John McCain went on Fox News to keep the non-scandal called Benghazi alive, while reminding audiences everywhere of his hero's failure in the Iran-Contra scandal.
May 5, 2013

[h/t David at VideoCafe]

When is Iran-Contra like Benghazi? Never, unless you're John McCain and are relying on the average IQ of the average Fox viewer to connect the non-existent dots into something that neither event is.

Let's see if we can refresh memories just a bit. Iran-Contra would be when Ronald Reagan agreed to sell weapons to the guy holding US diplomats hostage and then tried to cover up the arms sales by funneling the proceeds to the Nicaraguan Sandinistas Contras.

Benghazi, on the other hand, was an attack on a United States consulate in Libya that caused the tragic deaths of two diplomats and two former SEALs. The only possible similarity is the genesis of Iran-Contra; that is, that a US embassy was attacked and diplomatic personnel taken hostage by the very same Iranian government that Reagan sold arms to in order to free said hostages. If one wanted to find a scandal, it might be found in Republicans' willingness to de-fund security for diplomatic consulates.

I'm old enough to remember when everyone, Democrat and Republican alike, was outraged that a United States embassy had been attacked and diplomats held hostage. Nowadays it seems like all anyone cares about is twisting up a tragedy into some kind of political capital. What kind remains to be seen.

Senator McGrumpy McCain seems to think he will uncover a coverup, and that's where the similarities are in his calcified brain cells, it seems.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) hosted an event in his home state yesterday, ostensibly about immigration policy, before repeating one of his favorite talking points. "I'm glad you got up Benghazi," the senator told a constituent. "My friends, it's a cover-up."

McCain neglected to explain what "it" is. "It's" a cover-up? What's a cover-up?

When challenged on that, he just blew off David Gregory, going on the offense to cover the absence of anything suggesting some kind of terrible scandal. Congress has held hearings, Republicans have produced their own reports, we've heard all of it over and over again as Fox dutifully flogs the air in search of that One Thing that will bring down the president.

Since McCain is flogging Iran-Contra, perhaps one host could ask him what his involvement with Reagan's motley crew was. After all, he's the guy who served on the advisory board to the International Anti-Communist League, a group who was closely aligned with Nicaraguan death squads in the 1980s. I suppose he thinks we'll forget about that association, but as far as I'm concerned, it's a coverup. Am I right?

The non-scandal that is Benghazi will be flogged and whipped as long as there is at least one person out there who buys into conspiracy scandals where there are no goals, no benefits, and no reasons for such a conspiracy to exist. Anyone who thinks he isn't flogging this for pure political gain is deluded. Anyone who thinks there's pure political gain to be had is crazier. This is just grist for the base, to keep them engaged and interested in something, because they've got very little to keep them in the game.

*updated to correct reference error.

Can you help us out?

For nearly 20 years we have been exposing Washington lies and untangling media deceit, but now Facebook is drowning us in an ocean of right wing lies. Please give a one-time or recurring donation, or buy a year's subscription for an ad-free experience. Thank you.


We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.