The Omnivore Explains: Sandy Hook Conspiracies

Let me tell you a true story:

Before my divorce I had no debt, a near-perfect if not perfect credit rating, and money in the bank--I was a responsible  person with money. During my marriage my now-ex-wife did not work--but she managed our money. Badly. She spent and spent--all new wardrobe, a new car, a house we couldn't exactly afford. For Christmas one year she put up a tree so big that (a) she hired a person to help her and her mom decorate and (b) an electrician to run higher voltage wires to the outlet so we could plug in the tree without it tripping the breakers. Holy Cats! When we divorced I was deep in debt and my credit was ruined--but I'm better now. That bitch is no longer trashing my finances.

By reader request I'm going to explain the Sandy Hook Truther Conspiracy.



This is a video that like 10 million people have seen. It is the "face" of the Sandy Hook Hoax movement (there is other stuff like the LIBOR connection between Aurora and Sandy Hook that is not mentioned here). The video lays out ten facts that 'prove' the Sandy Hook massacre is a hoax. They are:

1. There were at least 2-3 shooters. The media just reported 1.
2. The medical examiner claimed a rifle was used to kill the children but the rifle was left in the trunk of the car.
3. One of the kid's dad's was seen laughing and smiling before he got sad for the interview. He's an actor.
4. His dead daughter's memorial Facebook page was was created before he knew his daughter was, for-sure, dead.
5. All the grieving parents seem to be bad actors.
6. There is a web site called CrisisActors.org that provides actors for crisis simulation!
7. The medical examiner behaved strangely in an interview. He might be an actor.
8. Sept 11 and the 2005 London bombings ... and Sandy Hook all had FEMA or Homeland security training classes nearby with some connection to the events
9. The Victoria Soto memorial Facebook page was created 4 days before the shooting!
10. There is a media frenzy created to ban guns!

If you want to easily debunk* all of this, look:

• Here.
• Here.
• And here.

Also: pages on Facebook can be changed to Memorial pages and still retain their original creation date.

Sandy Hook Explained
People want their world to make sense--when it does not, they create fictional worlds where bad guys do all the bad things for reasons (grabbing our guns) and it isn't just random psychotic individuals making our world horrible. Here, I'll appeal to The Guardian:

Sandy Hook trutherism is unforgivable, but the essential fallacy on which it rests – that facts we can't account for must have a sinister explanation – is a widespread, human and dangerously seductive one. There's much about last month's tragedy in Connecticut that defies the search for meaning. Confronting that truth, even for those of us who are just onlookers, is hard. So it's depressing, but not exactly surprising, that the Sandy Hook "truthers" can't bring themselves to do so.

There we go, I've saved you another five minutes of thinking about this. You, like me, can confront the hard truths about the senseless world we live in because we are hard men (and women). The soft, broken truthers go running for conspiracy theory. We don't need none of that.

No, Really: Sandy Hook Explained
You're still here? Good--you can scroll! What you just read above is the conventional wisdom and it's the easy way out. How do you know? Because it appealed to you because it makes you special--or, at least, more special than those broken Truthers. That little hit of validation you felt? That's a danger signal. That's an indication you are missing something.

You are being lied to by that video--by the person who put together those 10 points. It isn't a lie they tell you out-right, it's a lie you are expected to be complicit in. It's a lie you are intended to internalize--it is a lie about the story. This is the lie:

I, like you, was shocked and appalled by unfolding tragedy I witnessed on my TV. I, like you, believed what I was being told ... until. Until I begin to notice 'cracks' in the story I was hearing from the media and the government. These were little mistakes at first--or contradictions--but then, slowly, I began to see a picture emerge: this was a pattern. At that point I began to look deeper--and what did I discover? I discovered the deception They are trying to sell us. Now that the scales have been lifted from my eyes, I have to tell you and the world.

How do we know it's a lie? We know it's a lie because this isn't how Truther-beliefs get founded. Take, for example, the most important point of the 10 points: it's #2--it's the one about the guns changing (why it's the most important of the points I'll get to in a minute).

