There are plenty of take-downs of the recent New York Times article that had asserted no al Qaeda tie-in for the Benghazi incident of September 2012, if you care to read any of them. But it’s clear not only that the Times has its own agenda on this, but that opinions on Benghazi solidified a long time ago and no one’s mind is about to be changed by any report from the Times or elsewhere.
I’m talking about what Hillary Clinton so offensively and yet brilliantly tapped into when she asked, “What difference does it make?” I discussed the answer here:
But Hillary is correct; to most voters, Benghazi, and a host of other things that used to be considered important, make no difference at all.
One reason, which may seem somewhat paradoxical but really is not, is widespread cynicism. If the public doesn’t expect integrity or truth from what used to be called our public servants (what a quaint phrase!), then lies and strategic stonewalling will not bother most people at all. What matters is what those public servants can get for you, and what they can scare you into thinking the opposition will take away from you…
Also see this:
The American people do not seem to be “concerned,” [about Benghazi] either, not at all. Major Garrett can ask all the questions he wants…but few people except us blogophiles on the right are listening, and Carney and Obama have learned that simply thumbing their noses at the American people is an excellent way to get the people to shrug…
I discovered this myself a few days after the election, when I had dinner with an old friend who is an intelligent, moderate, non-leftist Democrat with some conservative tendencies. This friend just didn’t care about Benghazi or the administration’s handling of it, didn’t know the details and was cynically dismissive of the topic because “all politicians lie.”
Although the public’s opinion of Obama has fallen considerably since I wrote those two pieces, it still doesn’t make much difference regarding Benghazi. The drop in approval ratings for Obama is composed of one part NSA spying and three parts Obamacare, and the rest is pretty much background noise (including the IRS scandal, which after all only affected us right-wing nutjobs—and according to the left we deserved it).
It has become fairly clear that the only thing with a chance of getting a significant percentage of erstwhile Obama-supporters to turn on him is something that affects them negatively, personally, directly, and obviously. In the NSA brouhaha, all of us have had our phone logs kept and therefore potentially accessed. In Obamacare, all people are potentially affected, either by already having seen their rates go up and their doctor access reduced, or by fear that the rot will spread to their own health insurance (even if employment-based) soon.
So why does the Times even bother to stir the Benghazi hornet’s nest again? I submit that its article wasn’t targeted to those of us on the right who might happen to have read it. It was pitched for its true readership: liberals. It has the purpose of reassuring them, if Obamacare and other problems has tempted them to revisit old controversies such as Benghazi and to re-evaluate them in the light of their crisis of Obama-faith, that there’s nothing much to see there. Perhaps more importantly, it sets the stage for a 2016 Hillary Clinton candidacy if she so desires, and prepares the prospective voter to cast a ballot for her with a pure heart.