Bulletproof: Hillary Clinton Clear of Email "Scandal"; Benghazi

The way my posts (when I actually get around to writing them) go is, a bit of editorializing on my part, followed by a story in today's news that backs up my point. And if I get another story about this up today, I'll probably do that. But for now, on this subject, I'm just going to say something loudly and clearly that I believe to be true:

FOR HILLARY CLINTON, BENGHAZI AND THE EMAIL "SCANDAL" ARE OVER.

That's it. They're wrung out, they're exhausted. Right Wing World is furious, but when are they not? The thing is, they're not furious about four dead Americans, or the political consequences of what happened in Libya. They're not furious about a former Secretary of State potentially endangering state secrets, or leaving the country open to a attack, or any other potential pitfalls or consequences. They're furious that it didn't stick. They're furious that their Fitzmas didn't come, and that it didn't send Hillary Rodham Clinton to jail, or to obscurity.

Remember, there was no fury over any other prior email scandal, attached to George W. Bush, Karl Rove, Rick Perry or Jeb! Bush. Remember also, that Benghazi was a) originally used as an albatross around President Obama's neck, not Clinton's. It was tried to prevent a second term. It didn't work. Then, someone got the bright idea to attach it to Hillary Clinton instead. They've been trying ever since. Along the way, they picked up the email "scandal," which--let's face it--had to be known to anyone who cared for literally years.

Hillary Clinton sent thousands upon thousands of emails. Each time she did, there was a recipient, whether it was an underling, a family member or the President. And whenever she did, it would say who it was from. It could not have gone unnoticed if she didn't have an official ".gov" or whatever designation the officially correct one was. That's been the great mystery to me. If this was such an obvious, grievous breech of protocol, why didn't anyone she sent mail to ever question it and/or her? Why did it take muck raking to decide this was a terrible, terrible thing?

Anyway, this thing; these things are now dead. Right Wing World will continue to bellow and bleat. We'll continue to hear things about decision making and trustworthiness and the lot of stuff they already throw at her. But nothing is looming anymore. The subjects as headwinds are gone. This was a great week for Hillary Clinton, I don't care what pundit says otherwise.

Hillary vs. Congress: There's Something About Benghazi

A picture paints a thousand words. Hillary Clinton and Trey Gowdy.

On Thursday, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton endured an eleven hour grilling before a Congressional committee. It was the umpteenth inquiry into the Benghazi attack by Republicans, in a quest to discredit and politically ruin the president or Mrs. Clinton (they'd be happy with either). It's long been obvious that the Benghazi investigations have been far more political in nature, than any real effort at fact finding or future safety. Several Republicans have even said so, whether purposefully or not. Regardless, Clinton fared very well, and Republicans left pretty much empty handed.

In Mrs. Clinton's previous appearance before a Congressional panel, she famously uttered the phrase, ". . .what difference, at this point, does it make?" It was in response to the repeated insistence that the administration initially pointed to an anti-Islamic video as a spark for the attack. At the time she said it, I stood up an cheered, because I agreed: what difference does it make? I still don't really know. But it is perhaps the single biggest "outrage" left in the whole deflated Benghazi outrage balloon.

In fact, if there is one thing I'd like answered about Benghazi, it would be precisely that. Why does Right Wing World have such a woody for the video? Seriously, can somebody tell me? I mean, from yesterday's grilling, I gather that they think Hillary Clinton and/or Barack Obama and/or Susan Rice was trying to minimize damage to the 2012 election prospects of Obama's re-election effort, by downplaying the events at Benghazi. So?

Really, so what? I'm not being flip here. Every administration does the very same thing about virtually every single event and situation. Everything is spun to the advantage of whatever candidate is doing the spinning. It's normal.  Every member of Congress grilling Hillary Clinton yesterday has paid staff that does it for them. Beyond that, it is also common for there to be an "official" story for the public that ends up having slightly or even vastly different elements once the facts come out. There are also things withheld from the public for national security reasons. Is there a single "breaking story" that we get the 100% unvarnished truth on, right as it happens? Virtually never. Moreover--though even today, the video may have played a part however small--remarks about the video were in the initial hours and days after the attack. It is no longer five days after the attack, and they are not still pointing to the video! It would seem Right Wing World is stuck in a time warp.

