo-scandal"

Hirsh thought back in May of 2013 that Benghazi would be forgotten by now, so he lightened up on the Republicans. He also said in October of 2012 That there is "NO STORY", as he reported just six weeks after the deaths.

Mr. Hirsh, upon learning that there will indeed be a Select Benghazi Committee, just got into the fetal position.

I'm really having a hard time understanding why all the uproar over 4 dead Americans.

The way I understand this is at BEST this was a blunder followed by a coverup. At worst this was a cover up from the start to hide what the gov't is really doing in Libya. I get that, it's bad, it's not good.

But 4 Americans? I can think of a similar situation where we sent soldiers into combat under somewhat shady justification and THOUSANDS died (Iraq). The cover up? "Yeah, well, maybe that wasn't such a good idea."

No doubt losing an ambassador and his staff is NEVER a good thing, but in the perspective of global politics, is the Libyan fiasco really warranting this much gnashing of teeth? I don't even remember it being this bad when Reagan lost all those Marines in Beirut, and he's considered "The Bestest EVAH!!!1!"

No, I didn't vote for Obama.

No, I won't be voting for HRC, or any Democrat (nor Republican) in the next election cycle.

It just looks like a bunch of election year hoopla to me. I'm afraid the American people are going to see it for the same thing I'm seeing it as, Republicans trying to make political hay over a blunder. I don't think they're going to take it very seriously.

It is my hope that the Republicans wake up from the ridiculousness and choose a better battlefield. One that the American people will see the importance of, and one where the Republicans may be able to get a tactical advantage on. What battlefield, you ask...?

..."It's the economy, stupid."

I thin this would be the perfect time to turn that table on the Democrats.