Partisanship? Right There In Washington, D.C.?

Veteran political prognosticator Charlie Cook, who fancies himself objective and impartial, laments that “[p]artisanship has entered the discussion” of Benghazi.

You might think he’s referring to the Obama administration concocting the story that an Internet video was the culprit, apparently even before the last shots were fired, and then instructing Susan Rice to mouth that known falsehood on five network news shows to divert attention from their campaign claim that al-Quaeda was on the run. Or perhaps you thought that he dated partisanship entering the discussion from the decision of the White House to withhold documents and information from  Congressional committees investigating the tragedy. Or perhaps Cook might have been referring to the ongoing decision to keep secret where the president was while the Americans were under attack. We know he wasn’t in the situation being photographed, as he was when bin Laden was killed, but we don’t know where he was or what he was doing. Perhaps you think Cook suspects the president was preparing for the political fundraiser in Las Vegas the next day that he saw no reason to cancel of postpone, and hence believes that’s when politics entered the discussion.

Anyone who thinks Cook was thinking of any of that as the beginning of partisan concerns dominating Benghazi discussion probably still believes, fervently, in the Tooth Fairy.

Say What? (1)

  1. CaptDMO May 10, 2014 at 7:07 am | | Reply

    So…”Here is the Specific subject at hand, period”

    Oh yeah, well what about an entirely different group of people, from a separate generation, under entirely distinct circumstances, with undocumented, and unrecoverable, “motives”.

    I’ve seen this discussion logic often, from a specific type of people.
    Elections have consequences indeed!

Say What?