In a revealing display of the inverted reality that characterizes the New York Times, it has a story that blames the confusion surrounding Benghazi on CIA Director David Patraeus’s “quieter style.” Really. I’m serious.
But since an attack killed four Americans seven weeks ago in Benghazi, Libya, his deliberately low profile, and the C.I.A.’s penchant for secrecy, have left a void that has been filled by a news media and Congressional furor over whether it could have been prevented. Rather than acknowledge the C.I.A.’s presence in Benghazi, Mr. Petraeus and other agency officials fought a losing battle to keep it secret, even as the events there became a point of contention in the presidential campaign.
An intelligence agency that has “a penchant for secrecy.” Whoever heard of such a thing? The nerve of those people!
You can read the story forwards and backwards, in English, Mandarin, Russian or Xun, and not find a single word blaming Obama or the White House or the Pentagon for “silence” that has left a “void” concerning what happened in Benghazi before, during or after 9/11. If you’re confused, if you have questions, blame Patraeus and the CIA.
So, in TimesWorld: It is the responsibility of the unelected head of the CIA to tell the world about what it knows about what happened in Benghazi, but the elected chief executive-and Commander in Chief (I know he is! I’ve seen the bomber jacket!)-has no such responsibility, even though he is ultimately responsible for the decisions made. Or not made.
Got it. Supersecret intel agencies should tell all. Presidents can keep mum, especially those who preside over The Most Transparent Administration Ever.
But we haven’t mined all the comedy gold in this vein! Times reporter Scott Shane contrasts Patraeus’s quiet style with that of his predecessor, the “effusive” Leon Panetta, now defense secretary.
Uhm, with the exception of his BS formulation of the Panetta Doctrine (Don’t Commit Forces If There is Any Uncertainty), Leon the Effusive has suddenly morphed into Leon the Dumb. Why, pray tell, has moving from the CIA to the Defense Department suddenly caused Leon to lose his voice? Why isn’t Formerly Effusive Leon being criticized for leaving a “void” that sows “confusion” on Benghazi?
And we haven’t even gotten to the King of the Personal Pronoun who loves the sound of his own voice, but now is suffering from episodic laryngitis which apparently just interferes with his ability to say “Benghazi.”
There are other nuggets of idiocy in this article in about every paragraph. I encourage you to read it for a sick laugh, but the silliest stuff attributes Patraeus’s alleged PR missteps to his military background. The most idiotic comment comes from the smarter of California’s two senators (as scary as that is):
“I think he’s a brilliant man, but he’s also a four-star general,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein, the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “Four-stars are saluted, not questioned. He’s now running an agency where everything is questioned, whether you’re a four-star or a senator. It’s a culture change.”
Er, as I remember it, he was a pretty effective spokesman-on and off the record-when he was a four-star. He routinely testified in front of Congress and appeared in the media. I also remember that he took tremendous crap from assorted politicians. Want to talk questioning? His patriotism was questioned by Senator Feinstein’s party and Move On fellow travelers: remember the disgusting “Patreaus=Betray Us” campaign? As I recall, even Hillary joined in on that. (And a quick web search confirms that at the very least she weaseled and pointedly refused to distance herself from that scurrilous campaign. To her credit, Feinstein did, voting to condemn the Move On ad-Hillary did not vote to condemn it.)
If you want to see the distilled essence of the New York Times, read this piece. Political hackery dressed up as erudite analysis. An Obama creature willing to peddle the most outrageous reality-challenged inanity in order to cover for its liege lord.