In the chaos of early reporting and, driven, by the need for always-on 24/7 talking head cable-news saturation anything--any factoid--would become part of the narrative. In this case it was the removal of a shotgun from the trunk of Lanza's car as filmed from a helicopter. Twenty-four hours later, everything was cleared up and the major topic of discussion was "Why the hell was the reportage so awful with Sandy Hook?" (Answer: because you demanded it be--you left your TV on for like eight hours straight, what the hell else was CNN and FOX supposed to do other than make up news for you?).

But for Mr. Conspiracy, this is evidence of shifting story--a pattern of evil--a sign of a hoax. Why doesn't he just do what everyone else did and go "Oh, early reportage always sucks--now that the dust has settled we can see that Lanza used his high capacity rifle to kill all those kids ..."?

Why not?

The answer is because That, fucking, cannot be true.

True Story, Bro
Everything I told you in the opening story has, unlike the Sandy-Hook-Hoax factoids, the advantage of being true--but it's missing a key component. Did you notice? It's this:

"Hey, Omnivore, why the hell were you letting your wife manage all your money?"
"It's because I loved her."
"Yeah? True love, bro? You divorced her, didn't you."
"I did, and it sucked. I've learned my lesson."

Right there, at the end, you know for sure I'm lying: I certainly did not learn my lesson. That's because the lesson is that whether or not you love someone is irrelevant to whether or not you let them manage your money. I let her manage my money because it got me everything I wanted including being able to credibly be 'a victim'.

The story I'm telling you makes me the saint, her the sinner--and I'm telling it to you because I'm ashamed of my behavior--but if I wrap that shame in a protective candy-coated story and serve it to you and you validate it--then I'm a hero. At least for a little while.

The story protects my shame because oh hells no: I'm not responsible for my behavior or condition. That would fucking hurt.

Conspiracy Theories Shield Us
Before we do Sandy Hook, let's start somewhere else: 9/11 Truthers and Birthers. It's all the same stuff under the hood.

I Am Ashamed Of: Racist feelings towards the president.
Protective Conspiracy Theory: Obama's Birth Certificate is a FAKE. He was born in Kenya and is not legitimately able to be president.
Now I Am: A patriot driven by my love for the Constitution and America.

I Am Ashamed Of: My early-childhood driven issues with authority--especially male authority figures--that make me hate George W. Bush personally rather than simply strongly disliking his policies. The idea of America as an innocent victim with just cause to go to war in Afghanistan is unconscionable.
Protective Conspiracy Theory: Bush caused 9/11 (or intentionally allowed it to happen).
Now I Am: A righteous rebel speaking Truth to Power

The Sandy Hook Hoax Explained
So what is going on with Sandy Hook? I'll show you: remember his 10 points up there? Which one of them is not like the others? I'll give you a hint: which one, of all that garbage, is actually true?

It's #10: The Media frenzy to ban guns.

You Can Have My Wang When You Pry It Out Of My Moist, Sweaty Palm

This one isn't a "fact" about the shooting--it's the "why" of the whole thing--after his 1-9 try to convince you (so long as you don't research them) he then puts in there his 10th "fact proving Sandy Hook was a hoax" and, since he didn't see it was different he has no reason to think you will either.

This is the key to the whole conspiracy theory.

I Am Ashamed Of: The fact that a rifle that I feel a personal connection to (and probably viscerally defended after the Aurora shootings) was used for an abomination. It makes me on the wrong side and That. Cannot. Be. True.
Protective Conspiracy Theory: Not only did the shooting never happen--but there were multiple shooters, everyone killed was an actor, and the guns used were handguns anyway.
Now I Am: A Second-Amendment Constitutional patriot speaking Truth To Power.

