The Five’s Bob Beckel Blasts Bolling on Benghazi: ‘Who Cares?! We’ve Overkilled This!’ (Video)

beckel-benghaziEver since “groundbreaking information that will surely change the landscape for all humankind, proving that President Obama is Adolf Hitler reincarnated and hates kittens” about Benghazi was revealed in emails showing that an official linked to the White House might have instructed Susan Rice on what talking points to use immediately following the attack, Fox News has been like a kid in a candy store.

What this all really breaks down to is talking points – that’s it.

Not that there was some cover up about what actually happened, but simply about what talking points were used immediately following the attack when the Obama Administration wasn’t sure exactly what had happened.  It’s ridiculous.

But I guess since every other right-wing conspiracy about Benghazi has been debunked and “Obamacare” hasn’t brought the country to ruin, this is really all conservatives have left.  Even though nobody besides them really cares about it.

Well, on Fox News’ The Five, Bob Beckel had apparently had enough, blowing up on fellow host Eric Bolling.

During the back and forth, Beckel said, “We know Islamic radicals killed these people, what difference does it make anymore?!” He then tried to talk about current events that actually matter that Fox News is ignoring, saying, “There are 225 women missing in Nigeria, little girls. There are endless numbers of friendly fire instances we haven’t looked at..”

It was then that, as usual, Eric Bolling arrogantly tried to cut Beckel off, prompting Beckel to shout, “Let me finish!”

That’s when Bolling tried to spin this into some massive cover up.

“Who cares? Who cares?” Beckel continued. “Average Americans today, they are not sitting there today and saying, ‘Gee, I wonder what happened with Benghazi.’  We’ve overkilled this!  The Republicans are using this purely and simply for political reasons.”

And he’s absolutely right.  Conservatives in the media have linked Benghazi to pretty much every single issue we’ve faced as a nation since the attack.  While conservatives have done their best to try to turn Benghazi into some type of Watergate level cover up, they’ve comically done everything they can to keep Benghazi relevant and in the news.

But almost 2 years later, after almost every other ridiculous conspiracy they’ve tried to attach to it has failed miserably, they’ve been reduced to trying to make some giant issue out of which talking points were used (and why) immediately following the attack.

Conservatives: Where they want to impeach a president over four deaths in Benghazi – yet defend a president who sent over 4,000 Americans to die in Iraq based on a lie.

Here’s the clip:

h/t Mediaite

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Cin5456

    Becklell is right. Who the heck cares about talking points? Are these pundits thinking that if President Obama had gone on-air immediately after the attacks and condemned them as terrorist attacks that required 5,000 troops to be sent to Libya, would it have made any difference to his reelection campaign? Yes. Democrats would not have been happy about getting into another boots-on-the-ground war. Would more frankness have ended his chance at getting reelected? No. He has had strong support from Democrats and independents. And – send troops to Benghazi? He would not do it, so speculation is futile.

    There are very real international crises happening right now, and what happened two years ago after Congress cut security funds for the State Department is not an issue we really care about beyond shaming Republicans for their part in making Benghazi possible with their draconian budget cuts. Get over it already.

  • Veritas vos Liberabit

    My conspiracy theory consists of several questions: How did the Mitt Romney campaign obtained information about this attack almost immediately after it occurred and wasted no time to politicize it? Did they had any knowledge of it and ignored it? Or did they waited until it happened so they can exploit it for their own political gain? What sources of information did they employ? There are many questions regarding who knew what at the time that could’ve prevented this attack. Regardless, this attack, as despicable as it was, didn’t help the Gop’s goal of making President Obama a one term President.

    • Adam Smith

      My big question is, who was really behind the video? The timing was simply too convenient.

      • ta2t2o

        A right wing nut job was behind it. That we already know. The timing was convenient enough to cause riots among Muslims – as – based on the threatened Koran burning uproar – they knew would happen.

      • Adam Smith

        Yes, but was the nut job acting alone? Who funded the video? Was it a conservative conspiracy?

        I’m surprised the Left hasn’t taken a page from the Right’s playbook and pushed the issue. After all you don’t need proof. You simply need to create suspicion.

