HomeFox News LiesWatch Jon Stewart Give Bush-Supporting FOX Hypocrites Epic Tongue-Lashing Over Benghazi B.S.! (Video)

Watch Jon Stewart Give Bush-Supporting FOX Hypocrites Epic Tongue-Lashing Over Benghazi B.S.! (Video)

There’s one topic about which Americans aren’t outraged enough? Benghazi. FOX News has renewed its fervor lately, cutting away from President Obama’s speech on Friday because no one asked about Benghazi–and from a White House press conference on Monday because it wasn’t about…Benghazi. You see the pattern.

Jon Stewart identified the problem with FOX News’ repeated musings about why people are not “outraged” over Benghazi. “You’re asking people to get outraged about an intelligence failure that tragically led to some Americans losing their lives,” Stewart said. “One intelligence failure.”

Stewart then gave a rundown of the many, many intelligence failures on the part of the Bush administration that cost American lives–you know, the ones about which conservatives conveniently lacked outrage? He commended FOX News for “finally getting in touch” with its “inner outrage,” an emotion that FOX did not feel comfortable expressing.

He reminded FOX that they supported and made excuses for a number of shady, face-saving measures, lies, and, of course, under-equipment of troops, on the part of the Bush administration that most certainly cost American lives.

“The reason it’s hard for everybody to get outraged by this terribly tragic and ultimately preventable disaster that was Benghazi is that everybody in this country has seen this movie before,” finished Stewart. “Only that movie was on an IMAX.”

Watch Jon Stewart obliterate FOX News’ hypocrisy below:

Watch Part 1 “Bullet Points Over Benghazi”:

Watch Part 2 “Bullet Points Over Benghazi – The Outrage Spot”:

About John Prager

John Prager
John Prager is an unfortunate Liberal soul who lives uncomfortably in the middle of a Conservative hellscape and likes to refer to himself as an "island of reason in a sea of insanity." While he is not a fan of politicians, period, he has developed a deep-seated hatred for the bigotry, fear mongering, and lies of the Right Wing. John also works as a warden at one of Barry Soetoro's FEMA re-education camps and as a HAARP weather control coordinator. He can be reached at [email protected] if you have any questions or comments.
  • sac2dude

    Re: “The opinions of whether we could have gotten a delta force to rescue the Americans are all over the place.”

    I guess that’s my point: They are not “all over the place”. Everyone with credibility in the military has stated it couldn’t be done. This is covered ground, and is detailed in the previous 8 Benghazi investigations – the same investigations that found there was no “stand down order”.

    The opinions are only “all over the place” in conservative circles. Why? Because they prefer the facts to fit their narrative, and disagree when they don’t.

    Example: Representative John Mica (R-Fla.).

    Last week, Mica, a member of Rep. Darrell Issa’s Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, held a hearing during which he questioned retired Brig. General Robert Lovell, who was running the military intelligence operation involved in monitoring the Sept. 11, 2012, assault in the Libyan city on the Mediterranean coast.

    Mica noted that he and Issa had visited the U.S. military facilities in Germany, Italy and Spain before the Benghazi attack, and that they had been told the military would be able to respond in just such an emergency. Mica pressed Lovell repeatedly, demanding to know whether the general thought forces could have and should have been able to reach the beleaguered outpost.

    Lovell answered that they “could have done so if the capabilities had been in place”, and that there should have been a way for the military to respond. He emphasized that he was testifying because he wanted to make sure that in the future, such capabilities would be on hand. But he agreed adamantly with the Republican-led House Armed Services Committee, whose report concluded that THE MILITARY DID ALL IT COULD DO ON THAT TRAGIC NIGHT.

    “That’s a fact,” Lovell said.

    But this Thursday, shortly before voting to create the new committee, Mica said exactly the opposite, casting what Lovell would have liked as if it were what actually existed.

    “We know our military had the ability to save those Americans,” Mica said Thursday, in apparent contradiction of Lovell’s testimony. “We know that the State Department had the ability to keep those Americans safe, and no one acted.”