Epilogue
Now that Obama's "gun grab" has happened and it's a big nothing-burger with a side of Congress-Won't-Pass-The-AWB I wonder what this guy is going to do ... Ha! Got you, didn't I? He's not going to do anything because reality does nothing to assuage the guilt he feels from having a strong emotional connection to the gun that was used to kill children. Until that changes (and this whole conspiracy theory--for which he is getting millions of hits of validation a day--meaning he won't have to change) the conspiracy theory will need to remain ... because otherwise he'd have to face himself.

NOTE: In case this is misunderstood: liking AR's is fine. I like them myself. No AR owner should feel guilt about Sandy Hook--but if you do? If, for whatever reason (your man-card) you are emotionally tied up in 'the rifle' doing no wrong? Then the Conspiracy Theory will protect you from that.

---

* The "conspiracy" doesn't even make sense. For example, was anyone killed? Or is everyone actors? If all the grieving parents are actors, what about the real children and teachers? And their parents--wouldn't someone notice them missing? Wouldn't someone at, like, Facebook be able to crack the conspiracy? Does it matter what weapon was used or left in the car if there were multiple black-ops shooters? Does someone being in the Screen Actor's Guild or a member of Crisis Actors make them automatically trustworthy for the government scheme? What did all those FEMA trainees do when the crisis broke? Was anyone actually there? NOTE: none of these 'plot holes' are important--they're all just Fridge Logic for the story--the story you're supposed to swallow.

The Omnivore Explains: Socialism

If you've put a toe--even your little one--in politics any time in the past four years you have no doubt felt it awash in the rhetoric of Marxism and socialism. After all, our Commander in Chief is an avowed socialist--a closet Marxist, and a secret Muslim.

If you studied socialism, say, a couple decades ago, and have lived in a politics free bubble since then (BANG! BANG!! LET ME IN!! LET ME INNNNN!!!) you might be a little surprised by this.

Part 1: Actual Socialism

There is no absolutely authoritative single-meaning of the term (this does create some uncertainty) but in short: 

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

This is a reasonable start. Note that in some formulations there are distinctions where:

• Under socialism there is private property whereas under under communism there is not. 
• Socialism is sometimes described as an economic system whereas communism is a governmental system.
• Socialism has been associated with social justice movements.
• It may be a "gateway" to full-on communism

There is a bit of truth to all of these which makes having a conversation deeper than the use of code-words more intricate than it might otherwise be. While I will not exactly use socialism and communism interchangeably here, I will, at times use communism / socialism to indicate places where I don't see a specific distinction in the philosophy.

Socialism In America

Socialism in America started around 1850 with Marxist based unions being set up. Working conditions of the time were dismal and harsh and blue-collar workers liked the appeal to better conditions, wages, etc. A socialist candidate got 6% of the presidential vote in 1912. Popular authors (Upton Sinclair) were exposing the truly horrific conditions in American factories and packing plants and the ideas had currency amongst the populace.

In 1917 the Espionage Act was passed at least party in response to the Bolshevik revolution in Russia (bloody) and the attendant Red Scare. This made budding US Socialists afraid and membership in the party plummet. The perception of socialism was further, erm, tarnished by the 1919 anarchist bombings which were conducted by ostensibly socialist revolutionaries.

In short, early American socialism was marked first by ideas about improving the (bad) lot of workers but became entangled in bloody revolution. But we should've seen it coming. It's not like someone didn't warn us this would happen ... Someone like ... Karl Marx.

Only Known Picture of Karl Marx and Obama

Marx had written about the near-necessity of violent revolution. From The Communist Manifesto:

They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution.

Key Point
The thing you need to understand is that when talking about 'socialism' you are generally talking about a radical change in western governments to a state where there is little or no private property, where there is a centrally planned economy, where means of production are not privately owned (either collective or owned by the state).

This can only be achieved by revolution, probably violent revolution--which was part of the plan. Everything else--ObamaCare, Social Security, Interstate Highways--these can be seen as little "baby-steps" towards socialism at best.

