The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

The ‘How Dare You’ Defense on Benghazi

Posted on | May 9, 2013 | 30 Comments

“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 do to with. It’s hard for the American people to make sense of that, because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable.”
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Sept. 14, 2012, while standing over the caskets of the four Americans killed at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya

Jeff Goldstein cites the important testimony that “a State Department official emailed the Libyan government on September 12 that the consulate attack was in fact a terrorist operation — specifically identifying Ansar al-Sharia in the email.” But why bother with facts? What difference, at this point, does it make?

Quite obviously, it makes a very important difference to Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) in their tireless efforts to convince Americans that Obama’s foreign policy is working, and especially to persuade us that the fine public servants at the top levels of the State Department did nothing wrong in the Benghazi affair.

When you point out the obvious facts — that the “Arab Spring” was a bad idea, that everybody in the administration lied through their teeth about Benghazi, and that the major media are enthusiastic volunteers in a partisan P.R. effort to assist in the cover-up — liberals go into fake indignation mode: How dare you?

If you’ve watched Democrats do this for years, you know how the tactic works: They’re trying to do the Jedi mind trick — “This is not the scandal you were looking for. Move along.” — and if you refuse to cooperate, they act as if your non-cooperation is proof of your bad motives. They have decided that none of the evidence or testimony means what you think it means, and that your interpretation of facts is therefore illegitimate, so you must be shunned as a bad person.

Our Moral Superiors™ get away with this trick often enough that they’re genuinely shocked when they don’t get away with it.

There are multiple layers to the Benghazi scandal, from the policy failures that left the consulate vulnerable to the mysterious “stand-down” order to the Special Ops rescue team — and with my son training as an 18X recruit, I can easily imagine how “furious” the troops were about that — and on to the “Internet video rage” talking points. As has been said, the administration failed before, during and after the Benghazi attack, and are now attempting to avoid accountability.

Damn, I need me some Chick-Fil-A.



  • RantMan

    delete my comment, what a coward.

  • DaMav

    Even the tallest mountain of lies is eroded by truth — keep up the good work.

  • Matthew W

    The Best:

    “The media is really President Obama’s scandal condom.”

  • DaveO

    What we still don’t know: when did Obama and/or his deputies begin collaborating with the Muslim Brotherhood to develop the Nakoula video as a cover story?

  • Rob Crawford

    Meanwhile, some of the same people who say there’s nothing here will tell you — believing it with all their heart — that Bush served troops plastic turkey.

  • Pingback: Stacy McCain Sums Up the Entire Obama Administration Half A Tweet | Daily Pundit()

  • Finrod Felagund

    Democrats go all “Dead men *do* bleed!”, film at 11.

  • Adjoran

    The video had only a few hundred views when it was suddenly aired on Egyptian state TV, which is controlled by the government there. How they found it is a good question, but al-Qaeda and other islamist groups were already planning a demonstration at the US Embassy in Cairo, it was on for 9/11 for a month ahead of time.

  • Pingback: The Left reveals it’s Benghazi defense strategy | The Daley Gator()

  • Jack Squat Bupkis

    What’s the political end game? Stirring up popular outrage in order to indict Hillary or some sacrificial-lamb underling? Wapo, CNN and the other usual suspects will ensure that won’t happen because they tamp down popular interest in the story by either ignoring it or focusing only on the “pro-Chick Fil A” angle.

    The end game is reinforcing this point to Democrats in Congress, the diplomatic corps, and else where in the Obama Administration: Take no personal risks with this President because he will leave you twisting. He will literally send you into harm’s way and do nothing to help you if such help offends his political instincts.

    Once that point is reinforced (and there’s nothing the media can do to prevent it), it will be clear that Obama has no foreign policy (and no ability to implement it) because he has broken trust with his subordinates. If we face further radical or dangerous events overseas, Democrats will have to consider whether they’d prefer working for President Biden, and Obama will have to go. Point being, there’s nothing the Wapo can do to stop this reckoning. It has happened and Obama’s internal weakness has been cemented.

  • AnonymousDrivel

    Another tactic — and it’s as classic Clinton as the “I Feel Your Pain” pose — is the denial/stonewall response for X amount of time until, suddenly, the malevolent or self-serving scandal is “old” news and not to be addressed again because of the hate and conspiracy and misogyny and the children and…

    That Cheyl Mills sure has the formulas down. The Clintons have milked them for, what, decades?

  • Mike G.

