Skip to main content

U.S. President George W. Bush (L) puts his arm around White House advisor Karl Rove after Rove publicly announced his resignation on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, August 13, 2007. Bush and Rove departed for the Bush ranch in Texas toget
Who are you going to believe, Karl Rove or your lying eyes?
So Karl Rove and his pals at American Crossroads have a new web video on the Benghazi attack and just like Wednesday's hearing, target number one is Hillary Clinton. It's basically the GOP's 90 second explanation of how Benghazi is going to sink Hillary Clinton in 2016, and as you might expect, facts are the first casualty.

The video begins by claiming Gregory Hicks, the deputy ambassador to Libya, told Secretary of State Clinton on the night of the attack that al Qaeda-linked terrorists were responsible for the violence. The transcript:

VOICEOVER: September 11. Benghazi, Libya. Terrorists linked to al Qaeda kill four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is briefed at 2:00 AM by the Ambassador's deputy that it was, in fact, terrorism.

HICKS: I briefed her on the developments.

For the moment, let's set aside the question of what the implications of this would be if it were an accurate rendition of the facts—because it's not. The reality is that the focus of the 2:00 AM conversation wasn't whether or not the attackers were terrorists, it was about finding Ambassador Stevens and protecting the Americans still in Benghazi. We now know Stevens was already dead, but at the time, Hicks and his State Department colleagues were still searching for him, a fact that Hicks made clear in the rest of his statement:
HICKS: I briefed her on developments. Most of the conversation was about the search for Ambassador Stevens.  It was also about what we were going to do with our personnel in Benghazi, and I told her that we would need to evacuate, and that was -- she said that was the right thing to do.
So while Rove's video claims that Hicks was informing Clinton that that al Qaeda was behind the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans, the reality is that neither Hicks nor Clinton yet knew that Stevens was dead. Instead, they were trying to find him—and protect other American personnel.

As you might guess, Rove's first distortion was designed to establish the basis for a second distortion: The claim that Clinton personally blamed Benghazi on an internet video despite knowing that it was actually the work of religious extremists. Follow the below fold to continue exploring Rove's attempted sleight-of-hand.

As with the video's first claim, its second claim depends on an apparently damning quote that turns out not to mean what the video says it means.

VOICEOVER: Yet two days later, Secretary Clinton and others blamed protesters and ...

CLINTON (9/14/12): ... an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with.

The video editing is seamless between the voiceover and Clinton, making it appear as though she was finishing his sentence, putting an exclamation point on the claim that she blamed a YouTube video for what happened in Benghazi. But, as with the video's first clip, it turns out that this is just another slice and dice editing job, because as the transcript makes clear, Clinton wasn't talking about Benghazi—she was talking about protests out our embassies in Cairo and other places around the world.
CLINTON (9/14/12): This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with. It is hard for the American people to make sense of that because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable.
Clinton's comments about the video were clearly referring to protests and violence at our embassies. Not only was Benghazi not an embassy, Clinton referred to the attack there separately, in the preceding sentence.

At this point in the video, Rove has now told two big whoppers. His goal is to convince viewers that Hillary Clinton was blaming America for what happened in Benghazi and that she refused to stand up to religious extremists simply because they were Muslims. But immediately after the attack, Clinton did exactly that, saying:

Violence like this is no way to honor religion or faith. And as long as there are those who would take innocent life in the name of God, the world will never know a true and lasting peace.

It is especially difficult that this happened on September 11th. It’s an anniversary that means a great deal to all Americans. Every year on that day, we are reminded that our work is not yet finished, that the job of putting an end to violent extremism and building a safe and stable world continues. But September 11th means even more than that. It is a day on which we remember thousands of American heroes, the bonds that connect all Americans, wherever we are on this Earth, and the values that see us through every storm.

What could Rove possibly find objectionable in that statement? The answer is obvious—nothing, because he didn't include it in his video. Instead, he took a statement Clinton had made linking the protest in Cairo to an internet video and falsely claimed she was talking about Benghazi.

Rove wasn't done with his deceptions, however. After the Clinton clip, his video claimed that Hicks was shocked and angered by what Clinton had said:

VOICEOVER: Deputy Hicks was shocked.

HICKS: I was stunned. My jaw dropped. I was embarrassed.

