Why Hillary Makes Right-Wingers So Crazy
To be sure, there were real problems in the State Department’s operation of the Benghazi consulate. Why, indeed, was it left so unprotected? But these were not the questions Republican committee members sought to answer; the truth of mere human failings would do little to advance the massive conspiracy theory that right-wing Republicans have been selling about the Clintons since before the current candidate’s husband took office in 1992.
That conspiracy theory is a jumble of dark, murderous inferences against the Democratic power couple, all ginned up to suggest that the Clintons’ ultimate aim is to destroy America. In the latest iteration of the grand conspiracy theory, right-wingers hope to convince the public that Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration deliberately left the consulate unprotected for the express purpose of letting Americans die at the hands of Islamic extremist terrorists.
of which calls the question: Why on earth have right-wingers always been so unhinged in their hatred for the Clintons?
It was that he was married to that woman—a woman with a brain as big as his, ambitions as big as his, and who had been the breadwinner of her family, freeing her husband to seek low-paying positions such as governor of Arkansas.
No, it wasn’t Bill’s draft-dodging or his weasly answer when asked if he had ever smoked pot. It wasn’t even his philandering. It was that he was married to that woman—a woman with a brain as big as his, ambitions as big as his, and who had been the breadwinner of her family, freeing her husband to seek low-paying positions such as governor of Arkansas. Worse, she wasn’t keeping her breadwinning under wraps. She had a high-powered career as an attorney, and she was proud of the fact. And even worse than that, Bill made it clear that he was proud of her accomplishments.
Jim Jordan of Ohio asked these video questions. First of all, she did not tell her family one thing and the American people another. Her statement said “some say” it was the video. That’s not an assertion. It was impossible to figure out where Jordan was going with this. He was trying to “prove” some kind of lie, but a) it was a moment of enormous confusion, b) the CIA changed its assessment, which is well documented from previous investigations, and c) even if someone did lie, that will never be proven, so it was an utterly pointless line of questioning, a complete waste of time substantively and even politically.
If you weren’t sure what confirmation bias or epistemic closure were, watch RW Rs interpret the Benghazi hearings as proof Hillary lied.
Lied about what? About this being a terrorist attack . Why is that important? if you have to ask you won’t understand the answer. But you’ll hear a lot about those anti-Muslim videos you’ve forgotten about.
Assumes: 1. she lied about this being a terrorist attack and blamed the videos instead (see below) 2. it’s vitally important that she did 3. she did so to get O reelected in Nov same year. 4. add your own because it’s not logical to begin with.
More from Will Saletan:
Since the emails showed nothing new, Republicans went back to old myths. Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio accused Clinton of blaming the Benghazi attack on an anti-Muslim video.Apparently, he was unaware—or didn’t care—that in previous hearings, other Republicans had acknowledged Clinton was innocent of that charge. Jordan insisted that Clinton’s statement on the night of the attack—“Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet”—amounted to an attribution of motive. He ignored Clinton’s explanation that her statement—which continued, “There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind”—was a warning to rationalizers and would-be copycats. He accused Clinton of lying about the attack in public while privately telling the truth to her own family.
More politics and policy below the fold.