Clinton Emails Have Provided GOP Yet Another Excuse to Cry “Benghazi”

Yesterday, we saw a Weekly Republican Address which had no relationship to our shared reality, or even a passing familiarity with facts. Not an at all uncommon occurrence, of course.

In fact, it is a depressingly familiar event: the Weekly Republican Address has become the worst-scripted, poorly acted sitcom in America.

This week it was Rep. Susan Brooks (R-IN) John Boehner put in front of the camera, and instead of lying about the Keystone XL pipeline, she assured the American people her owners that the House select committee is still – yes STILL – investigating Benghazi.

Rather than crowing about this, you’d think they’d be slinking away in embarrassment. After all, they’ve been obsessing over this obviously fabricated scandal for over two years, studiously ignoring every unwelcome fact along the way. Brooks’ weekly address is just more of the same.

Brooks’ lies come to us now because Hillary Clinton’s emails give the GOP one more chance to try to discredit her. As Brooks put it in her address, “these communications may help us answer vital questions.”

We need to know why the security at our embassy was left inadequate. Why were requests for additional security denied? Why was our response not sufficient? Why were some members of the administration slow to acknowledge a terrorist attack had actually occurred? It is simply unacceptable for so many questions to remain unanswered. And it is unjust and simply wrong for anyone to withhold evidence that may lead to the answers.

The thing is – and it is a very obvious thing indeed – we know why embassy security was inadequate – because Brooks’ own party slashed the budget for embassy security. As Rmuse wrote here last June,

Hillary Clinton, then Secretary of State, requested additional funding for embassy security early in 2011 to protect American diplomats working in Muslim countries. Republicans in the House rejected Mrs. Clinton’s request because as proud Republican Jason Chaffetz of Utah boasted upon being asked if he voted against increased embassy security funding, “Absolutely. Look, we have to make priorities and choices in this country. When you’re in tough economic time, you have to make difficult choices how to prioritize this.” Not only did the Republican House not increase embassy security funding, they voted to cut $300-million from the U.S. embassy security budget as part of their priorities due to what they call “tough economic times.

Hillary Clinton warned them of the risks of these funding cuts, saying, “The truth is that cuts of that level will be detrimental to America’s national security” [2.14.11]

Let’s recap:

  1. Republicans cut embassy security funding;
  2. Hillary Clinton warns them of the risks;
  3. Republicans bag about cutting it;
  4. Embassy attacked, 4 Americans killed;

The trail of causation could not be more clear and obvious. You would think with all their investigating, that Brooks’ select committee would uncover THOSE facts. Yet repeated Republican investigations have yet to turn up a single one.

Compounding their sins, the House Republicans just attempted to defund Homeland Security, for crying out loud. Yet, had Boehner not caved, you can be assured that in the months to come, Republicans would be demanding to know why security funding was inadequate when disaster struck.

Of one thing you can be assured: the Republicans in Congress will never, EVER find a fact uncongenial to their needs or ideology.

I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives issued its Benghazi Report in November last year and the contents should be pretty well known by now.

This, we are told, “is meant to serve as the definitive House statement on the Intelligence Community’s activities before, during, and after the tragic events that caused the deaths of four brave Americans.”

The U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence’s Investigative Report on the Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Facilities in Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012, says, in summary,

“The Committee finds that there was no intelligence failure prior to the attacks…the IC [Intelligence Community] did not have specific, tactical warning of the September 11 attacks” and that “The CIA only changed its assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption television footage became available on September 18, 2012 (two days after Ambassador Susan Rice spoke), and after the FBI began publishing its interviews with U.S. officials on the ground on September 22, 2012.”

So about that “definitive” thing. Now I don’t know about the GOP, but when I check Merriam-Webster, I find the following applicable definitions:

  1. serving to provide a final solution or to end a situation;
  2. authoritative and apparently exhaustive;
  3. serving to define or specify precisely.

It seems clear then, that according to the House’s own report, there are no more questions to answer, no more mysteries to be solved. Been there, done that, as we say in the vernacular. In fact, been there again – and again. And again.

And now we’re there again, even though we’ve seen all there is to see. Why? Because of Hillary Clinton. Because if she runs in 2016, Republicans will not see the inside of the Oval Office again for at least four years, possibly eight. Except as visitors.

This continuing obsession with Benghazi only goes to show how absolutely, brain-killingly terrified the Republican Party is of the specter of Hillary Clinton.

Brooks reveals that “When we began our work, Trey Gowdy, the chairman of the select committee, told us: facts are not Republican or Democrat,” but her own words belie that claim. In fact, Gowdy (R-SC), is the man whom, two days ago, Politico called “Hillary Clinton’s Enemy No. 1.” (It is interesting to note that in talking to Gowdy, Politico managed to never once mention the Benghazi Report).

