But that's a serious allegation!

Apparently nothing  can ever come to light that will keep a lot of MSM commentators from expressing uncomprehending shock at the notion that Hillary Clinton lied about Benghazi.  In this interview, Charlie Rose asks in confused irritation what possible motive she could have had.  Rubio gamely replies that it was a campaign tactic in the final weeks of the 2012 presidential election.  "But that's a very serious allegation!" Rose stutters, for all the world as if no one had ever brought it to the attention of his colleagues until that moment, or as if they'd have been digging into the matter before now if only they'd known.  Rose then tries to argue that Clinton must have been in the dark, because the CIA kept changing its analysis--as if the changes in the talking points in the days following the attack had had anything to do with the untrammeled professional judgment of CIA analysts.  You have to wonder how much of this stuff Rose really believes, because it's hard to imagine that at this point he couldn't have made himself aware of the message-machine process during that eventful week, if he were willing to open his eyes.  Disagreeing with Rubio's interpretation of the facts I could almost accept, but claiming to be innocent of the controversy is a stretch.  Rose acts as if Rubio had suddenly decided to blame the situation on an attack from Mars.

What I rather like about the repeated display, however, is that it gives Rubio yet more opportunities to lay out the evidence to viewers who, like Rose, perhaps are hearing the facts for the first time.  A few may become curious.

6 comments:

E Hines said...

You have to wonder how much of this stuff Rose really believes, because it's hard to imagine that at this point he couldn't have made himself aware....

This is an example of why I consider guys like this dishonest rather than mistaken. Of course Rose knew all this stuff all along; he didn't get to be where he is being stupid or ignorant. His staff does a much better job on his homework than he lets on with his false pretense of surprise.

Eric Hines

Texan99 said...

"he didn't get to be where he is being stupid or ignorant"--let's not rush to judgment.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

That one is tough to sort out. Willful nescience can cause all manner of stupidity, even in smart people. If his staff only looks in some closets but not others he could be under-informed, or doing one of those automatic-rejection things that says "Oh Hillary couldn't have done THAT. This must be another one of those politically-motivated attacks."

OTOH, the disingenuousness of "I'm going to play up big my amazement so that no one thinks this is important" is not in the least impossible. Neoneocon has a running discussion "knave or fool?" about many public figures. I find that even when I come down strongly on one side, it's fun to read the other. BTW, Obama is consensus "both."

Texan99 said...

Sometimes it's about as credible as my going beyond saying I'm skeptical of many global warming arguments, and moving on to, "Wait, you saying . . . what? . . . that the Earth is in some sense warming? What could possibly be the explanation for such a suspicion? If that were so, wouldn't I have heard something about it before now?"

We just had an example of one of these gobsmacked commentators a few weeks ago, who kept interrupting Carly Fiorina to say, "What could you possibly have been referring to in the debate when you implied that Hillary Clinton had been somehow dishonest?" No matter how many times the conservative position on this topic is explained in national news broadcasts, there are going to be TV pundits who simply can't grasp the concept and are encountering it for the first time in their lives.

E Hines said...

Willful nescience can cause all manner of stupidity....

The willful part is what makes this "stupidity" not stupidity at all, but conscious dishonesty. Or the outpatient's nurse needs to explain her lapse in supervision.

...there are going to be TV pundits who simply can't grasp the concept....

No, Ma'am. Not can't; rather, refuse to.

Eric Hines

Ymar Sakar said...

This is also seen when executioners kill people, and then when you ask them why they did that, they say it wasn't their decision, they were just following orders from up top. They didn't even, exactly, know what they were doing or who.

Being able to claim ignorance and distribute the responsibility around, is very useful for certain types of people in certain types of jobs.