If you are going to go with the "one drop of socialism makes it socialist" you are starting with an explicit extreme position and if you find yourself reluctant to state that plainly or call that out at the start? Well, yeah: there's a reason for that. It's because you're about to attack a 'straw man' of socialism rather than real, actual socialism.

Part 2: Socialism As A Failure
If there is a major, humiliating, political failure of the 20th Century, look no further than Socialism / Communism. I recommend The God That Failed as a good place to start. Not only was socialism / communism seen as "a god" but it was an abomination in practice.

The real crimes of socialism are genocide, famine, gulags, and police states. They are not health care for indigent people or lazy kids playing X-Box instead of getting a haircut and a real job.

Part 3: European Capitalism
Chances are, if you are using 'socialism' to talk about anything in contemporary American politics, what you are actually talking about is European capitalism. In every European state there is:

• A market economy (with varying degrees of regulation)
• Ownership of private property
• Private ownership of business / means-of-production

In short, these are highly regulated market economies with their own stock exchanges, central banks, and so on. To be certain, the Europeans have:

• Higher taxes and their wealthy tend to be less wealthy
• Far more social services--which are very expensive

These are decisions that their governments and electorates have made in varying degrees--but they are far closer to capitalist economies than socialist ones. You can ask the World Socialist Movement:

Some [countries] want more state intervention, some want less; but none want to go beyond the wages-prices-profits system. All want to retain producing for the market, buying and selling, money and working for wages. None of them—not even those who describe themselves as "socialist"—stand for socialism in its original meaning of a society of common ownership and democratic control with production for use not profit and moneyless distribution in accordance with the principle "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs".

Now, this does not mean that Europe's decisions have all been good--or are (depending on which state we want to discuss) anything America should emulate. But if you're going to talk intelligently about policy you have to, you know, discuss actual policy rather than using sweeping loaded generalizations and straw-men. For example:

1. French entrepreneurship is (reportedly) very low. One can credibly argue that is because the regulatory environment is suffocating small business: If you make it impossible to fire people you (surprise!) make it hard to hire people.
2. Greek budgetary policies pay people for doing nothing and show gross mismanagement. 
3. You can look at Spain's health care system (link is 2009) and, uh, see right there in the article that it's going to collapse. Oh look, it did!

Then you have to do some hard work taking these lessons and actually applying them--with some degree of, you know, rigor or intelligence, to the US discussion you want to have. Saying that "socialism always fails" ignores, for example, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany--all of whom have fairly robust welfare states and none of whom are failures. You can even look at England and, to a degree, France and see that even in recessions some elements of their economy and standards of living are strong (healthcare outcomes, for example).

I'm too depressed to even talk about Canada. Smug bastards.

But even those discussions aren't exactly cut and dried. For example, one might look at a map of Europe and conclude that it isn't the economic system that most closely predicts failure ... but the latitude. That's a discussion I really want to have.

We've Got To Move Italy Further North!

The Omnivore Explains: The Fiscal Plummet

We go over the Fiscal Cliff on Monday. What will happen according to the 'Cliff Notes' (the text of the fiscal cliff's impacts and attendant catastrophes).

What They Say Will Happen

1. Your taxes will go up. A lot.
2. Your pay-roll tax holiday will end (and no one seems to be fighting to keep this) so that's another like 40 bucks per pay check.
3. There will be spending cuts all over the place. Especially military.
4. Unemployment checks for a lot of long-term blue-collar workers will end. This could be damaging for these people (and a lot of them are out of luck because the jobs they lost are no longer really in America).
5. The economy could well plunge into recession. If you believe there is a limp, barely sprouting recession, this will stomp on it. Like Bambi vs. Godzilla.

