Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Are You Interested In The Benghazi Hearings?

People are talking about it. Enough Jodi Arias!

by Anonymousreply 13208/08/2013

Interested? No. The rabid Republicans are obsessed with trying to take down Obama as much as they were with getting Clinton. Of course war criminal Bush retires unscathed.

by Anonymousreply 105/08/2013

No no no

Rupukes need to rail against something instead of addressing real issues.

by Anonymousreply 205/08/2013

but, don't you know these hearings could lead to BO being impeached! i heard Huckleberry say so. we got to keep the pressure on. we need to make sure nothing good really happens. Oh, and Ms Clinton might win the presidency if we don't keep beating this dead horse.

by Anonymousreply 305/08/2013

Nope. Benghazi's been investigated to a fare-thee-well and there's nothing further to look at or discuss.

This is just that attention whore, Darrell Issa, jerking off for the media and exploiting the deaths of four people to gin up his own national profile.

You remember Darrell. When the Republicans took control of the House in 2010, he's the guy who said that he was going to hold "seven hearings a week times 40 weeks" in order to attack and smear Democrats. He doesn't care about Behghazi or the people who died or anyone but himself. Facts are irrelevant, face time on tv is everything.

by Anonymousreply 405/08/2013

There's nothing to investigate. It's all hindsight second-guessing decisions made in a crisis. if the Democrats ever held such hearings against Bush during the Iraq war, the Republicans would have called them traitors. 100% political.

by Anonymousreply 505/08/2013

Nope. The Benghazi story is all to smear Hillary Clinton for the next election.

If George Bush wasn't called to task for the weapons of mass destruction and the war in Iraq then this can only be a political gambit. It's a who cares. Foxnews was trying to make it the next WAtergate but even they took time off to do wall coverage of the Jodi Arias verdict. That's how little there is to this Benghazi stuff.

by Anonymousreply 605/08/2013

Yes.

by Anonymousreply 705/08/2013

Not really. It's apparent that Hillary Clinton's going to get off like the Teflon Don, so the whole thing is a dog and pony show...

by Anonymousreply 805/08/2013

I'm interested in having bareback sex with big dick shemales. Are there any in Benghazi, baby?

Fuck you, bitch. I ain't got no crack.

by Anonymousreply 905/08/2013

No. I am horrified by the loss of life but using the tragedy to score political points and the attempt to embroil the Obama administration in a manufactured "scandal" was dishonest and off putting. The State Department may have made mistakes and security at our embassies and diplomatic outposts certainly needs review, but to imply that the President deliberately deceived us about a terrorist attack because of the impending election was low, even for the Republicans and Fox news.

by Anonymousreply 1005/08/2013

No. It's pathetic that after all these years this is all they have on Obama, so they're going to wring it for all it's worth... which is nothing.

by Anonymousreply 1105/08/2013

They tried to get Hillary, and she smacked them down so hard, it became a national embarrassment for the Republican Party. Now, they've set their sights back on Obama.

by Anonymousreply 1205/08/2013

January 22, 2002 US Consulate in Kolkata attacked: 5 killed

June 14, 2002 US Consulate in Karachi attacked: 12 killed

February 28, 2003 US Embassy at Islamabad attacked: 2 killed

June 30, 2004: US Embassy in Tashkent attacked: 2 killed

December 6, 2004 US Compound at Saudi Arabia attacked: 9 killed

March 2, 2006 US Consulate in Karachi attacked again: 2 killed

September 12, 2006 US Embassy in Syria attacked: 4 killed

March 18 2008 US Embassy in Yemen attacked: 2 killed

July 9, 2008 US Consulate in Istanbul attacked: 6 killed

September 17, 2008 US Embassy in Yemen attacked again: 16 killed

Total deaths: 60 Outraged Republicans: 0

by Anonymousreply 1305/08/2013

Not unless they focus on the lengths to which House Republicans went to cut the funding for embassy security.

by Anonymousreply 1405/08/2013

Bush/Cheney/Powell lied to us about weapons of mass destruction and started a never-ending war so that Halliburton and their other cronies could loot the U.S. treasury of trillions. Thousands of innocent people died as a result of that vile trio's lies and does congress give a shit? No. But Benghazi is a HUMONGOUS deal to those crooks in congress since it may stop Hillary's bid for the presidency.

The U.S. is officially a third world shit hole now.

by Anonymousreply 1505/08/2013

Bush/Cheney/Powell lied to us about weapons of mass destruction and started a never-ending war so that Halliburton and their other cronies could loot the U.S. treasury of trillions. Thousands of innocent people died as a result of that vile trio's lies and does congress give a shit? No. But Benghazi is a HUMONGOUS deal to those crooks in congress since it may stop Hillary's bid for the presidency.