I keep seeing that Clinton "lied over the caskets of the Benghazi dead, and blamed the attack on the video." The phrasing is suspect, but the lie is. . .pointless. Let's say she did, she straight up lied, knew it wasn't the video. What then? Does it change the death, the grieving, the sacrifice, does it change anything? Does it somehow belittle or diminish the lives of the dead? I don't see how. I still don't see the relevance. What difference does it make?

Inside Hillary's thought balloon. . .

If the aim on Thursday was to cement the idea that Hillary Clinton is a "liar," then the committee lied about their aims, and all of the time and money spent was also done by lying. If the aim was to prove that "lie," and use it to prove it had something to do with the deaths of the four diplomats, or that their deaths could have been prevented absent the lie, they failed. And if their aim was to hurt Hillary's 2016 run, they failed at that too. They didn't land a single punch. Video or no video.

Incidentally, I thought the aftermath of all the questioning was very telling. FOX "News" hosted a few of the Republican Congresscritters afterward, each very proud of their lines of questioning, as though they'd been brilliant. The Drudge Report focused on the fact that Clinton had a coughing fit at almost 11 hours in (even though they had to admit that she put a lozenge in her mouth, and soldiered on). And virtually every other source everywhere short of the Right Wing blogosphere hailed Hillary as the victor.

[Excerpt]
 
Even Conservatives Realize Hillary Clinton's Benghazi Committee Hearing Was Ridiculous

Republicans and Democrats have long been divided on the purpose of the House committee investigating the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans. GOP lawmakers, particularly the committee's chair, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), have insisted the panel is focused on investigating potential wrongdoing leading up to the attack, while Democrats have alleged that the GOP-led committee is a political stunt targeting Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton. . .

Read more at: Huffington Post

So, What's with the Ads Against Iranian Nukes?

Scary!

We are not in election season. Despite the ramping up of the 2016 presidential race, there is no looming election. And yet, in the last few days, I've seen several ads from "Secure America Now," about stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. EVER! After seeing it for the seventh or eighth time, I decided to seek out the group.

They define themselves thusly, "Secure America Now is a non-partisan 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization. Contributions are not tax deductible." Bolding is mine. So, who are they? Welllll.....

ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS
Governor Mike Huckabee
Ambassador John Bolton
Pat Caddell

Aha! That's just three of them, the other names aren't on my radar. But these guys would seem decidedly partisan, wouldn't they? Especially when Bolton is quoted right below his name, saying, "The biggest threat to our national security is sitting in the White House," and Caddell is quoted saying, "We have a President who has suppressed the truth."

Huckabee is of course one of the many people running for the GOP nomination for president. What that has to do with Iran and nuclear readiness, I can't be sure. But I thought I'd just point out, this is just another one of those groups with a jingoistic name, claiming to be non-partisan when it isn't. It's the exact thing the IRS should be looking into, regarding tax exempt status.

Also of note, one of their other points of interest is Benghazi!

Here's one of their ads:
 

John Stewart Blasts FOX "News" Hypocrisy on Ferguson vs. Benghazi

They'd really better get someone of the caliber of say, John Fugelsang or Hal Sparks to replace Jon Stewart. Whomever it is, it has got to be someone with teeth, willing to skewer where it is necessary. Here's an example why: holding Right Wing World accountable when they are being blatantly hypocritical.


[Excerpt]

Stewart Uses Fox's Own Clips Against It To Slam 'Benghazi Rage-gasm'

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook,Daily Show Video Archive

Jon Stewart on Thursday made good use of "The Daily Show"'s famous warehouse of archived news footage to turn Fox News against itself. Stewart ran plenty of footage showing Fox hosts declaring that the Department of Justice's recent report on the shooting of Michael Brown debunked the "narrative" of protestors across the country. Some Fox hosts even demanded an apology from the media who "peddled that narrative. . ."

Read more at: Talking Points Memo

In Case You Missed It: Benghazi Conspiracy Theories Are All Bunk

It must smart. Right Wing World has been putting everything they have into Benghazi, and it's just been shown to be a nothing-burger. Actually, it's a whole sack of nothing-burgers.