What Will Really Happen

1. Congress will suddenly have a 'surprise' vote to keep the current tax rates for almost everyone. If there is inability to pass a bill that keeps people making at least 250k a year off the tax-chopping block, politicians will be facing pitchforks and torches. Conservatives will say they voted to "lower taxes" while still (probably) playing ball with the white house. People making more than 250k will take it on the chin and be pissy but no one cares about them too much anyway.
2. Republicans will eat the majority of the blame for going over the fiscal cliff (according to polling--around 60-40). They will complain bitterly about how this is so unfair--but--
3. No one will remember this in two years or care especially except for ...
4. Tea Party hopefuls looking to primary sitting Republican congressmen. The Tea Party hopefuls will be disappointed that the sitting candidates didn't vote Plan B, thereby making them vulnerable to primary challenges.
5. The de-speakering of Boehner will turn out to have been greatly overstated. But Watch: he'll be pissed and he'll remember this and somewhere in a dark subcommittee when no one is watching ... someone will pay.

Why Wall Street is Fucking Terrified

After the Fiscal Cliff battle, which will result in Republicans taking an ego-hit and Obama (Possibly? Probably?) gloating during his state-of-the-nation address, will come the perpetual Valhalla-esque Debt Ceiling battle. Idiots who, presumably, don't pay their IOUs for credit cards or poker games because they don't understand the concept of paying money you already committed to pay, will try to take a piece out of Obama's hide.

This will make rating agencies nervous. They may, again, downgrade America.

Most of the world will not care: we are the economic safe-harbor today and borrow money at historically low rates with great confidence despite what you are being told*. 

Then, when the downgrade happens, all these CDO super-complex debt weapons that have infiltrated the money-sphere like movie super-computer viruses will auto-trigger with CATASTROPHIC effects for the financial markets.

While Mad Max is fueling up his interceptor to go after the raiders who killed his wife and kids, Tea Party patriots will be watching zombies stream out from the burning cities going "Doug? DOUG!? What HAPPENED!? Why did NO ONE TELL US THIS WAS FUCKING STUPID!? DOUG!? Can You Hear Me!? It's ALMOST LIKE YOU ARE DEAF!?"

---

* In fact, our ability to borrow into structured debt is so good right now one could make a case this would be a perfect time to embark on massive, massive, infrastructure re-building projects that would boost employment and flood the consumer market with billions of--what? Oh, right. Yeah, I'll just shut the fuck up about that.

The Omnivore Explains: The Tea Party

As per Facebook discussion today we're taking a look at the Tea Party: small government freedom fighters or racist terrorists? I report, you decide. Like Fox News, The Omnivore has never retracted a story! So let's go!

On The Right
If you ask the Tea Party what they stand for you'll get a few canonical answers: There is no "Tea Party"--there are numerous autonomous groups that are structured around a few guiding principles. I looked at TeaParty Patriots and TheTeaParty.net for some guidance here.

OUR CORE PRINCIPLES
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY means not overspending, and not burdening our children and grandchildren with our bills.

CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED GOVERNMENT means power resides with the people and not with the government. Governing should be done at the most local level possible where it can be held accountable. 

FREE MARKET ECONOMICS made America an economic superpower that for at least two centuries provided subsequent generations of Americans more opportunities and higher standards of living. 

And ... (TheTeaParty.net)

• Limited federal government

• Individual freedoms

• Personal responsibility

• Free markets

• Returning political power to the states and the people

So okay. There you have it--straight from the horse's mouth. Of course if you trust what people say about themselves then you think Obama is a US Born (Hawaii--are we expected to believe that!?) Christian who believes in America. Now, you know, he might be a special case of super lying--but still, we're clearly not just going to take things at face value.

Here is a big list of Tea Party slogans which, for the most part, are not that offensive.

On The Left
If you ask a lefty what the Tea Party stands for, after they've recovered from the sedation darts the police have used to stop the rampage, you get something like this:

When you peel back the nonsense of the Tea Party and look under the hood so to speak, what you actually see are a bunch of selfish morons who basically dislike our President (or possibly any non-white person), want to pay little to no taxes, and want to cut social and welfare programs to anyone other than themselves. Much like the Republican controlled Congress who recently implemented new ‘spending controls’ that were designed to cut ‘wasteful’ Democratic spending, but just so happened to contain exemptions for pretty much anything they wanted to spend money on.

