re: Politico: The Benghazi-Industrial Complex

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.

quote:

---

I don't think they rush Booker out there. Who else is in the stable? I feel like I'm missing someone.

---

Julian Castro.

I wonder if she has another "illness" so as not to testify in a timely fashion, again?

quote:

---

Julian Castro.

---

He's awfully young.

He could make some noise some day, though.

quote:

---

Not matter what, the photos of Ambassador Stevens will never be good optics for HRC.

---

That pic you posted is NOT of Ambassador Stevens. It has been around the internet for at least 5 years now, with most accounts back then attributing it to Iraq. But to misrepresent it here is cruel.

quote:

---

ttom line..it happened on her watch, Hillary is responsible and her feet should be held to the fire on it

---

I'm sure you use the same logic when talking about the Reagan and Bush 2 administrations.

Well said.

Unfortunately you're going to get kicked out b/c you're not a "true conservative". You, like David Frum, David Brooks and many other reasonable people, are now a RINO.

quote:

---

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

---

You're having a hard time, because that isn't what the uproar is about. I don't think the administration deserves much, if any, blame for the attack occurring.

It's the administration's attempt to obfuscate, distort and transfer blame that's at issue. If the Most Transparent Administration int eh History of Government™ had been candid in the days and weeks following, Benghazi would have long been forgotten by now.

quote:

---

there are rumors she has some health issues

---

Naw the Cankle Queen only had those issues when she was expected to testify, all better now.