Just one problem: Hicks wasn't talking about his reaction to Hillary Clinton. He was describing his reaction to Susan Rice's Sunday talk show comments. This isn't a surprise: After all, Clinton didn't say what Rove claims she said, so how could he have been?

Rove's video continues:

VOICEOVER: But when Hicks dared to question why Secretary Clinton and others were contradicting the facts he told her, Clinton's Chief of Staff ordered him not to talk to Congress.
Again, this is not true. Hicks says he was told not to talk with Congress without a State Department lawyer present—not that he was told he couldn't talk to Congress. After overlooking that crucial piece of information, the video then makes its closing argument:
A 22-year diplomatic veteran, intimidated for daring to blow the whistle—all under Hillary Clinton's watch. How could this happen? Why did she blame a video? Was she part of a cover up?
The best thing I can say about the closing argument is that by framing its points as rhetorical questions rather than asserting falsehoods as truth, it falls closer to the category of "bull" than "lie."

Really, the one and only question that is potentially troubling is the question of whether Hicks did face any political repercussions for meeting with Jason Chaffetz without a State Department employee. He says he believes he's been effectively demoted, but the State Department says he hasn't and promised that he won't be. The State Department notes that Hicks asked to end his Libya assignment early and hasn't had his pay reduced by one dime. Hicks, meanwhile, says he still hasn't been reassigned.

It's important to make sure that Hicks is not intimidated for speaking his mind. The fact that he hasn't said anything particularly new or damaging is beside the point. The good news is that he's still employed by the State Department and his salary hasn't been cut one dime. In that respect, he's gotten much better treatment than Shirley Sherrod got after she became the target of a maliciously edited Andrew Breitbart video. But while the administration might not be as trigger happy with Hicks as they were with Sherrod, one thing is clear: If a right-winger puts out a video that's hard to believe, it's pretty damn good bet the video is nothing but lies.

Originally posted to The Jed Report on Fri May 10, 2013 at 10:53 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  This is an important smackdown of Rove's... (24+ / 0-)

    ...video. Sadly, 99.999% of the people who see the video won't see this exposé of its lies of omission and commission.

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Fri May 10, 2013 at 10:59:42 AM PDT

    •  Until the election, when more people than those (6+ / 0-)

      watching Faux Noise and other right-wing sources see these clips in campaign commercials, those 99.999% would never vote for Hillary or be in the "undecided" column for polls.  Sure it will cement in their minds that she screwed up, but they already believe the worst of her anyway and are the kind like those in SC-1 who put Mark Sanford, of the lying, adultering, trespassing, stealing and ethically punished ranks back in as their Representative in Washington.

      •  Agreed. The problem is that there are voters... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sue B, Pluto, Jeff Y

        ...out there who won't have made up their minds three years from now who may have "heard" and absorbed some of these lies. They can often be implanted by such propaganda and become extremely difficult to uproot. We can all point to tons of this kind of stuff, even myths-lies that we've accepted ourselves as what really happened when it's not. That's why rapid-response debunking is important to do early on even for shitty web videos.

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Fri May 10, 2013 at 11:31:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The Romney campaign would be proud (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Barton Funk, PorridgeGun, Matt Z, Jeff Y

      This is straight from their playbook of selective editing and misrepresentation.

      "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

      by conspiracy on Fri May 10, 2013 at 11:33:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If we're explaining, we're losing. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Barton Funk, Mr MadAsHell, pengiep, Jeff Y

      GOPers are 50 miles ahead of Democrats trying to explain how stupid this all is.

      And I'll be the first one to say it; ignoring this molehill was a huge mistake on the part of the Administration, and that goes doubly for Democrats as a whole. $50 says there is some DINO on the teevee this Sunday saying this is a huge deal for Obama.

      GOPers know you gin up scandals. They don't happen by themselves.

      •  It hasn't been ignored (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        More Questions Than Answers

        That would be impossible given their constant whining.

        "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

        by conspiracy on Fri May 10, 2013 at 11:50:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's the top story on Google right now (0+ / 0-)

        I guess Benghazi finally gets to be a scandal.  

        Sigh.

