Most Read: Opinions

direct signup

Join a Discussion

There are no discussions scheduled today.

Weekly schedule, past shows

Post Partisan
Posted at 05:15 PM ET, 10/11/2012

Our readers feel no stagefright

It’s a trembly, jittery day for PostScript in the PostScript Bunker’s sub-bunker’s special Panic Room, which PostScript didn’t even know existed until we recently blew up the whole compound and found it the only thing intact. It’s that good a panic room. And that’s where the PostScript dispatch comes from today warily, chaindrinking coffee and getting startled when we hear a cough because we coughed but it didn’t sound like our cough.

PostScript is in special panic mode here in the bunker’s remains because of Dana Milbank’s column today. In it, a bit of political theater — a generally insignificant type of government hearing — something real actually happened.

Yes, it started out as one of those purposefully distracting wads of posturing governmental self-examination that nobody thinks will actually reveal anything, because if it did that would mean our actual government was investigating our actual government and letting us watch, to which, excuse PostScript a moment, we have to listen carefully, to the echo of our laughter, to make sure it is ours and just ours.

As Milbank writes, a highly stylized congressional hearing yesterday into the recent Benghazi attack accidentally revealed some Stuff Nobody Talks About Except Using Code Words That Maybe You Know If You Know Them. These things were revealed by members of Congress themselves trying to make clear how dangerous it was to reveal all this stuff and how concerned they all were by the fact that maybe somebody was doing it.

All PostScript feels can be disclosed about this is pointing out we sure did use a lot of CAPITAL LETTERS in the last paragraph.

Time to unlatch the panic room. And only from there do we feel safe enough to read the comments on the column.

MeriJ says that these theatrical hearings were never benign:

Public hearings like this are almost never about trying to improve our nation’s performance. They are not about learning from our mistakes so we don’t repeat them. They are solely about attacking the other party and providing individual . . . [members of Congress] opportunities to grandstand. All they accomplish is to make it harder for those actually running the government to take well considered risks when appropriate. They lead to mediocrity.

reasonableconservative says the political theater began when the White House started using special effects:

Had the Obama administration been honest from the very beginning of this tragedy, a hearing probably could have been avoided. All of this extraneous information that is being aired is the result of the smoke and mirrors that this horrific administration has been using ever since it got into power. In short, it’s Obama’s mess.

And MiddleMomma thinks that all of this was stage-managed by President Obama in hopes that the hearing would embarrass itself:

Nice that you are following the shiny object that the Administration is putting in front of you to not see their failure in this incident. They knew exactly what they were doing to show those pictures.

njglea is interested in some very good questions not answered in yesterday’s skit, possibly because they are very good questions:

I repeat: Two questions: Who knew it was a CIA facility and who attacked it? It was a planned, military attack. Who was behind it?

Benson, too, wants info that’s not coming out:

I’d still like an explanation of why there were only four guards at the consulate of a Middle Eastern country that had a civil war last year, after releasing a military detail that had been charged with security earlier in the year. Over the objections of the security detail and the security liaison.

James10 has a spectacularly cynical answer after quoting a questioner:

“I agree, the question is who attacked the American consulate.”
How about any one of 20 terrorist groups that we’re trying to kill anyway? I’ll bet it’s one of them. Since we’re trying to kill all 20 of them what difference does it make if we know exactly which one? What if it was a joint operation having members from multiple terrorist groups?
Look at it this way, all but one of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, AQ is heavily funded by Saudis. What difference does it make that we know that? We’ll take their oil anyway.

gomermcflarp knows answers, and the answers are bombshells! But he, like the lamestream media, will not tell us what they are:

It is a huge scandal that the WaPo and NYTimes are covering up the bombshells coming out of yesterday’s congressional hearing. Who told the President that a video instigated the terrorist attack? Why did he believe this fabrication? The PRESS is covering up for the President’s reelection.

As a lovers of all theater, we are feeling extremely uneasy at the moment, even for us. That is because we know that whatever the consequences of this particular piece of political theater — however dire they may be — it’s not going to end anytime soon. In this sphere, one tenet transcends all others: The show must, and therefore will, go on.

By Rachel Manteuffel  |  05:15 PM ET, 10/11/2012

 
Read what others are saying
     

    © 2011 The Washington Post Company