GOP House Intelligence Committee again debunks Doug MacEachern’s wild-eyed conspiracy theories on Benghazi

The Rush Limbaugh of The Republic, Doug MacEachern, simply regurgitates the right-wing noise machine talking points he internalizes from listening to talk radio and FAUX News all day, while surfing right-wing web sites on the “Internets.”

MacEachern, like FAUX News, has been a purveyor of the Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! wild-eyed conspiracy theories. Just search his previous columns and his Twitter posts. Every one of his wild-eyed conspiracy theories have previously been thoroughly debunked. Benghazi in context and perspective:

The State Department Accountability Review Board (ARB) and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) investigated Benghazi and found an opportunistic attack that should have been prevented but was not due to poor intelligence, inadequate security on the ground, and inadequate information sharing between the U.S. military, the State Department and the CIA. There was no military response that could have been launched in time to save Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. And there was no cover up by the Obama administration.

The House Armed Services Committee report released in February was the first of the Republican-led investigations into the attack and its aftermath that absolved the military of acting improperly during the assault. “Given the military’s preparations on September 11, 2012, majority members have not yet discerned any response alternatives that could have likely changed the outcome of the Benghazi attack,” the report concludes. The same document also contradicts the idea, deeply entrenched on the right, that any sort of “stand-down” order was given to the military urging them to not respond to the assault.

The New York Times did a six-part, multimedia report that was not only the most exhaustive account of the tragedy published by a major news organization, it was also completely apolitical. It refuted all the right-wing conspiracy theories advanced by Doug MacEachern in The Republic over the past two years.

Late on Friday, hoping that no one would notice, the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee issued its final  report (.pdf), again refuting the wild-eyed conspiracy theories advanced by Doug MacEachern in The Republic. New Benghazi Investigation Finds No Fault in Response:

A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees.

Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a C.I.A. rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the C.I.A. was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.

In the immediate aftermath of the attack, intelligence about who carried it out and why was contradictory, the report found. That led Susan Rice, then American ambassador to the United Nations, to inaccurately assert that the attack had evolved from a protest, when there had been no protest. But it was intelligence analysts, not political appointees, who made the wrong call, the committee found.

The report did not conclude that Ms. Rice or any other government official acted in bad faith or intentionally misled the American people.

The New York Times adds, G.O.P.-Led Benghazi Panel Bolsters Administration:

A report released late Friday about the fatal 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, left Republicans in the same position they have been in for two years: with little evidence to support their most damning critiques of how the Obama administration, and then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, responded to the attacks.

Similar to five other government reports, the one released by the House Intelligence Committee on Friday said that the administration had not intentionally misled the public about what occurred during the attacks in talking points it created for officials to use in television appearances that turned out to be inaccurate.

It also said that no order was given by the military to “stand down” in responding to try to save the four Americans killed in the attacks, a claim that Republicans have made based on the account of a member of the security team in Benghazi that day.

Coming six months after Speaker John A. Boehner created a separate special committee to investigate the Benghazi attacks, the report raised questions about what that panel might uncover that the Intelligence Committee — whose chairman, Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of Michigan, is leaving Congress — and the other investigations missed.

The special committee that Mr. Boehner created is led by Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina, who has a budget of $3.3 million for the investigation.

The purpose of the special committee is not to investigate what has already been thoroughly investigated. Its purpose is to provide material to the conservative media entertainment complex, which includes Doug MacEachern and The Republic, and to continue regurgitating the debunked conspiracy theories which the low information public has internalized after having heard them repeated ad nauseam 24/7 on FAUX News and talk radio for so long. This is how big lie propaganda works. The public remembers the lies but not the investigative reports that debunked those lies.

While the report backed up many of the administration’s longstanding claims that its response was proper, it agreed with the other reports that criticized the State Department for having inadequate security at the compound where the ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, was killed.

“The State Department security personnel, resources and equipment were unable to counter the terrorist threat that day and required C.I.A. assistance,” it said.

The panel’s findings reflected well on the intelligence apparatus, particularly the Central Intelligence Agency. The agency “ensured sufficient security” for its facilities in Benghazi and “without a requirement to do so, ably and bravely assisted the State Department on the night of the attacks,” according to the report.

“Their actions saved lives,” the report said.

The report said the C.I.A. did not have an “intelligence failure” in the months before the attacks. In fact, the report said, the agency had increased its security because of intelligence reports showing that attacks had intensified in the area.

In the course of the investigation, the committee reviewed thousands of pages of intelligence assessments, cables, emails and other documents, and it interviewed many senior intelligence officials and people who were on the ground during the attacks — including eight security personnel who responded to them, it said.

* * *

The panel found that in the days after the attacks, there was contradictory intelligence about what precipitated them and who was behind them. Ultimately, Ms. Rice’s assertions were wrong, the committee said, but there was no evidence that the administration was attempting to misconstrue the facts.

Even today, the report said, the government is still uncertain about much of what happened that day.

“Much of the early intelligence was conflicting, and two years later, intelligence gaps remain,” the report said. A mix of individuals, “including those affiliated” with Al Qaeda, participated in the attacks, it said, adding, however, that “the intelligence was and remains conflicting about the identities, affiliations and motivations of the attackers.”

* * *

The report also debunked a few accusations against the C.I.A. It said that the agency had not intimidated or prevented “any officer from speaking to Congress or otherwise telling their story.” It also said that the agency had not administered “any unusual polygraph exams” to officers about their assignment in Benghazi. And it said that the C.I.A. was not collecting arms in Libya and sending them to rebel groups in Syria.

In other words, all the wild-eyed conspiracy theories that Doug MacEachern has advanced in the pages of The Republic have been demonstrated to be entirely false. He is a practitioner of yellow journalism and big lie propaganda. So what obligation does The Republic have to address MacEachern’s utter lack of professionalism?

First, everything that Doug MacEachern has ever written regarding Benghazi should have an editorial correction attached to it with a disclaimer that “the views expressed are solely those of the author and are not shared by Gannett Publishing or The Arizona Republic” with links to the 6 congressional reports debunking what MacEachern wrote in his column.

Second, Gannett Publishing and The Arizona Republic owe their readers a formal apology for allowing such yellow journalism and big lie propaganda to appear in the pages of their publication, just as it would have to do in a case of flagrant plagiarism. A credible news source does not engage in such disreputable practices. A formal apology for having published Doug MacEachern’s falsehoods on Benghazi is in order.

This does resolve the issue of such a disreputable “journalist” (sic) remaining in the employ of Gannett Publishing and The Arizona Republic. Doug MacEachern degrades the credibility of The Arizona Republic as a legitimate news source. He puts The Republic in the disreputable company of World Net Daily, The Daily Caller and The Drudge Report, where his brand of “journalism” (sic) is better suited. Give him his gold watch and retirement party — then kick him to the curb.