    When you think about it, it’s all bread and circuses anyway. Even if the house could prove that Obama did do an impeachable offense, and as far as I’m concerned, he has done several, the Dem controlled Senate will not impeach.

    Of course, in the long run, that might help out Republicans gain back the White House and the Senate as well as keep the House. And Hillary’s chances for 2016 might have just gone down the porcelain throne.

  • CrustyB

    “– Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Sept. 14, 2012, while standing over the caskets of the four Americans killed at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya”

    Why did she lie over the graves for four dead Americans? Easy. They can’t talk back.

  • RichFader

    I saw that Gutfeld quote and thought, oh, that mental image.

  • AnonymousDrivel

    Building on the riff:

    Why did Hillary! lie over the graves for four dead Americans? Because they were there.

  • Shawny Lee

    Oh and what an insult to the families who had lost loved ones present when Elijah Cummings says, “Death is a part of life. So we have to find a way to make life a part of death.”? WTF?
    Stacy, your article is right on target!

  • Shawny Lee

    That was true in the last term, but you can bet your ass that if it comes down to O’s aspirations or their long term political career, the more he comes off as a liability they will shed him like a used condom. They weren’t there for him on his budget nor on the gun control legislation he wanted and the DNC is looking at 2014 and the money still coming into O’s relabeled campaign fund instead of him raising big bucks for the party. There will be a price to pay. Still want to see his non-profit status challenged on that.

  • DaveO

    So you’re saying at least one month prior to the Cairo Embassy demonstration?

  • DaveO

    The end game is that north Africa, especially Egypt, depends on Europe for tourism, industry, and cash. North Africa is to Europe what Mexico is to the US of A. By changing the regimes, and reinforcing the structural poverty of the land to the North Africans, American businessmen and women (major Obama donors) will have doors opened for them.

    Obama needs the Blind Sheik returned to Egypt in order to give legitimacy to Morsi, and to calm down the rank and file of the Muslim Brotherhood (who attack tourists, archeologists and others who bring in Egypt’s cash). Obama’s ideology is strongly influenced by monetary return on investment – rich Obama donors getting richer is a big win-win for Obama.
    Without the Sheik, Egypt continues its downward spiral and the poorest millions will gladly march across the Sinai to attack Israel (for food, water, goods) at the bidding of Turkey and/or Iran. Rich Obama donors can’t get richer if the countryside is a murderous chaos.
    But, some AQIM footsoldier got excited, raping then killing the ambassador before he could be exchanged. Throw in the turn-over of Stinger missiles and SA-7 to AQ (and therefore to the Taliban), and the hardcore jihadists out-thought, out-maneuvered, won this round from Obama.

  • Shawny Lee

    Oh hell yes…..the foreign policy. It’s the U.N. “Responsibility to Protect” policy conveniently used when they wanted an excuse to overthrow Mubarak and Khadafy…….but just like everything else this asshole (….uhhh administration) does….it’s selectively enforced (like with Syria and Iran) or does not apply to American soldiers… Benghazi.

  • Pingback: Quick Hits | The Lonely Conservative()

  • Pingback: From Around the Blogroll: #Benghazi edition « THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL.()

  • Pingback: What Difference, At This Point, Do the Facts Make? | hogewash()

  • Shawny Lee

    Me too. Just the visual made me want to shower and hand out antibiotics. shudder to think where that media has been. “Where no man has gone before?”……ROTF!…..Wrong!

  • Adjoran


  • Adjoran

    Yes, the local islamist groups, the Salafists, also one of the MB fringe wings, and possibly the Qaeda-affiliated group as well, had all been calling for a 9/11 demonstration for at least that long. Then, the weekend before, state TV aired the YouTube video, which brought out enough genuinely enraged citizens to cover the bad guys trying to breach the embassy.

    None of which had anything to do with anything EXCEPT Egypt. Tunisia was also pre-planned, they hadn’t had time to get offended by YouTube, they hadn’t seen it – but when asked by western journalists, of course they were.

  • Adjoran

    It is now on the record that Hillary, Obama, Rice, Carney, and others were knowingly lying when they blamed the video. They not only knew it wasn’t the cause, they knew it had NOTHING at all to do with the attack, and that there was NO demonstration at all – but justified their stonewalling with “we have to wait for the facts, ongoing investigation” to get Obama past the election.

  • SDN

    More like Tucks, for the butthurt.

  • Pingback: A Short Lesson in Liberal Media Bias: Has Alex Koppelman Forgotten Fitzmas? : The Other McCain()