The Great Benghazi Conspiracy and Republican Forgeries

John Aravosis at AmericaBlog has been all over the Republican congressmen who forged versions of alleged White House emails on Benghazi and falsified them to the news networks, trying to make it look like there had been a cover-up. Extraordinarily, Bob Schieffer of CBS News called them out, naming the party but not the individuals engaged in the forgery.

CBS reports

But this forgery of emails is only the tip of the iceberg. What I have never understood is why no one in the FBI has looked into the possible links of elements of the Republican Party to the Islamophobic film that provoked violence against US embassies in summer of 2012. The “film” was clearly a get-up job. It was shot under false pretenses with a different script, then dubbed to turn it into an attack on the Prophet Muhammad. The people behind it were criminals. (Yes). it was never shown as a real theatrical release. An excerpt of it was put on the web, and then the Coptic Christian sleazeballs who made it did their best to draw attention to the obscure clip among Salafi circles in Egypt, who eventually fell for the ruse and put it on one of their television channels. Then there was the rage and the demonstrations in front of US embassies.

This entire operation was a criminal political conspiracy and given its timing it was almost certainly aimed at intervening in the US presidential election by making Barack Obama look like a Jimmy Carter (Carter had become a ‘prisoner in the Rose Garden’ when US diplomatic personnel were taken hostage in Iran).

Thus far I am not speculating. But then the big question is how far up the conspiracy went. Was anybody in GOP Islamophobic circles connected to it?

Isn’t it a little suspicious that a prominent GOP talking point right from that summer was that Obama is like Carter on foreign policy?

If, and I can only say if, any GOP supporters were connected to the false flag film, then the whole thing backfired on them when the anti-Americanism they were trying to provoke resulted in the death of the US ambassador in Libya. You can’t make hay with the death of an ambassador the way you can with crowds outside embassies burning US flags. The whole thing turned deadly serious, and Obama came out of it looking presidential.

Then, the people trying to deploy the film and the angry crowds for political purposes had to pivot. They decided to make the charge not that Obama was a helpless Jimmy Carter but rather that there was a cover-up of what really happened in Benghazi, that Obama is Richard M. Nixon.

Since Obama is not in fact like either, the whole narrative line never got any traction among circles beyond the Tea Party, but it was all the GOP had and they kept forging ahead with it (a pun, yes).

And in the end, it all crashed. The false flag film caused trouble, but nothing that impugned Obama’s leadership. The administration’s response to the Benghazi crisis was cautious and professional. Romney couldn’t use it effectively, and when he brought it up in debate, Obama shot him down. John McCain and Lindsey Graham kept flogging it, but since they had been cheerleaders for US intervention in Libya, they didn’t have much credibility as critics of its aftermath.

And now, the nadir. The GOP tried to put lipstick on this pig of a so-called ‘scandal’ by forging texts and sending them out to the media. Luckily for us all, CBS actually does fact-checking, and the culprits were caught with their pants down. Their credibility with the reporters is mud from here on out.

12 Responses

  1. Oh, look, Mommie! It’s one aspect of the game of “geopolitics!” Can we ALL play? I get the Red, White and Blue and Digital Camo BDU Men, okay?

  2. That is blatant.

    Why is there no legal counter-offensive by the Obama admin in regards to the fabricated quotes from the e-mails?

    Is there no legal recourse for such fraud and slander? Should this not be considered a huge breach in ethics at least?

  3. One has to find remarkable the incompetence of the Republicans in their sourcing and reporting of facts. In the aftermath of Benghazi and in the midst of the “investigation,” we’ve seen Rumsfeld and Cheney (Jon Stewart’s ‘Tweedlerum and Tweedledick’) making incredible statements about the Libyan event while assuming that everyone has forgotten about Iraq and all of the hype leading up to THAT egregious failure.
    How is it that the Republicans cannot field anyone with a smattering of innate intelligence to administer the United States government? We know that many of the states that elect Republicans are well below any acceptable standard for education, so, that’s one excuse … er … rationale … er … reason, not having a literate voter base, believing in the political messiahs and their own lying eyes rather than making decisions based on studying the issues (but this can be worked for both parties).
    Even at the highest levels of the Republican hierarchy, those selected as Presidential candidates (since at least Ronald Reagan) are obviously impaired in terms of temperament or personal histories. It is increasingly apparent that the GOP is intent on slowly poisoning itself, their collective souls committing a gradual death by pursuing spectres, ghosts, and phantoms from the depths of the darkness in which they have begun to be forever lost … and, even as they exist in their zombie forms, forgotten.

    • The GOP is intellectually bankrupt, as was obvious in the 2012 campaign. When they have nothing else, stuff like this is all they have left to dish-up to their brain-dead base.

    • The purpose of competent sourcing and reporting of facts would be to win over voters who currently oppose them.

      That is not the way it works in a country with low voter turnout.

      What you do is build up an army of fanatics, who then bully, harass, and lecture everyone else. The weak-willed ones (whom we call “independents”) have common prejudices easily played upon, and will always give a nice-talking patriot one break.

      As for the rest of the voters? Simply nullify the 14th Amendment, claiming for state legislatures the power to strip those people of their franchise. Fanatics always can bum-rush a state legislature.

      These things don’t happen in other democracies because they have 90% voter turnout and there’s no room for these tactics.

  4. Actually I think the talking head here is Scott Pelley.

    What’s also remarkable is how careful and measured the report is. It is as though the whole thing was run through a series of committees at CBS, so as to be a strict recitation of the facts, emasculating their importance. I suppose at some level this is how something this combustable should be handled. But unless a listener has half their brain engaged these things could be spun as “misunderstandings,” or “paraphrasing” which are the threadbare defenses that will be proffered if this goes any further

    The implications of this are far more serious, per the post. That they have declined to name names, nor to make the most obvious inferences, gives serious pause. Is CBS so cowed by these people that it could only report the bare minimum?

  5. This is indeed horrifying – thanks for posting a factual account, which is precisely what our media is showing itself consistently unwilling to do in so many arenas.

    That being said, is it legitimate to still find it incredibly fishy that Patreus has been kept from testifying on this matter (I still don’t see what adultery has to do with his testimony on this event)? Would be interested in your take.

    Thanks for your work.

  6. What is the actual criminal charge you believe needs investigating? I think that film was despicable behavior, but falls well within the First Amendment.

    • If an attempt was being deliberately made to provoke violence against US embassy personnel, that would fall well within clear and present danger, material support for terrorism, accomplice to murder, etc.

  7. Professor Cole, I know that mere praise doesn’t add much, but your voice of clarity and calm in the context of such difficult political times is, well, a tonic.

  8. I would disagree.

    The recent First Amendment case involving Westboro Baptist Church protects those speaking on matters of public interest from liability. In that case, the public interest issue was gays in the military.

    The First Amendment also protected the minister from Florida who wished to burn Korans.

    The Arab International Festival in Dearborn had obnoxious “Christian missionaries” making offensive remarks about Islam. They recently obtained a settlement for their prosecution by the government.

    The organizers of the Arab International Festival recently announced this year that this years event in Dearborn would be cancelled, despite being held successfully for many previous years.

Comments are closed.