The “facts,” as Republicans ironically refer to their talking points, are entirely political in nature and have nothing to do with our shared reality. They never have. Republican “facts” do not bear even a passing resemblance to actual facts, and if they did, Republicans would acknowledge the findings of their own Benghazi report, rather than, rejecting those facts, demanding yet more investigations.

Brooks claims “this isn’t about Hillary Clinton,” but this is 100 percent about Hillary Clinton. Set aside for a moment the complete hypocrisy of Gowdy and Brooks and their select committee and his Republican colleagues and the corporate-compliant mainstream media in attacking Hillary Clinton over her emails.

The sheer volume of dishonesty expressed both in this weekly address and overall in Republican ranks since 9/11/2012, is suffocating. It has seldom, if ever, been equaled. They haven’t even really made any attempt to disguise that it is all about Hillary, despite Brooks’ feeble protests yesterday.

There is a happy counterpoint, however, a certain inexorable, almost crushing inevitability to all this: The attacks will go on, regardless of the facts. Facts were ignored before and will be ignored again. But Hillary will continue to be more popular than any living Republican. And if Hillary runs in 2016, there is not a single thing the Republican Party can do to keep her out of the White House.

29 Replies to “Clinton Emails Have Provided GOP Yet Another Excuse to Cry “Benghazi””

  1. Like the Star Trek Borg- the Republicans are relentless.
    To such: if they’re so willing to tilt at windmills, I say: Let Them.

    “Do not interfere with your enemy when he is making a mistake,” – Sun Tzu, the Art of War.

    Remember- there is a finite amount of resources that Republicans can draw upon in their efforts to bring down Obama. Credibility, political capital, honor (as if they ever had such), air time, only Tea Baggers, Ammosexuals, Birthers and creepy old guys on the bus/subway who mutter under their breath- believe Pox News nowadays.

    Republican/Stupidity, is endless.

  2. All a Republican has to do is to memorize two talking points, ‘Benghazi’ and ‘freedom’. There are no ideas to discuss or to propose.

  3. The geopigs in their twisted desperate delusional worlds still believe they can stop Hillary with Benghazi.

  4. Republicans cut embassy security funding

    This excuse for the lack of adequate security at Benghazi has been debunked numerous times right here on these threads.
    What’s more is that overall funding for those programs increased sharply over the past decade. You can read it right from the horse’s mouth.

    Furthermore, the State Department always has considerable latitude in allocating security funds based on current events and intelligence on possible threats. Why that latitude was never applied in Libya deserves further scrutiny.

    Try locking up a few schizoid agitprops in rubber rooms and deprive them of their meds.
    I’m sure they’ll come up with a better scapegoat

  5. you shouldn’t worry about beating a dead horse as long as the Republicans continue to beat their’s…

    the problem with the Republican dead horse is that its been beaten so long that they’re now pounding on the bones hoping to make them into a silk purse…

    to mix a metaphor…

  6. Charlie, considering you are such an authority on security how would you have prevented the attack on Benghazi?

  7. given that hindsight is always clear and bright and that, yes, funds can be allocated however State wants to allocate them how would they have known that Libya was actually going to be attacked?

    and who’s security funds would you choose to shift? Iraq? Afghanistan? India? Jordan? France?

    the decision is easy after the fact… no so much before the event happens…

  8. It’s so going to backfire on them once the campaign has begun in earnest. I mean, watching a bunch of mean old white men shout and accuse and condemn a lady just doesn’t play well in Peoria. The GOP is completely tone deaf and desperate.

  9. the Republicans are insisting that Clinton turn over her actual server in order to confirm that she has released all the information on Benghazi.

    The operative words used are “may” and “could”, that her server “might” contain more information than what she is claiming. In other words they are on a fishing expedition hoping to find something, anything with which to hang her. Doesn’t even have to be about Benghazi.

    It is my understanding that the server was originally used by Bill Clinton. Unless it was completely wiped and reconfigured for her use, there may even be more stuff to find. More scandal to create.

    Basically, thats what this brouhaha is all about, find all the crap they can in an attempt to have Hillary disqualified as a presidential candidate.

    They think this stink will take away the attentions of the Netanyahu fiasco, the dishonorable letter by the 47 Senators to Iranian leaders, the almost shut-down of the gov over immigration.

    Ain’t gonna happen.

  10. We got a winner! That’s what it was about in the first place.. IMO, as far as, Clinton. I want to hear her on substance policies especially on finances sector (wages, trade, workers benefits, taxes, Wall St.), education (training, affordability, improve graduation on all levels), social (immig., voter rights, housing, ACA, Social Security, medicare) Foreign Affairs. And to be honest, she (clinton) haven’t said nothing.
    Or is its the high school-ish America media? Who can’t report on nothing, but, the racist treasonous, psychotic purity party, GOP. But I can’t forget its “Obama fault”..