Here is a list of the ten most "offensive" Tea Party slogans someone put together.

So Which Is It? 
What's correct? Well, let's "go to the tape." In this case that means looking at some numbers. We will start with the Pew Survey.

So, uh, whatever else they are, according to the numbers they:

• Oppose same-sex marriage for religious reasons
• Oppose abortion in all/most cases for religious reasons
• Are more opposed to a path to citizenship than most Republicans
• Clock in fairly closely to Republicans on economic issues

Let's ask a Tea Party guy about the religious thing:

Sarah Palin is a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-Israel evangelical Christian. Senator Jim DeMint is a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-Israel conservative Presbyterian. Congressman Mike Pence is a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-Israel, former conservative talk show host, third highest-ranking Republican in the House of Representatives, evangelical Christian. Christine O'Donnell is a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-Israel, former "values movement" activist, conservative Catholic.Michele Bachmann is a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-Israel evangelical Lutheran. Combined, these individuals represent the Tea Party's de facto leadership in the political realm.

A survey of Tea Party members was conducted with these being some of the findings:

Perhaps Not Surprisingly They Found More Whites Supported the Tea Party Than Non-Whites

And That Means ... What?
The Facebook poster, when asked why, if the Tea Party was basically fiscal-conservative refused to embrace Ron Paul suggested that it was because Ron Paul's foreign policy was "batshit crazy."I could accept that as an explanation (it does come up a lot, after all) but it does not explain why the Tea Party didn't endorse, say, Gary Johnson who is certainly less interventionalist than many would like--but will not, for example, abandon Israel. You'd think that would be a perfect fit, right?

I know the FB poster knows who Gary Johnson is. Maybe I should've opened it up first? He also acknowledged that the Tea Party, despite wanting fiscal responsibly also wants to leave senior entitlement programs untouched--which is paradoxical. So I'll give him points there.

But I think, ultimately, people who give the Tea Party the benefit of the doubt on this stuff are making a very, very human mistake:

Specifically, You Want To Believe They Think Like You: They Do, If You're White And Over 65.

The truth is that the emotional drivers for the Tea Party are pretty straightforward: Look at the demographic break down between the 2008 election and the 2010 Tea Party election ...

Old People's Election

The gender breakdown didn't change much. And nor did the racial breakdown. But the age of the electorate changed dramatically: Seniors went from 16 percent in 2008 to 23 percent in 2010, while voters between 18 and 29 fell from 18 percent in 2008 to 11 percent in 2009.

In other words, what was the big issue that drove the 2010 Tea Party surge? Oh, come on--you know it--ObamaCare ... wait, wait--that's the text--what's the subtext? Oh, come on, you know that too--it's the other, other care. No, not Romney Care--Medicare. Twenty-Ten and the Tea Party was about the Democrats hitting the 3rd Rail: they scared Medicare seniors and the response was the Tea Party.

Seniors--white seniors--as you know--also happen to be more socially conservative and more right-wing religious than the population at large. This also explains why they don't want Ron Paul or Gary Johnson: those candidate's attack on entitlement systems would possibly hit seniors and that's why Paul Ryan had to readjust his plan so that people over 55 were safe! Want to talk about "free stuff?" Ryan promised seniors the entire burden of re-aligning the US healthcare system and safety net would be borne on the backs of the (comparatively) young.

It was a vote getter. Maybe Romney was on to something after all?

