A friend wrote to me quite appropriately outraged about the fact that Nancy Pelosi is saying that, if there was a security failure in Benghazi, blame belongs to the Republicans:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on CNN Tuesday attempted to shift the blame for the disastrous handling of the deadly terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya from the Obama administration onto Republican lawmakers, arguing they withheld $300 million in funding that could have provided much-needed security at the consulate.
Appearing on Wolf Blitzer’s CNN show, Pelosi also said calls coming from the GOP to investigate the terrorist attack in Benghazi are likely politically motivated.
“So, are you saying this is political from their perspective,” Blitzer asked the congresswoman.
“One might suspect that,” she replied.
Read the rest here.
So, if I understand Pelosi’s reasoning, the State Department, which is responsible for embassy security and which is entirely under Democrat control, said no to multiple requests for increased security in Benghazi because Republicans wouldn’t hand over $300 million? Yeah, right. This from an administration that, without even blinking, spent several trillion dollars we don’t even have on green boondoggles, socialized car manufacturing, and other exciting Democrat initiatives?
Even someone without a sense of smell can recognize that this doesn’t pass the smell test. As my friend says, the reason there was no security in Benghazi is that the administration wanted “no boots on the ground.” They didn’t want it to appear that U.S. forces were “invading” another country. A shallow administration had a shallow reason for putting American lives at risk.
On the one hand, what Pelosi says is absolutely maddening. After all, given her access to the legacy media, she has a bully pulpit to spin these fantastical tales to the American people. On the other hand, though, that bully pulpit leads to hubris, which leads to stupidity — and, eventually, stupidity is hard to hide.
What I’m about to say appears like a digression, but it’s not: Another friend told me that he heard two gals in a suburban coffee shop, both obviously stereotypical liberal soccer mom types. Except that one said to the other something along the lines of “I don’t know. It seems like the news never reports anything critical about Obama. All they say is good stuff about him and bad stuff about Romney.”
I mention this because even the most biased and disinterested Americans might be figuring out that people like Nancy Pelosi are full to the brim with hubris and fecal matter. (Setting a good example for my kids, I don’t swear.)
Of course, that coffee shop gal might have been like me — a stealth agent politely trying to open liberals’ eyes to the fact that they live in a bubble, and an increasingly dangerous one at that. Part of my stealth tactic comes about because I’m not a big fan of direct confrontation. Part of it, though, comes about because I believe that, when a person’s ideology is being challenged, it’s much more effective to infiltrate from behind than to engage in a full frontal attack. Using the dumb blonde strategy is an effective way to get people to think without making them feel threatened.
Anyway, I’m almost pleased when Nancy Pelosi says such insanely, intuitively stupid things because it gives me great openings to suggest to my blindly liberal friends that their leaders have mouse-sized brains and rat-sized personalities.