  11. Charlie, considering you are such an authority on security how would you have prevented the attack on Benghazi?
    Said yes to the National Transitional Council when they asked NATO to stay in Libya and help clean up the stray weapons and militias after the fall of Gaddafi. We refused. There is a direct line from this refusal to the murder of the ambassador.

  12. So NATO made a decision not to stay, there was no AUMF for US boots on the ground and that’s your strategy?

  13. funds can be allocated however State wants to allocate them how would they have known that Libya was actually going to be attacked?
    We should only provide additional security in a known deteriorating situation only after it becomes certain knowledge that an attack is imminent? Huh?
    and who’s security funds would you choose to shift? Iraq? Afghanistan? India? Jordan? France?
    The State Department should have had as many Marines protecting our ambassador in Libya as it had protecting the U.S. Embassy in Paris.

  14. Disrupting any government and then not moving in to maintain order invites anarchy. I don’t think the problem with Libya was necessarily the removal of Gadaffi, (although some would argue otherwise) but it was the failure to follow through.

  15. First it wasn’t a embassy it was a diplomatic compound.
    Don’t Blame the Marines: Here’s Who is Supposed to Protect U.S. Diplomats

    In the wake of an attack that killed a U.S. ambassador, many are asking if the consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was sufficiently protected. Here’s a guide to the layers of security around an American embassy or consulate.

    Marine Security Guards: Contrary to popular belief, Marines aren’t really stationed at embassies or consulates to protect diplomats. They are there primarily to protect secret information—embassy buildings often process classified information, and many host CIA personnel as well. Marines are there to protect—and if necessary destroy—any classified information so it doesn’t fall into enemy hands. Foreign officers are told in their initial training not to think of the Marines as their personal bodyguards in case of an attack.

  16. First it wasn’t a embassy it was a diplomatic compound.
    Yes, I know, but to put an ambassador in probably one of the most dangerous countries in the world and not have any uniform Marines there just doesn’t make sense. Whether or not the Marines were there to protect the ambassador or the computers and documents and sensitive info that was captured by jihadists during the raid, they should have been there.

  17. Dems need to go on the offense regarding BenGhazi! Every time the Republicans bring up Benghazi, we should respond by asking did you vote for or against providing more money to the security in the region! If not, they were putting our embassies at risk for terroristic activity!
    Benghazi? Republicans caused the attack by not providing additional security……tell the truth, put a spotlight on it…..yes you MSM!

  18. Okay, you got me. I just went back and read it, okay? But I’m still not seeing how it changes anything.
    In the months before the attacks, Stevens and/or his staff sent a series of diplomatic cables to the administration warning that security in Benghazi was deteriorating. The State Department’s own regional security officer warned of al-Qaida training camps in Benghazi and expressed serious doubts about the ability of the post to defend itself in the event of an attack. The State Dept was fully aware of the limited manpower and deficiencies in the host nation support because the entire system was blinking red.
    And despite warnings from Stevens and others, the consulate remained poorly protected.
    On the the anniversary of 9/11…I find that especially perplexing.

  19. See heres the reality of the situation, they know, WE KNOW, that they don’t have a viable GOP candidate!! C’MON!! even @Ms. charlie can’t produce a credible candidate!!! HELL rick perry and chris christie both have indictments against them as we speak! and jebby bush?? LMFAO seriously??? even republicans hate him! I’m waiting for palin to announce her run!! cause for republican males she’s their reason to take the VIAGRA and start have sex with their wives again! get ready @Ms. charlie!! looks like you’re gonna get some for 2016!

  20. Curious? @Ms charlie having a nervous breakdown over BENGHAZI but I’m wondering how outraged he was in 1983 during SAINT reagan Lebanon bombings, oh I guess that doesn’t count, RIGHT?? and you wonder why people here laughs at you!

  21. Bingo! That is exactly what ALL of this is about. They are desperate because they know they have no one capable of beating her. Desperate old racist white guys call for desperate measures.

  22. How stoooopid is the L$M? So stooopid that they haven’t bothered to ask about the PRIVATE email’s NOT released by Governor Bush and what criteria they used to selectively release the ones that they did? Double standard anyone?

    Or has the L$M bothered to explain that the State Department didn’t and still doesn’t have an effective system with which to archive email

    Or have they clearly explained that the FOIA request was AFTER Ms. Clinton turned over her emails to the State Dept.

    Or have they bothered to ask the concerned GOP members of either the House or the Senate how they archive their emails.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.