    Please, explain this behavior to me.

    • Jack King

      You must be referring to this:

      • Richard

        Ah, you missed this:

        Lovell Says “We Should Have Tried” To Rescue Victims, Clarifies He Did Not Mean The Response Was Insufficient. On May 1, Lovell, who served as deputy intelligence director at the U.S. Africa Command in Germany (AFRICOM) during the September 11, 2012 attack, testified that “we should have tried” to rescue the victims of the attack. Later, Lovell clarified his remark in an exchange with Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA):

        CONNOLLY: I want to read to you the conclusion of the chairman of the [Armed Services] Committee, the Republican chairman Buck McKeon, who conducted formal briefings and oversaw that report. He said, quote, “I’m pretty well satisfied that given where the troops were, how quickly the thing all happened, and how quickly it dissipated we probably couldn’t have done much more than we did.” Do you take issue with the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee? In that conclusion?

        LOVELL: His conclusion that he couldn’t have done much more than they did with the capability and the way they executed it?

        CONNOLLY: Given the timeframe.

        LOVELL: That’s a fact.

        CONNOLLY: OK.

        LOVELL: The way it is right now. The way he stated it.

        CONNOLLY: All right, because I’m sure you can appreciate, general, there might be some who, for various and sundry reasons would like to distort your testimony and suggest that you’re testifying that we could have, should have done a lot more than we did because we had capabilities we simply didn’t utilize. That is not your testimony?

        LOVELL: That is not my testimony.

        CONNOLLY: I thank you very much.

        • Jack King

          I don’t see anything about Connolly in the clip. At any rate, probably the reason the general said we should have tried is because the military’s philosophy is to leave no man behind. Any commander in chief would have immediately scrambled a force and tried to interdict. It was 7 hours before the final victim was killed. If they acted immediately instead of twiddle their thumbs, lives may have been saved. But let’s give the commander in chief of the armed forces some slack….his background as a community organizer really didn’t prepare him for such a position.

  • http://gravatar.com/johnmcarollo johnmcarollo

    Speaking of questionable pasts, why didn’t George W and Laura Bush’s pasts of drunken/drug infused debaucheries which ended in the DEATH of one Laura’s friends (Laura was the designated drive while DUI) make headlines?

  • Tillie H.

    I have to agree with Hillary Clinton: Why does it matter so much WHY it happened? So the administration tried to spin it differently. Prior administrations have always done that. Why is it so egregious that THIS president tried to spin something? Can anyone answer that question?

    • Jack King

      “Why is it so egregious that THIS president tried to spin something? Can anyone answer that question?”

      I’ll tell you. It looks very much that the President instead on monitoring the attack in the Situation Room (which were coming live from an unarmed drone) and making decisions like letting the Special Forces Delta Force in Tripoli off its leash to come to 4 American’s aid, was instead in a debate prep for Romney. Instead of running the country, everyone in the White House was only interested in politics, and thus spun the attack as caused by a video. Why do they stonewall releasing the CIA briefing transcripts. If the CIA was really telling them the attack was because of a video, then it would get them off the hook. I can remember Obama before the first election promising that his would be the most transparent administration in the history of the country. What a joke.

      • JFischer

        Nobody was watching anything live. NO DRONE CIRCLED THE EMBASSY.

        When it comes to conspiracies, mistakes are treated as deliberate tactics to mislead and obfuscate.

        • Jack King

          A simple google will reveal story after story about an unarmed drone feeding real-time video. For example:

          http://nypost.com/2012/10/21/us-too-slow-to-act-as-drones-cam-captured-libya-horror/

          • Richard

            Yep, and the story says for “… the final hours of the hours long seige…”.

            This is silly. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a Republican who served in Obama’s administration and wrote a pretty scathing opinion about the Obama administration in his recent memoir, told CBS’ “Face the Nation” it would have been “very difficult, if not impossible” to rescue the U.S. embassy officials and said he would have not have approved such an operation.

