re: #34 Mike Lamb

I’d still love to hear the endgame for this supposed cover-up. My recollection was that they somehow believed that there was cover-up in order to enhance Obama’s re-election bid, which doesn’t make any fucking sense given the public’s tendency to support the president fully in the wake of terrorist attacks (see e.g. Bush’s popularity post-9/11).

Is it now just a matter of “proving” that he hates America?

I mean seriously this is the Underpants Gnome of Foreign Policy, but it’s missing two steps…

1. Benghazi cover-up…
2. ??
3. ??

It’s a stupid partisan game. They’re trying to sell the public that these kind of things only happened under Obama. Really the way the Republicans tell it, there weren’t any attacks on embassies and consulates in the Bush years just Obama’s. Even though there have actually been fewer attacks since Obama became president.