So Pokey, I’m brainwashed? I understand Obama’s Muslim strategy and I commend it. In fact, I suggested it years ago…to you. Our more savvy administrations will forever attempt to separate radical Muslims from those moderates as conflating the two would prove catastrophic. This is some of the Benghazi nuance you are calling a scandal. I call it don’t taunt Happy Fun Ball (SNL 1991). Obama will strike what needs striking but will, more importantly, support and foster any and all moderate Muslim voices that might emerge from this Middle East shit-show. He may well back some to a fault. [Sheikh Abdallah Bin Bayyah joke beheaded by the editor.]

There are two paths:

1. Containment of radical groups through drone, airstrikes, and special ops while supporting the rise of Muslim moderates, or:

2. Wider military campaigns that will prove ineffective and will ultimately bankrupt our country.

Obama understands these two choices but will President Clinton? See, I talk about stuff that’s going to happen and try to give recommendations in real time. Solutions are strangely missing from Foxeteer country, aside from the occasional Nuke the Towelheads! comment and other such deductive gems. Not only do Republicans have nothing relevant to add in the moment, they have mastered a form of advanced revisionist-history via glue-sniffing (ARHvGS). You should take note of this and put down the glue, Pokey.

Onward to BEN-GAZZARA! Yes, I made this joke two months after the attack, here, and Maher just used it, like, last week (Real Time with two year old Zano jokes?)

Benghazi Summary Alert (please skip this paragraph, for f*&^’s sake):

Obama called the Benghazi attack an act of terrorism the next day in the Rose Garden.  And, if you think the attack on Benghazi spontaneously happened the same day along with dozens of other attacks across the Muslim world, Obama’s bullshit makes more sense than your “truth”. The mastermind behind the attack, in captivity, allegedly moved up the date because of the video protests. I notice you have no comment on this. Perhaps you should explain to the attacker, why his motivations were wrong.  If there were no wide-spread video protests the same day and no connection to the attack, then Obama lied. And, yes, these radicals were planning this attack, but not on the anniversary of 9/11, because they moved up the date to take advantage of ensuing video chaos, or like this guy said:

“So, of course, the attacks were linked to the dozens of other embassies overrun on the same day. If the GOP can’t connect those dots, we’re going to need some bigger dots. That is why the attack fell right on movie-trailer night. They used the riots as an excuse…you know, to do the old fake yawn and reach around thing. You think this just happened at the precise moment all of those other embassies burst into flames?”

—Mick Zano, Nov 2012

After catching the mastermind and interrogating him, my theory is all but confirmed, which means I’m wrong. So I’m protecting Obama from relaying a valid point. Keep in mind, the real story is this: if Pokey’s narrative proved true, I still wouldn’t understand his point.

And now back to our regularly scheduled blog post:

One third of the world identifies as Muslim, so if we declare war on them all, the way our Christian soldiers insist, then we’ve played right into Bin Laden’s hands. And, if we go broke through a series of ill-fated Bush-style military campaigns, ditto. If we employ either of these approaches, we should probably start brushing up on our Farsi. I am already quite adept at Farcey, but I’m being told that’s different. The ultimate answer lies with Muslims themselves. If they further radicalize and too many remain at this dangerously sick level of consciousness, in the immortal words of Bill Paxton from Aliens, Game over, man! Obama understands this, so he’s opting for containment strategies while encouraging and supporting the rise of moderate Muslim voices. He is also trying to get the rest of the world on the same page, which is very hard post Bush. Obama’s is the best approach, even if you and your ilk can’t seem to wrap your [edited]  around it. (Damn…beheaded again.)

“The problem is not the problem. The problem is your attitude about the problem. Do you understand?”

—Captain Jack Sparrow

On the flip side, Republicans assume all liberals can’t seem to wrap their heads around extremism. This is true as they tend to side with republicans on military interventions waaaaaay too much. See any vote on war ever. This is what worries me about Hillary 2016.

Perspective: Wouldn’t It Be Nice If the GOP Had Some?

Oh, and did I mention any investigations should be focused on that big circle of cluster fuckage called Why-the-F- We-Invaded-Iraq-in-the-1st-Place? The fact we’ve had 426 Benghazi investigations and no investigations on the lead up to the Iraq War is a testament to our collective ignorance. I stand by all my important spoof news Benghazi coverage here, here and here.

Although I guess I should warn everyone, the Discord was just added to the internet Hoax of Fame list here. I call bullshit! I AM A REAL JOURNALIST (cough)…well I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Pokey, my friend, your entire argument revolves around a ratio of the impetus behind the attack and whether or not we called them bad men or bad religious men. Benghazi was caused by extremists who will kill Americans whenever they get the chance and whether the impetus for the attack was more video, more 9/11, or more of a protest on Fox’s decision to cancel Glee—

“What does it matter at this point?”

—Hillary Clinton

One of Hillary’s biggest election challenges will be to overcome this quote. Of course, it’s true, but truth has no place on Bullshit Mountain. Obama never denied these were bad peeps, he just never called them the right kind of bad peeps. Impeach! I don’t want Sharia Law in America either, I just want our leaders to employ an approach that decreases the likelihood of this eventuality. Going broke through a series of military blunders is the opposite of helping.

Benghazi Hint of the Day:

As for the lead up to the attack, the handling of the attack, and the spin the next day, no wrong doing has been found by any of these investigative committees.

This latest committee promises to look at security issues, which was suggested by a Dem, here. Let me save you some time and money—this one is true.  Dems tend to investigate things related to reality, which is why at the moment they have my support. This committee will find security issues and preventing the next Benghazi is the only relevant part of this Foxudrama. And the blame for security will ultimately rest with those who defunded embassy security. Hint: it rhymes with re-goblin-kings. Yes, the committee will find everything I already mentioned in my first article, two years ago, for the low, low price of 147-million tax dollars. One spoof news blogger beats every republican, every time. Three cheers for fiscal conservatism! Three cheers—wait, I’m being told Congress cut funding, so we’re down to two cheers. Bastards!