Now, let's start out by saying that the Benghazi attack was a genuine tragedy, and I have never belittled the four deaths that happened there. But this has never been about those four men. Certainly, most Benghaziites on the right couldn't name more than one of the four, Ambassador Chris Stevens. It has been about hanging a scandal around Democrats, initially President Obama, and more recently, Hillary Clinton. Any other Dems they could bag along the way would be fair game as well. But in point of fact, the right politicized the four deaths to the point of absurdity, even against the wishes of the survivors' families.

Image from source, MSNBC

But they've been at it so long, they can't let it go. I've never understood the fervor they have over whether or not it was a tape (I agree with Hillary, at this point, what difference does it make?), why they are obsessed with what Susan Rice had to say a few days later, or exactly what the conspiracy was. But it turns out, every single thing on their bullet-pointed list has been debunked thoroughly, and by a Republican investigation. Some diehard true believers are still holding on though, holding out hope for pinhead, Trey Gowdy's superfluous investigation to turn up something, anything.

[Excerpt]

House Intel panel demolishes Benghazi conspiracies
 
The substance of a story is what matters, but sometimes, when a story breaks is nearly as important. The Republican-run House Intelligence Committee, for example, waited until late on a Friday afternoon, the week before Thanksgiving, to announce the results of a two-year investigation into the deadly attacks on a U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya. . .

Read more at: MSNBC

Scandal: Can We Finally Put Benghazi to Bed?

Seriously, if this current Trey Gowdy-headed group still doesn't find anything to smear President Obama or Hillary Clinton, can we put it in the vault? After the healthcare reform fight, I didn't think it was possible for me to get more tired of a subject. But the Benghazi thing may be worse.

[Excerpt]

Trey Gowdy’s Benghazi setback: New humiliation for GOP’s scandal hunter
 


Congressman Trey Gowdy

In case you were at all concerned that the relative lack of Benghazi news of late meant that the issue was finally receding after nearly two years of intensive and fruitless investigation, fear not: in just a few short weeks, Benghazi-mania will live and breathe again. Rep. Trey Gowdy, chair of the House select committee tasked with beating whatever Benghazi bushes and dead horses remain, announced on July 30 that his committee’s first hearings will take place in September. If past is prologue, then Gowdy’s people will likely take advantage of the slow August news cycles and leak a few stripped-of-context tidbits to some bored and easily misled reporters. With the midterms bearing down, you’ll have all the necessary ingredients for yet more obsessive Benghazi “scandal” coverage. . .

Read more at: Salon

House Conservatives Not Gung-Ho on Impeachment

Sorry, Sarah. Not right now. Put your hand away,
you look like an idiot. Er...more of an idiot.

High crimes and misdemeanors. That phrase is important, because it was largely ignored back in the late 90s when Congress impeached President Bill Clinton. His "high crime" was to lie about having sex with a woman who was not his wife. In a question that was immaterial to the case. In a case that was later dismissed. It was and remains ridiculous.

Now, I'll acknowledge that lo about seven, eight years ago, I really would like to have seen George W. Bush impeached. At the time, there was a very lengthy list of offenses, the majority of which couldn't even be called a stretch. And even if you don't think so, they certainly hit a higher water mark than did the Lewinsky affair. But, as Nancy Pelosi said, impeachment was off the table.

And now, the hard right--having hated President Obama from his first election day or before, and thwarted in his second--has a similar bottled-up rage. From my vantage point, it's misdirected, viewed through a ideologically distorted prism. Though I don't agree with the President on everything (not big on drones, wish the war was over), the "scandals" he's been through have mostly been nothingburgers, or--funny enough--extensions of Bush Era policies.

But, the red meat base wants impeachment. But you can tell there may be a lot of hot air behind it when they can't seem to agree on a charge. Sarah Palin wants the impeachment to be based on the border crisis, which makes no sense (surprise!). I've seen others that want it to be the IRS "scandal," something that has never implicated Obama, and has fizzled out. I'm sure Darrell Issa would point to Benghazi!!! But what's the crime? If Benghazi a crime, what was 9/11? I mean, come on.

Fortunately, it sounds like Congress isn't really in the mood anyway. Who knows what will happen if the GOP takes the Senate in November (something that wouldn't be possible in a sane world). But for now, sounds like impeachment is off the table.

