Via Twitter:

Michael Bersin ‏@MBersin
Merciful God, somebody save the republicans on the Benghazi committee. Make it stop. It’s like watching someone club baby harp seals. 7:59 PM – 22 Oct 2015

The Associated Press ‏@AP
BREAKING: House Benghazi committee meeting to hear Clinton testimony adjourns 11 hours after it began.8:03 PM – 22 Oct 2015

MrJM ‏@MisterJayEm
So did they ever find out if HRC is now, or ever was, a member of the Communist Party?8:19 PM – 22 Oct 2015

Ruby Cramer ‏@rubycramer
What new piece of information did #BenghaziCommittee uncover today? Gowdy can’t answer specifically, says he will “look at the transcript.” 8:13 PM – 22 Oct 2015

Like the republican chair wasn’t at his committee’s hearing?

What a bunch of clowns.

In a Friday republican news dump (apparently, it’s the “full truth”):

U.S. House of Representatives

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

Investigative Report on the Terrorist

Attacks on U.S. Facilities in Benghazi,

Libya, September 11-12, 2012 [pdf]

[….]

November 21, 2014

Executive Summary

….In summary, the Committee first concludes that the CIA ensured sufficient security for CIA facilities in Benghazi and, without a requirement to do so, ably and bravely assisted the State Department on the night of the attacks. Their actions saved lives. Appropriate U.S. personnel made reasonable tactical decisions that night, and the Committee found no evidence that there was either a stand down order or a denial of available air support. The Committee, however, received evidence that the State Department security personnel, resources, and equipment were unable to counter the terrorist threat that day and required CIA assistance.

second, the Committee finds that there was no intelligence failure prior to the attacks. In the months prior, the IC provided intelligence about previous attacks and the increased threat environment in Benghazi, but the IC did not have specific, tactical warning of the September 11 attacks.

Third, the Committee finds that a mixed group of individuals, including those affiliated with Al-Qa’ida, participated in the attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, although the Committee finds that the intelligence was and remains conflicting about the identities, affiliations, and motivations of the attackers.

Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early intelligence assessments and the Administration’s initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate. There was a stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence that came in after the attacks. The Committee found intelligence to support CIA’s initial assessment that the attacks had evolved out of a protest in Benghazi; but it also found contrary intelligence, which ultimately proved to be the correct intelligence. there was no protest. The CIA only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption television footage became available on September 18, 2012 (two days after Ambassador Rice spoke), and after the FBI began publishing its interviews with U.S. officials on the ground on September 22, 2014.

Fifth, the Committee finds that the process used to generate the talking points HPSCI asked for – and which were used for Ambassador Rice’s public appearances – was flawed. HPSCI asked for the talking points solely to aid Members’ ability to communicate publicly using the best available intelligence at the time, and mistakes were made in the process of how those talking points were developed.

Finally, the Committee found no evidence that any officer was intimidated, wrongly forced to sign nondisclosure agreement or otherwise kept from speaking to Congress, or polygraphed because of their presence in Benghazi. The Committee also found no evidence that the CIA conducted unauthorized activities in Benghazi and no evidence that the IC shipped arms to Syria.

[….]

There go the right wingnut conspiracy theories.

May 2014, from the House republicans:

A Benghazi investigation to uncover the truth

Communications • May 2, 2014

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) announced today plans to establish a select committee to investigate the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attack that killed four Americans.

[….]

House Republicans expressed resounding support for the Speaker’s decision, and took to Twitter to spread the word.

Ann Wagner ‏@RepAnnWagner

The American people deserve the truth, the families of the fallen deserve accountability & those responsible must go to jail #Benghazi 12:35 PM – 2 May 2014

[…]

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler

I applaud @SpeakerBoehner’s decision to create Select Committee on #Benghazi. Americans deserve the full truth. #PJNET #tcot

[….]

That was then, this is now.

Representative Ann Wagner’s (r) Twitter comment on the release of the House committee report on Friday:

Representative Vicky Hartzler’s (r) Twitter comment on the release of the House Committee report on Friday:

Interesting silence. You were expecting something else?

