Comedy Epic Fail Far-right Intellectual Violence Jobs John McCain Libya Republican Party Terrorism The Economy Wingnuts

The Benghazi Economy

They couldn't believe their luck. It was the break they had been cultivating for nearly four years. The October 2012 surprise that would last through the October 2014 Midterms at the very least.

When Senator John McCain finally received word via telegram sent from his most trusted homing pigeon's smart phone informing him that: "U.S. Ambassador Killed In Benghazi by 'Flash Mob With Weapons' -- stop!" Republicans had already developed a full line of Benghazi-themed products for sale on the American market months before.

In the name of "Jobs and the Economy," everything from imported aged horseshit toothpaste to pre-poopy adult baby whiner diapers were being manufactured at a pace only an unregulated free market could love.

With the full intention of saving the national economy by securing the word "terrorism" rather than "extremist" in our Benghazi jobs plan, Republicans still needed an edge if they were going to get back their foreign policy credibility. And with Congressman Darrell Issa, fresh off his failure to destroy Attorney General Eric Holder, now rumored by me to be  speaking through a self-modeled ventriloquist dummy(because why the fuck not?)already a leading figure in the Republican party's comeback-dream of achieving full anti-Obama consensus and indentured bipartisanship in America, it was time for Lindsey Graham to dust off John McCain's foreign policy cheeks and get busy inventing an important-sounding committee for him to lead because there's no way a rogue Georgian leader like John McCain is going to live out his days marginalized in the Senate heading up the Goddamn Indian Affairs Committee!

But how would they create a new government job in this intentionally-depressed economy when everybody knows the government doesn't create jobs? It would take a proven strategy! But where could they find such a winning strategy? President Obama's certainly no expert on winning strategies. World famous surge-man and counter-insurgency expert, David Petraeus, certainly wasn't going to offer any useful advice.

After scouring the Sunday morning talk shows for less than five minutes, Republicans had found their answer to solving the issues of job creation, energy independence, climate change, immigration, the fiscal cliff, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, hurricane Sandy aftermath, and Twinkie shortages:

Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice!

She's the one responsible for slipping Agenda 21 into the water supply and rigging the minds of the electorate! She was the one who helped conceal the president's birth certificate in his college transcripts! Ambassador Susan Rice is the reason the Libyans killed Doc Brown in 1985 and the reason why Mitt Romney is now reduced to touring gated communities with his band, Mitt Romney and The Five Puke Progeny Death Fucks, rather than leading real-America's hearts and minds into the Benghazi economy of 19th century!

Republicans are taking back America for Republicans everywhere one indiscriminate politically-motivated document dump, one dead-end witch hunt, and one superbly qualified American Ambassador at a time. Because jobs and the economy can't wait for this president to lead!

  • JWheels

    Is it just me or did anyone else feel the urge to read this in the style of a 1950s newsreel announcer? Excellent work Brink!

  • Brutlyhonest

    One of the corporate media outlets accidentally broadcast a Democratic Congressman calling out his peers for cutting State Department security funding the other night. But it wasn’t mentioned in the “wrap-up” babbling and that whole aspect is being generally ignored.

    What a fucked up, topsy-turvy world we live in where all the shit that happened under BushCo is ignored but a made-up “scandal” isn’t ignored.

  • Bob Rutledge

    Dude, the scandal is that there’s a blah person in the White House.

    EDIT: Okay, this time I know I was replying under alopecia’s “The scandal is…” post. What is this fuckery, Disqus?

    • muselet

      There’s a reason the service’s nickname is Dis Suqs.


  • muselet

    *stands and applauds*


  • JMAshby

    This is the post America deserves. The GOP is a dark comedy.

  • JackDaniel07

    “If its Sunday, its Mr. Brink”™

    • Bob Rutledge

      Would you prefer this one?

      Edit: crappity crap crap. This was supposed to be a reply to “Username1016″. Feck.

      • Victor_the_Crab

        HA-HAAA!!! Love it.

  • Username1016

    This isn’t the kind of post I come here for.

  • GrafZeppelin127

    I was watching Real Time and it occurred to me that there’s a very simple question that no one is asking.

    Unless I’m mistaken, the GOP/Fox cohort’s idea of a “scandal” with respect to Benghazi is this: That the President and the administration said, initially, that the incident was (A) a reaction to the anti-Islam YouTube video, not (B) a terrorist attack. They never said it wasn’t (B). They said it was (A) when they knew it was (B).


    Why can’t it be both?

    Even if (A) was the initial assessment and it turned out to be wrong, which I don’t think has been firmly established, why does it seem so far-fetched and impossible that this was a terrorist attack motivated by a video? Am I missing something?

    That’s why this whole thing doesn’t make sense. Are they accusing the administration of “lying” about the who, or the why? How does an erroneous assessment of the why constitute a lie about the who? Especially when it’s perfectly reasonable and plausible that the who and the why are not incompatible? What could the administration possibly hope to gain by “lying” about the why, when what they said about the why does not in any way negate or distract from the who?