        Click here for all your political gear, including new laser etching technology! Don't like mine? Make your own!

        by sgilman on Fri May 10, 2013 at 12:12:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's everywhere--for days now on XM Radio and (0+ / 0-)

          Twitter (I don't watch Cable TV, so wouldn't know about that).

          According to an interview that I heard on XM Radio POTUS (Politicis Of The United States) channel today, on the radio program 'The Midday Briefing' with Tim Farley (his program often plays live remarks from the White House, Jay Carney's Press Briefings, etc.--a 'news' program, IOW), IMO the most damaging thing to come out of the hearings is not any 'changes' to talking points, but the fact that during the official investigation, Secretary Clinton was never interviewed.

          I don't follow this story closely, but recall that she was ill during some of the time that this story first broke.  However, even I'd have to concede that an interview with the Secretary of State would be appropriate--conducted when she was well, of course.

          If the testimony and information is correct, that was a major mistake.

          But then, I'm not so sure that she plans to run for President, or that she would be a shoo-in for the nomination, if she does.

          I suspect that much of her decision will depend upon this Administration's success or lack of success in the implementation of austerity measures.  And the mood of the country, as a result of this.

          Let's not forget that there are 3 1/2 years left for this Administration to orchestrate further deep austerity measures, if they go for a 'Grand Bargain.'

          And, there's always the possibility that the Administration may continue to pursue the Bowles-Simpson proposals, as laid out in The Moment Of Truth.

          I hope that anyone who is not familiar with this document will read it since it is to serve as the 'framework' for a 'Grand Bargain.'

          Just heard that Jack Lew declared earlier today that the 'debt limit' will be okay until approximately September (they 'found' some money, LOL!).

          Considering the fact that the deadline that the Administration has laid down for tax reform is the end of July, or beginning of August 2013, this doesn't come as any surprise.

          It's a necessary step, before a 'Grand Bargain' can be struck--trading cuts to 'entitlements,' for tax increases.

          Mollie

          "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


          hiddennplainsight

          by musiccitymollie on Fri May 10, 2013 at 01:42:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Why does anyone still take Rove seriously? (0+ / 0-)

      I also doubt most Americans will see this video because I don't think most Americans are paying attention to Benghazi. Foreign affairs are usually at the bottom of the list of what matters to most Americans, especially a tangled web like this.

      I think I'll go and watch the election night video of Rove trying to explain how Romney will carry Ohio again. See you later.

      Jon Husted is a dick.

      by anastasia p on Fri May 10, 2013 at 12:33:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  There really is no limit for these scumbags. (9+ / 0-)

    We have only just begun and none too soon.

    by global citizen on Fri May 10, 2013 at 10:59:50 AM PDT

  •  Karl Rove's entire job is to lie. (13+ / 0-)

    He hasn't been doing it very well lately.

    We can see he gets his inspiration from his own disgusting and illegal actions under bush.  Typical rovian projection.  THAT is what he does best.

    Ayn is the bane! Take the Antidote To Ayn Rand and call your doctor in the morning: You have health insurance now! @floydbluealdus1

    by Floyd Blue on Fri May 10, 2013 at 11:00:59 AM PDT

  •  Does anyone have a transcript of Hicks'… (7+ / 0-)

    …testimony? Because according to all the timelines I've read, reinforcements from Tripoli were already in Benghazi when Hicks talked to Clinton.

    Wall Street Journal.

    Fact Check.

    Department of Defense.

    Also when was the annex attacked? I see differing times on the timelines.

    Union-printed, USA-made, signs, stickers, swag for everyone: DemSign.com.

    by DemSign on Fri May 10, 2013 at 11:01:32 AM PDT

  •  Is TPM becoming Benghazi central? (5+ / 0-)

    Let the right wing over-reach all by itself.

    "Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing." Arundhati Roy

    by LaFeminista on Fri May 10, 2013 at 11:02:33 AM PDT

  •  when you're explaining you're losing (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pengiep, chrississippi, Barton Funk, Pluto

    I'm on record that Hillary will never be president

    "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

    by eXtina on Fri May 10, 2013 at 11:03:14 AM PDT

    •  That is why Bush was re-elected, no splainin (9+ / 0-)

      Some people just adore certitude even when it is demonstrably wrong.