Remember when Ann Wagner decided to feed the GOP’s carefully cultivated Benghazi conspiracy mania back in 2013? She made news in rightwing circles after coyly implying on the Dana Loesch radio show that (1) a “stand-down” order had been given to military personnel that resulted in the deaths in Benghazi, and (2) the President was the only official who could give such an order. We demonstrated all the ways that such claims were patently and obviously wrong at the time, noting in passing that the really interesting issue was simply the ambitious Wagner’s “willingness to dance the GOP crazy tango” when expedient.

Without folks like Wagner keeping this specific narrative alive, the millions of dollars of taxpayer money squandered on the endless inept House investigations could have been saved. As Michael Tomasky notes, the stand-down issue became:

… a central right-wing talking point virtually since the tragic storming of the consulate, which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. The idea is that our heroic men and women in uniform could have saved the quartet, but President Obama and Hillary Clinton didn’t want them to, because they’re weak and they want America to fail.

Only there was no stand-down order (see also here) and Republicans have known it for suresies since March – most of us had it figured out long before – well before House Speaker John Boehner set up a  “bipartisan” Select Committee that’s set to investigate this exact issue.

So what I want to ask Rep. Wagner is when is she going to apologize to the President? And then, when is she going to apologize to us, the taxpayers who got stuck for the bill that resulted from her efforts, among those of others, to keep the Benghazi time and money sink going strong? And will she now denounce what will probably be continuing efforts from folks like House Oversight Committee Chair Darrels Issa to beat this dead horse into the ground no matter what the evidence says? Shouldn’t I, after all, be able to expect exactly this type of stand-up behavior from a representative of the political party that carries on incessantly about accountability and personal responsibility when it comes to poor people? Isn’t what’s good for the goose good for the gander? So I want to know: will Ann Wagner ever take responsibility for her willingness to carry the fetid GOP Benghazi water

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), aka Obamacare, is working in spite of GOP obstruction. 152,335 Missourians, 29% more than projected, signed up for insurance via Healthcare.gov. 300,000 more low income uninsured Missourians would have insurance today if Missouri’s GOP lawmakers weren’t still relying on the ACA shuck and jive job they’ve been pulling for the last several years to pay off.

The fact that Obamacare’s proving itself out there in the real world means that some GOPers are struggling to find  another con-job they can pull come election time this year. Which explains this little opus from Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-4):

It has been almost 20 months since four Americans were killed during a terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. But the White House has deliberately and consistently obstructed efforts by Congress and the media to learn the truth about the Obama Administration’s reaction to this attack, and recently disclosed White House emails indicate the facts might have been intentionally altered to create a false narrative of the tragic events. As a co-sponsor of legislation calling for an investigative Select Committee, I applaud this action. The families of those brutally killed in Benghazi and all Americans demand accountability. The stonewalling must end; the truth must be heard.

Yep. Benghazi. Stale, but our Vicky’s not the swiftest pony in the stable, and beggars can’t be choosers – even when the latest Benghazi “smoking gun” seems to have misfired. In the words of a former National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor, “dude, this was two years ago,” and there’s no more there there than there was then. I don’t want to be too hard on Vicky though; she’s not the only GOPer who thinks Benghazi is the perfect fallback – today Speaker Boehner announced the formation a select committee to investigate the issue yet again, based on “new” evidence that tells us nothing we didn’t already know.

Of course, some folks don’t seem to have gotten the message about a possible election strategy pivot. Take Senator Roy Blunt. I got this email message from our man in Washington today:

President Obama’s so-called “victory lap” on ObamaCare may have been a bit premature. According to a recent survey, only 38% of Americans think the president’s health care law is working.

Maybe that’s because so many people have experienced skyrocketing premiums and job losses as a result of this flawed law. On top of that, we recently learned that the disastrous ObamaCare website is far from finished, and is estimated to cost taxpayers $121 million before the second round of enrollments – $30 million more than the Obama Administration estimated a few months ago. The president’s own approval rating has dropped to 37%. To make matters worse for President Obama, early results show that only two-thirds of individuals that signed up for the ObamaCare exchanges actually paid their enrollment premiums.

