“Embracing Debunked Conspiracy Theories”: How The GOP Became A Party Of Benghazi “Truthers”
After a year of demanding answers about the terrorist attack that took place in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, the right wing got them in the form of a well-reported exposé by The New York Times‘ David Kirkpatrick.
And they don’t like these answers at all.
From the night of the murders, Republicans have been shamefully trying to politicize the attack that killed four Americans including Ambassador Chris Stevens, first as a means of stopping the re-election of President Obama, and then to damage the reputation of former secretary of state and possible candidate for president in 2016, Hillary Clinton.
Within hours of Stevens’ death, GOP nominee Mitt Romney accused the Obama administration of “sympathizing” with extremists, as the State Department tried to protect the lives of diplomatic personnel in the face of protests across Northern Africa ginned up in opposition to an offensive depiction of Islamic religious iconography being spread on YouTube. Sensing they had a crisis to parallel 1980′s taking of hostages in Iran, Republicans continued to wage a campaign designed to paint the Obama administration as weak on terror. The Romney campaign suggested that the president was refusing to label the attack as “terrorism” and Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) suggested former UN Ambassador Susan Rice was lying and covering up the involvement of al-Qaeda when she offered CIA-approved talking points that the video played a major role in the attack.
Kirkpatrick’s reporting substantiates just about everything Ambassador Rice said as she appeared on several Sunday morning news shows just days after the attack:
Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that al-Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.
This reporting closely echoes the original investigation ordered by Secretary Clinton and led by Thomas Pickering, an esteemed diplomat who served under Presidents Ford, Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton.
It was clear that the video played a role, even before Kirkpatrick’s report. But it was unclear if it was the actual motivation for the attack or just a major factor in the unrest destabilizing the region. The Times‘ Middle East correspondent clearly asserts it was central.
It was also unclear if al-Qaeda had played a role in the killings. But this new report likely won’t settle that question, despite Kirkpatrick’s certainty, because the makeup of the terror network is so murky. ”There’s a long-running debate among experts about whether al-Qaeda is more of a centralized, top-down organization, a network of affiliates with varying ties to a core leadership or the vanguard of a broader movement better described as ‘Sunni jihadism,’” Politico Magazine’s Blake Hounshell points out.
All of this leads to a question Secretary Clinton asked when testifying in front of a Senate committee.
“What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?” Clinton said.
Republicans argue that this question disrespects the lives of those four Americans who died in Benghazi. They assert that the president expressly told the military to “stand down” instead of trying to help the men. They accuse Clinton of purposeful negligence and evasion. These claims have all been debunked — there was no stand-down order and Clinton was not directly responsible for the security of an impromptu trip Stevens decided to take on his own, yet she still took responsibility for the tragedy.
The government failed to secure diplomatic resources, as it has under both Democratic and Republican presidents. The involvement of the CIA means that some of the story will likely remain cloaked in secrecy. But no misconduct has ever been proven.
The right wing clearly is not interested in answers, only raising questions—entirely for partisan purposes.
In the aftermath of 9/11, as the Bush/Cheney administration refused a bipartisan investigation of the attacks for a year, anyone who challenged the official story of the attacks and suggested government complicity was labeled a “truther,” a smear that helped cost Van Jones a job in the Obama administration more than a half-decade later.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, told Meet the Press on Sunday, “What we do know is September 11 [2012] was not an accident.”
He defended his year-long investigation into the tragedy in Benghazi, asserting the same disproven speculation that he has helped fester for months, and concluding, “they went out on five stations and told the story that was, at best, a coverup for CIA, and at worst, something that cast away this idea that there was a real terrorist operation in Benghazi.”
The congressman is still suggesting the military may have purposely refused to help Americans under attack and the administration is covering up the truth, though what it offered, even in the fog of the immediate aftermath of the murders, closely matches some of the best reporting on the subject.
If Issa made those claims about the original 9/11 attacks, we know what he would have been called.
But since much of his party has embraced vague conspiracy theories that suggest the president of the United States either wanted a terrorist attack weeks before an election or “covered up” a terrorist attack that he called a terrorist attack several times before that election, he’s just another Republican.
By: Jason Sattler, The National Memo, December 30, 2013
“Time To Get A Life”: Republicans React To Benghazi News
The article The Times published on Benghazi this weekend infuriated many Republicans, who ran screaming to television studios.
Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, who has made a special crusade out of the attack on the American diplomatic and intelligence compound in Benghazi, was asked on “Meet the Press” to justify Republican claims that Al Qaeda agents planned and executed the operation. (The article found no evidence that Al Qaeda was involved.)
Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC put her finger on the political question when she asked Mr. Issa why Republicans “use the term Al Qaeda.” After all, she said, “you and other members of Congress are sophisticated in this and know that when you say Al Qaeda, people think central Al Qaeda. They don’t think militias that may be inspired by Bin Laden and his other followers.”
“There is a group there involved that is linked to Al Qaeda,” Mr. Issa said. “What we never said — and I didn’t have the security to look behind the door, that’s for other members of Congress — of what the intelligence were on the exact correspondence with Al Qaeda, that sort of information — those sorts of methods I’ve never claimed.”
I’m still trying to parse that sentence.
On Fox News on Sunday, Rep. Mike Rogers of Michigan insisted the story was wrong in finding that “Al Qaeda was not involved in this.”
“There was some level of pre-planning; we know that,” he said. “There was aspiration to conduct an attack by Al Qaeda and their affiliates in Libya; we know that. The individuals on the ground talked about a planned tactical movement on the compound — this is the compound before they went to the annex.”
For anyone wondering why it’s so important to Republicans that Al Qaeda orchestrated the attack — or how the Obama administration described the attack in its immediate aftermath — the answer is simple. The Republicans hope to tarnish Democratic candidates by making it seem as though Mr. Obama doesn’t take Al Qaeda seriously. They also want to throw mud at former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who they fear will run for president in 2016.
Which brings us to one particularly hilarious theme in the response to the Times investigation. According to Mr. Rogers, the article was intended to “clear the deck” for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said today that The Times was “already laying the groundwork” for a Clinton campaign. Other Republicans referred to Mrs. Clinton as our “candidate of choice.”
Since I will have more to say about which candidate we will endorse in 2016 than any other editor at the Times, let me be clear: We have not chosen Mrs. Clinton. We have not chosen anyone. I can also state definitively that there was no editorial/newsroom conspiracy of any kind, because I knew nothing about the Benghazi article until I read it in the paper on Sunday.
By: Andrew Rosenthal, Editorial Page Editor, The New York Times, December 30, 2013
“Thank A Postal Worker”: The Assault On This Constitutionally-Mandated Service Service Must End
Postal workers are giving it their all this holiday season, as cards and packages and returns must be collected and delivered amidst ice storms, snowstorms and wild temperature drops.
They deserve our thanks in 2013.
And our support in 2014.
Postal workers are still under assault from political slackers in Washington—like House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman Darrell Issa, R-California, and the wrecking crew he has assembled to diminish the United States Postal Service to such an extent that it can be bartered off to the highest bidder.
That assault has made this holiday season even tougher. Under pressure from USPS executives and privatization-prone members of Congress, the service has implemented closures and forced reductions in hours. That’s led to delays in some regions. “Much of the delayed mail is in areas where plants and post offices have been consolidated or closed or where hours at post offices have been reduced,” explains Debby Szeredy, the executive vice president of the American Postal Workers Union.
True, the Postal Service had a significantly better Holiday season than FedEx and UPS, both of which were on the naughty list amid reports on how “packages that were supposed to be delivered in time for Christmas didn’t make it to their destinations.”
But the Postal Service can’t maintain universal, high quality service if closures, consolidations and cuts continue.
The assault on this Constitutionally-mandated service service must end in 2014.
It is true that the Postal Service faces challenges. But is wrong—and, frankly, absurd—to suggest that the only fix is downsizing. That’s precisely the wrong route. Schemes to cut services and sell off parts of the service begin with the false premise that its current financial challenges are evidence of fundamental flaws.
In fact, the Postal Service reported an operating profit of $600 million for the 2013 fiscal year.
Unfortunately, despite the operating profit, the Postal Service balance sheet showed a $5 billion “loss” for the 2013 fiscal year.
Why? “Only because of an unprecedented and onerous requirement imposed by Congress that it pre-fund 75 years of future retiree health benefits in just 10 years,” as Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders notes. “No other business or government agency is burdened with this mandate.”
Ending the mandate and requiring the Postal Service to operate along the lines of the most responsible private businesses would make the USPS viable.
Indeed, the service could thrive if members of the House and Senate were to embrace the proposals of Sanders and Congressman Peter DeFazio, D-Oregon.
Sanders recognizes what the rest of Congress should: “The way to save the Postal Service is not to dismantle it piece by piece, but to allow it to generate more revenue by offering new and innovative products and services that the American people want.”
Those reforms embrace many of the proposals advanced by National Association of Letter Carriers President Fredric Rolando in a July letter to Congressman Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the Government Oversight and Reform Committee. In it, Rolando writes that comprehensive postal reform must:
1. Stabilize the Postal Service’s finances by reforming or eliminating unwise and unfair pension and retiree health financing policies that have crippled the Postal Service’s finances since 2006.
