Loading

About: Ben Cohen
Ben Cohen is the editor of The Daily Banter and founder of Banter Media Group. Ben writes a regular column for the Huffington Post and is a regular guest on the RT Network. Ben covered boxing and Mixed Martial Arts for TrueSlant.com, Secondsouts.com, Black Belt Magazine, Boxing Monthly Magazine and ESPN.com. Originally from London, England he currently lives in Washington DC.

Original Opinion

John McCain Still Peddling Benghazi Conspiracy Theories

By · February 19,2013
Print Friendly
| 279 Views | Uncategorized

Screen shot 2013-02-19 at 12.36.58 PM

Senator John McCain has forged a reputation in Washington as a straight takin’, no nonsense kinda guy, unafraid to ask the tough questions and willing to go it alone if necessary. Sadly, his reputation bears no resemblance to reality anymore. McCain now carves a pathetic figure – a irate loose cannon who lost his political instinct years ago. The former Presidential candidate now wades aimlessly into issues he doesn’t fully grasp, launching bitter attacks on rivals and ruining what was left of his independent reputation in Washington. The 76 year old has got nastier and more conservative in recent years, and seems determined to join his party in driving off the cliff of electability. For reasons best known to himself, McCain is still flogging Benghazi conspiracy theories long after he helped block Susan Rice’s nomination to Secretary of State, and long after it was politically relevant. Here was McCain on David Gregory’s show on Sunday discussing the episode that everyone else thought had gone to bed long ago:

JOHN MCCAIN: There’s– so many questions about Benghazi. We’ve had two movies– about getting bin Laden and we don’t even know who the people were who were evacuated from– the consulate the next day after the attack. So there are many, many questions. And we have had– a massive cover-up on the part of–

DAVID GREGORY: But a massive cover-up of what?

DAVID GREGORY: –I mean, Susan Ri– wait a minute– Susan Rice said there was a lot of–

JOHN MCCAIN: Do you care–

DAVID GREGORY: –confusion.

JOHN MCCAIN: Do you care–

DAVID GREGORY: I’m asking you–

JOHN MCCAIN: Do you care to–

DAVID GREGORY: –what is the Republican way–

JOHN MCCAIN: I’m asking you, do you care– I– I’m– I’m asking you, do you care whether four Americans died? Or do you– the reasons for that? And– and shouldn’t pe– people be held accountable for the fact that four Americans died–

DAVID GREGORY: Well, what you said was the cover-up– A cover-up of what?

And on and it went. McCain told Gregory that he would be “Glad to send you a list of the questions that have not been answered,” then stated that he wanted to know, “What did the president do and who did he talk to the night of the attack on Benghazi?” (According to the White House, Obama did not make any phone calls to the Libyan embassy but was updated throughout the night while Hillary Clinton – the Secretary of State – made calls to the embassy). The other  major question McCain thought hadn’t been answered was why the people who were evacuated from the consulate not interviewed the next day (the White House waited until the FBI interviewed the evacuees), and why the President continued to say he didn’t know whether it was a terrorist attack “for two weeks” (Obama actually referred to it as “An act of terror” the day after the attack).

Apparently, this constitutes a ‘Massive Cover Up’.

The details of this supposed cover up are nothing short of ridiculous. There are exhaustive timelines of all the events surrounding the attacks on Benghazi and the White House’s response (Think Progress has a very good one), and it is abundantly clear that while mistakes were made, the Obama administration acted on the best information it had and did not at any point in time try to hide anything from the public. After doing a lengthy Q & A on the events himself, Kevin Drum of Mother Jones concluded:

There were conflicting reports on the ground, and that was reflected in conflicting and sometimes confused reports from the White House. I don’t think anyone would pretend that the Obama’s administration’s response to Benghazi was anywhere near ideal. Nevertheless, the fact is that their statements were usually properly cautious……It’s true that it took about 10 days for all this to really shake out, but let’s be honest: 10 days isn’t all that long to figure out what really happened during a violent and chaotic attack halfway around the world. I get that it’s a nice opportunity for Republicans to score some political points in the runup to an election, but really, there’s not much there there.

So why is McCain still out there fanning the flames?  It’s a question that has no logical answers, and probably has more to do with McCain’s mental state than anything else. He tried and failed to become President twice, and in his last campaign showed signs of serious decline. He failed to vet Sarah Palin and completely fell apart when the economy imploded – two major blunders that showed he was no longer able to make good judgment calls. After losing to Obama, his political instincts seems to have declined even further, joining in with Right wing conspiracy theorists at every turn. McCain has been particularly harsh on Obama’s foreign policy positions – a remarkable fact when you consider how hawkish the President has been while in office (anyone remember the death of Osama Bin Laden or Obama’s drone policy?). McCain seems determined to undermine the President even at the expense of ridiculing himself. And the only explanation is that at the heart of it, McCain is a rather nasty piece of work.

  • Christopher Foxx

    Senator John McCain has had forged a reputation in Washington as a straight takin’, no nonsense kinda guy, unafraid to ask the tough questions and willing to go it alone if necessary.