Every day, I receive stories from Missourians who are concerned about the president’s health care overhaul. And almost every week, I go to the Senate floor to share those experiences.    

As tired as I get of trying to correct straighten out all Roy’s errors, somebody’s got to keep pointing out that he’s got it all wrong:

* Could some well-meaning soul out there tell Roy that the ACA poll numbers he cites include negative ratings from those of us on the left who want a real “socialist” health care system, single payer or Medicare for all, something along those lines. But most of us wouldn’t want to get rid of the ACA if its all we’re going to get right now – and it is. And as for those who bought into the GOP line on Obamacare, they aren’t to blame. It’s hard to resist the flood of misrepresentation and outright lies with which GOPers have been flooding a compliant news media. But never fear, the dupes are going to figure out soon enough that they’ve been had.

* Health care spending is rising because more uninsured people are getting care at last. But sorry, Roy, healthcare costs aren’t “skyrocketing.” Insurance premiums are lower than expected and many insurance companies are predicting stable or even lower costs next year thanks to the success of the exchanges. The success of the ACA could even lower automobile insurance rates!

* To date the only documented job losses I know about that are related to the ACA are taking place in states like Missouri that are refusing to expand Medicaid under the provisions of the law. As a result, hospitals and clinics are being forced to close and numerous new jobs that would have been created are also forfeit.

* Only two-thirds of the people who signed up for Obamacare have paid their premiums? Really, Roy? You ought to know better than to parrot the House Energy and Commerce Committee report that produced that figure unless you want to get called out with the GOP fools on the Committee who thought we wouldn’t notice how they were cooking the books. If you’re not more careful, you’ll have to choke down your share of the crow they’re now eating.

* As for the stories about Missourians who’re suffering from the ravages of Obamacare, I’ve heard some of these whines – most of us have – and all I can say is that I hope that even a small percentage of the stories you manage to dredge up hold up better than most have done so far. As the Los Angeles Times Michael Hiltzik observes, “virtually every yarn promoted by Republicans or conservatives about people hurt by the Affordable Care Act has deflated like a pricked balloon on the merest examination.”

Do you sometimes think that Senator Blunt just isn’t even trying anymore? Of course, if the alternative is more Benghazi, à la Vicky Hartzler, perhaps he’s better off to keep on with the same ol’, same ol’ ACA drivel. After all, even if it’s probably true that you really can confuse some of the people all of the time – and, to judge by our congressional delegation, lots of those people seem to live in Missouri – the lame Benghazi narrative by itself won’t reverse the tide of diminishing returns.

* Last paragraph edited for clarity.

Today I got a little email missive titled “Never Forget” from our GOP Senator, Roy Blunt. It’s the anniversary of 9/11 so this type of message is not unexpected. However, know what he really, really wants us to remember:

Twelve years later, we still live in a dangerous world with enemies who wish us harm. We were reminded of this just one year ago, when four Americans were killed during a deadly terrorist attack in Benghazi.

Like, you know, Benghazi is Obama’s 9/11. Except it isn’t. Although given the general conservative pile-on today, you’d never guess the extent to which the allegations of scandal have been discredited. Blunt, always careful not to go too far and get himself laughed at, is as you probably noticed, moderate in his rhetoric, letting others do the heavy lifting while he only delicately alludes to the point he is sure the base has already been sufficiently prepared to receive with cheers.

And Blunt can take that conviction to the bank. The real wild-eyed morons of the GOP continue to till what they hope will someday, if they just keep at it, prove to be fertile Benghazi fields. The occasion of 9/11 has found them working at fever pitch. To commemorate the profound tragedy of 9/11, Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-Tx) and one-time rep. Allen West (R-nowhere) held a press conference characterized by absurd Benghazi hypotheticals presented as serious allegations. Rep. Darrell Isa (R-CA) had to get in on the act and promised to never stop beating the dead Benghazi horse in his House committee. These partisan conspiracy theorists were echoed by Speaker Boehner who emphasized the strength of GOP resolve to create a partisan victory out of the tragic death of a diplomat:

“For the past year, this administration has failed to provide sufficient answers, fully comply with subpoenas, and make available relevant individuals to provide testimony. In short, this administration hasn’t been upfront with the American people or this Congress,” he said. “Republicans will not stop until we get to the truth. We will press forward with our investigation until we have answers, full accountability, and justice.”

