Highlights:
At 2:00 in, Jon Stewart says:
You may be wondering why for Benghazi, Congress has held nine full hearings - including one closed hearing. Why Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen issued a full accountability report chastising the State Department for their systemic failures and why Benghazi has generally emerged as a rallying cry for the President's opponents when during the Bush Administration there were fifty-four attacks on diplomatic targets that killed thirteen Americans, yet garnered only three hearings on embassy security total and zero outrage on Fox.At 3:26 in Representative Peter King describes how big a scandal Benghazi is says:
If you add Watergate and IranContra together and multiply it times maybe 10 or so, you're gonna get in the zone of what Benghazi is.To which Jon Stewart replied:
Holy sh*t! [taking notes] Watergate plus IranContra times...[note taking ends] So you're saying that the incident, whereby the order of the President of the United States, people broke into the Democratic headquarters to bug it to gain strategic advantage in a presidential election then cover that up by trying to use the power of the presidency to squash the Justice Department and then added that to the Reagan Administrations secret deal to illegally sell arms to Iran in exchange for hostages and money that could then be funneled to Central American right wing death squads, end parentheses, times ten.Yeppers, that's what they're saying.
However, by the time we get to 1:10 in to the second section of this video:
The wingnut media is balancing this on "If that indeed was the case..."
Following a long line of "If..." statements from Fox pundits, at 2:00 in, Stewart reacts with:
YES! If dingleberries were diamonds, I could open a Kay Jewelers in my pants!"Thus illustrating the emptiness of their whole argument.
He ends the segment with this at 3:50:
If what you're saying is true (and it's an important question). If what you're saying is true: if the President let Amercians die for political reasons then by god, bring us the evidence and we will grab the pitchforks and torches along with you. But remember, that game goes both ways. Let me try: In 2011, the State Department requested funding for worldwide security protection and upgrade. Money that could have perhaps gone to protect Benghazi. The Republicans, like Darrell Issa who's heading up this committee, voted to cut that funding. Maybe because of political reasons in an election year to make the President look weak. Thus sacrificing Americans for political gains. Did that happen?One last quote taken out of context to prove this point:
If that's the case, John, then that's outrageous.And it is.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar