Re: Petraeus destroys Republicans fake Benghazi Scandal
posted at 11/20/2012 12:36 PM EST
In response to slomag's comment:
When the news broke about the Benghazi attack, the coverup theory was that Obama was making up a story about a video and connecting Benghazi to it for political gain.
When Petraeus first testified on 9/14 that the administration was speaking consistently with the current assessment, it got zero attention from the right.
When Fox News issued a report fraught with inaccuracies that there were cries to "stand down" and "cries for help", the CIA refuted that report with a detailed and specific timeline, the right decided the CIA could not be trusted.
When Petraeus's extra-marital affair came to light days after the election, the right decided he had been blackmailed into giving the testimony on 9/14 that they had up to that point ignored.
When it was discovered that Glen Doherty, one of the ex-Navy seals killed in Benghazi, was in Tripoli at the time the consulate was attacked, there was no reversal of the "cries for help" narrative. No mea culpa. No sign of integrity at any level.
When Petraeus testified a second time that the administration had been speaking consistently with the intelligence assessments of the time, the right turned it's attention to some minutia within the talking points about whether it was "terrorists" or a specific terrorist group, or "extremists" as in the final version. "Who edited the talking points!" they all shouted. Coverup! Coverup!
And now that it is being reported that the talking points were in fact edited within the intelligence community, the right insists that it is a lie to protect Obama's coverup.
So basically, the only time the right believed anthing said by the intelligence community was the idea that their talking points had been edited.
Well they do have appear to divided themselves neatly into the delusional and the soulless liars.