[Excerpt]

Sorry, Sarah Palin: House Conservatives Oppose Impeachment Of Obama
 
Sarah Palin, your wish is not granted. A panel of the House's staunchest conservatives on Tuesday rebuffed the former Alaska governor when asked about her call last week for impeaching President Barack Obama. Some said impeachment was impractical, some said it would hurt the GOP politically and others cautioned that Obama hasn't committed high crimes and misdemeanors. . .

Read more at: Talking Points Memo

Auto Con Bot 3000 (A Rocky Mountain Mike Ad Parody)

What can you do when that right-wing, FOX "News"-watching, Sarah Palin-worshipping, Rush Limbaugh-listening co-worker or relative isn't around? Why, get the AutoConBot 3000, of course! Thanks, Rocky Mountain Mike!

Find more of Rocky Mountain Mike's fantastic parodies here.
 

In Case You Missed It: Yes, Benghazi Was Because of the Video

Partly, at least, the attack on Benghazi was--according to one of the main guys behind the attack--about the video, Innocence of Muslims. It was also at the root of unrest in many other areas of the Muslim world, so why it is surprising that it might have something to do with Benghazi, I literally have no idea.

Maybe a conservative reading this, maybe one I'm friends with (hello, Dan!) might be able to explain to me why there is an obsessive focus in Right Wing World over whether or not the video had anything to do with it? Maybe, while you're at it, you can explain the laser-like focus on the Sunday show appearances of Ambassador Susan Rice--who is now vindicated, by the way, send your cards of apology--five days after the attack? I've never understood the key points of contention on the right. Like, at all. When Hillary Clinton said, "What difference, at this point, does it make?" that is what she was referring to, and I was in total agreement with her frustration.



Conservatives, please send your cards of apology.
A fruit basket, or edible bouquet might be nice as well.

It's time to put the Benghazi attack in the perspective it deserves: an attack on Americans, and get past this nonsense, especially now that the right has lost one of their key talking points (even if I don't understand why it was a talking point).

[Excerpt]

Benghazi Suspect Said He Was Moved To Take Revenge For American-Made Video

Benghazi attack suspect Ahmed Abu Khattala, who was captured by U.S. forces on Sunday, told people the move against the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya was intended as revenge for an American-made online video that was seen as an attack to Islam, according to the New York Times. . .

Read more at: Huffington Post

Right Wing World: Obama Gets Bad Guy In Benghazi Attack. . .To Distract From Benghazi

Okay, so we got the bad guy in the Benghazi attack, right? And Right Wing World has been obsessed with Benghazi ever since it happened. First, they hoped to hang it around President Obama's neck, to sink his reelection chances. That didn't work. But they kept going, in disbelief that it didn't work. After a while (and after shelving Benghazi several times to divert to other scandals), the right shifted gears, and decided Benghazi was the ticket to stopping Hillary Clinton.

Anyway, we got the bad guy behind the attack. And, Right Wing World was jubilant, and sang Obama's praises! Or rather, they went into overdrive to figure out how it was a bad thing, and Obama BAD! Turns out, they're only interested in Benghazi if in sinks Obama and/or Hillary. In other words, they're not actually interested in the event itself, but rather what it can do for them politically. Which is kind of sick, when you remember that four Americans died in the attack.

[Excerpt]

Obama Captures Suspect In Benghazi Attack To Distract From Benghazi

You might think that today’s news that a suspect in the Benghazi terrorist attack was captured in Libya would be greeted with satisfaction and relief. You would be right with respect to the reaction of the American people, but over at Fox News it’s a different story. As usual, nothing that Obama does can be characterized positively at Fox News. They work studiously to maintain their warped view that Obama is a foreign-born, anti-American, terrorist-sympathizing, incompetent, evil genius. And so it is with the apprehension of Ansar al-Sharia commander Ahmed Abu Khattala. . .

Read more at: NewsCorpse

Benghazi Making Me Dizzy (Another Rocky Mountain Mike Song Parody)

Well done again, Mike! Right Wing World is obsessed with Benghazi, so the only way to not get grouchy about it is to make fun of it. And Dizzy by Tommy Roe is one of my favorite all-time songs. So this is the best we can make of this ridiculous mess. Enjoy!

