"Nothing to see here, citizen."

I've been watching the reaction of Democrats and their media allies to the testimony before a congressional committee looking into the killings of our ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi.  Both seem to be spinning the story like this:

*The testimony contained no revelations, nothing new, simply a re-hash of old claims and accusations.

*The CIA wrote a memo giving their best estimate of the cause, and if a few trivial words were changed between the original author and some minor government functionary on Sunday morning talk shows, what difference does it make?

*Someone may have denied pleas for assistance, and later some nameless functionary in the government may have denied that the government ever received such requests, but hey, mistakes happen.  "Fog of war" and that sort of thing.

*In explaining the terribly confusing situation to the press, Hillary Clinton and President Obama relied on talking points--prepared by other, unnamed functionaries.  So IF--emphasis on if--either Hillary or Obama ever really said that the attack was sparked by an anti-Muslim video on the internet, and that later turned out to be incorrect, it wasn't Clinton's or Obama's fault because they were just going with the talking points witten by someone else.  And of course Obama claims he said *from the outset* that the attack was carried out by terrorists.  So what makes you wingnuts think you heard something different?

*It's not useful to try to find out what the original CIA talking points said, or whether they were changed, or if they were, who might have done it, because none of this will help.  As Madame Clinton said:  At this point, what difference does it make?

Uhhh...yeah.  And Watergate was a "third-rate burglary" not worth paying attention to.

It seems glaringly, blindingly obvious that the U.S. has stopped being a nation of laws, in which all legal principles were governed by Constitutional restraints and rights.  The Obama administration began disregarding the Constitution almost from their leader's first month in office, and it's only gotten worse.

Attorney-General Eric Holder's subordinates are caught selling high-grade weapons to Mexican drug cartels.  Obama claims Holder never briefed him on the program.  Congressional Republicans subpoena Holder to find out what the hell happened.  Holder ignores the subpoena and then asks Obama to shield him from having to testify, under the theory of  "executive privilege."

But in all the history of the republic, this doctrine requires that in order to invoke the privilege, the official must have advised the president on some aspect of the action in question.  Yet Obama claimed Holder had never briefed him or counseled with him about the scheme.

And the lying media shrugged.

Early in his first term Obama violated bankruptcy laws in arbitrarily giving controlling interest in General Motors to his union buddies, and in yanking Chrysler franchises from franchisees in good standing.

And the lying media yawned.

The "Porkulus" bill was supposed to create a zillion "shovel-ready jobs," but somehow the Obamites ended up giving most of the money to banks and Wall Street firms.  Admittedly the $787-billion program did create a couple of thousand jobs--at an estimated cost of just $11 million per job.

And the lying media gushed at Duh Won's great compassion for working families.

Team Obama gave $26 Billion in taxpayer loans and loan guarantees to crony-owned firms in the "green energy" field.  An amazing number of these firms promptly went bankrupt--though not before giving their executives hefty bonuses.  If a Republican had been president it would have been a huge scandal.

With Obama in office, the lying media yawned.

Now former SecState Clinton lies about having seen any requests for better security at whatever was going on at the non-consulate annex in Benghazi.  Someone high up in government invents a bullshit story about the cause of the attack, then denies it, then the Obama administration arranges the arrest of the man who made the film that allegedly sparked the attack, then clams up.  The lying media yawns.

The lie created about Benghazi by Team Obama wasn’t due to confusion--the fog of war--but was instead a deliberate attempt to hide a truth that would have embarassed Obama. Since Obama had told American voters that thanks to his leadership Al Qaeda was no longer a threat, everyone in his administration was determined to blame the attack on anything *except* Al Qaeda.

So the fable was invented:  After all, no one could possibly hold Duh Won responsible for a shady film-maker posting a video insulting to Islam on the internet.

Team Obama lied--and far better people than anyone in this administration were left to die--to ensure that Obama and Clinton wouldn't be hurt by the politically-damaging truth.  

It seems clear that the media believe progressive goals are all good; and thus anything the media can do to support those policies must be good.  In particular, individual freedom and Constitutional principles can be trashed at any time if it helps further "progressive" goals.  And if you're a progressive I guess it makes perfect sense.