      • Cletus

        The Coptic Christian “filmmaker” was a right-wing nut job? He inflamed the Muslim world with his amateurish video, and led otherwise peaceful Muslims to attack an embassy annex? You are either naive, stupid, or both.
        This was a planned terror attack just like the assassination attempt on the British ambassador that happened BEFORE the video was released, and why the American ambassador was begging for heightened security. Hillary was attempting to reduce the visibility of Americans with guns, which is why she denied the request several times before the attack occurred. The video was nothing but a red herring to attempt to show the attack was totally out-of-the-blue, and she wasn’t accountable for denying the security that resulted in the four deaths of the Americans. She WAS responsible for the monumental f-up, and should have been fired at the very least. The video excuse was dreamed up AT THE WHITE HOUSE AFTER THE FACT. EVERYONE told them immediately that the video played absolutely no role whatsoever. .

      • ta2t2o

        I don’t think I said anything about Benghazi – you did. I said the video was planned to be released when it was because he knew it would stir up trouble….and it did in over 20 cities. It was the reason that the Embassy in Cairo was stormed.

        Also Hillary never denied any request for more security. However, ask Ted Cruz as he’s already admitted to cutting funding – which Hillary DID say would put the emabassies at risk.

      • Cletus

        So if Benghazi is not the central point here, then the result of the video tape means nothing more than some pissed off Muslims rioting in twenty cities where no Americans died, so in the words of H. Clinton, “..,what difference does it make…?” The State Department minion who testified said that money for security was not an issue, so that funding for the State Department was not why the requested security was not provided, although the ambassador made repeated requests which were denied by “someone” in the State Department. Logically,, that denial of an ambassador’s request would have come from “the highest levels–either Hillary or her deputy. Not only was additional security for the ambassador denied, but forces already in place were ordered out. I worked in a security capacity during the ’90’s at the second largest embassy in the world (after the embassy in the U.K., so I know how such things work. So the central and unanswered questions are who was responsible, and why the request for additional security was denied, and who and why was the video pushed, as the reason the four Americans denied, even long after it was debunked? Hopefully Gowdy will get the answers to the two questions Progressives seem to fear the answer to, so much. Then there is the question of why it was decided not to try to send help. There were ships in the area with embarked Marines with helicopters to deliver them to the scene of the fighting, but they were ordered not to respond. .

      • ta2t2o

        You really had to go a pretty roundabout way to try to make a point. I’ve been managing over half a dozen security subcontracts in Afghanistan, as well as contracts in Beirut, Haiti, and South Sudan over the past five years and work with some of the biggest security companies in the game. So I know a little bit about this myself.

        For someone who knows security, you might want to go read the timeline of events again. You would realize that the QRF from the Annex w/6 Americans an 16 Libyans had retaken the consulate by 11:30. You also would realize you don’t send any squad in anywhere blind. Stevens and Smith were both dead of smoke inhalation within one hour after the attack started. When Doherty arrived with the extraction team from Tripoli (he wasn’t even in Benghazi when the consulate got attacked) the events at the consulate were all but over….the second attack….at the Annex (which nobody seems to be concerned about – why is that?) is where Doherty and Woods took an RPG shot and were killed. Regardless, over 30 Americans were rescued and evacuated to Tripoli by 7AM.

      • Cletus

        Yeah, so? What does it matter WHEN the consulate was retaken after the attackers had all packed up and left? Re “sending any squad” in blind, what’s your definition of “blind”, and why only a squad? Who knew Stevens and Smith were already dead an hour into the attack, other than maybe the two former SEALs? Is that what obviated the need for a rescue attempt, and were the two former SEALs considered expendable? Who knew how long the attack on the annex was supposed to last, but nixed any rescue attempt at all? Since you seem knowledgeable and qualified, why were so many of the witnesses on the ground ordered to keep quiet and sign non-disclosure agreements?. Hopefully Trey Gowdy will be able to finally get some answers which the Administration is so determined to cover up. Lastly, why all the official lies about the role of the idiot video? It seems odd to me that someone with your presumed qualifications takes the CYA route as to questioning why little or no information has been forthcoming. Most current and former military and LE people I know are asking the same questions I am.

      • Cletus

        So as a security contractor, you DO still believe the video triggered the Benghazi attack. Okay, done here. Thanks for your input.

      • Cletus

        Who cares “who was behind the video”? As far as we know, nobody was “behind it” except the Coptic Egyptian who produced it. The video only became a factor when Obama and Hillary started pushing the lie that the video set off “spontaneous riots” that spun out of control, and resulted in the American deaths. The fact that the ambassador asked repeatedly for security, and was denied by Hillary, and terrorists killed four Americans as a result, is what needed to be covered up by the lies.

  • richard

    B-b-b-b-b-b-b-BUT!…….Benghazi!………

  • April Morgan

    Huh…not seeing any RWNJs on here today…they’re busy elsewhere screaming about Benghazi!