Right Wing World: Beirut Barracks vs. Benghazi

Everyone is aware that four Americans died in Benghazi, and nobody thinks their deaths are irrelevant. I say this to state the obvious, but also to avoid the claim that I'm disregarding their deaths. I'm not. But very few if any of the people raging about #Benghazi! are really trying to avenge those deaths. They're trying to claim political scalps. Denials of this fact are as transparent as the FOX "News" slogan, Fair & Balanced.

Proof comes from the lack of outrage at other presidential administrations who suffered similar--often worse--attacks at US installations overseas. As has been often stated, over sixty Americans died in such attacks during the previous administration. They made the news, but did not inspire outrage from Right Wing World, at least not toward the administrations in power at the time. What is different this time? And why the obsessive focus on Ambassador Susan Rice? Yes, her statements on the Sunday morning talk shows turned out to be partially incorrect (though she framed the information as tentative anyway). What that day has to do with today, I have no idea. Why her appearance is so much more interesting than, say, Dick Cheney going on the same shows, and citing a story he himself had sourced, saying that 9/11 was tied to Saddam Hussein. A flat-out lie, one with far worse ramifications, leading to an event far, far more deadly than Benghazi.

Image from source, The Daily Beast

So, excuse me if I call bullshit on Republican Benghazi outrage. I don't believe you. You wanted to stop President Obama's reelection with this, and you failed. Then--when you couldn't believe it failed--you kept banging the drum, hoping against hope that something, anything would stick. Not much did. So now, you're frothing at the mouth to either a) try to impeach Obama or b) thwart the election of Hillary Clinton. This has very little to do with the death of four Americans.

The excerpted article below is one of the best I've read on the subject of Benghazi. It points out that the sort of tragedy that happened in Benghazi used to be cause for rallying 'round the flag, and supporting the president, not attacking him. For drawing the country together, not using it as a political bludgeon. Think back, if you will, to the national reaction to 9/11, and then imagine if the exact same scenario happened under Obama. And then imagine how Republicans would respond. Not pretty, is it?

[Excerpt]

Beirut Barracks vs. Benghazi

One of the most maddening things about this Benghazi nonsense is the way Republicans have gotten a lot of Americans to go along with the idea that 10 investigations of something is normal; that as long as there’s one unanswered question, one area where the administration’s position is ambiguous or where its cooperation has been anything other than the immediate handing over of any conceivably related document, we still need to get to the bottom of matters. . .

Read more: Daily Beast

Lindsey Graham's Dick Cheney-Style Sourcing on Benghazi

Southern belle Lindsey Graham has been a Benghazi! shouting machine for a year and a half, determined to make it the next "fetch." So much so, that he's resorted to circular, Dick Cheney-style sourcing when he's gone on the--wait for it--very same Sunday shows the right wing is so obsessed with, regarding Susan Rice. You know how it works. You give a reporter info, she makes it a story, then you relentlessly tout the story as proof of your info! Like magic!
 

Daily Show: Bullet Points Over Benghazi

Made of awesome, and spot on.

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

Fishin' Benghazi (A Rocky Mountain Mike Song Parody)

When I saw that "Benghazi" was trending on Twitter several times this weekend, at first I gave it a hard eye-roll. Then, I wondered if maybe this time there was some sort of real reason for the flurry of interest. Then, it turns out, the whole flurry of Right Wing World excitement was again focused on the Sunday morning chat show appearances of former Ambassador Susan Rice.

I still have zero understanding (along with Hillary Clinton) what difference, at this point, does it make? It is not still five days after the Benghazi attack. What Rice had to say--no matter what she had to say--is not still being said. If she straight-up lied that Sunday morning, who gives a flip? I mean really. Meet the FOX Nation This Week shows are about spin, and always have been. How many times have Lindsey Graham, Darrell Issa or John McCain gone on those shows and either been misleading or outright dishonest? Somebody please explain this obsessive focus on that one particular Sunday? Thank you. Now, let's point and laugh.

 

The Funniest, Dirtiest, Rudest Benghazi Write-up You'll Ever Read

The incomparable Lee Papa, The Rude Pundit

There are some perennial Right Wing World outrages, during the Obama Era. The undercurrent is always the same: we hate this guy, and oppose anything he's for, even if we'd otherwise agree with it. But they keep coming back to several topics, and they pop up like Whack-A-Mole, in between whatever big stories are in the news cycle. ObamaCare™ has been one of the biggest ones, but when it wanes (and no plane has recently gone missing), up crops the IRS "scandal," NSA privacy issues (this one bugs both sides, me included), Michelle and the girls travelling (horrors), and of course, Benghazi!!!

