Bill Maher never misses a chance to be a sneering jerk on his HBO show titled “Big Sneering Jerk” (or in some markets Real Time). In the below clip, Maher is discussing whether or not anyone bears any responsibility for mistakes made in Benghazi.
He begins by essentially suggesting that the latest intelligence committee report all but exonerates everyone stateside of any incompetence, wrongdoing, or cover up. He then goes on to state who he does think bears some blame.
But here was what was new and what I think is interesting: they finally said that the ambassador, Christopher Stevens — brave guy, great guy, great diplomat, gutsy — he does bare some responsibility. I’m sorry. He put some trust in the local militias and they turned on him. Because you probably shouldn’t trust local militias in Libya.
The party line for democrats and liberals has been, and will continue to be, that there is nothing to see here, and that there is no scandal, unlike the Most Important Scandal In The World, Bridgegate. That’s the line that Maher begins the clip toeing. But he has no problem suggesting that murdered Ambassador Christopher Stevens bears some blame.
Stevens, among others, was warned of increased danger. And among others, he failed to increase security. As did the State Department as a whole. If that is the case, then isn’t that a tacit admission that the trouble was already coming? That there was no spontaneous protest prompted by youtube rage? And should we even mention that the militias were what we had to depend on because of Obama’s planless plans in Libya in the first place?
In other words, what kind of cognitive dissonance is required to blame the dead ambassador and leave the rest of the chain of command blameless? If Stevens has something to answer for, Maher, then so do Clinton and Obama.
(H/T RCP)