Really, where does Priceless end and Jon S. Liebowitz begin? If you're going to use his words, you really should use quotation marks. The Sun King lied from day one. And even though Candy Crowley (who will never "moderate" another presidential debate as long as she lives) tried her level best, he never said the attack on Benghazi was a terror attack in that speech the next day in the Rose Garden. Fairly early on, however, he did make reference to the American tradition of not sh*tting on other people's religions (you know, like in a You Tube video). What he did toward the end was to obliquely refer to "terror attacks" in general, without making specific reference to what had just happened in Libya. The speech is on You Tube and I challenge you to find me the segment where he unequivocally says what happened in Benghazi was a terror attack. It isn't there.
Then he and Madame Defarge participated that revolting spectacle at Dover where she referred to the video and promised to get to the bottom of the matter. Then that dunce Ambassador Rice repeated the lie on 5 different Sunday shows. All the while she, the Sun King and Madame Defarge knew it was a lie.
How inconsiderate of those guys to get dead. Didn't they understand a key part of the Sun King's reelection campaign was "GM is alive, Osama bin Laden is Dead?" And an AQ inspired attack that kills four diplomats, while the Sun King is resting up for another grueling day of fund raising, just isn't helpful to that narrative.
I'll spell it out for you. Obama is a liar. Hillary is a liar. He wanted to extend his presidency. And she wanted to keep hers possible. So they lied. And lied. And lied. And so far they've succeeded.
Note: you may be prepared to accept as the absolute, unvarnished truth the excretions of an Obama/Clinton press pinkie at the State Department. But I'm not.
Either Opie is insane or the funniest comedian I've seen since Rodney Dangerfield!
Anyway, this article is spot on:
Why outrage is dead May 9, 2013, at 11:30 PM
Republicans want to know where the outrage is hiding.
Why aren't Americans angrier about the (a) cover-up (b) conspiracy (c) lunacy (d) evil-ness of how the Obama administration responded to the events in Libya?
Aside from blaming the media for a failure to cover the loose ends, which is a charge that belies any actual analysis of news coverage, many partisan conservatives have settled on the explanation that there is no outrage anymore. This argument's intellectual pedigree is an extension of William Bennett's book-length essay, The Death of Outrage, which was published after Bill Clinton's impeachment. He argues that Democrats and liberals have so conditioned Americans to be non-judgmental and to inure themselves to moral absolutes that people are incapable of arguing for the good and electing the better.
Another explanation is that Republicans have defined outrageousness down. If everything is an outrage, then nothing is an outrage. When the rapper Common visited the White House, it was an "outrage" to Sean Hannity. When union workers were called in for Sandy repair in New York, that was also "outrageous." Heck, Hannity found it awful and outrageous that Obama's daughters would dare take a spring break during the sequester. I'm literally going down the Google search results for "Hannity" and "outrage." Replace Hannity with the talk radio host of your choosing.
It's the flip side to Bennett's argument: If you judge motivations always, you will not really be able to truly apply the force of judgment to genuine moral deviations. Your shame supply will dwindle.
Liberals suffer from the same affliction. Jokes in poor taste, in particular, seem to outrage liberals, as do various diction choices by Republicans. This I recognize and find uncomfortable too. At times, it was hard to find a thing about the Bush administration that didn't outrage liberal polemicists during the twilight of his second term.
Today though, Republicans shoulder the brunt of the responsibility for the outrage they're not finding.