  • Pipercat

    Google “The (F)ive.” All of this will become quite clear! Make sure you choose the actual search after the suggested one!

  • FD Brian

    You want to talk about cover ups, maybe the republicans would like to revisit Pat Tillman. Now that’s was a cover up.

    • Cletus

      In what way? Wasn’t he killed by “friendly fire”, or was there murder involved? Do you mean the friendly fire portion was covered up?

      • FD Brian

        you mean the lies they told and perpetuated as a recruiting tool for the military and how long they kept the lies going. Look how long it took the family to even get an honest answer from the white house and military. The right is just pissed that that they conspired to direct the conversation they way they wanted it to go.

      • Cletus

        I do remember the military tried to make Tillman’s death look like he lost his life during a heroic firefight, but was actually accidentally killed by his own side. The military has a long history of telling families what they think will make them feel better (the soldier who fell out of a truck moving toward the lines and got ran over by a tank, was killed “while advancing on the enemy”. I don’t see how Bush or the military expected to benefit from lying about Tillman’s death, whereas Obama was hoping to avoid the “appearance of policy failures” after declaring terrorism “decimated”, in order to help his campaign for reelection..

      • FD Brian

        “football player gives up dream to protect America is killed in heroic fire fight” that shit sells.

      • Cletus

        I agree. As I said, the military sometimes makes up heroic tales about guys who break their necks falling out of the back of a deuce and a half, so no surprise. Lying about someone as famous as Tillman was a stupid plan, since someone who was there will always tell the real story, and the media will cover it. In most cases, the families feel better thinking their son who actually fell out to the truck was “going forward against the enemy”, which might have a smidgeon of truth. Most Progs value “feeling good” over the truth, so I presume you are not a dedicated Prog. .

  • Gurina Kaye Psait

    Just like Faux News they never let the opposition finish their statements. What a bunch of kindergarteners.

    • Cletus

      What program on “Faux News” doesn’t allow the opposition to finish their statement, unless the guest just starts spouting Dem talking points everyone already know? I grant that O’Reilly is an obnoxious lout who cuts off people of both persuasions in order to return the spotlight to himself, but I only watch Greta, Special Report, The Five, and Megan Kelly, so don’t know about Hannity, Huckleberry, and some others into “Opinion News”. I also grant that The Five tends more to opinions than actual news coverage, but they have Beckel for us to laugh at. My experience is the MSM only presents what they like without regard to facts, such as that they never even mentioned Fast & Furious until forced to explain why Holder was held in contempt, MSM lies are as much by omission than anything else. The huge success of Fox News is because the MSM provides blatant cover and false “facts”, so the value of what they broadcast is nil, or worse. Fox straight news programming really IS “Fair and Balanced” since they don’t shrink from the truth and facts regardless of where it takes them. They actually have a lot of “Progressive” regulars like Juan Williams and others, who provide pretty intelligent commentary, though they are almost always wrong in their perceptions, having swallowed the Progressive Kool-Aid.

      • Gurina Kaye Psait

        I guess you see it as fair and balanced I see Faux News as a joke and one sided. All of their so called anchors are just nauseating. Who writes this crap? I worked in media all my adult life and never have I seen so much un reliable spew. Faux News is an insult to every American.

      • Cletus

        Hmmm–“just nauseating”, “Who writes this crap?” “unreliable spew”. You have years of experience working in the media, yet respond with nothing more than insults and your not-so-highly-regarded opinion. What position in the media did you hold? Secretary? Type-setter? Mail clerk? You write like a 13-year old, and use the same highly-questionable “logic”. Alrighty then! Enjoy your day hobnobbing with your journalist friends on MSNBC and NPR. .

      • Gurina Kaye Psait

        In the news department if you really want to know. I write like that so you and the others can understand in your own language. Stupidity!!

      • Cletus

        Well, I appreciate your efforts to communicate, but can’t say I am much impressed. I’ll match my IQ against yours and any other Prog any day, sweetheart..

  • adcbeast

    Was Bush in the Situation Room on 9-11 ? ….

    • Cletus

      How is that relevant in finding out what happened in Benghazi? If Bush hadn’t been interested in the unfolding of 9-11, would that have been something we’d have been proud of? Did he take off on a campaign tour? You need to move on up to at least 2013.

  • Jim Bean

    You’d think the Dems would eventually get annoyed enough at these conspiracy theories that they’d just turn over the (un-redacted) information requested so we could all move on.

