Quote of the Day

The Daily Banter: The Benghazi “Eyewitness” Is the Victim of a Liberal Witch Hunt (or Something)/11.4.13

Quote of the Day

"If some people on this committee want to call this tragedy the worst since 9/11, it misunderstands the nature of 4,000-plus Americans lost in the War in Iraq under false pretenses."

-- Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut moments after Rand Paul told Hillary Clinton, during her Capitol Hill testimony on Benghazi, that were he president he would've fired her for her "culpability" in the "worst tragedy since 9/11"

There are a lot of great quotes coming out of Clinton's testimony today, most coming from Clinton herself being that she's not the type to suffer fools lightly and Lord knows most of those trying to milk this bullshit for political gain are fools of the highest order. But Murphy's is the most pointed for cutting right to the core of what this nonsense is really all about.

Benghazi isn't the worst tragedy since 9/11. It's barely even the worst tragedy since the last eleven deadly attacks on one of our embassies in the Middle East, West Asia and North Africa in the past decade. Not to dismiss the deaths of four people, including a U.S. ambassador, but there's something that needs to be said over and over again as the Republicans continue this ridiculous farce in search of a legitimate scandal: While absolutely tragic, what happened in Benghazi is a relatively by-the-numbers incident. The United States has made the choice to attempt to undertake diplomacy in some very, very dangerous places, and violence against the dedicated men and women stationed in those areas is, as callous as this sounds, the cost of doing business.

Every single question that can be asked about Benghazi should be asked in an effort to determine what happened and to help ensure that it doesn't happen again. But to forcefully suggest that the Benghazi attack and its aftermath were the result of institutional incompetence or that there's some kind of cover-up afoot at the highest levels of government is nothing more than the nihilistic politics of a desperate opposition party.

If a Republican had been in the White House when Benghazi happened -- and this attack and the immediate administration response to it would've been largely the same regardless -- none of this would be going on right now. Fox News would be shouting down anyone who dared to ask questions and calling that person a traitor guilty of giving aid and comfort to the enemy during a time of war.

Guys like Rand Paul didn't deserve to be taken the least bit seriously going into this dumb-ass dog and pony show on the Hill today, and they're only making themselves look more ridiculous as the day goes by.

Adding: A bonus Quote of the Day from Joan Walsh over at Salon:

"The stature gap between Clinton and those possible 2016 rivals – OK, nobody’s announced they’re running, but I couldn’t help thinking about it – was enormous. When Rand Paul huffed 'had I been President at the time and I found that you did not read the cables (from Benghazi) I would have relieved you of your duties,' it wasn’t intimidating but funny. President Rand Paul? Try to say that without laughing."

Quote of the Day

"That is an obscene lie... You are misleading the American people because you want to make a political point. We have never in the history of this republic mounted a raid on the circumstance described here ever."

Geraldo Rivera, smacking down Fox News über-douche Eric Bolling, who was continuing to push the conservative talking point that what happened in Benghazi was a failure of leadership, that there's a cover-up at work, and that U.S. forces should've attacked the crowd of protesters that attacked our embassy

Between Geraldo and Chris Christie bucking the Fox News tide of histrionic idiocy, I'd normally say that it feels like Opposite Day or something. But the reality is that while he can certainly be a pompous tool, Geraldo generally tries to be as intellectually honest as possible, and I've always given him credit for that.

As for Benghazi, I got into a big debate with someone about it on Facebook yesterday -- one of the very rare occasions that I choose to argue politics on anyone's page besides my own. Here's the deal: As tragic as it is, and it is absolutely tragic, it's a relatively by-the-numbers incident. Over the past few decades, our embassies in Arab and North African countries have faced deadly attacks countless times, irrespective of who happens to be in the White House. We choose to undertake diplomacy in very dangerous places and -- while I certainly don't mean to diminish what happened in Libya -- violence against our very brave and dedicated men and women stationed in those areas is simply the cost of doing business. Should every single possible question be asked about what happened in Benghazi in an effort to determine whether it could've been prevented and to help ensure it doesn't happen again? Of course. Is there some nefarious plot to cover up institutional incompetence afoot at the highest levels of government. Not a fucking chance.

I wouldn't have blamed George W. Bush or any Republican president had it happened on his watch, untethered to any specific administrational act overseas, simply because when you're in an Arab country there's almost no way to prevent the kind of anger and violence we saw in Benghazi. Pretending that Obama could, or that he reacted the wrong way to it -- which neither he nor Panetta, nor the military officers in that region did -- is ludicrous. No one left anybody to die. Also, do I even need to add that should the roles have been reversed and we'd had a Republican in the White House, the same people who immediately began beating up on Obama -- while our embassy was still on fire, no less -- would be calling any public critic of the president during a crisis like that a traitor who's guilty of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Gerlado, by the way, went on to say that he talked to Charles Woods, whose son was killed in the attack, and that it bothered him to hear Woods's accusations against the Obama administration because they're based on little more than conspiracy theory perpetuated by outlets like Fox News, who are looking for something, anything to hang around the neck of Obama during an election year.

"He is being led down a primrose path of misinformation that is making it look as if President Obama went gambling in Las Vegas when he could've been saving people in Benghazi and that's a lie." Rivera said.

Related: The Daily Banter: The Right's Made-Up Benghazi Cover-Up/11.1.12

Adding: Cesca remains convinced that if Obama wins next week, the Republicans will almost immediately begin looking to impeach him over Benghazi. And he's apparently not the only one who thinks this.

Adding More: Suck it, Bolling. You bullying little turd.