No, but thanks for asking

Could you actually have had more fun on this last weekend of the old year than watching the Fair 'n' Balanced Network twist itself -- and, let's be fair, all the known evidence -- into angry knots of rage over somebody else's report on BENGHAZI!!?!!?!!?!!??

Well, of course not. So let's see if Fox and its friends can put the last few months into perspective. We'll start with the question-begging example at right, because it gets directly to why "Benghazigate" is an inane fiction created and sustained by the party press.
WALLACE: Do you think there is a political motivation to this "Times" report? Some people have suggested, well, this is trying to clear the deck for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

ROGERS: Yes. I don't know, but I found it was interesting that there's this rollout of stories, including Susan Rice, would go on TV and have a direct discussion, when we still have ongoing investigation in the House Intelligence Committee.

Let's give this one some thought, you guys -- that's you, hard-hitting Fox journalist Chris Wallace, and you, Mike Rogers, alleged chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. How exactly is Hillary Clinton supposed to gain political points from an article that asserts, among other things, that the diplomatic side (of which she was in charge) enabled a deadly fuck-up in an unstable part of the world through its naive assumptions that anybody who drank coffee with us was our friend forever?

That's been the epistemological problem with Benghazigate from the outset. Nothing in the alleged cover-up during the 2012 presidential campaign could have accomplished the political ends that would have made a cover-up -- as opposed to, say, the sort of random flailings that usually follow a toxic bumble into the anarchic world of self-interested states and substate actors -- a good idea. Would the Obama camp have gained from a narrative in which it was unable to prevent deadly terrorist attacks inspired by tales of a bizarrely racist online video, rather than one in which it was unable to prevent deadly terrorist attacks coordinated by a worldwide jihadist conspiracy? Sorry, kids. I really don't see an advantage here.

Anyway, Fox has spent a lot of time and energy over the past 24 hours trying to explain how and why it isn't a yapping tool of its moneyed friends. I encourage you all to go enjoy those efforts, particularly in light of the evidence -- which Fox, in many cases, has the decency to make public.