I had every intention of not writing another word about Benghazi. Then I saw Eugene Robinson's article called:
Republicans lead a witch hunt on Benghazi
I smirked a little, then came across Michael Gerson's article called:
Incompetence, not criminality, in Benghazi investigation
Slightly amused, I went on to find Dan Gainor's article called:
Liberal media spin Benghazi scandal to protect Team Obama
The links to the articles are at the bottom of this post.
One of the questions I wanted to have answered was who altered the talking points memo. Who changed the comments that Susan Rice delivered on five separate Sunday talk shows?
While Eugene Robinson's article doesn't have a 'hit' when you search for "talking points", Michael Gerson mentions the talking points memo twice. In context, he wrote:
"Information on the true nature of the attack had traveled the 5,000 miles to CIA headquarters and was incorporated into the agency’s initial talking points. But somewhere in the final few miles between Langley, Foggy Bottom and the White House, the attack was called a “demonstration” and then,
according to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, the “direct result of a heinous and offensive video.” The administration’s characterizations became more emphatic as they became less accurate.
In pinning the blame for Benghazi on a crude, anti-Muslim video, confusion moved along the contours of convenience. For the State Department, it shifted attention away from careless security practices in an obviously dangerous place. For the White House,
it avoided pre-election discussion of the war on terror that was supposed to be largely won. For whoever made the military decisions on that night, it obscured the timidity of their response when Americans came under attack."
There. The President of the United States made a political decision. There it is. Thank you. It was a political decision to talk about a heinous video being the reason four Americans are dead. Robinson points out that in the past, Republicans called for unity and criticized the politicizing of American deaths for gain. I agree with him. And that's why I want to know, quite frankly, on what basis was it decided to blame the anti-Muslim video on the Benghazi attack. Who said, more or less, "Get rid of all the terrorism stuff and blame the video." Who approved it? Was President Obama in the room? Did he sign off?
Yesterday, I wrote that I didn't want to write about this anymore. I will say the same thing again. I don't. I'm not a Conservative crazy. I actually (gasp!) agreed with Rachel Maddow the other night when she talked about how the legislature in one state passed a bill that allowed
- hunting with silencers
- teaching kids to write in cursive
She thought it was crazy that two unrelated ideas could be in the same bill. I agree - the two issues have nothing to do with each other. If you listen to Ann Coulter enough, you realize that Coulter is about as 'out there' as Al Sharpton, Chris Matthews, and the new poster boy that seems to be everywhere now, Chris Hayes, among others on MSNBC.
I'll listen to any idea that attempts to solve the problems in the country. I'm not going to be around forever. My kids are going to inherit the trillions in deficits. My kids are going to inherit a world that is much different. Different is good. I like different as long as it's not change. (wink wink)
Eugene Robinson's article:
Republicans lead a witch hunt on Benghazi
Michael Gerson's article:
Incompetence, not criminality, in Benghazi investigation
Dan Gainor's article:
Liberal media spin Benghazi scandal to protect Team Obama