In the words of Steve Benen:

This really isn’t healthy. The questions have been answered; the deadly incident has been closely examined; and the allegations have been discredited. There’s just no point in pretending otherwise. Even some congressional Republican staffers have begun openly mocking GOP lawmakers who can’t let go of this nonsense.

What makes its especially unhealthy is the fact that we’ve had a real international situation on our hands as a result of Syria’s violation of international norms on the use of chemical warfare agents. When President Obama responded by indicating that under his watch the U.S. might actually stand up to defend those conventions, what he got from otherwise truculent GOPers was confused silence or outright opposition for proposals they would have been cheering for had a Republican (and white) president been the initiator. Instead, we get our hawkish GOPers whining about the over-and-done-with Benghazi incident. But, hey, to once again let me crib the eloquent words of Steve Benen:

It’s obvious this simply won’t go away. Ever. There are those who believe the Clintons killed Vince Foster; there are those who think the moon landing was faked; and there are those who argue there was a Benghazi cover-up they can neither identify nor explain.

It is a theory impervious to fact and evidence, and nothing will change that.

Maybe nothing will change the GOP’s fantasy that Benghazi will prove to be the wedge that will topple the Obama presidency, but in the meantime do we have to tolerate Roy Blunt’s gutless effort to appropriate the meme in his “who me” kind of way? Shouldn’t just a few of us tell him we know what he is doing, we don’t like it, and, incidentally, Roy, STFU.

Remember when folks were saying that Rep. Ann Wagner (R-2) was the GOP anti-Akin – that is to say a respectable face for the GOP as opposed to the Akin-style looneytunes? Such observations, alas, are always relative. Wagner may not be quite as stupid as Akin, but she’s still a good little GOP trooper and will toe the crazy line when required and when the opportunity offers – and most recently that means getting in on the Benghazi pileup.

In a recent interview on the Dana Loesch show (where else can Missouri pols so easily lie with impunity?), Wagner claimed that the “stand-down” order that putatively prevented a team of special forces servicemen from coming to aid the embassy in Benghazi would have had to come from none other than the President. Although she doesn’t make the link herself (at least so far as I could determine), rightwing conspiracy buffs, who have been all over this otherwise ignored statement during the past few days (just google “Ann Wagner” and “stand down”), are treating her statement as authoritative based on her stint as Ambassador to that major hot spot, Luxembourg.

Alas, Wagner is either wrong or incompletely representing the chain of command to suggest something that she does  not want to state directly:

— First of all, there was no “stand-down” – a stand-down implies a cessation in offensive activities that were already underway. However, even the GOP star witness, Gregory Hicks, who was supposed to finally blow the “cover” off the Obama administration’s alleged failures, admitted during the latest round of House Benghazi hearings that this just wasn’t so (in fact, congressional Democrats had to demand that Hicks’ testimony, which actually supported the administration narrative, be included in the record in its entirety):

During questioning, Hicks confirmed that the team was ready to be deployed – not to join the fighting at the CIA annex – but “to secure the airport for the withdrawal of our personnel from Benghazi after the mortar attack.” Hicks also confirmed that it was the second such team to be readied for deployment, with the first having proceeded to Benghazi earlier. Despite the second team not deploying, the staff was all evacuated first to Tripoli, then to Germany, within 18 hours of the attack taking place.

— Second, is it really true that an order to stand-down would have to be issued by the President? Nobody else, including plenty of folks who could be expected to be “in the know” seems to think that’s the case – which is why conservative condemnation  has been aimed at Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey. While searching for some information on military protocols, I came across this statement from a person claiming to be a retired army officer which suggests that tactical decisions such as those governing the deployment of special forces need not go all the way to the top:

Since most of you guys have never worked in a TOC (Tactical Operations Center), let me fill you in on who gives the orders to ‘stand down’.

