Bill O'Reilly is very shrill over the allegedly new damning Benghazi email that's rocking his world. And then when Retired General Lovell testified, he went ballistic. Watching this freak show is surreal on so many levels and I feel the same way as Duncan does.
Months and months later, I still have no idea what this is supposed to be about.
Yes, I know, it's about trying to make Hillary Clinton look bad somehow. But what, really is the scandal supposed to be? I have no idea.
What is the actual scandal revolving around Benghazi that Fox News and the conservative media are claiming? Is it that by Susan Rice going on talk show Sunday with prepared talking points as does every political guest on those shows, she's somehow worse than Oliver North, Richard Nixon, Timothy McVeigh, Jim Jones. And this trumped up scandal is worse than Watergate? Is that the vast left wing conspiracy? They knew it was a terrorist attack, but had the audacity to call it a violent reaction to an anti-Muslim video. Is that it, really?
After we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, we've seen that nothing ever goes right in the Middle East, including the Arab Spring. Benghazi was a horrible tragedy and the country mourns for the lives that were lost there, but the faux outrage by conservatives I guess looking to slime Hillary Clinton and the administration because they fear her in 2016 is dirty and unseemly.
O'Reilly: The Benghazi story just keeps getting bigger, that's the subject of tonight's talking points memo. Today retired Brigadier general Robert Lovell testified before the House about why the US military did not respond at all to the terror attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans including US Ambassador to Libya....
It's growing and growing and growing. It's The Blob!!! I'm sure you've already heard about Gen. Lovell's testimony in the House and how it was refuted by of all people, Rep. Buck McKeon.
Retired Brig. Gen. Robert Lovell, the star witness at a House Government Oversight and Reform Committee hearing, testified that U.S. forces "should have tried" to get to the outpost in time to help save the lives of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. He blamed the State Department for not making stronger requests for action.
A few hours later, the powerful chairman of the Armed Services panel, Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., challenged the testimony of Lovell, who was in U.S. Africa Command's headquarters in Germany monitoring the attack.
The general "did not serve in a capacity that gave him reliable insight into operational options available to commanders during the attack, nor did he offer specific courses of action not taken," McKeon said.
"We have no evidence that Department of State officials delayed the decision to deploy what few resources the Defense Department had available to respond," McKeon said. "Lovell did not further the investigation or reveal anything new, he was another painful reminder of the agony our military felt that night: wanting to respond but unable to do so."
What was the point of this retired general's testimony, anyway? To show how outraged he was?
Bill's talking points segment continues:
O'Reilly: ...and pretty much everyone else directly involved in the Benghazi attack knew it wasn't a spontaneous demonstrations with in hours. Yet, as we proved yesterday, the Obama administration created fiction, that the attack was a reaction to an anti-Muslim video tape.
Oh, dear God, impeach Obama. And the real reason for BillO's outrage:
That means then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has some explaining to do.
Hillary isn't fit to be president because--Benghazi!
Bill surprisingly never mentions Republican Rep. Buck McKeon's refutation of General Lovell's entire testimony in his memo. How convenient for him.
Here's my question. Where was the outrage when the Bush administration created their own fiction and lied about WMD's being in Iraq that would form mushroom clouds in Cleveland at any moment? They created fiction that has taken thousands and thousands of lives, many of them innocent civilians. O'Reilly conveniently forgets that he said this right before the Iraq war began:
"If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush Administration again, all right?"
He never stopped trusting Bush. He supported the war every step of the way even after all the lies the Bush Administration told the press (enablers) and the American people about Saddam Hussein. To this day he says that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were an honorable mission that his country embarked on.
Why didn't he send his flunky, Jesse Watters, with cameras in hand to make Colin Powell explain why his infamous speech to the U.N. about Iraq was so disastrously wrong? Why wasn't he laying in wait for Karl Rove to ask him whether Patrick Fitzgerald was going to indict him? What about outing Valerie Plame? What about asking Dick Cheney about what he knew and if Scooter Libby was convicted, why wasn't he?
If Obama or Al Gore had ordered the Iraq attacks which killed almost 5000 U.S. troops, Fox News would probably read each and every name of the dead to their audience as a way to punish the left every single day.
Where was the outrage over the fake yellowcake Bush included in the state of the Union address? I can go on and on with this.
I'm worn out, but if anyone on the right supported Bush's wars, paying no mind to facts then they should be shunned when they utter the name Benghazi. Especially Bill O'Reilly.