Charles, Benghazi, TP

Charles Krauthammer: How to do the Benghazi hearings right - The Washington Post:



Politically, Benghazi is yet another case where the Rs (Republican) have already lost, and TP (The Party - Democrat) and it's propaganda wing (the MSM) are deciding how to best damage the Rs on the issue.



Two strategies present themselves, both of which will be used:

1. The current and standard one which will continue to be used is "boycott". If you only watch MSM, you don't even know the content of the new revelations that Charles covers in the article. All you MAYBE know is that the Rs are trying to create some sort of "investigation". Since Benghazi is a word so seldom used in the MSM other to say it is some "R fantasy" or something equivalently derogatory, it is hard for the standard American to even explain what it is all about. Independently of wether TP decides to actually boycott the hearings, the MSM will continue to boycott the story! 
2. Use the issue of the investigation to attack the Rs. Since TP and their minions in the MSM have no concern for "whatever" happened at Benghazi, since a few lives lost is a small price to pay for BO being re-elected, no matter what the circumstance, it is perfectly reasonable to morph any investigation as the R's "failing to focus on the economy and jobs". Someone astute might say, "Isn't that inconsistent when TP and BO have flitted from BOcare to, Climate Change, to Crimea, to kidnapped girls, to whatever -- including some hand wringing over Sterling's racial comments. To which I would remind you -- what part of Consistency IS NOT an issue!! are you failing to understand! 

As I've said many times, if you put this shoe on the other foot with an R in the WH in 2012, they would have CERTAINLY failed to be re-elected, because the "Sargent Schultz" defense used by BO along with the little "it was all the film, no Al Qaeda involved" would have yielded the litany of:

• If he doesn't know, he is incompetent 
• Since he didn't come clean right away about Al Quaeda, then he is LYING ... 
• and since he is LYING, then it is a COVER UP!!! ... and if you are an R, then you are "Nixon or worse than Nixon" ... and he would have been gone. 

But in this case, we see the TP version ... see one and 2, no problem!



'via Blog this'