Prosecute the torture.

May 9, 2013

Could Not Have Put It Better Myself

Jon Stewart:


At 2:00 in, Jon Stewart says:
You may be wondering why for Benghazi, Congress has held nine full hearings - including one closed hearing.  Why Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen issued a full accountability report chastising the State Department for their systemic failures and why Benghazi has generally emerged as a rallying cry for the President's opponents when during the Bush Administration there were fifty-four attacks on diplomatic targets that killed thirteen Americans, yet garnered only three hearings on embassy security total and zero outrage on Fox.
At 3:26 in Representative Peter King describes how big a scandal Benghazi is says:
If you add Watergate and IranContra together and multiply it times maybe 10 or so, you're gonna get in the zone of what Benghazi is.
To which Jon Stewart replied:
Holy sh*t! [taking notes] Watergate plus IranContra times...[note taking ends]  So you're saying that the incident, whereby the order of the President of the United States, people broke into the Democratic headquarters to bug it to gain strategic advantage in a presidential election then cover that up by trying to use the power of the presidency to squash the Justice Department and then added that to the Reagan Administrations secret deal to illegally sell arms to Iran in exchange for hostages and money that could then be funneled to Central American right wing death squads, end parentheses, times ten.
Yeppers, that's what they're saying.

However, by the time we get to 1:10 in to the second section of this video:

The wingnut media is balancing this on "If that indeed was the case..."

Following a long line of "If..." statements from Fox pundits, at 2:00 in, Stewart reacts with:
YES!  If dingleberries were diamonds, I could open a Kay Jewelers in my pants!"
Thus illustrating the emptiness of their whole argument.

He ends the segment with this at 3:50:
If what you're saying is true (and it's an important question). If what you're saying is true: if the President let Amercians die for political reasons then by god, bring us the evidence and we will grab the pitchforks and torches along with you.  But remember, that game goes both ways.  Let me try:  In 2011, the State Department requested funding for worldwide security protection and upgrade.  Money that could have perhaps gone to protect Benghazi.  The Republicans, like Darrell Issa who's heading up this committee, voted to cut that funding.  Maybe because of political reasons in an election year to make the President look weak.  Thus sacrificing Americans for political gains.  Did that happen?
One last quote taken out of context to prove this point:
If that's the case, John, then that's outrageous.
And it is.


EdHeath said...

You know, it is funny. This President is getting beaten up by both liberals and conservatives, but for different reasons. Republicans do occasionally mention drone attacks and the assassination, but only in one-offs and in fact generally go the other way, for example complaining the President didn't violate the Boston bombers civil rights. And although Republicans are happy to complain that Obama wants to gut Medicare (by keeping benefits constant and making providers pay more?), they want to do at least as much and if possible go further (vouchers). And wait and see, Republicans will probably say to senor citizens that Obama forced them to reduce benefits (any one remember privatization?)

And Democrats are not happy with what happened in Benghazi, but we don't know that either Barack or Hillary said "Let them die". We do know that apparently there was a CIA facility at this consulate, and (in my estimate) that is why the CIA briefing to Susan Rice (among others) said to blame the video, not al Qaeda or their affiliates. Of course, the next day as I recall the Guardian was commenting that groups affiliated with al Qaeda were involved in the attack on the Consulate. If the CIA thought they were fooling anyone with this line, they were engaging in their usual short sighted behavior.

Dayvoe said...

Um, Ed?

You know "the company" is listening, don't you?

So as much as I value your friendship, I have to go on record saying that "the company" is hardly short-sighted. "The company" is staffed by many many diligent, patriotic Amurikuns who have nothing but our best interests at heart.

Even though we can't be trusted to know what they are or how they're protecting them.

EdHeath said...

Turns out you might be thinking of the NSA, who probably doesn't care who bad mouths "the company" (or "the agency" or "Universal Exports" ... or is that MI-6, which by the way doesn't exist). You know, Mr Abbott and all... "Martin ... I am (not) your father" ...