    There, fixed that. As you note, and actual independence and character McCain had he threw away years ago.

  • tommo

    Poor pathetic old Walnuts McCain. His days as a truth-teller are long past. Glad the media will stop falling for the hype. He has to create outrage because Repiglickin’s got nothing. There used to be some people known as “reghtwing intellectuals”. Of course we know now that that was a myth. History has shown Bill Buckley and Reagan were ugly rotten frauds. Today’s Repiglickin’s are empty suits filled up with turds.

  • Dennis

    Shorter David Gregory: “What difference does it even make, Senator McCain?”

    • Christopher Foxx

      No, he’s asking, quite clearly, “What was covered up?”

      Got an answer, Dennis?

      • Christopher Foxx

        Didn’t think so.

        • Dennis

          1) If real-time intelligence and U.S. agents at the scene knew it was
          premeditated, preplanned terrorism by Sept. 12, who told Rice to deny
          specifically on Sept. 16 that the attack was premeditated or preplanned? 2) Who pushed her out front to mislead us? 3) Why did the White House persist with the phony story of a protest
          against a video being the cause of Ambassador Stevens’ death, when they
          had to know there was no protest? Obama and Biden had been vociferously boasting about Al Qaeda being ‘on the run’ and ‘on the path to defeat’ and that ‘GM is alive and Osama bin Laden is dead’ and the reality about what happened in Benghazi didn’t fit with that narrative or those boasts, so we get Susan Rice, for some odd reason, being programmed and told what to say on five major network Sunday political shows and we don’t know who told her to go out there or why. A woman being groomed to be the next Secretary of State by many people’s estimation. And your lack of curiosity or caring about why those things happened or the phoniness of it all for the sake of your preferred political party is self-evident, Christopher. “Move along, nothing to see here. Hey, it could’ve been because of that video, who’s to say it wasn’t? And Susan Rice, who cares who told her to go on those TV shows and feed us a line of bullshit. Like Hillary says, ‘what difference does it make?”

          • Christopher Foxx

            1) The sequence of events that lead up to Rice’s comments, including who had input and what changes were made, has been well documented.
            2) Nobody, The presumption behind your question is false.
            3) Again, you’re assuming as facts those things which you’re complaining you don’t know.

            And your lack of curiosity or caring about why those things happened…

            No, my lack of interest in re-answering questions which have already been answered.

  • Dennis

    Yeah,what is McCain’s deal? Obama told us that losing four Americans is ‘not optimal’, what more does he want from him?

    David Gregory is satisfied with that, why can’t McCain be, too?

    • Benthedailybanter

      Because McCain wants to be relevant, and the only way he can do it is by creating controversy, no matter how stupid it is.

      • Dennis

        McCain didn’t create this controversy, Ben. It was created from the phony line about a video being the reason for the deaths of four Americans. To this day we still don’t know why Susan Rice was chosen to go out on those Sunday talk shows to deliver that phony message that screwed up Obama and Biden’s narrative that Al Qaeda was on the run and on a path to defeat and who told her to tell us that.when clearly it was known by our intelligence that that simply was not true. Maybe that’s stupid to you, because it was good politics at the time for Obama, who you desperately wanted to win so bad that you accused MItt Romney of maliciously and feloniously hiding “billions” of dollars of net worth and income that you wrote that in a headline about him without an ounce of evidence nor have followed up any evidence of such at any time since. Or stupid because you’re bored with having to defend Obama’s lack of transparency when he claimed he was going to have the most transparent administration in history. Or stupid because it’s still being discussed. Or stupid because you know Obama didn’t spend any time that night engaged in what was going on as our men received no help, but hey, so what, what else could he do’. I have no idea why you call this a stupid controversy. I am amazed at liberals lack of concern after listening to them for eight solid years about Bush’s lack of transparency and their producing a lifetime of manufactured outrage at everything they possibly could, but the fact that you choose to stick your heads in the sand because you don’t want to hear that Obama jobbed us for political convenience just before an election and was just too embarrassed to tell us the truth then and now is just appalling.

        • Christopher Foxx

          To this day we still don’t know why Susan Rice was chosen to go out on those Sunday talk shows…

          Of course we do. Why she was chosen and why she said what she did and who had a hand in crafting it has all been extensively covered and revealed. It’s only fools like you, Dennis, who stick fingers in your ears while going “Hmm hmmm. I can’t hear you! La la la.” that don’t know the answers.

    • http://www.sockpuppettheatre.com/ John Foley

      Because McCain won’t be satisfied by ANY answer. Because he WANTS Benghazi to be a scandal, and like all conspiracy theorists since time immemorial he will not be dissuaded by pesky things like facts or evidence. Republicans claim they want answers, but what they want is for there to be SOMETHING there that reflects poorly on Obama. McCain could give a shit about 4 dead Americans. This is the same guy who didn’t want the Iraq War to ever end, regardless of how many lives were lost.

Most Read Articles Today:

Copyright © 2013 BanterMediaGroup, L.L.C. All rights reserved.