As the Economist notes, if all these persistent and repetitive attacks on Susan Rice and President Obama "actually work, we are all still in kindergarten."
But you know the familiar old GOP mantra: If you say something often enough, people will start believe it, and it becomes the "truth."
Their truth maybe, and their truth sure as hell isn't my truth.
When it comes to repeating something in hopes people will buy into it, John Sidney McCain is right there at the top of the list. As I posted earlier, per a fascinating post at Down With Tyranny, the loudest nonstop accuser, McCain, said that Ambassador Stevens "sent concerns about security, voiced them to me.” And then McCain himself chose to do nothing, instead doing his "look over there" routine with the help of his faithful sidekick Lindsey Graham. Why is that? Well, maybe because of his own failure to support an increase in the security budget, or maybe his story isn't true, or maybe to divert attention away from this:
McCain: “The last message our beloved ambassador sent to us concerns about security in Benghazi. He had even voiced them to me when I was in Tripoli. Nothing was done.”
I do not know how this got lost in the news cycle but on October 28th, John McCain clearly stated– on national television– that Ambassador Chris Stevens had directly voiced security concerns and McCain chose to do nothing. To this day, McCain has never been asked to explain what he did with the direct information from Stevens about these concerns but in light of the tragedy, perhaps we now have the perfect point from which to launch a Watergate-like investigation.
Additionally, The Economist piece explains why a Benghazi cover-up by the administration makes absolutely no sense:
At the most fundamental level, the reason it is absurd to suspect the existence of a "cover-up" over the Benghazi attack is that such a cover-up could not have had any conceivable goal. Back to the beginning: the underlying accusation about Benghazi is that the Obama administration deliberately mischaracterised the terrorist attack there as having grown out of a spontaneous demonstration because that would be less politically damaging. Such a cover-up would have made no sense because the attack would not have been less politically damaging had it grown out of a spontaneous demonstration. The attack on the Benghazi compound would not have been any less politically difficult for the administration if it had grown out of a riot, nor would any normal voter have expected it to be less politically damaging, nor would any normal campaign strategist have expected any normal voter to have expected it to be less politically damaging. Had Susan Rice gone on the talk shows on September 15th and inaccurately stated that the attackers had been wearing green pants, when in fact their pants had been red, there would be no reason to suspect this to be part of a political "cover-up", because no American voters could conceivably have cared either way.
John? Lindsey? Your thoughts?
Nah, never mind. Nobody cares. But about that Stevens remark, Senator McCain, we'd love to hear more about why you didn't come forward with that information.