We have SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) that we follow when an Embassy, a Base, or a Post is being attacked. Part of those procedures do NOT include calling the White House to ask for advice or permission to take action.

The Battle Captain in that TOC makes the initial call to alert the QRF or CIF. Once the immediate chain of command is notified, a Colonel or a General (as in this case) will make the final decision as to ramp up, execute, or stand down. Again, we don’t ever call the White House to ask for permission or guidance in these matters. That’s why we have Colonels and Generals.

High ranking officers get paid the big bucks to make these type of decisions on the battlefield and I hate to break it to you guys but the President is NOT part of that decision making process. The President and high ranking officials like Hillary, Panetta, and Petraeus are eventually notified of situations like this and updated thereafter. However, it’s the Combatant Commander that is responsible for that area who makes the final call to execute mission or ‘stand down’. In this case, the AOR (Area of Responsibility) was AFRICOM and the Combatant Commander for AFRICOM was GEN Ham.

I haven’t verified this description of standard procedure, but it rings a lot truer to me than the statements of a retired Ambassador to Luxembourg – an assignment, incidentally, routinely given to big campaign donors and supporters because it’s so insignificant that it’s hard to endanger any important U.S. foreign relations (although recent Obama appointee Cynthia Stroum managed to mismanage internal embassy operations so badly that she was recalled). This account of emergency procedure also jibes with statements by both critics and supporters of the administration’s handling of the Benghazi incident.

— Third, if one carefully parses Wagner’s statements, you will notice that she does not say that the President ordered the special forces to stand-down:

Rep. Wagner did not actually claim that Obama had ordered a “stand down” and there has been no evidence presented that President Obama ever gave a “stand down” order during the Benghazi attack.

Many accounts noted that Wagner’s smug suggestion had gone unnoticed. Part of the reason for this lack of attention may have been the venue – Loesch is, by any definition, a small-time player on the fringe of the fringe and garners little interest outside her chosen milieu. But it is also quite possible that Wagner’s dog-whistle to the legions of obsessive rightwing Obama haters has been ignored because it reflects an exaggeration of the real way that things work and, as such, would only serve to further discredit the already tattered Benghazi non-scandal. Her willingness to dance the GOP crazy tango should, however, be of interest to Missourians who thought that they had at last put the embarrassment of Todd Akin behind them.

UPDATE:  Wagner’s even worse than I thought. Here’s more Ann Wagner Benghazi misrepresentation from Twitter:

Ann Wagner ‏@RepAnnWagner 16 May

The #Benghazi emails directly contradict what @PressSec told the American people and I’m appalled at the lies that were told.

This in spite of CBS’s revelation that the release of the emails proved that the GOP altered the content of White House Benghazi emails they had seen in order to serve their efforts to trump-up a scandal.

Today, Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) jumped on the right wingnut Benghazi bandwagon via a release:

….On another matter, I am pleased that three career diplomats with knowledge of the events surrounding the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya were given the opportunity to testify before a House committee this week.

Mark Thompson, the U.S. State Department’s Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Counterterrorism; Gregory Hicks, the U.S. State Department’s Foreign Service Officer and former Deputy Chief of Mission in Libya; and Eric Nordstrom, the U.S. State Department’s Diplomatic Security Officer and former Regional Security Officer in Libya all provided insight and thoughts on what really happened when four brave Americans were killed.

As you might recall, the American people were first provided a story about a video being responsible for inflaming a group of Libyans, enraging these individuals to the point they decided to attack the U.S. consulate and murder Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. The decision was then made to not disclose al-Qaeda’s role in the attack.

Mr. Hicks’ emotional account of what he experienced that night raises questions about the attack and whether more could have been done to assist U.S. personnel on the ground. And he told the committee of his shock at hearing United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice telling American TV audiences that the deadly attack grew out of a protest over the video. Mr. Hicks said of the official White House line: “I was stunned, my jaw dropped and I was embarrassed.”