    Seriously, WTF?

    • rob black

      It really is that stupid.
      On day two after the attack, Rachel Maddow laid out the facts of the entire event, and there has been nothing discovered to change those facts to this day….and there was never any effort by the administration to cover up any thing about them!
      The Benghazi consulate attack, was a planned revenge hit for the drone strike in June that took out Al Qaeda’s number two man, bu Yahya al-Libi. (of Libya)
      That same day, there were 26? different protests at American embassies or consulates throughout the middle east over the stupid anti Islamic video.
      The most likely scenario, is that Al Qaeda, already planning the Benghazi attack, saw the protest taking place, and decided to use it as an opportunity to make their move. The Ambassador being there was just a horrible bit of scheduling.
      The peaceful protesters lent an unknowing cover to the rocket propelled grenade armed Al Qaeda squad.
      ….but if it didn’t happen exactly that way…so what?
      Which part of any of this does John McCain think is being covered up by the administration and what possible motivation would they have!!??
      God it is infuriating….

    • muselet

      The scandal is that the administration mentioned the YouTube trailer for the movie The Innocence of Muslims.

      No, wait, the scandal is that the administration didn’t instantly call the incident in Benghazi “terrorism” (or maybe it was “an attack by terrorists”—it’s hard to keep track), thereby sparing the terrorists’ precious fee-fees.

      No, wait, the scandal is that the administration used the word “extremists” in the talking points rather than calling the attackers “al-Qaeda terrorists.”

      No, wait, the scandal is that the administration didn’t instantly identify the attackers as members of Ansar al-Shariah and al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (even though doing so would have tipped off the attackers that they’d been rumbled).

      No, wait, the scandal is that John McCain has become irrelevant in the national debate about, well, everything, and this will not stand!

      Or something.


    • mrbrink

      They’re concern-trolling the narrative, and they play the media. They were looking for an opportunity to retaliate against the Obama administration right away for its mild condemnations of the anti-Muslim video and to do to him what Reaganites did to Jimmy Carter.

      That video set it all off, but if right wing conservative nuts are directly responsible for putting our national security at risk, getting an Ambassador killed in the process, then they might have to reevaluate the risk-benefit of promoting belligerent assholes to the detriment of national security.


      • rob black

        Actually the video didn’t set it off.

        Al Queda had publicly stated that there would be retaliation for the drone killing of al-Libi. He was from Libya, so that is where any retaliation was going to take place.

        Even a backwater consulate like Benghazi was guarded.

        When they saw the completely unrelated protests against the video happening, they jumped at the opportunity to blend in with a crowd and launch their attack.

        The people protesting in Benghazi against the video, had no idea what was happening. (Thus all the demonstrations later in the week saying “We are sorry America”)

        The initial reports showed the attack happening, coinciding with the protests, so the state department assumed they were related….but they weren’t.

        Al Queda used an unrelated..and peaceful protest as an opportunity to launch an attack against our consulate. That is what happened. There has never been any attempt to cover any of this up.

        Of course, we all know all of this, but the media has done little to expose the stupid..”crazy muslims protesting video attacked out embassy and killed our ambassador” meme.
        Real, organized terrorists used peaceful protest as cover to attack our embassy, is an apparently less glamorous story line and doesn’t allow them to lump all Muslims into one sized terrorist pot to serve up nightly….mixed with never happened, watergate sized cover-ups….

        • mrbrink

          “When they saw the completely unrelated protests against the video happening, they jumped at the opportunity to blend in with a crowd and launch their attack.”

          That video and the ensuing riots it caused aided and abetted the attack in Benghazi.

          I’m kind of surprised wingnuts aren’t putting out a new anti-Muslim video every week.

    • gigiz

      WTF, indeed! Ignoring the video is necessary for what seems to be the GOP’s two main political objectives re Benghazi: 1) asserting a continuing threat from Al Qaeda and failure of Pres. Obama’s anti-terrorism efforts as opposed to mere anti-American sentiment; and 2) protecting the GOP from being associated with the successfully provocative video and 22-nation protests and violence. (We can play connect the dots between the video’s producer, frequent Fox News guest Pamela Geller, and key GOP leaders.) And then there’s the whole Susan Rice WTF.

      I blame the media for allowing GOP hysteria to control the agenda.

    • bphoon

      Pretty simple to me: The GOP couldn’t give a shit less what actually happened, who did it or why. All the Benghazi attack does for them is give them a loose framework to manufacture a “scandal” with which to 1) smear the Obama Administration, and 2) distract the American people from the shambles that is today’s GOP.

      If they didn’t have something to yell at Obama about, they might actually have to contemplate their current lot in life and, I guess, that’s just too depressing.

  • missliberties

    The GOP smells like a poopy diaper.