So What Do I Think?
I think you can make a compelling case that the Tea Party is the party of Old White people who are afraid that the Obama administration or its economic policies will take their safety net away and responded predictably. They are not:

• Clear-eyed hard core fiscal conservatives
• Libertarians who believe that social conventions should be left up to individuals
• A group that prioritizes fiscal policy over social policy
• A group that has much / anything to say about foreign policy except as it relates to immigration

The Omnivore Explains: Benghazi

If you have found this site you had better know the basic profiles of the Benghazi attack. Here is a brief overview:

1. The American embassy in Benghazi Libya requested additional security (16 special operators) shortly before 9/11/12. Specifically  they wanted the current security to stay on past its rotation period and felt that the current political situation might be alienating the Libyan militias that were protecting the embassy. 
2. That request was denied, for reasons unclear (as yet), and on Sept 11th (2012) the embassy was attacked by an offshoot of Al Queada and the American ambassador and three others were killed.
3. The day after, Obama gave an address in the rose garden condemning the attacks and Mitt Romney issued a press release condemning Obama's foreign policy (specifically of sympathizing with those who waged the attacks).
4. The charge is that Obama claimed in his address that the attack was caused by the anti-Muslim YouTube video and was "covered up" by the Obama administration because (at least in one speculation) it would put the lie to the administration narrative that AQ was "on the run." Furthermore, it is alleged that the administration was at best incompetent in not beefing up security prior to the 9/11 anniversary. 
5. Romney took a lot of heat for his press release ("too soon") and notably blew his line of attack in the second Presidential debate by hinging on the phraseology "act of terror" rather than the more generic line of attack that the administration had tried to link the attack to the video.
6. Most recently we have learned that Gen. Petraeus says there was no political white-washing of the initial report (although he believed the attack to likely be terror-related) and ABC has obtained what it says to be CIA talking points issued to Susan Rice. These talking points include the phrase: The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. If this is what Rice was told then she, apparently, did not misrepresent the facts as they were understood at that time.

So that's the meat of it. So what's going on?

What's Going On

What's going on is that Benghazi occupies a watergate like place in the right-wing mythology: it is the scandal to end all scandals and should bring down the administration. At a voting location in my home town (Boca Ration) a poll watcher said GOP boosters were chanting "Remember Benghazi!" The main-stream media's (MSM's) lack of slavish attention to this story is proof-positive that they are in-the-tank for Obama and everything (the timing of Petraeus's own scandal) is seen as suspicious in the world of the right wing.

The American Prospect thinks this is because of Scandal Envy (the author is wrong):

Republicans are indescribably frustrated by the fact that Barack Obama, whom they regard as both illegitimate and corrupt, went through an entire term without a major scandal. They tried with "Fast and Furious," but that turned out to be small potatoes. They tried with Solyndra, but that didn't produce the criminality they hoped for either. Obama even managed to dole out three-quarters of a trillion dollars in stimulus money without any graft or double-dealing to be found.

The League of Ordinary Gentlemen blog thinks (maybe correctly) that if the right-wing media hadn't been so rabid in their attack the story might actually have gone further!

But what if the fault of the country’s collective yawn lay not with the mainstream media, but rather with the right wing media machine? What if the need to frame actual condemnable miscues by the Obama administration around a preposterous, sensational narrative designed to boost ratings was what ultimately gave the White House a pass? Voters had spent months (actually, years) being told by the conservative media that they had elected a sleeper-cell president bent on destroying America; would it be really be so outlandish to imagine that those voters tuned out the media machine’s lupine cries at a time they actually needed to be heard?

One thing is for sure: whether or not Benghazi is a nuclear scandal or not, the author is right: we have had four years of hearing we elected a hard-core Marxist. If one finds that less than credible that's a good deal of "Wolf!"

So what is this about? Well, it's not purely about the specifics of the attack. Embassy attacks are hardly unheard of nor are they limited to Democratic presidents:

It's also unclear if the "lie" the administration tried to perpetrate makes any sense. After all, most voters would find the idea that some terrorist somewhere might attack us to be pretty credible. The idea that four dead Americans would be enough to overcome the whole narrative of success in the Global War on Terror is pretty thin: It's not like Bin Laden stormed the embassy personally (proving himself not dead in the process).

The idea that they might want to take out Hillary Clinton before her 2016 run is possible but also weak: this will be long forgotten and they're trying to pin the tail on Obama anyway (Rice, if suggested for Sec of State and not confirmed, would just be collateral damage). Indeed, for all the smoke over this, McCain famously skipped the big classified briefing on it. If The Truth Is Out There, what kind of sense does that make?

