Ambassador Rice was right: Last night, David Brooks became a traitor to his class.
Jeffrey Brown asked him about the ugly attacks on Susan Rice. Brooks basically said it’s a big pile of crap.
He cited David Ignatius:
BROWN (10/19/12): What do you think? Is this [the focus on Benghazi] hurting the president, as it kind of drags on?This is the piece to which Brooks referred. Note the headline. Duh:
BROOKS: I personally don't think so. I think the hardest argument—the argument that they could make, the Republicans could make of the president is, you spent four or eight years criticizing Dick Cheney for misleading the country based on false intelligence, and now you're misleading the country based on false intelligence.
So, it's obviously not the same size issue, but that's basically what they did. They had bad information. It was politically convenient for them, and they repeated them. I don't think many people really blame them. They were given what the CIA— David Ignatius is reporting the CIA told them, this is what happened. They repeated it.
IGNATIUS (10/20/12): CIA documents supported Susan Rice’s description of Benghazi attacksThere’s more, and you should read it. (Could someone please alert Salon?) But Ignatius deserves a lot of credit for doing something that’s never done:
The Romney campaign may have misfired with its suggestion that statements by President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice about the Benghazi attack last month weren’t supported by intelligence, according to documents provided by a senior U.S. intelligence official.
“Talking points” prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to the CIA account, “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”
The CIA document went on: “This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.” This may sound like self-protective boilerplate, but it reflects the analysts’ genuine problem interpreting fragments of intercepted conversation, video surveillance and source reports.
In the face of a furious right-wing assault, Ignatius stood up and said bullshit.
Darlings, this was simply never done in the Clinton-Gore years! Many, many pigs were killed because of the Extended Group Silence—and because of the gullibility of folk like those apes at Salon.
Make no mistake—the Romney campaign will try to kill the number-one pig with this theme next Monday. It still might work, due to the complicity all over the mainstream press world.
Also, due to the silence and haplessness of our own so-called “liberal” world.
This is a very dangerous theme—and the theme is still in play. At the town hall debate, Obama gave a horrible non-answer regarding this matter. Romney saved him when he made his foolish, ginormous blunder.
But Romney will make another try—and this theme remains dangerous. Based on yesterday’s behavior, the apes at Salon may grunt and howl as they endorse what he says.
Tomorrow: Back to John King’s disgraceful conduct on CNN last night. This assault is being conducted all through the mainstream press.
The children still haven't quite noticed.