      "Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing." Arundhati Roy

      by LaFeminista on Fri May 10, 2013 at 11:08:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Heard this same kind of thinking with regards to (0+ / 0-)

      Reverend Wright.

      I'm on record that Hillary will be president, if she chooses to run.

      This is going to backfire on the GOP.  They are liars, plain and simple.  Proven liars.

      They are almost guaranteeing 100% African-American and Latino turnout in 2016 with this constant mud-slinging.  

      •  Interesting that you mention (0+ / 0-)

        Rev. Wright and Hillary is consecutive sentences. Hillary's position on that "issue" is one more reason I will never support her and I pray she is not the candidate, which I don't believe she will be. If she were seriously planning on running, she'd put a halt to this premature anointing of herself as inevitable right now. Because if she doesn't, she's not going to be the candidate, much to my relief.

        Hillary was disgraceful and shameless, sitting next to Richard Mellon Scaife – the man who financed the "Hillary killed Vince Foster" smear — and smugly saying she would have left the church had her pastor said something innocuous taken out of context ten years earlier that she hadn't even been present to here. Possible her worst moment in the 2008 primary, and one I will never forgive her for.

        Jon Husted is a dick.

        by anastasia p on Fri May 10, 2013 at 12:56:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  If Benghazi is still an issue in 2016 (7+ / 0-)

    It will mean nothing else of subtantial import happened in the preceding four years.

    What a testament to Obama, specifically, and Dems, in general, in the White House that would be.

    If you want something other than the obvious to happen; you've got to do something other than the obvious. Douglas Adams

    by trillian on Fri May 10, 2013 at 11:05:17 AM PDT

    •  Well, the republicans are certainly in the right (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Voodoo king

      positions to make sure nothing of substantial import happens until 2016. This is part of their plan. We need to start pushing back and we need to really hurt our enemies. We play too nice. Curb-stomping some of these bums would do a world of good to get them to dial back their crazy.

      "Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens," -Friedrich Schiller "Against Stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain"

      by pengiep on Fri May 10, 2013 at 11:25:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hillary lost the nomination in 2008 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pluto, Matt Z

      At least in part due to vote she made in 2002.

      "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

      by conspiracy on Fri May 10, 2013 at 11:35:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Karl Rove (6+ / 0-)

    has a long history of distorting the truth in his campaigns, including placing a bug in his own office and blaming it on his opponent, smearing competing polticians of being gay when they were not, sponsoring push-polls in the year 2000 Republican primary against John McCain, claiming in South Carolina that McCain has fathered a "black baby", and now this.

    Is there any lie that Karl Rove would NOT tell?

    Why does this asshole Rove still get any TV time or work?

    -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

    by sunbro on Fri May 10, 2013 at 11:06:42 AM PDT

  •  Rasmussen Does An Approval Rating (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jck, hnichols

    Where they compare the strongly approve for President Obama with the strongly disapprove. It really is a measure of how much the right wing media has whipped up Obama hatred among conservatives. Always in the negative, even if Obama's total approval goes above 50%. And they didn't have that measurement with Bush. If they did a poll measuring how scandalous Benghazi is comparing Major scandal" with "not at all a scandal", it would probably be 45% in favor of it being a major scandal. This thing resonates strongly with conservatives while the rest of the country looks at is only a tragic, unfortunate incident. So it just means that conservative friends and family will have to be avoided like the La Rouche tables in front of the post office for many years to come.

  •  I'm not sure why a purposely dishonest video is (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hnichols, m2old4bs

    legal.  I mean, if a marketer did something like this in advertising their potato chips, they'd immediately be forced to remove the ad AND would be fined.  Why are fabrications like this, which dishonestly edit video together with the intention on lying, allowed for any purpose?  Forgetting about politics for a moment, I'm genuinely curious from a strictly legal standpoint.

    •  It was made legal in the 1980s (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pengiep, sharman

      ...to lie to Americans via public airways on matters that affect their futures through the outcome of elections.

      It is unconstitutional or illegal in decent nations.