I'll Tell You
You already know because it was right there in Romney's original statement.  Here it is in pictorial form:

Come On, You Know It's True In Your Heart

How was this right here in Romney's original statement? It's because the far right believes that Obama [is a Muslim Infiltrator] and therefore his behavior with respect to letting America take the blow from Benghazi is proof (in a "connect the dots kind of way") that OUGHT TO EXPOSE HIM. It's frustrating that it hasn't. Isn't it?

So, okay--you think I'm oversimplifying what I have in the [ brackets ] up there? Let's break it down.

• Stupid: Obama is a Muslim, he swore in on the Koran. This is proven fact. Some number of people actually believe this. It's stupid--but people do.
• Naive: Obama is technically a Muslim because he once answered a call-to-prayer but besides that, he's not being honest about being a Christian. He's probably a Muslim in his heart. This has the advantage of not being falsifiable. It's still pretty dumb.
• Not Rock Stupid: Obama has Muslim sympathies because of his upbringing and feels America persecutes the Muslim world so he's willing to see America get a black eye from the Islamic world. While on the stupid spectrum (Obama has droned the heck out of AQ targets and, uhm, did kill Bin Laden) this purports a possibly subconscious philosophical bent that, hey, Obama might not be aware of. It also makes him fairly passive which would tie into the "incompetence" angle.
• More Sophisticated: Obama is a Black Liberation Theologist (Marxist) who wants to see America humbled because of philosophical reasons. His foreign policy is designed to create the perception--and then in his second term after the military sequester the reality--of weakness to provoke attacks. We will leave the Middle East in shame and, unable to defend our strategic resources take our position as another failed western imperialist power. This pretty much ties everything together with a bow--it links in Rev. Wright which, if you're paying attention, people have wanted to do since day one. It is sophisticated sounding. You wind up googling BLT and have to add a "-sandwich" to it: sophisticated.

All of the right-wing narrative ties together: the "apology tour," the bowing to the Saudi king thing, Romney's ill-timed complaint about Obama sympathizing with the attackers, and so on. What they are hoping is that in the absence of an electoral solution they will (as a, uh, liberal would) hope for a judicial solution. 

If they can't remove Obama from office by selling their narrative to the populace they are hoping the smoking gun of Benghazi will remove him from office the old fashioned way: scandalizing him out of the white house.

Consider this from election night (using the birth certificate instead of the scandal--but the thinking--the emotional payload--is identical):

Don’t they have to “certify” Obama again? I say we write, call….HOUND every one of our Reps…at the least, the Republican ones and DEMAND that they challenge Obama’s eligibility before they certify him…every last one of them!!!..Senate and House. DEMAND that Obama release a certified hard copy of his BC…DEMAND that Obama release his college records, and show us what “Nationality” he claimed to be then. DEMAND that he release anything and everyhing that he needs to PROVE that he is an American Citizen…every record that we need to prove that he legally changed his name and citizenship back after his adoption…etc. 

There is NOTHING “EXTREME” about asking our “President” to prove that he is eligible for the office…nothing there to “ridicule”, nothing to be ashamed of..he OWES that to us!!!! If there is any “shame” to be had, it is from those who DIDN’T demand that he provide, at least, undeniable “Proof of Citizenship”. The reason that he has not done this so far, the reason he fights it so hard isn’t to “Play” us..it’s because he CAN’T. 

We TRIED it “their way”, and it failed..now it is time we demand they try it “our” way.

Consider that if "Remember Benghazi!" is a war-cry you're supposed to be yelling it at the guys who hit you first (the Mexican army in "Remember the Alamo!"). If you are yelling it at possible Democratic voters that would indicate you think they were the ones who did the killing--launched the attack. Make sense? So there you have it: Benghazi is the birther-approach tailored for the Secret-Muslim meme.