What is absurd?

Neo-neocon asks some pertinent questions about Benghazi.

the responses of liberals and the left to the concerns of the right re Benghazi amount to a claim that the right’s objections are absurd on the face of it.

But just exactly what is absurd about questioning what went on during an attack at a consulate in which four people—including the Obama-appointed ambassador to that country—were murdered and the president slept through it all despite having been informed that it was ongoing? And what’s absurd about asking why inadequate security was provided the consulate despite repeated pleas for more, and an obviously dangerous climate there? What’s absurd about questioning why potential rescuers were ordered to stand down early in the battle? Or why although the administration knew there was no demonstration it lied repeatedly to the American people and said there was? And what about the jailing of a fall guy to take the heat, who is still in prison? Or about the possible coverup by investigators specially appointed by the very people who may have been at fault in much of this? Or about accusations that very well-placed and important whistleblowers were purposely intimidated from testifying?

Does the press really hope that the public will not pay attention to Benghazi? If you've got the big platform, the big lie works. Is the American public really that lazy, that we will just take Candy Crowley's word for it?

Neo-neocon has studied

how resistant people are to letting in and fairly evaluating information that goes against their already-established worldviews,

and, therefore, is not optimistic that Benghazi will be a game-changer.