The American people deserve to know the truth about what happened in Benghazi and why a team of special-operations forces was told to stand down instead of heading to Benghazi to help. The effort to learn the truth is not a “witch hunt” as some have suggested. It is an effort to determine why four Americans died that night in Libya and to inform the American people.

As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, which has held classified briefings and sought information of its own into the Benghazi attack, I must take strong exception to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s comment, when questioned about Benghazi and the killings, “What difference at this point does it make?” It makes a difference to the families of those brave Americans whose lives were lost in Benghazi. Those families and all Americans have a right to know what happened and why it happened. I will continue to work with my colleagues to shed light on this sad event and to try to prevent similar such tragedies from happening in the future….

“….The American people deserve to know the truth about what happened in Benghazi and why a team of special-operations forces was told to stand down instead of heading to Benghazi to help….”

Robert Gates: Obama made right decisions night of Benghazi attack

[….]

By Brad Knickerbocker, Staff writer / May 12, 2013

….Republican critics have said a Special Forces team or overflights by fighter aircraft based in Italy might have prevented the US losses or at least frightened off the attackers. Mr. Gates disagrees.

Such actions, he said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” Sunday, “without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on the ground, would have been very dangerous.”

“It’s sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces,” Gates said, referring to morning-after analysis. “The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm’s way, and there just wasn’t time to do that….”

Uh, Robert Gates served as Secretary of Defense for both Presidents Bush and Obama.

“….It is an effort to determine why four Americans died that night in Libya and to inform the American people….”

No Shame

October 14, 2012

….The ugly truth is that the same people who are accusing the administration of not providing sufficient security for the American consulate in Benghazi have voted to cut the State Department budget, which includes financing for diplomatic security. The most self-righteous critics don’t seem to get the hypocrisy, or maybe they do and figure that if they hurl enough doubts and complaints at the administration, they will deflect attention from their own poor judgments on the State Department’s needs.

At a hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform last Wednesday, Representative Darrell Issa, Republican of California and the committee’s chairman, talked of “examining security failures that led to the Benghazi tragedy.” He said lawmakers had an obligation to protect federal workers overseas. On Sunday, he said more should be spent on diplomatic security.

But as part of the Republican majority that has controlled the House the last two years, Mr. Issa joined in cutting nearly a half-billion dollars from the State Department’s two main security accounts. One covers things like security staffing, including local guards, armored vehicles and security technology; the other, embassy construction and upgrades. In 2011 and 2012, President Obama sought a total of $5 billion, and the House approved $4.5 billion. In 2009, Mr. Issa voted for an amendment that would have cut nearly 300 diplomatic security positions. And the draconian budgets proposed by Mitt Romney’s running mate, Representative Paul Ryan, would cut foreign affairs spending by 10 percent in 2013 and even more in 2016….

So, is Representative Hartzler (r) going to to let us know how she voted on those State Department requests for security funding? Just asking.

“….I must take strong exception to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s comment, when questioned about Benghazi and the killings, ‘What difference at this point does it make?’ It makes a difference to the families of those brave Americans whose lives were lost in Benghazi. Those families and all Americans have a right to know what happened and why it happened…..”

A little more of that very special quote:

Hillary Clinton, Ron Johnson Engage In Heated Exchange At Benghazi Hearing (VIDEO)

Posted: 01/23/2013 11:09 am EST  |  Updated: 01/24/2013 12:12 am EST

“….With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans,” Clinton responded, raising her voice at Johnson, who continued to interrupt her. “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator….”

Context is everything, except in the right wingnut political universe.

Republican outrage over all and sundry is not only predictable, but downright boring. The example du jour is the ongoing attack waged by John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte (and most recently, Susan Collins, proving that being a moderate Republican does not make one a good person) against potential Secretary of State nominee, Susan Rice. Can anyone say mountain out of a molehill?

