Advertisements

A Republican member of the House of Representatives, which has backed politically motivated scandal after politically motivated scandal against the Obama administration, suggests that The New York Times report on Benghazi might be politically motivated.

In response to the Times’ report, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) reassured “Fox News Sunday that the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was indeed an “al-Qaida-led event.”

That’s all well and fine – a member of our government telling the mainstream media what at least some in our government believe – but a circular sort of argument taking place here as it was Fox News that told Mike Rogers and others like him what to believe about Benghazi in the first place.

Advertisements

These people enjoy repeating the same lies to each other (they can hardly repeat a truth they have never acknowledged). There is a sense of comfort to be had in shared lies, each reinforcing the other in the face of those nasty liberal facts – like those given by the New York Times.

Rogers, who is the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee (I know, the oxymoronic combination of “House” and “Intelligence” makes me cringe every time, too), said his committee made a more exhaustive investigation than the New York Times. What he means, of course, is that unlike the Times, his committee was prepared to ignore uncongenial facts.

He further suggested that there might be political motivations at work, a means to “clear” the already clearly innocent Hilary Clinton, in time for 2016. As opposed, you know, to the politically motivated scandal crafted by Republicans designed to smear Clinton in advance of the 2016 elections. He finds the timing “suspicious.”

So did we, Rep. Rodgers. So did we. And we still do.

“I don’t want to speculate on why they might do it,” Rogers speculated.

Right. No Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives has EVER speculated on fabricated misdeeds by any liberal.

On the related subject of who did it, the New York Times report stressed al-Shariah but Rep. Peter King (R-NY), who is a member and former chairman of the House’s Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said “Shariah-Shmariah”:

“It’s misleading,” King said. “It’s a distinction without a difference.”

Well, if they insist. And they do:

The author of the Times report, David Kirkpatrick, told Fox News in response that “If you’re using the term al-Qaida to describe even a local group of Islamist militants who dislike democracy or have a grudge against the United States, If you’re going to call anybody like that ‘al-Qaida,’ then, okay.”

And they do call anybody like that al Qaeda. They have to do so in order to avoid lamely apologizing like Lara Logan.

It’s hard to go wrong when you call any attacker, whoever they are, whatever connections they might or might not have al Qaeda. Al Qaeda did it, even if they didn’t. We’re right, no matter what, even if we’re not.

Fox News and its pet Republicans have a strategy that is childish in its brilliance: they simply shield their eyes and plug their ears and say “I’m not hearing this!” They don’t want it to be true; it therefore cannot be true.

In fact, Fox News is telling us that there is “growing outrage” over the Times report. Of course, as Fox News admits, it is Fox News sources who are outraged. Not the American people. Because those Fox News sources “on the ground” when the attack took place, knew at once through some mystical means who launched the attack and why.

Like Rogers, I am not going to speculate on how that might be true. I’ll just end by saying that it’s all so much easier when you’ve predetermined your answers before actually examining the evidence.

Which brings us around to why Fox News exists in the first place.