The Internet home for American gay conservatives.
November 25, 2012 by B. Daniel Blatt
John Nolte thinks so.
November 26, 2012 at 12:53 pm - November 26, 2012
It´s so obvious. Republicans should make a a big issue out of it. A full investigation ala Watergate. Maybe some Democrats in the legislature might come to a bipartisan conclusion that the BHO should be impeached. At least, President Nixon had the decency to resign rather than drag the country through a long and time consuming effort to remain in office. He accepted Senator Howard Baker´s evaluation that there was a cancer on the presidency. At least in Watergate nobaody died, in Benghazigate four Americans died. This should be diagnosed as a terminal cancer on the presidency.
November 26, 2012 at 4:25 pm - November 26, 2012
Oh yeah. And then in 6 months, the cover-up of the cover-up of the cover-up is scheduled to begin, which will likely need its own cover-up down the road. Maybe we can save some time and quadruple-impeach Obama?
You guys have something to learn about conspiracy theories – they need to be plausible. The birth certificate conspiracy was at least plausible. All the big conspiracy theories like Roswell and the JFK assassination and 9-11 have a number of little facts and coincidences that can be persuasive and convincing. Obama’s Benghazi Cover-Up simply does not. To hear conservatives tell it, Obama was afraid he was going to lose the election, so he ordered his administration to lie to the American people about the attack because this would benefit him politically.
The problem is that none of that makes sense, for a few reasons. First, Obama was ahead by a significant margin before the attack. Conservatives might have thought they had a chance at winning the election, but the rest of the world knew that Obama was leading and leading consistently. People who are clearly winning political campaigns generally aren’t recklessly ordering cover-ups for things that don’t really make sense to cover-up in the first place, which brings me to my next point…
What political advantage is gained if the cover-up works and Obama convinces large swaths of the electorate that the attack on the consulate was because of a video? Conservatives assume about a million different things here, none of which make sense. One assumption is that there were a huge number of likely Obama voters that were waiting to abandon Obama if an attack such as the one in Benghazi occurred. Another assumption directly related to the first is that most or all of this particular group of voters could be lured back to Obama if he provided an alternative explanation of the attack. Another corresponding assumption is that Obama was aware of these two facts and initiated this cover-up under intense pressure and on a very short timeline (this would mean that Obama has both a perfect understanding of the electorate and perfect control over his thousands of employees, all of whom are willing to lie for him, in which case Republicans could never hope to defeat him on any political issue.)
Now what do all these assumptions have in common? Plausibility? Not even remotely. There is absolutely no reason for Obama, or anyone else for that matter, to believe that there would be enough voters to abandon him over Benghazi that his re-election was threatened. Additionally, the supposed rationale for Obama to order a cover-up doesn’t make any sense, since there is no reason to think that any of these hypothetical voters fleeing Obama would be reassured by the attack being attributed to the video. I mean, if someone is not going to vote for Obama because a consulate was attacked and an ambassador was killed, why would they care about what the government offered as the reason for the attack? The consulate was just as attacked and the ambassador was just as killed in any telling of the story, so why are these people so willingly switching their allegiances? (Hint: It’s because they don’t exist and conservatives are using them to fill a huge gap in their conspiracy theories!) And because this particular voting bloc doesn’t exist, there is also no reason to think that Obama would have wasted any energy on dreaming up a cover-up to placate this non-existent voting bloc. And even if this group of voters existed, Obama still had a lead and probably could have absorbed the hit he took at the polls anyway.
I still can’t find a shred of plausibility here, anywhere. You guys are talking about the President taking on huge, unnecessary risks in exchange for no rewards at all. You’re assuming a bunch of ridiculous, incoherent, unbelievable things about people’s voting behavior. And based on these flawed assumptions, you’re accusing Obama of being a nefarious mastermind that can single-handedly diffuse any political scandal at will.
A family of Bigfoots traipsing through the Pacific Northwest is more plausible than any of this, but that’s not really the name of the game for you people, is it? You’re all too happy to let the innuendo and vague generalizations stand in as evidence for whatever it is you’re accusing Obama of, which is the game you play every day. Unfortunately for you, this kind of stupidity is only likely to be convincing to people that have already bought into conservatism and are primed to hate Obama anyway.
North Dallas Thirty says
November 27, 2012 at 12:34 am - November 27, 2012
Levi, the reason you find any of these implausible is because there are but two fixed stars in your cloudy, whirling firmament:
1) Obama is the All-Perfect Lord and Messiah and could never under any circumstances do anything wrong
2) Christians, conservatives, Republicans, and anyone who would dare criticize His Lord and Messiah Obama are pure unadulterated ignorant bigoted hate-driven racist evil who never do anything right.
Once one has that in place, you’re quite more understandable: bluntly put, you have the same mentality as a three-year-old arguing that a nickel is worth more than a dime because it’s bigger. It is impossible to explain otherwise because it’s simply beyond your mental capacity to understand.
November 27, 2012 at 12:38 pm - November 27, 2012
I think Levi is misinformed whenhe states that, ¨People who are winning campaigns generally aren´t recklessly ordering coverups for things that that don´t really make sense to coverup.¨ Really? Nixon was far away in the the polls over McGovern, yet, he gave us Watergate. That didn´t make sense, CREEP (Committee to REElect the President) broke into the Democratic Hqs to findout their strategy.
Obama was not leading in the polls when the Embassy in Benghazi was attacked on Sep 11th. He was in a statistical tie with Romney. The tide turned in Obama´s favor after Hurricane Sandy destroyed much of New Jersey and eastern New York. His embrace by Governor Christie was practically an endorsement. He and his advisors were panicked that his lies that Al Quaeda was on the run would be exposed.
Peter Hughes says
November 27, 2012 at 1:51 pm - November 27, 2012
The cutting-and-pasting troll is at it again.
Please, don’t go away angry. Just go away.
November 27, 2012 at 11:05 pm - November 27, 2012
Not one of these sentences is true.
November 29, 2012 at 1:57 am - November 29, 2012
Not one of your claims is backed up by a link, Levi.
And since we know you’re a pathological liar and cultist who will say and do anything to protect your Obama, it’s pretty clear that you’re lying.