            Per Gates: “To send some small number of special forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on the ground, I think would have been very dangerous… It’s sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces” to think the United States could have mounted a rescue, Gates said.

            The military intervention decision was made by U.S. Africa command, basing it on the fact that they didn’t have the means of intervening on a short time frame. They have since adapted. They have “positioned a 500-strong Marine task force in Moron, Spain and equipped with Osprey aircraft capable of vertical landing along with KC-130 mid-air refueling tankers”, said Defense Department spokesman Maj. Robert A. Firman.

            Let me ask you – where in all this does Obama come into the picture? You could argue that he’s the President, and ultimately he’s responsible. Okay. But what is being argued is that somehow Obama either “caused” or “refused to intervene” in the deaths of these four Americans, which is silly.

            Do you believe that the Obama administration wanted Stevens and three others dead? I don’t. Nor do I believe Bush wanted those 4 contractors in Fallujah killed and their bodies burned and dragged through the streets in March, 2004. However the difference is that I don’t remember this level of partisan bickering.

          • Jack King

            The opinions of whether we could have gotten a delta force to rescue the Americans are all over the place. The firefight went on for 7hours. If there was any chance of a rescue, any commander in chief worth his salt would have scrambled a rescue team. No man left behind. Community organizers are probably nor aware of that.

            Look, there are all kinds of questions that are here that are not being answered. They get requested docs, but they are heavily redacted. Why? They are not classified. A select committee can get these docs untouched. They also have stronger subpoena powers. If this is simply a witch hunt then it will clear the air and Obama will have a victory.

          • Uncle Chris

            Read something besides the NY post and watching Fox News, Jack King.

            http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/benghazi.asp

            Now….. back to watching your Chuck Norris film for you…..

          • Jack King

            The purpose of a Select Committee is to look at hard data and testimonies made under oath, rather than looking at reports from the NY Post or Fox, or Snopes which may be biased. There was a similar Select Committee in Watergate with the majority being Democrats.

  • steve

    i cant hear it what is going on

  • Pingback: Benghazi-gate About To Explode - Page 35

  • Jack King

    All the White House has to do to shut up Fox is to release the daily CIA breafings during the Sept 11th period to prove they weren’t told it was a terrorist attack. For some reason, however, they refuse to share that piece of information. Problem for the White House is that the new Select Committee will have the subpoena power to demand it. I wonder what Stewart and the other COMEDIANS will have to say then. This is no joking matter.

    • https://www.facebook.com/scott.palmer.1650 Scott Palmer

      Benghazi, and you, are a joking matter.

    • J

      Really that is your smoking gun? The who-dun-it after the attack is worth the millions they are going to spend?

    • Greg

      The “problem” is that there is no proof that will quiet Fox and the like. Whatever is provided will be disregarded as doctored or fabricated unless it looks like the “smoking gun” they want so desperately to find.

    • Clownshoes McFloppyfeet

      Probably, the White House doesn’t want to “shut up Fox”. The more Fox keeps beating this dead horse, the less they are reporting on issues that anyone actually cares about. I’m sure the White House loves that their main critics are the FOX News Clowns.

    • http://gravatar.com/johnmcarollo johnmcarollo

      Why not expend the energy at finding and bringing the perps to justice … What is really at stake is the possibility of then-Secretary of State becoming the next president … and THAT JUST CAN’T HAPPEN IF BENGHAZI IS A SHAMEFUL EPISODE IN HER PAST! Grow up.

      • Jack King

        Yes, politics is part of it. All of you know that if Benghazi was on Bush’s watch you would be all over this like a blanket.

        • AATTP

          Funny that you mention that. There were 13 Benghazi’s on Bush’s watch…and let’s not forget the anthrax attack…and that “intelligence failure” on 9.11.01

          • Jack King

            “Funny that you mention that. There were 13 Benghazi’s on Bush’s watch”

            Really?! Well, ok…I assume you don’t want that sort of thing to happen again. Ipso facto, we should push ahead with Benghazi, correct?

Scroll To Top
website security Website Security Test