      Denial is a drug.

      by Pluto on Fri May 10, 2013 at 11:49:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed. Why is a dishonest video legal? (0+ / 0-)

      Probably because they say it is for entertainment purposes? I'm not a lawyer and haven't a clue as to the answer.  But, it seems that promoting a lie is still perpetuating a lie.  It sells a false bill of goods to the public.  Personally, I don't see the difference whether the goods are potato chips or a political agenda as both are being sold to the public.  I suppose one could argue that you buy potato chips, not a political agenda.  Yet, as a citizen, my tax dollars do support the political agenda that is chosen for me through both the State and the Federal Legislative Branches.  While I will never vote for a candidate with a (R) behind their name on the ballot, I am sure that I have paid the price for their amoral, cruel and austere policies.  IMHO, right-wing videos, such as this Rove one, do more damage to society by willingly and brazenly distorting the truth than a falsified ad for potato chips.

  •  What this say is that they REALLY are afraid (6+ / 0-)

    of Hillary.

    President Obama, January 9, 2012: "Change is hard, but it is possible. I've Seen it. I've Lived it."

    by Drdemocrat on Fri May 10, 2013 at 11:13:27 AM PDT

  •  This will be a HUGE non-issue in 2016 (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    T Maysle, jck, hnichols, chrississippi, Matt Z

    The GOP will try to keep it as a big thing, and maybe it will get tackled during the Dem primaries, but for the most part the public will be completely sick and tired of it by then.  There is simply NO WAY this will still be a topic of import by then.

    It will be interesting to see what Hillary does between now and then though.  She'll need to keep up some kind of visible working image it seems.

    •  Print up bumperstickers (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hnichols, Matt Z

      'Hillary yawned, Fox News pwned'

    •  Dream on. Remember what they did to Kerry. This (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chrississippi, Sue B, Matt Z

      is just the start. We have to give these fuckers a few brush-back pitches or we're going to be playing catchup

      "Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens," -Friedrich Schiller "Against Stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain"

      by pengiep on Fri May 10, 2013 at 11:26:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Already are playing catch up. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pengiep, Matt Z

        Today Bengahzi became a real issue. GOPers are a dog on a bone and they won't let go. Journamalists smell blood.

        No predicting if Bengahzi will much matter, but frankly that's immaterial. GOPers have a hammer and everything else is a nail. They are very good at this kind of shit.

        •  real issue? (0+ / 0-)

          It's just as much paper mache and soap bubble as it was yesterday. The only blood journamalists smell is the whiff of Repub desperation.

        •  Why the "controversy" is entirely phony (0+ / 0-)

          At this point the high dudgeon of House Republicans seems to be focused on this: that the CIA identified Ansar-al-Sharia as the group responsible for attacking the Benghazi diplomatic office but someone in State or the White House edited this to remove the name of Ansar-al-Sharia and replaced it with the more general term "extremists."

          What's so outrageous about this? I can think of two good reasons for making such a change:

          1) Ansar-al-Sharia is a plausible candidate, but we 're not completely certain its was responsible. If State's final talking points had blamed Ansar-al-Sharia and it was subsequently discovered this was wrong, you can bet the armchair quarterbacks in the Republican Party would be demanding heads roll at State.

          2) Going after Ansar-al-Sharia right now is going to be difficult given the equivocal position of the Libyan government. Even though Libyan officials pointed the finger of blame at Ansar-al-Sharia some months ago, since February they have been PAYING Ansar-al-Sharia (along with other Salafist militias) to help police Benghazi, which is experiencing a major crime wave fueled by drug trafficking. The Prime Minister of Libya claims his government "has no choice but to do this," given the breakdown of law and order. Meanwhile there is armed conflict among rival tribal militias in the Benghazi area. Ansar-al-Sharia commander Yahya Abdel Sayed was assassinated last month; five days later Ansar-al-Sharia leader Sofian Ben Qumu narrowly escaped assassination. Several of these warring militias have links to al-Qaeda; Ansar-al-Sharia is not the only one.

          It therefore makes perfect sense for State and the White House to hold off on naming the guilty party until they are certain and until there is some action that can be taken.

          House Republicans may want to recall the 1983 Beirut Bombing which killed 300 US Marines and French paratroops. Reagan immediately evacuated the Marines from Beirut, so there was no way for us to follow up and investigate who was responsible; the Lebanese government was divided by civil war. TO THIS DAY no one is sure who carried out the Beirut bombing. Was it Hezbollah, which had not yet emerged from underground as a political organization? Or some other Shiite militia? Or did Syria provide the bombers with assistance? Or did Iran?