As far as the Benghazi incident itself goes, the outrage is so drummed up that it practically reeks. As Kevin Drum points out:

As best I can tell, the suggestion from the right has been that Obama didn’t want to admit that Benghazi was a terrorist attack because….well, I’m not sure, exactly. Something about how this would blow a hole in his claim to be decimating al-Qaeda via drone attacks. Or maybe it would remove some of the luster from being the killer of Osama bin Laden. Or something. But one way or another, the story is that Obama was deeply afraid of admitting that terrorists are still out there and want to do us harm.

This has never made a lick of sense. If anything, the continuing existence of terrorists justifies his drone attacks. And it certainly wouldn’t do him any harm in an election. The American public routinely rallies around a president responding to a terrorist attack.

Drum also points out what a yawn the GOP’s feigned indignaton about Rice is:

… there’s considerable evidence that on September 15, when Rice taped her appearances, the CIA told her there had been protests in Benghazi earlier in the day. The CIA turned out to be wrong about that, but it simply makes no sense for them to have made this up. If it does anything at all, it only makes their response look worse.

Of course, the political strategy behind this anti-Rice campaign is now evident: nominate John Kerry as Secretary of state instead and run Scott Brown for his vacated seat – returning a Senate seat to the GOP:

Pressuring the White House into naming Kerry would accomplish two GOP goals. First, it would humiliate Obama by denying him his first choice, Susan Rice. Second, it would open up a currently safe Massachusetts Senate seat.

The next midterm election will be one of the most hazardous ever for Democrats, who currently hold a 55-45 margin in the Senate.

At least nine Senate Democrats are considered vulnerable in 2014, and no incumbent Republicans. If Republicans take control of the Senate, a newly feisty Obama will be totally hamstrung for his final two years.

Although most of the anti-Rice Benghazi outrage has been confined to the Senate which will have to confirm whomever is nominated to be Secretary of State, the peanut gallery in the House has been called into the fray as well. A number of House members wrote a letter (pdf) to President Obama, dated November 19, talking the usual trash about Rice.

Given the general cynicism and dishonesty of the attack, it would behoove Missourians to know which members of our delegation were among the letter’s signatories. It was not, as many might suspect, the entire Missouri GOP House delegation, but only the two remaining tea-party dim-bulbs, Billy Long (R-7) and Vicky Hartzler (R-4). Perhaps the other Missouri House GOPers were just absent the day the letter went around, but maybe, just maybe, some of them actually have some tiny bit of integrity. Who knows?  

In republican world the period between January 2001 and January 2009 didn’t really happen.

Via Twitter:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler

The tale of two ‘Rices’– Susan Rice is no Condoleezza Rice! I wish Condoleezza Rice were being considered for Sec. of State instead! 9:17 AM – 27 Nov 12

We certainly hope not.

April 8, 2004:

[….]

[Condoleezza] RICE. I remember very well that the president was aware that there were issues inside the United States. He’d talked to people about this. But I don’t remember the al Qaeda cells as being something that we were told we needed to do something about.

[Richard] BEN-VENISTE. Isn’t it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the Aug. 6 P.D.B. warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that P.D.B.

RICE. I believe the title was Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside the United States. Now, the P.D.B. –

BEN-VENISTE. Thank you.

RICE. No, Mr. Ben-Veniste –

BEN-VENISTE. I will get into the –

RICE. I would like to finish my point here.

BEN-VENISTE. I didn’t know there was a point.

RICE. Given that – you asked me whether or not it warned of attacks.

BEN-VENISTE. I asked you what the title was.

[….]

Oh, by the way, did anyone ever find those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

Search for the ‘smoking gun’

[….]

CNN

Friday, January 10, 2003 Posted: 5:58 PM EST (2258 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Last September 8, I interviewed President Bush’s National Security Adviser, Dr. Condoleezza Rice. I was pressing her on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s nuclear capabilities.

“We know that he has the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon,” she told me. “And we know that when the inspectors assessed this after the Gulf War, he was far, far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought — maybe six months from a crude nuclear device.”

Dr. Rice then said something that was ominous and made headlines around the world.

“The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud….”

Just asking.