Ever Gone a Week Without a Rationalization?

At Slate John Dickerson has an interesting explanation for the emails that are being touted by some as a “smoking gun” in the Benghazi debacle:

Perhaps, but there is also evidence in the documents for another explanation. The administration was practicing garden-variety self-deception: Administration officials, who came into office on a wave of skepticism about the quality of CIA intelligence, believed what their intelligence agency told them and what was in the president’s best political interest to believe.

Is being willfully delusional and acting on the delusion exculpatory?

3 comments… add one
  • ...

    Is being willfully delusional and acting on the delusion exculpatory?

    Depends on whether an (R) or a (D) appears after the name. If it’s a (D), always. Otherwise, never.

  • steve

    I am confused. Is there any doubt that the demonstrations in Cairo occurred as a response to the video? Were there dozens of other demonstrations around the world in response to the video? Why would it take rationalization to believe that the videos played a part in the Libya event, especially in the first week or two when we really didnt know what happened?

    Query (Two part) First, sncne the CIA had an outpost a mile away from the incident, and since it was really CIA run, should we be less or more inclined to believe CIA versions of what happened? Second, everyone assumes, correctly, that the White House and State were covering their butts. Why dont they assume that the CIA was doing the same?


  • jan

    The entire Benghazi affair is an embarrassing episode exemplifying the deceptive lengths a government will go, in order to correct what is now being called, a “political crisis” in the WH dealing with the reelection of a president.

    The ARB report was a farce, selectively interviewing people who then produced an incomplete, milquetoast appraisal of the on-the-ground events. Human assets, people in command, the Station Chief in the immediate area, were passed over, replaced by distant governmental analysts to determine the facts, which were then hazily relayed to the people in the days leading up to the election. The many government-submitted documents were foot-dragged and then highly redacted. The many Congressional hearings were more about grand-standing and partisan bickering than garnering accurate info. through honest collaborative, cooperative D & R input/investigations.

    In the meantime, important questions remain either hidden, unanswered, or conflicted as to their context. The main WH response is to blame republicans, label people disputing the government’s version as “conspiratorial,” or remain above it all, calling for people to move on. However, it continues to be incomprehensible that SOS Clinton was so detached and clueless about an attack on an embassy outpost, manned by someone she personally knew and sent there. Where was the President as the Benghazi tragedy unfolded, other than getting ready for another fundraiser? Why was Gregory Hicks’s pleas for help, accounts of the attack, being second in command under Ambassador Stevens, dismissed, and later demoted in his job. In fact, what was Chris Stevens even doing in Benghazi? Rumors abound as to secret gun-running between the U.S., to Syria, the middleman being Turkey — reminiscent of the Iran-Contra affair. But, all the dems want to do is airbrush the unfathomable details and cajole people that “It will never happen again.”

Leave a Comment