In the wake of Congress's official report on the Benghazi massacre, the front page of the New York Times Wednesday eagerly absolved Hillary Clinton of any fault in the attack in Libya that killed four Americans: “Benghazi Panel Finds No Misdeeds by Clinton.” The paper’s inside-the-paper analysis by Mark Landler and Amy Chozick found further vindication, not addressing Hillary Clinton’s moral culpability in the attack but merely treating it as a partisan victory for the Democratic Party’s nominee, just one more hurdle to get past on the way to the presidency: “An 800-Page Report Down, and a Server of Emails to Go.”



Conservatives can’t stand Hillary Clinton, but do they have reasons for their antipathy? No, suggests pundit Paul Waldman, who indicates that detailed accusations about such matters as emails or Benghazi are mere pretext for the right’s “visceral loathing” of Hillary, which would be expressed more genuinely via sexist insults, or maybe primal screams.

In a Tuesday Post web piece, Waldman wrote, “Even those who long ago gave up hope in the absurd conspiracy theories swirling around Benghazi (like the idea that Clinton issued a ‘stand down’ order that directly led to the four deaths) now say that it’s the email server that demonstrates the true depths of her villainy. ‘She oughta be in jail! Because, you know, that email thing!’ they say (and Donald Trump says it too), which sounds a lot more like a substantive critique than ‘God I just hate that b-tch.’”



Making his latest appearance on the Fox Business Network (FBN), the Media Research Center’s News Analysis Director Tim Graham slammed the liberal media early Wednesday evening for using “the old Clinton playbook going back to 1992” in their reaction to the House Select Committee on Benghazi’s report and peddling Clinton talking points to absolve her of responsibility.



Wednesday on Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough finally got mad over the report released by the Select Committee on Benghazi. The report outlined the colossal failure of Hillary Clinton’s State Department for the death of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, in September 2012. Even Jon Meacham joined in the angry chorus as the two vehemently disagreed with Hillary Clinton’s position that “it’s time to move on.” According to Scarborough, Clinton “got it completely wrong.”



After the terrorist attack in Libya on the anniversary of 9-11 that left four Americans dead, the Obama administration at first falsely blamed the attack not on terrorism, but on a spontaneous mob erupting about a film on YouTube portraying the Prophet Muhammed. The White House’s story about the video, put out on all five Sunday talk shows by then-U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, was later discredited, a fact that reluctantly filtered out into the media, even the New York Times. But apparently some Times journalists still haven’t gotten the news.



It is not a theory that delegating the protection of our embassy and military personnel to other countries risks lives. It is a reality bathed in American blood. The latest reports on Benghazi released this week underscore the persistent dangers of outsourcing security.



A few segments after MSNBC’s Hardball host Chris Matthews questioned why terrorists often turn to bombs as their weapons of choice, Matthews surprisingly hammered Democratic Congressman and possible Clinton running mate Xavier Becerra on the Benghazi Committee’s findings about the administration’s inability to save Americans trapped at the ill-fated consulate. 



On Tuesday, while all three network morning shows covered the newly-released House Benghazi Committee report, the broadcasts also dutifully parroted Democratic talking points attacking the credibility of the findings and concluded: “It does not appear to uncover conclusive evidence of wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton.”



Demonstrating a remarkable ability to ignore the obvious, Anne Gearan at the Washington Post, covering plans by Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton to deliver "a major foreign policy address" on Thursday, wrote that "National-security issues offer Clinton a way to play up her experience in contrast to (Donald) Trump."

To make that laugh-out-loud clause appear credible, Gearan, the Post's "chief Hillary booster," purged any reference to the long list of national security and foreign policy negatives in Mrs. Clinton's resume. Thus, at least the following words and terms relating to Mrs. Clinton's actual "experience" did not appear in her story: "email," "server," "classified," "inspector general," "Libya," "Syria," "Russia," "Iraq" — or even "Obama." In fact, though it is in an accompanying photo caption, Gearan's actual story never used the term "Secretary of State."



Damon Linker, a self-described former “conservative intellectual” (he was an editor at First Things) believes that Hillary Clinton’s policy positions are “good enough” to earn the votes of current conservatives, given that a Donald Trump administration would pose a “national threat” and that most right-wing Hillary-hatred “lack[s] any rational connection to reality.”

Take Hillary’s scandals -- please, take them. “Every single accusation is trivial. Petty. Penny-ante,” Linker asserted in a Thursday column for The Week. “Yes, even the business about Clinton's private email server. And especially the septic tank full of hyped-up, conspiracy-laden nonsense that goes by the name of ‘Benghazi.’ (If well-meaning members of the conservative movement want to explore how the Republican electorate ended up hoodwinked by a transparent charlatan-demagogue like Donald Trump, they could do worse than reflecting on their own complicity in publicizing, or at least failing to defuse, this endless, cockamamie ‘scandal.’)”



MSNBC viewers were treated to two hours of Hardball Wednesday night following Donald Trump being anointed the presumptive GOP presidential nominee and while previewing the believed match-up of Trump and Hillary Clinton, host Chris Matthews and a guest mocked Hillary Clinton scandals as “garbage” and conservatives invoking the 2012 terror attack in Benghazi as deranged.



Hot Air editor Jazz Shaw offered an excellent piece on Tuesday completely debunking the false claim put forth on the Friday edition of MSNBC’s All In from fill-in host Steve Kornacki that the House Select Committee on Benghazi is the “longest running investigation” of its kind. Hoping to use a bogus chart to bolster his fib, Kornacki stood in contrast to even the liberal site Politifact as they debunked it back in October when the Clinton campaign trotted out this line for the media to seize upon.