          Issa's Star Chamber is not going to find any substantial justification for hounding Clinton or Obama about Benghazi. But that may not matter. I worry that the very poor quality of reporting I've been seeing on CNN and the broadcast news networks will give the Republicans more credence and political clout than they deserve.  

      •  Luckily, they are wasting ammo (0+ / 0-)

        I believe Hillary is Ashley Judd. She ain't running, so Republicans are wasting their energy.

        Jon Husted is a dick.

        by anastasia p on Fri May 10, 2013 at 12:57:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Breaking News: Karl Rove lied... /nt (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hnichols, Matt Z
  •  Script reads like it was vetted (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hnichols, pengiep, Matt Z

    by a crafty lawyer. All made up of half truths so it can go to Politifact and get a passing grade.

    See you can say-

    "Iraq was overflowing with WMD (in the fantasies of George Bush's mind)."

    Just leave off the second half and ding ding ding, you got a 'mostly true' from Politifact. Refs have been played, mission accomplished.

  •  The GOP parasites won't stop.. (5+ / 0-)

    ..until they can find anything to begin impeachment on President Obama. The same GOP that gave us Bush, Cheney, Palin, and Iraq. Irony.

    Let the revolution begin. Or are we going to stand by and let the GOP finish off our nation?

    What is so unnerving about the candidacy of Sarah Palin is the degree to which she represents—and her supporters celebrate—the joyful marriage of confidence and ignorance. SAM HARRIS

    by Cpqemp on Fri May 10, 2013 at 11:19:24 AM PDT

  •  I expect to see this video linked to by (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hnichols, Barton Funk, Matt Z

    right-wingers on Facebook. Thanks for the rebuttal info.

  •  This is the best they have?! (0+ / 0-)

    Wow, 2016 might be a really boring election year if this is a good example of what they are going to do.  Why waste money on this?  Has this gotten ANY traction outside of the right wing media sphere?  Doesn't seem like it.

    The sequester is the new Republican immigration reform plan. Make things so bad here in the US that no one will want to live here.

    by Mote Dai on Fri May 10, 2013 at 11:24:48 AM PDT

  •  I can't see a flag on Rove's lapel pin (4+ / 0-)

    And if it is there, it's too damn small.  Slap a beret on him and call him Che. Fucking commie.

    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

    by bigtimecynic on Fri May 10, 2013 at 11:25:24 AM PDT

  •  They obviously have an advanced degree (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    T Maysle, Barton Funk

    from the Breitbart School of Deceptive Film Editing.

  •  Why must they be mutually exclusive motives? (0+ / 0-)

    The attack did not spring out of a peaceful protest, That is, and was clear. However, I don't know of any evidence whatsoever that would show the attack had no relation to the video.

    Was an attack always being planned/timed for Sept. 11th, or was it launched that day to go along with the protests that were occurring in other Arab cities? I don't think anyone knows, and that was always the point the Administration was trying to make.

    The attack was carried out by a religious extremist group. What does that prove? That it wasn't in any way a response to the video? If the GOP knows that, they know a lot more than the rest of us.

    Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

    by FischFry on Fri May 10, 2013 at 11:27:12 AM PDT

  •  Rove is winning on Benghazi. (4+ / 0-)
    "… one of [Lyndon] Johnson's favorite jokes is about a popular Texas sheriff running for reelection whose opponents decide to spread a rumor that he fucks pigs: "We know he doesn't, but let's make the son of a bitch deny it."
    Every time they get this non-story into the evening news, the Republicans win.  Every time Clinton explains exactly what went on, with documentation, they can simply stick their fingers in their ears and come back with another smear.

    And it works.  This crappy tactic moves elections. Fortunately, they're probably wasting all their ammo on the wrong target. We have a lot of excellent candidates for 2016.

    Early to rise and early to bed Makes a man healthy, wealthy, and dead. --Not Benjamin Franklin

    by Boundegar on Fri May 10, 2013 at 11:27:40 AM PDT

  •  Why is Obama so much better at this? (0+ / 0-)

    This is still dragging out. The phony crap they drag up against Obama never seems to drag out this long. Obama shut this down during the election with one good line aimed at Romney. Honestly, I'm not looking forward to more years of Whitewater style garbage and Clintoneque evasiveness.

