Poor BillO is still reeling from Mitt Romney's loss and America's rejection of conservatives so he's jumping on the outrageous assertions by the wingnut elites that the Benghazi attack and Republican freakout is exactly the same thing as Richard Nixon's Watergate.
Look, Bill: All that happened after the horrendous incident in Libya was that Susan Rice went on air and repeated to the media what information was given to her by the CIA. That's the scandal. Paul Waldman explains this quite nicely:
But now, some Republicans, particularly John McCain and Lindsay Graham, are essentially saying that this horrifying cover-up was quite possibly the greatest crime in the history of the United States government, and if we're going to get to the bottom of it nothing short of a select committee—a "Watergate-style committee," as it is being referred to by reporters—will do.
Who knows what it might uncover? Were there CIA whistleblowers whose bodies are now lying at the bottom of the Potomac? Was David Petraeus being blackmailed? Are William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright involved? Did Susan Rice fly to Tripoli, have a steamy liaison with a clone of Ayman al-Zawahiri created in a secret underground laboratory, then go to Benghazi where she personally killed Ambassador Chris Stevens with a hat pin? We won't know unless we spin this out into a multi-week story!So what's going on here? I can sum it up in two words: scandal envy...read on
But after you purchase an all day pass to O'Reilly-World, here's what you get:
BIllO: Are We Dealing With Another Watergate? The testimony is under oath so it's serious.
After saying it can go either two ways, a massive cover-up ala Gordon G. Liddy or a big nothing he adds:
BillO: This has raised all kind of conspiracy theories and now you have Gen.Petraeus added to the mix.
Only the Republicans are throwing down on the conspiracy theroies in hopes to delegitimize Obama. Cut to a clip of McCranky yelling at a reporter.
BIllO: Sen. McCain feels very strongly that there is government malfeasance involved in the Libyan chaos, but that has yet to be proved.
What hasn't President McCain been cranky over? Then Bill begins his Watergate comparison.
BIllO: If the press hadn't been aggressive to this low level break in Nixon would have gotten away with it. And the break in at the Watergate hotel is not nearly as important as defining a terrorist attack that killed four Americans.
Benghazi was just tragic on a massive scale, but it is not in any way shape or form related to the Watergate break in-cover up scandal. Do I really have to lay it all out? Benghazi was a terrorist attack on foreign soil and Richard Nixon had a goon squad called The Plumbers that did illegal activities including going after Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist and to help Nixon win re-election by breaking in and wiretapping the DNC headquarters. And it was deep throat helping Bernstein and Woodward that blew it wide open. What possible motive is there for the WH to lie and then coverup the Benghazi attack? It's never made any sense.
Kevin Drum: A Conspiracy Theory With No Conceivable Motive
As best I can tell, the suggestion from the right has been that Obama didn't want to admit that Benghazi was a terrorist attack because....well, I'm not sure, exactly. Something about how this would blow a hole in his claim to be decimating al-Qaeda via drone attacks. Or maybe it would remove some of the luster from being the killer of Osama bin Laden. Or something.
But one way or another, the story is that Obama was deeply afraid of admitting that terrorists are still out there and want to do us harm.This has never made a lick of sense. If anything, the continuing existence of terrorists justifieshis drone attacks. And it certainly wouldn't do him any harm in an election. The American public routinely rallies around a president responding to a terrorist attack.