The Right Opinion

Sex Beats Benghazi

By Ben Shapiro · Nov. 14, 2012

You've heard the old adage that sex sells. But as we're recognizing more and more often, sex wins elections.

Here's the brutal truth: the American people seem far more interested in what happens in the bedroom than they do what happens on the battlefield. How else to explain the media's fascination with CIA Director David Petraeus' steamy sex scandal, even as they ignore the ramifications for the investigation of four murdered Americans in Benghazi, Libya?

Two days after President Obama won re-election, Petraeus submitted his resignation letter to Obama, supposedly over an affair with biographer Paula Broadwell. The FBI had been investigating the affair; another four-star general had gotten tangentially entangled in the investigation. The story was juicy.

The story was also a smokescreen. The week after Petraeus resigned, he was scheduled to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee. It quickly emerged that he wouldn't be setting foot inside the committee in the near future. That news followed on the heels of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's announcement that she had no intention of testifying before Congress – she'd be too busy sipping wine in Australia to discuss Ambassador Chris Stevens choking to death on soot and ash in a dingy building in Libya. As for Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, he's been anything but forthcoming.

What do those three figures – Petraeus, Clinton, and Panetta – have in common? They're all likely to be out of the administration within the next month. Petraeus has stepped down; Clinton is leaving; Panetta, rumor has it, will be replaced with former Winter Soldier Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), the ultimate slap in the face to American troops. When all three are gone, the link to Obama is gone, too. They can testify, certainly. But the blame rested on their shoulders. And Obama won't have to fire them.

The media shows no interest in any of this, however. They're far more interested in whether Petraeus enjoyed the company of Broadwell on the dunes of Kandahar, or whether he was shtupping a Florida friend of the family on the side. Sex sells. Benghazi doesn't.

That simple fact rang true throughout the election cycle. When the media had a chance to cover Benghazi originally – when the administration lied day after day about a YouTube video being responsible for a terrorist attack and obfuscated the on-the-ground timeline – the media ignored the story completely. Instead, they covered the ill-articulated comments of Indiana senate candidate Richard Mourdock. Earlier in the election cycle, the media ignored President Obama's attempt to stifle the religious freedoms of Catholics in favor of hubbub about Sandra “Pay For My Condoms” Fluke.

The media wanted to watch Mitt Romney burn, of course, and honed in on stories designed to emphasize his supposed sexism. But there's more to it than that. The media is comprised of Baby Boomers and their kids. The Boomers were obsessed with sex in the 1960s – that's why they tried to tear down all the major institutions of American life, some for good and some for ill. Today, the Boomers justify all sexual behavior as normal; they brought their children up to do the same.

Despite their live and let-live politics, though, the Baby Boomers and their kids still evidence a bizarre fascination with sex. That's why they obsess about abortion and same-sex marriage. It's why they were taken in by the Obama lie that Republicans would bar birth control. Sexual politics aren't everything to the left-leaning Baby Boomers and their offspring; they're the only thing.

So Benghazi doesn't matter. But Petraeus' sex habits do, even if we're supposed to laugh at them and then claim they're none of our business. The schizophrenia here boggles the mind.

But psychological dissonance never bothers the Baby Boomers and their kids. They've been living with it for too long. So the prurient will continue to beat the virtuous, both in media coverage and in elections.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM

Appeal_patriots_day_3
11 Comments

Gregory in Yakima said:

When Muslim radicals entered the U.S and boarded commercials airplanes while G.W. Bush was president and killed thousands and etc. and etc. the conservatives were angry at Muslim radicals (and conveniently for them Iraq where thousands more were killed including our troops and innocent civilians) but move forward to President Obama's term where a group of radicals kill four people in Libya utilizing military weapons and you're all aghast and over the top with rage. Disgusting.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 8:33 AM

wjm in Colorado replied:

Please take a vacaiton to Mecca, wearing rainbow colored attire. Have a group hug with your islamist buddies. I guarantee I will enjoy the outcome of your trip better than you Gregory. We might even see it filmed on al jazera TV!

Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Alex in NJ replied:

...As though there's a thread of relevance to your typical liberal obfuscations.

BTW, for any liberals or youths being indoctrinated out there and reading this, there isn't.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Wayne in Hinesville, GA replied:

No, the disgusting part is you trying to compare one atrocity against another. I suspect you are one of the idiots who believe the Bush adminsitration planned the whole 9/11 horror. It's awful if over 3,000 people die when a Republican is President but just "a bump in the road" if only 4 people die due to incompetence when a Democrat is President. What a piece of work you are! Using one disaster to justify another.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Robinius in Broomfield, Colorado replied:

I seem to remember something about Congress being involved in the Iraq war. Some Democrats, even. I seem to remember a "group of radicals" killing 3,000 Americans with those airplanes. I seem to remember ALL Americans being angry at the time, not just conservatives. I am wrong, though. A certain Gregory in Yakima wasn't angry at all. I bet you were angry when those Navy Seals killed Osama bin Laden, though, right Gregory? BTW, I'm relatively new here - why are Mac and others calling you a sodomite? Are you a sodomite? Your Muslim brethren like boys better than girls, I hear.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 5:29 PM

richard ryan in Lamar,Missouri replied:

Robinius, mac and some of the others are being more politically correct than I care to be. I just call Greggy boy a queer, and let it go at that.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Margaret OConnor in Texas said:

Disgusting how we are hearing NON-STOP reporting about General Petraeus' supposed affair, when we heard next to nothing about the 4 American citizens murdered (with the passive assistance of the Obama regime) in Benghazi. I believe this is an effort to discredit anything that Petraeus will testify to in regards to Benghazi.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Alex in NJ said:

So, "if it bleeds, it leads" is old school now (unless its a white skin harming a dark skin).
There's a Marxist to protect in the WH.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 10:32 AM

JAC in Texas said:

How can Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State who admitted fault in the Benghazi murders, not be compelled to testify? How can Panetta, the Secretary of Defense who is ultimately responsible for no help being given (assuming Obozo skates on this one, which he will), not be compelled to testify? It looks like Obozo and his boys expanded their Chicago methods--they know where all the principals' relatives live, and they'd better not forget it! Petraeus was probably asked how he likes his military retirement benefits and if he'd like to keep them. We know what his emails said in August, but no one seems to know what happend in Benghazi on September 11th. This is just mind-numbing and beyond belief, but our buddy Gregory should be familiar with that state of affairs.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Kevin from Arkansas in USA replied:

"How can Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State who admitted fault in the Benghazi murders, not be compelled to testify? "

Well, you know, she's umm ........ Hillary! With a (D) behind her Clinton name.

She ought to have a subpoena dropped in her lap along with everyone else even remotely connected.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Abu Nudnik in Toronto replied:

I think she *will* be subpoenaed. Petraeus has announced he will testify to the Senate committee and the House has yet to figure out where to meet for their version. As for the pensions, Petraeus is nowhere off the hook anyway. A court-martial is virtually assured: what he did is against the UMCJ. He's ruined. If I were him, I'd tell the truth. Ben may have this all wrong: the sex may sell the treachery of the White House and State Department in leaving good people to die. An ambassador was buggered and murdered for God's sake.

PS: Really guys. Don't feed the trolls.

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 12:01 AM