The key statements made in these reports on the newly-released Benghazi emails are far more telling than the actual words that are used. They demonstrate an assumption (not without some justification) that the public will gleefully accept that which their leaders tell them to -not only believe, but even to care about.
Bob Beckel's patently feigned anger (first link) is bad enough, but his remark that even a cover-up would mean nothing is an act that only someone steeped in classic Leninist tactics would even think to attempt.
Former White House spokesman Tommy Vietor's pathetic comment (second link) “Dude, this was like two years ago. We're still talking about the most mundane process.” is an even darker move. In a world in which young people are literally trained to act stupidly to the point that they themselves believe that they are dolts, Vietor uses phrases that are clearly intended to appeal to the physically and intellectually lazy.
"Bob Beckel, the liberal co-host of “The Five,” exploded with fury during a tense discussion about newly-released emails that reveal an apparent attempt by the White House to portray the 2012 Benghazi attacks as a protest gone awry to protect President Barack Obama’s political career.
Beckel admitted that “someone, somewhere” likely agreed that it would be in the best interests of the president politically to change the Benghazi talking points and control the narrative...........
When his fellow co-host, Eric Bolling, tried to get him back on topic, Beckel lost it.
“Let me finish!” Beckel said, pounding his fists on the table. “Let me finish by saying with what I think Hillary Clinton says — we know Islamic radicals killed these people, what difference does it make anymore?”
“Because they covered it up, Bob,” Bolling shot back.
“So what?!” Beckel screamed. “Every administration covers things up.”
Beckel also said “who cares” when asked if the Obama administration should be able to cover up Benghazi details just because it makes the president look bad. He also claimed that Americans are not still interested in finding out what happened in Benghazi.
"Former White House spokesman Tommy Vietor, in a tense interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier, downplayed the revived controversy over the Benghazi talking points, saying he does not remember his own role in the editing process because: “Dude, this was like two years ago.”
Vietor, the former spokesman for the National Security Council, insisted on “Special Report with Bret Baier” Thursday that emails that link a White House adviser to former U.N. ambassador Susan Rice's controversial Sunday show statements about the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate say nothing new..............
Baier then asked Vietor whether he personally changed the word “attack” to “demonstrations” in the talking points for Rice.
“Maybe, I don’t really remember,” Vietor said.
When pressed by Baier, Vietor said, “Dude, this was like two years ago. We're still talking about the most mundane process.”..............
"....In George Orwell's 1984, The main character Winston Smith is employed in a low-level position in the Ministry of Truth (Newspeak - Minitruth). One of his duties is to retrieve an edit from the newspaper archives reports that need to be changed to have them reflect, despite what was originally said or predicted, that which actually occurred later. If my memory serves me correctly, in one instance in the book, Smith has to edit a prediction of a successful agricultural harvest to have the government official making a less-rosy prediction as the harvest did not turn out the way he thought it would.
With the record now showing that the minister made an accurate prediction, everything is now fine.
Yesterday, the Times, apparently having conducted Warren Commission-style investigation of their own, has brought us back full circle. The Minitruth consensus is now the the original lie - that the reason for the attack was anger over a less than flattering depiction of Mohammed and that neither Al-Qaeda nor any other organized terror group had anything to do with the attack.
".....The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses as well as many American officials who have viewed the footage from security cameras......"