  • Matthew Reece

    The problem is that Republicans are playing small ball. Who cares about a video and some talking points? The real scandal is:
    1. Why were al-Qaida and Hezbollah terrorists given aid and comfort? Gaddafi was a bad guy, but deposing him was no excuse for arming terrorists.
    2. Why was there a CIA complex in Benghazi in the first place? (Oh wait, I know. It was there to facilitate the sending of arms to Syrian rebels, which again involves arming the very terrorists the US is supposedly fighting.)
    3. Why were all of Ambassador Stevens’ requests for more security ignored and/or denied?
    4. Why were no forces sent to defend Ambassador Stevens when the complex in Benghazi was under attack? The answer is disturbing regardless of whether it was incompetence or malice on Obama’s part.

    • ta2t2o

      Actually a team of 6 US security personnel and 16 Libyans were sent I’ve from the Annex and had regained control of the consulate about two hours after the attack started. Also, an extraction team that included Doherty (who was later killed) flew in from Tripoli and landed at 1:15 AM an evacuated over 30 Americans from the Annex to Tripoli.

      So what were you saying about forces not being sent? Stevens and Smith were both dead within an hour after the initial attack started. How do you suggest other military would have got there by then? Magic? Teleporter? You know what happens when you send more men in without any intelligence….more casualties. That was proven by Doherty’s death.

      • Matthew Reece

        More substantial forces were available in Italy and could have been flown in sooner. They could have been there in about an hour’s time. I suggest that other forces could have been there sooner if they had been on alert and in position, as would be proper with it being September 11 and therefore a time to expect terrorist attacks on the anniversary of the big ones in 2001.

      • ta2t2o

        Actually a team from Tripoli arrived by 1:15 AM, but you’re not hearing that from Right Wing media. In fact one of the members of that extraction Team (Doherty) was killed in the 2nd attack along with Woods at the Annex…..where they still managed to successfully evacuate 30 other Americans.

        But you do raise a question, shouldn’t Ambassador Stevens have known that it wasn’t the best of ideas to travel to a typically less secure Consulate location on the anniversary of 9-11? Surely he understood the risk involved. As for why the security teams weren’t on higher alert, you would need to question the in-country RSO on that, as that’s who would make that call. I’ve had 7 trips to Afghanistan and 2 to Beirut as well as a couple months in Darfur. The in-country RSO would establish the SOW for the security posture at protected locations…I know this because I’ve actuall written over half a dozen security subcontracts for programs in Afhanistan…

      • ta2t2o

        Additionally, the RSO would have set the security posture for the embassy based on local intelligence. Anyone who had been on “lock down” or “travel restriction” in Kabul would know that and have been through it before.

      • Cletus

        I think the ambassador can override the RSO’s decisions, and the Secretary of State certainly can. So did the RSO forbid the ambassador to travel to Benghazi, and he failed to comply? When was the lock-down instituted, and why was the ambassador outside running loose? The more you “explain”, the less believable you become. Starting to think you are a plant by the Prog establishment to validate the lies we’re all being fed.

      • Cletus

        Well, the “right-wing media” is asking the questions of anyone who seems to know anything, but far as I can tell, they aren’t getting many straight answers from the left-wingers and Progressive politicians. Most of the eye-witnesses have been forbidden to testify or be interviewed. Your comment about the “right-wing media” sort of crushes your credibility. Do you still profess to believe in the video proven-lie that that was what sparked the attack? If so, I have no further use for your opinion on the matter-at-hand.since you obviously live in Fantasy Land.

      • Cletus

        Yeah, but the SEALs killed 60 of the attacking SOBs, and made possible the saving of 30 employees. Were they the only armed guys in Libya? Why are the reports saying 7 hours before the terrorists withdrew and you say 2? Do you have access to info the congress doesn’t have, and why are you giving it up? All I got are news reports. Why are so many of those in-country at the time saying they were ordered to “stand-down” while the attack was reportedly still in progress with no idea of the terrorists’ time-schedule? Was the drone circling overhead, until it went bingo fuel, unable to provide some info/intel? Why was another drone not launched or diverted? Have you contacted Gowdy that you know what happened and are willing to testify?

    • Cletus

      Those questions are just too embarrassing. Besides, it was Bush’s fault for not nuking al-Qaida when he had the chance. Oh, wait–that might have been judgemental. Muslims are our friends.

  • regressive teaparty trash

    vote republican……………….
    I want a BENGHAZI Tshirt