Obama Haters + Benghazi + Iraq = More Spinning Than a Dervish on a Carnival Ride


A couple of brief but worthwhile articles by Steve Benen at MSNBC highlight the dizzying heights of lunacy to which the cult of Obama hatred has ascended. One is about the capture of Ahmed Abu Khattala, the suspected terrorist mastermind behind the attack in Benghazi in 2012. Remember Benghazi? It’s one of the many “scandals” that the Obama Haters hoped would spell the end of the guy in “their” White House.  Terrorists attacked an American consulate in the Libyan city and killed 4 Americans, so somehow President Obama must have been to blame for something or other, right?

But now that the Obama administration has bagged the suspected mastermind of the assault, they’re all ready to give the president credit for at least trying to compensate for his (as yet unidentified) misdeeds, right?  Well, about the best they can come up with (Courtesy of fairandbalanced Fox)  is that the capture of Khattala is “good news, I guess”.  The rest of the radical wingers have kept piling onto their already massive heap of hatred, hyperventilation and hilarity, ever striving to come up with fresh and inventive ways to embarrass and humiliate themselves.

Benen’s piece lists a “top ten” of right-wing talking points on this development, including the claim that the whole thing is a publicity stunt to promote Hillary Clinton’s book tour. And an especially amusing twist is that, after frequently alleging that anything and everything the president does is a “distraction from Benghazi”, they’re now saying that his focus on Benghazi is a distraction from the (other) phony IRS “scandal”. You have to wonder at this point if there’s a limit to how far they’re willing to go, or if they’ll continue to “reach the bottom of the barrel,  (then) drill deeper.”

That phrase comes from another piece Benen wrote about Obama’s critics (and I use the term as an overwhelming understatement) on Iraq — quite often including many individuals who not only have  been themselves tragically and catastrophically wrong about Iraq in the past but, in at least one case, was among those responsible for creating the Iraqi nightmare that Obama is now trying to clean up. That would be one Richard Bruce Cheney, who for some reason is still not behind bars, and was, according to the Supreme Court at least, vice president for 8 years.

It’s a sort of unwritten rule of civility among members of former administrations that they don’t badmouth current administrations. For one thing, it generally just makes the former appear petty and puerile.  But Dick Cheney, as always, is the epitome of class, as witness his suggestion on the Senate floor that a colleague “fuck yourself”. Accordingly, he has made disparaging comments about the current president not just once but numerous times. That’s particularly galling from someone whose own ascension to his office was, to put it charitably, highly questionable.

And now he and his daughter Liz (who, one gathers, is another foreign policy expert of equal caliber) have co-written a diatribe in the Wall Street Journal about the Iraq quagmire which opines that

Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many.

But ironically enough, it’s not a confession about the administration he served. It’s another sleazy attack on the current administration.  In Benen’s words:

Yes, the failed former vice president, a man whose catastrophic failures and misjudgments are the stuff of legend, has decided the president cleaning up Cheney’s messes has been wrong about everything – according to the man who was wrong about everything.

Just how much credibility has Mr. Cheney earned on Iraq? About as much as George W. Bush on the English language. Or Sarah Palin on American history. Or Bill Clinton on marital fidelity. Or Alex Jones on mental health. Not just because of his incompetence, which lord knows is considerable, but also because of his dishonesty, which he’s served up in equal doses. He and other members of his administration repeatedly lied and pushed fraudulent evidence to make a case for the invasion of Iraq.

My favorite instance of Cheney chutzpah was when he appeared on Meet The Press in 2002 and solemnly declared:

There’s a story in the New York Times this morning — this is — I don’t — and I want to attribute the Times,” said Cheney. “I don’t want to talk about, obviously, specific intelligence sources, but it’s now public that, in fact, he has been seeking to acquire, and we have been able to intercept and prevent him from acquiring through this particular channel, the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge.

Was he possibly referring to the “ultra-liberal” New York Times, the kingpin of the librulmedia cartel that controls what we see and hear, and is never to be trusted?  Well, it turns out a little skepticism would have been in order, because the article by Judith Miller turned out to have been based on phony intel — supplied by the administration itself. That’s right: the Cheney administration first supplied fraudulent information to a journalist, then cited that journalist’s obedient parroting of that phony information as justification for its plans to invade Iraq. Classier and classier. Somehow, this guy reminds me of the anecdote about the kid who killed his parents and then implored the court for leniency on the grounds that he was an orphan.

This man’s colossal blunders and duplicity have cost thousands (possibly hundreds of thousands) of lives, and trillions of dollars — but coincidentally have made a tidy profit for Halliburton. And he expects people to lend him an ear as he savages the current president. Don’t look now, but the media are doing just that.

At the conclusion of his essay about the Cheneys, Steve Benen asks,  “Is the nation comfortable with a degree of political madness this severe?” The answer, alas, appears to be yes.

One comment

  1. POP,

    Thanks for focusing on the many ruses and self-manufactured bits of information that he Bush Administration used in order to justify a war supposedly about preventing terrorism, and to invade a country ruled by a non-religious dictator, who had nothing to do with Osama Bin laden, or Al-Qaeda–or with the attack on the world trade center.

    No one ever claimed that Saddam was a paragon of virtue by any means, but the effort to implicate him with terrorism and the use of WMDs that never were actually found–(since Saddam used the myth about their existence to discourage attacks from his enemies) was really an artful scam using many lies in order to justify our invasion and establish a democracy in an Arabic nation–primarily because if was also an oil rich nation. And from watching the many documentaries on PBS, I have become aware this brazen scam had more to do with access to oil than anything else. Apparently, its implementation is often thought to have been even more due to the efforts of Chaney than any other player in GW’s administration.

    As you pointed out, at least Bush had the manners not to take up news time by making endless comments about the could,ofs and should ofs, concerning his folly during the previous decade, but the continuing deceptions from Chaney might have something to do with having a guilty conscience and trying to rationalize his transgressions. However, I may be giving him too much credit for non-existent regrets and remorse.

    Being that today is the fourth of July, we can probably expect much adulation for the brave men and women that sacrificed themselves “so we could be free.” There’s no doubt that our soldiers have served with courage and have had to deal with a dangerous war in a very dangerous area. They have no reason to be ashamed–many of them felt the call to volunteer, after witnessing the historical monument to hate that was the attack on the Twin Towers. But one can only hope that in the future our politicians–who are the old men that often recklessly send our young men off to die, will think twice about taking such an action again.

    I agree that the Obama haters will stop at nothing to find fault with a President who realizes the cost we can pay by once again, becoming embroiled in an endless war, and in a country that never really wanted us there in the first place. I distinctly remember the mountain of criticisms self-righteous tirades coming from Republicans about Obama’s plans to withdraw our forces. But is it really surprising that these same critics are now at his throat for wanting to stay long enough to provide some support towards preventing the establishment of a massive terrorist haven—one that would be the continuing result of GW’s folly in the first place.

    Our soldiers have fought bravely, as well as they have long and hard, but paradoxically the war they so valiantly fought has only made us less secure and less free.

    Thanks for highlighting Chaney’s role in this disaster!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s