Benghazi was the thing that was going to stop Barack Obama's second term. Then it was going to be his undoing, after the election. Now, they're hoping they can hang it around presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton's neck. But the truth is, as terrible as the attack on Benghazi was, most people don't consider it to be a scandal, and most of the rest don't care. Benghazi excites the base (they're an excitable bunch), but it doesn't rile anyone else. Now, it seems even some prominent conservatives are getting the message that Benghazi is pretty much over as an issue. But that doesn't mean they're happy about it.

[Excerpt]

Boehner's Benghazi Blues

Man, the GOP wanted Benghazi to be more than just another c**ktease. To be sure, Benghazi was good at it, rubbing its scandal-tightened ass up against the GOP's groin until the GOP was aching with a desire to furiously f**k Benghazi. Goddamn, what a little slut Benghazi was, all whored out in a little skirt and see-through top with a red lacy bra under it. Just those lips, those tarted-up, red-lipsticked, d**k-sucking lips, invited the GOP to get it up and get ready to. . .

Read the rudeness at: The Rude Pundit

Lindsey Graham: Putin in Ukraine, Because Benghazi!

I'm convinced that Senator Lindsey Graham is being held hostage, maybe by the GOP, maybe by and even more despicable group of people! No, listen, hear my logic. Graham keeps throwing out the word "Benghazi" in increasingly baffling contexts, most recently saying it has something to do with what's happening with Russia and the Ukraine. I think it's code. He's sending us signals, so that the good guys know he needs rescuing! Okay, maybe that's far-fetched. But it makes more sense than what he's telling us.

[Excerpt]

Lindsey Graham Takes This ‘Benghazi’ Thing Just A Bit Too Far For Voice Of Reason Michelle Malkin

Looks like the “Barack Obama’s weakness let Ukraine happen” trope has reached its apotheosis with this tweet from Sen. Lindsey Graham, with its inescapable logic: Barack Obama let Benghazi happen, therefore Ukraine. It’s just like that time when Reagan knew that somebody had to pay for the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, so he invaded Grenada to show Hezbollah who’s boss. If Obama had just kicked somebody’s ass — anybody’s — we would surely not have seen Russia trying to reclaim parts of the old Soviet territories. Remember how George W. Bush’s swift vengeance for 9/11 completely dissuaded Vladimir Putin from invading Georgia in 2008? . . .

Read more at: Wonkette

GOP Report: Military Couldn't Have Changed Benghazi Outcome

Image from source, ThinkProgress

Huh. Okay, can we finally table the whole Benghazi scandal/conspiracy theory thing? Ya think?

[Excerpt]

GOP Report Acknowledges That The U.S. Military Couldn’t Have Changed Benghazi Outcome

In a new report released on Tuesday, the House Armed Services Committee concludes that there was no way for the U.S. military to have responded in time to the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya to save the four Americans killed that night. In doing so, the report debunks entirely a right-wing myth that says the White House ordered the military not to intervene. . .

Read more at: Think Progress

In Case You Missed It: Bill O'Reilly's Interview with President Obama

All things considered, I don't think this was too bad. I think Bill O'Reilly interrupts far too often, per usual. And his laundry list of FOX "News" outrages and conspiracy theory points was a tad obvious. But I think President Obama acquitted himself well, and handled it without losing his cool. There will be some liberals (like me) who wonder why he'd even submit to a non-journalist like O'Reilly, and there will be many conservatives who will hate Obama regardless of his answers. But there will also probably be some people who will see through some of the FOX "News" crap. At least I hope so.
 

Rachel Maddow's Bizarre Interview with Rep. Tim Huelskamp, Post-SOTU

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kansas) was interviewed by Rachel Maddow after the State of the Union address on Tuesday night. At issue was a tweet by the Congressman criticizing President Obama's recognition of a wounded serviceman. Huelskamp puts the tweet in context as a tit-for-tat with the White House. . .and then wanders all over the place, from talking point to talking point. While being insulting to Maddow, confusing in general, and just. . .well, watch for yourself.