Panicking Fox ‘News’: Benghazi Hearings Showed Hillary’s ‘Chilling Soul’
It became clear in the middle of the Benghazi hearings that Republicans’ big moment, grilling Hillary Clinton for 11 hours in a kangaroo Salem trial they’d built up for months, was an absolute flop.
Republicans may as well have orchestrated a taxpayer-funded day-long infomercial for the Hillary 2016 campaign. Many conservative commentators admitted the obvious — that the GOP had completely blown it, and their Committee looked more like a sinking pirate ship than a serious fact-finding mission. But Fox ‘News’ was not among those that acknowledged the obvious.
In an op-ed that was trending as the most popular article on Fox‘s website as of Friday afternoon, Fox News “National Security Analyst” K. T. McFarland slammed former Secretary Clinton performance in the Benghazi hearings. Since the Committee had not found anything specific to smear Clinton with, McFarland attacked Hillary as vaguely as possible.
McFarland wrote that since Clinton had a perfect performance, she’s inhuman. McFarland also wants the world to know that she SAW HILLARY’S SOUL!
It was a masterful performance. She showed enormous discipline and nearly super-human stamina.
She let nothing slip. But in the end she let everything slip. She got a perfect score, but failed the test.
She didn’t mean to, but she showed us a glimpse into her soul.
It was chilling.
After Fox News‘s star “Terrorism Analyst” was exposed as an enormous fraud, McFarland may want to avoid using her position as Security Analyst to issue theological pronouncements on the quality of souls. But hey, that’s just my opinion.
McFarland bases her in-depth analysis of Hillary’s soul on something that “we know” because of Hillary’s emails.
We now know that when Secretary Clinton met the plane carrying the bodies of the four Americans who died at Benghazi she lied about what happened.
She stood over the flag-draped coffins of four dead Americans and blamed their deaths on an Internet video, which caused a demonstration outside the consulate to turn into a deadly attack.
She looked into the eyes of the families of the fallen heroes and swore she would bring the video maker to justice. But she was lying.
You would think an “Analyst” would have a firmer grasp on basic epistemology than this. “We” do not “know” this at all.
Since Mitt Romney first brazenly used the tragedy for an attempt at political gain in 2012, Republicans long contended that the White House fit its narrative of what happened in Benghazi around campaign necessities. McFarland is resurrecting that myth, because it was debunked by Republicans. A year ago!
The House issued its final, authoritative statement on Benghazi in November 2014. One of the main conclusions of the report was,
Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early intelligence assessments and the Administration’s initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate. There was a stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence that came in after the attacks. The Committee found intelligence to support CIA’s initial assessment that the attacks had evolved out of a protest in Benghazi; but it also found contrary intelligence, which ultimately proved to be the correct intelligence. There was no protest. The CIA only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption footage became available on September 18, 2012 (two days after Ambassador Susan Rice spoke), and after the FBI began publishing its interviews with U.S. officials on the ground on September 22, 2012.
Republicans have only managed to bring all this up again in new Benghazi hearings because they found off-site emails. Clinton acknowledges she shouldn’t have used an unofficial server, but nothing damning has been found in the emails.
In the Committee hearings on Thursday, Republicans waved around stacks of emails, like they were some sort of bloody rag. In a few emails, Hillary communicated privately that the Benghazi tragedy may have been a terrorist attack, but that wasn’t publicly acknowledged right away. It was, contrary to Republican accusations, publicly acknowledged well within the time frame of the 2012 election. It was admitted as soon as the CIA understood what the hell had happened.
That a major public official may have their private suspicions — suspicions not made public for a few days after a major event — is not a scandal in any way.
The Republicans involved in the Benghazi hearings are being extremely callous about this because they know that there was a significant intelligence operation on the ground in Benghazi, so Administration officials had to pick their words carefully to protect people operating in the shadows. They still have to be careful about what they say, and conservatives are preying on their responsibilities to national security. But the caginess that surrounds the secret operation in Benghazi to monitor a weapons confiscation program is not comparable to, say, selling weapons to Iran, or lying about weapons of mass destruction to launch a war against a country that doesn’t pose any threat.
McFarland attempted to use the public story that evolved as the intelligence assessment evolved to paint Hillary as something other than human…And it makes McFarland sound like a buffoon for using the moniker, “analyst.”
It also showed, once again, that Fox is anything but “News.”
Feature image via YouTube.