Ermahgerd, BENGHAZI!!! Development

Image from NYTimes

I know that Republicans really, really, really want Benghazi to be President Obama's Watergate. And any time anyone makes light of that notion, or dismisses a "cover-up" or a conspiracy theory about Benghazi, they come back with a very serious "four people died." Yes, they did. And that's tragic, and virtually no one has downplayed that. But perspective is important. It is relevant to point out that diplomats have died under previous administrations. It is relevant to point out that on a matter of scale, Benghazi pales as an intelligence failure to something like September 11, 2001. It is relevant to point out that after that day in 2001, Americans put politics aside for a good long while, and came together; whereas after September 11, 2012, Republicans immediately went on a snipe hunt to hang it around Obama's neck.

But mostly, it is relevant to point out that the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi is not really what this is about. The biggest bone of contention for conservatives--for reasons I still don't comprehend--is what Susan Rice had to say on political talk shows five days after the attack. When Hillary Clinton later asked ". . .what difference does it make. . ." that's what she was talking about. Now, if Rice had continued after that day to try to sell a theory after it turned out not to be true, that would be one thing. But she didn't. And if politicians were not known to go on Meet the Press, and just say any damn thing, on shows that are heavily skewed to feature Republicans, that would be another thing. But a YouTube video of all the wrong things John McCain and Lindsey Graham have said on those shows would be child's play to compile. They're on every damned week! Who writes their talking points?

Again, I don't get it. I don't see the scandal here. I don't see the cover-up. And I really don't see a conspiracy theory. Even this new "revelation" seems like a big nothingburger.

[Excerpt]

Benghazi E-Mails Put White House on the Defensive

A long-simmering dispute over the White House’s account of the deadly assault on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, flared up on Friday, with a disclosure of e-mails that show the White House was more deeply involved in revising talking points about the attack than officials have previously acknowledged. . .

Read more at: New York Times