  •  Hillary has an ace up her sleeve. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VirginiaBlue

    Once the 2016 campaign begins, all she has to do is run footage and audio of countless conservatives praising her back during the 2008 primary when they were trying to weaken Obama. Then sit back and laugh as they argue with their past words.

    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

    by bigtimecynic on Fri May 10, 2013 at 11:30:57 AM PDT

  •  Hillary may genuinely not want to run (4+ / 0-)

    But perversely I think they run the risk of goading her into it.

    "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

    by conspiracy on Fri May 10, 2013 at 11:31:51 AM PDT

  •  As a former Foreign Service Officer, (6+ / 0-)

    I have some personal knowledge of how the assignments process is handled. Over 80% of assignments are available in the May to September time period, since all mid-level and senior level positions are for two and three year tours.  Less than 20% are available the rest of year (the so-called "off-cycle").  A substantial proportion of those are junior positions.  So, there really aren't many senior  positions available off-cycle.   By taking himself off-cycle, Hicks was, in effect, reducing his chances of finding an onward assignment by a factor of at least 10.  Senior people who are without an onward assignment end up as "hall walkers" at the State Department, people without a job, but with a paycheck, looking for a new position.  Eventually, they either find an onward assignment or retire. That is his current circumstance.  

     

    With the Decision Points Theater, the George W. Bush Presidential Library becomes the very first Presidential Library to feature a Fiction Section.

    by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Fri May 10, 2013 at 11:32:49 AM PDT

  •  the real Benghazi story (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pengiep

    is the bullshit mountain the GOP created.  The investigation should be about GOP ethics.

  •  the GOP has too much invested in this to give up (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pengiep, chrississippi, Matt Z

    too easily.

    Benghazi was supposed to be the "October surprise" that catapaulted Mittch-A-Sketch Romney to the White House, remember?

    Well...when that didn't work...it was, at least, going to be a major weapon by Mittch-A-Sketch and his campaign to erode the president's credibility during the debates.
    The comment, "Please proceed, governor," seemed to have put an end to that (at least for the time being).

    And...since the Republicans have no ideas whatsoever to help address any real problems that face this country, or, if they do have any ideas, simply don't want to actually address any of those problems because that might...make the president and his administration look good...well...

    ...they've always got Benghazi to dredge up again. For the third, or fourth or...fifth or whatever time.

    If there's one thing that motivates Republicans, it's the concept of getting a "Return on their investment." And, so far, all of the time, energy, efforce and resources, including money, that they've invested in Benghazi...hasn't given them much of a return.

    So...in a desperate attempt to squeeze some kind of dividend out of this before it's too late, apparently...they intend to keep this alive for as long as they possibly can. After all, they have too much invested in this to drop it now.

    •  Obama shut it down. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pengiep, Matt Z, wdrath

      It became a non-issue in October because Obama effectively smacked it down and changed the subject. When Hillary brought up Rev. Wright, Obama shut it down and made her look worse in the process. He did the same thing when McCain brought it up.

      Hillary can be good at fighting back, and Bill is known as the comeback kid. But I'm beginning to think part of the problem with all the various Bill and Hillary Clinton scandals over the years is that they just aren't very good at shutting that crap down.

  •  Excellent and accurate. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z

    Thanks Jed for clarifying every detail.



    Denial is a drug.

    by Pluto on Fri May 10, 2013 at 11:41:53 AM PDT

  •  Do we know who attacked us, yet? (0+ / 0-)

    Welcome To The Disinformation Age!

    by kitebro on Fri May 10, 2013 at 11:51:44 AM PDT

  •  I still don't understand (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pengiep, kitebro, sukeyna

    why it matters to anyone whether it was "terrorists" or a "mob".

  •  One thing for sure: GOP is TERRIFIED (0+ / 0-)

    of Hillary Clinton in 2016.

    They know they got nothing to put up against her.  

    •  They've got nothing to put up (0+ / 0-)

      against ANYONE. And we have a dozen more attractive candidates than Hillary.

      Jon Husted is a dick.

      by anastasia p on Fri May 10, 2013 at 12:58:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Respectfully, I believe that Hillary is THE Dem (0+ / 0-)

      that ultra conservatives would want to win.