2. Strengthen and protect the Postal Service’s invaluable first-mile and last-mile networks that together comprise a crucial part of the nation’s infrastructure.
3. Overhaul the basic governance structure of the agency to attract first-class executive talent and a private-sector style board of directors with the demonstrated business expertise needed to implement a strategy that will allow the Postal Service to innovate and take advantage of growth opportunities even as it adjusts to declining traditional mail volume.
4. Free the Postal Service to meet the evolving needs of the American economy and to set its prices in a way that reflects the cost structure of the delivery industry while assuring affordable universal service and protecting against anti-competitive abuses.
There is a future for the United States Postal Service. And for the letter carriers and other postal workers who are hustling to deliver cards and packages this week.
In this holiday season, thank a postal worker. In 2014, tell Congress that it is not just possible but necessary for the United States to have a strong Postal Service.
By: John Nichols, The Nation, December 27, 2013
“More Bark Than Bite”: Tomorrow’s Obamacare Controversy, Today
If past is precedent, Republicans on the House Oversight Committee will soon release a draft memo they requested and received from the Health and Human Services Department just before most Washingtonians decamped for the Christmas holiday.
At first glance, the memo, obtained by National Journal, looks very bad for the Obama administration. In the Sept. 24 document, a top information security officer for the agency overseeing the Obamacare insurance exchanges warns that the marketplace “does not reasonably meet … security requirements” and that “there is also no confidence that Personal Identifiable Information (PII) will be protected.” Teresa Fryer, the chief information security officer at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service, continues: The federal marketplace will likely “not be ready to securely support the Affordable Care Act … by October 1, 2013.”
It plays right into the Republican narrative about HealthCare.gov: The administration knew the website would not be ready by the launch date but went ahead with it anyway. And the site may still not be adequately protecting consumers’ information.
But, in context, the draft memo becomes much less exciting.
On the Friday before Christmas, Rep. Darrell Issa, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, released a partial transcript from an interview conducted by the panel’s staff with Fryer. That partial transcript, shared with ABC and CBS, suggested that Fryer warned the administration that there were two findings of serious vulnerabilities in the system.
However, when Democrats on the Oversight Committee released parts of the transcript omitted from Issa’s version, Fryer’s comments looked far less explosive, and ABC updated its story to reflect the change. It turns out that by Sept. 27, a few days after Fryer raised her concerns about the security at launch, extensive new security measures were added.
As she told the committee’s investigators, “The added protections that we have put into place in accordance with the risk decision memo … are best practices above and beyond what is usually recommended.” She went on to describe her confidence in the three-level security system and to note that there have been “no successful breaches [or] security incidents.”
Which brings us back to the draft memo we obtained. We should note that it was just a draft, and was never sent or reviewed by more senior officers in the chain of command, and was written three days before the mitigation strategies went into effect. She later told Oversight Committee investigators that her earlier recommendation against giving the go-ahead to launch the site—the “authority to operate,” as it’s called—did not take into account the mitigation strategies laid out in the Sept. 27 Authority to Operate memo.
The investigators asked Tony Trenkle, then-CMS’ top information executive, this: “So as long as the mitigation strategy described in the [ATO] memo was carried out, you considered that it was, it would be sufficient to mitigate the risks described in the memo?” He responded, “Yes.”
She added that she was “satisfied” with the current security testing, and that she did not object when another CMS information security officer decided to move ahead with the launch. Again, she stated: “All systems are susceptible to attacks. There have been no successful attempts.”
As the Los Angeles Times‘ Pulitzer Prize-winning business columnist Michael Hiltzik noted, “Issa has absolutely no evidence” to support his broader claims that the system’s deep vulnerabilities put all kinds of consumers’ government data at risk, and that CMS moved ahead anyway to avoid embarrassing the White House.
Of course, sleight of hand with opaque bureaucratic documents is nothing new for Issa, but the potential to dissuade Americans from obtaining health insurance through the federal exchanges because of trumped up security fears has pushed relations between the committee chair and the administration to a new low. It’s one thing to say without evidence that the administration is corrupt, but it’s another to tell Americans that their Social Security number is at risk when there’s nothing to suggest that’s true.
But perhaps we can head off another round of this farce by putting out Fryer’s memo before Issa does—in its full context.