      Don't forget, even News Corp. executive Rupert Murdoch threw a campaign fundraiser for Hillary.

      Here's an excerpt from a CBS News piece entitled Rupert Murdoch Loves Hillary Clinton:

      . . . Conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch will host a fundraiser for liberal New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, the Financial Times reports. . .

      The fundraiser will take place in July, the newspaper said. Clinton is the frontrunner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, though she has not indicated whether or not she will run.

      Clinton has worked hard to take the edge off her reputation as a card-carrying liberal. She has has collaborated with congressional conservatives on some peices of legislation, called for a "common ground" on abortion and cut a political figure some on the left see as decidedly un-liberal.

      Clinton, who made her debut in the Senate Armed Services Committee four years ago, has never voted against any major Iraq military spending legislation. She has also taken two high-profile trips to Iraq – journeys that may have helped to strengthen the credentials of a senator with no military background or experience.

      Clinton, who says she's "always been a praying person," has moved into the territory John Edwards had hoped to claim as the moderate Democrat who cares about the average American.

      Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved.

      Conservative Republicans 'love' the Clintons, and for good reason.  

      The Clintons are basically Arkansas conservative Dems--'fiscal and war hawks, with moderate liberal views.'

      [As someone who spent quite a few years in that region, I assure you--there's very little difference between today's Republicans and Democrats in the deep and mid-south states.]  

      There are mostly very, very minor graduations of 'conservatism, and sometimes the Dems are the most conservative.  [Obviously, there are exceptions, like 'moi,' LOL!]

      For instance, several years ago, a Dem Senator from this region 'ran to the right of' the Republican senatorial candidate, even filming a campaign ad from a church pew.  

      I come from the 'liberal faith community,' yet I was absolutely appalled by the Dem candidate's pandering to conservative Christians.  [BTW, the Republican senatorial candidate won, in spite of this pandering.  He is now 'dining with' the President--according to news reports--and working with 'the Gang of Eight' to strike a Grand Bargain.  I'm referring to corporatist Republican Senator Bob Corker, of course.]

      Mollie

      "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


      hiddennplainsight

      by musiccitymollie on Fri May 10, 2013 at 02:33:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You mean there are no WMD's??? (0+ / 0-)

    I keep going back to the 10 year anniversary of the Iraq invasion...and the whole WMD's...and lack thereof.

    President Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld ALL stated they existed in Iraq..but they were never found...opps. It .turned out to be an "intelligence" failure.  So is the Beghazi issue an intelligence failure  or a communications faux pas? And more importantly..what actions have been taken to prevent/avoid similar events in the future?

    Guess Rove's gonna milk this for another 2 to 3 years....

  •  anybody else catch this in Situation Report? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sharman

    form Gordon Lubold's column the other day: "From an American diplomat, e-mailing Situation Report this morning: "Hicks is classic case of underachiever who whines when big breaks don't come his way. 22 years as an FSO and he is still an FS-1 (COL equivalent). His uninformed comments about F-16s validates why he is still a mid-ranked officer. Where was his testimony on his role in trying to talk his ambassador out of making an overnight visit to a place he knew was dangerous?  Very few DCMs who lose an ambassador can expect greater responsibilities...and there are dozens of talented FS-1 ranked ‘desk officers' working honorably at the State Department.  Also of interest is that he is running for a senior leadership position in the State Dept. union/professional association, [American Foreign Service Association]. He didn't get my vote."

    Life is a shipwreck. But we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats. — Voltaire

    by agrenadier on Fri May 10, 2013 at 12:43:25 PM PDT

  •  Here's the problem. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    agrenadier, sukeyna

    Rove is a lousy strategist.  How was W able to win?  The Dems had lousier strategists...but that's beside the point.

    This is breaking too soon.  Who in hell gives a rip about an election that's 3 years away?  By the time Hillary chooses whether to throw her hat in the ring or not, this will be old, dried-up news.

    As it is, it's competing against the factory collapse in Bangladesh and the freed kidnap victims in Cleveland.  The average guy on the street probably follows the Stanley Cup Playoffs closer than he's following Benghazi.

    Hicks will burn out, too.  Keep trying, Rove.  I love it when you spend money on stupid stuff.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site