By: Alex Seitz-Wald, The National Journal, December 24, 2013
“Unless You’re One Of The Unlucky Ones”: Americans Suddenly Discovering How Insurance Works
It’s been said to the point of becoming cliche that once Democrats passed significant health-care reform, they’d “own” everything about the American health-care system for good or ill. For some time to come, people will blame Barack Obama for health-care problems he had absolutely nothing to do with. But there’s a corollary to that truism we’re seeing play out now, which is that what used to be just “a sucky thing that happened to me” or “something about the way insurance works that I don’t particularly like”—things that have existed forever—are now changing into issues, matters that become worthy of media attention and are attributed to policy choices, accurately or not. Before now, millions of Americans had health insurance horror stories. But they didn’t have an organizing narrative around them, particularly one the news media would use as a reason to tell them.
The latest has to do with the provider networks that insurance companies put together. This is something insurance companies have done for a long time, because it enables them to limit costs. If an insurer has a lot of customers in an area, it can say to doctors, “We’ll put you in our provider network, giving you access to all our customers. But we only pay $50 for an office visit. Take it or leave it.” An individual doctor might think that it’s less than she’d like to be paid, but she needs those patients, so she’ll say yes. Or she might decide that she has enough loyal patients to keep her business running, and she wants to charge $100 for an office visit, so she’ll say no.
So every year, doctors move in and out of those private-provider networks, and the insurers adjust what they pay for various visits and procedures, and inevitably some people find that their old doctor is no longer in their network. Or they change jobs and find the same thing when they get new insurance. And that can be a hassle.
But now they have someone new to blame: not the insurance company that established the network, and not the doctor that chose not to be a part of it, but Barack Obama. It’s not just my hassle, it’s a national issue. As Politico reported, “Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said to reporters on Tuesday that the ‘fundamentally flawed’ health care law is ‘causing people to lose the doctor of their choice.’ Chief GOP investigator Darrell Issa has launched a House probe into the doctor claim. And House Republicans have highlighted the physician predicament in their weekly GOP addresses.” So to reiterate: Your insurance company set terms for its network that your doctor didn’t like. Your doctor decided not to be in that network. And that, of course, is Barack Obama’s fault.
Before we move on, there’s something we should note. You know who never loses their doctor? People who have single-payer insurance, that’s who. If you live in pretty much any other industrialized country in the world, you don’t have to worry whether your doctor accepts the national health plan that insures you and everyone else, because every doctor accepts it. Even here in America, there are people who almost never have to worry about losing their doctor: the elderly people who benefit from America’s single-payer plan, Medicare. Despite their constant gripes about payment levels, 90 percent of doctors accept Medicare, because there are just too many Medicare patients and doctors don’t want to be shut out of that business.
“Obamacare will make you lose your doctor!” may be the attack of this week, but conservatives are even trying to blame Barack Obama for the basic way insurance itself works. There’s a lot of talk about what a raw deal Obamacare is, a message that’s being aimed at young people in particular to try to convince them to stay uninsured. As Jonathan Cohn says, “The simplest way to describe Obamacare is as a transfer from the lucky to the unlucky.” That’s not just true of Obamacare, it’s true of insurance generally. All insurance.
The way insurance works is that unless you’re one of the unlucky ones, in purely financial terms, your insurance costs more than you gain from it. Have you ever sat down with all the bills you’ve paid for car insurance and homeowner’s insurance and totalled up all your premiums and all the payouts you’ve received over your lifetime? If you did, it would probably look like you paid a lot but didn’t get much in return. Some people who have had major catastrophes—an accident that totalled their car, a tree falling on their house—come out ahead, but people who haven’t had those things happen to them come out behind. If it wasn’t that way, every insurance company would lose money. But they don’t. They work very hard to set premiums to exceed the amount they spend in payouts (not to mention working hard not to pay out for things they ought to). But as Jonathan Chait says, “Insurance isn’t a kind of gamble where you bet you can beat the house by consuming more in medical care than you pay in premiums and deductibles. It’s protection from risk. People like that protection. They will pay to acquire it.” That applies not just to health insurance but to every kind of insurance. That’s why it’s called “insurance.” (The only exception is life insurance, which works more like an investment.)
The only people who come out ahead in dollars and cents on insurance are those people who have had terrible things happen to them. What the rest of us are buying, as any insurance salesman will tell you, is peace of mind.
To get back to the place we started, it can seem now that people are saying for the first time, “Wait a minute! Insurance is a raw deal! I mean, Obamacare is a raw deal!” And the media are doing their part by running stories that characterize the side effects of the private insurance market, like limited networks of doctors or the fact that less expensive plans have higher deductibles, as something new that’s occurring only because of the Affordable Care Act. But they aren’t. If you want to have a system of private health insurers, that’s how it has worked in the past, and that’s how it will continue to work. If you really want to be free of those problems, you’ll have to wait until you’re 65 and can join the big-government, socialist plan called Medicare.
By: Paul Waldman, Contributing Editor, The American Prospect, December 10, 2013
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 