The U.S. is officially a third world shit hole now.

by Anonymousreply 1605/08/2013

IS There a Neocon Plot to Takedown Hillary and the President?---- Check out this report from the Washington Times about neocon John Bolton:

The Benghazi scandal could be the final “hinge point” that brings down the Obama administration, former U.N. Ambassador John R. Bolton said.

“This could be the hinge point,” he said to Newsmax. “It’s that serious for them.”[...]

His comments came as Congress is readying to hear testimony from several witnesses about the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. Witness Greg Hicks already has stated publicly that the administration was aware that the attack was terrorist in nature, and not related to protests of a YouTube film about Muslims, as originally stated.

Mr. Bolton said these witnesses’ testimonies could prove explosive.

“The three witnesses who have been identified are not bystanders,” he said in the Newsmax report. “These are not people who are going to report on hearsay of what somebody in Tripoli told somebody that they heard from. These are people who are directly involved in different capacities before, during and after the attack.”

Committee staffers have hinted that the witnesses’ statements are (CONT)

by Anonymousreply 1705/08/2013

Committee staffers have hinted that the witnesses’ statements are

going to prove “devastating,” especially for then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. And “you’ve already seen some Democratic members of Congress … beginning to run from this,” Mr. Bolton said in the Newsmax report.

Wikipedia informs:

Bolton is currently a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI),[6] frequent op-ed contributor to the Wall Street Journal and the National Review, Fox News Channel commentator, and of counsel to the law firm Kirkland & Ellis, in their Washington D.C. office.[7] He was a foreign policy adviser to 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney.[8] He is also involved with a broad assortment of other conservative think tanks and policy institutes, including the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), Project for the New American Century (PNAC), Institute of East-West Dynamics, National Rifle Association, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, and the Council for National Policy (CNP). Known for his strong views on foreign policy, often equating diplomacy with weakness and indecisiveness,[9] Bolton is often described as a neoconservative,[10][11][12] though he personally rejects the term.

Even Dick Cheney is getting into the act. Elizabeth Sheld reports:

In a rare statement about the Obama administration, former Vice President Dick Cheney criticized the administration's handling of the 9/11 terror attack on our consulate in Benghazi, stating it was a "failure of leadership." He went on to say that the administration should have been prepared on the anniversary of 9/11.

'I mean, it's North Africa - Libya, where they've already had major problems,' Cheney said. 'You know that al-Qaeda is operating there, and you have some of the other al-Qaeda-affiliated groups there like Ansar al-Sharia and others.'

Cheney pointed out that the Bush/Cheney administration "always anticipated they were coming for us, especially in that part of the world" on 9/11. He explained, "You've got units in the Defense Department that are superb. They practice for this contingency. And they didn't have anybody in the area.." The Vice President was also skeptical about ordering military forces to stand down once the attacks began.

'I've heard senior officials in the Obama administration say, "well, we didn't know what we'd be sending them into, so we didn't send 'em." Hogwash!' Cheney exclaimed. 'Those guys train for that. They're damned good at it.'

It was clear the administration was more concerned about the effect of the terror attack on the upcoming election. 'And it was shortly before the election, and you know: a big crisis with al-Qaeda attacking embassies? They were hoping that they could avoid that. It was a bit of a reach.' Cheney described, "they wanted to be able to say, 'We got bin Laden. Problem solved' " Three whistle-blowers will be appearing before the House Oversight Committee today to answer questions about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. "The hearing should be damned interesting," Cheney predicted.

Of course, with the neocons running the questioning, there will be little about blowback and why the attack occurred in the first place. It will all be about takedown and positioning for even more aggressive war hawks to be put in place. They obviously don't want Hillary in 2016.

by Anonymousreply 1805/08/2013

No. It's another Republican abuse of power. The event needs to be investigated to improve procedures where possible. But it's being used to work the gullible into a lather. I visit a political site regularly that tends to the left, and a handful of Tea Party freaks keep showing up, cackling about how Obummer is going to be impeached. I'm tired of them, I'm tired of seeing clips of that state dept. guy, and I really never thought I'd be sticking up for the Pentagon, never in a million years. That's what the Republicans have driven me to, the bastards.

by Anonymousreply 1905/08/2013

R15-16

Blaming the Rethuglichans for the current mess (Hell, the "status quo" has been maintained for nearly 100 years!) ignores the complicity and active assistance of the Demoncrats.

Nixon lied about Viet Nam, Carter lied about Guyana (and allowed soldiers to die in Viet Nam for nearly 50 years...and he is my favorite prez in modern times!), Reagan and Bush and Clinton did the same- it was a (You scratch my balls...) quid pro quo of evil.

When the Demoncratic top dogs found out what was on the Watergate tapes and documents they realized that it would look as bad, or worse, for them to release the full dossier.

Thank GOD for the internet.

by Anonymousreply 2005/08/2013

R19

[quote]i'm tired of them, I'm tired of seeing clips of that state dept. guy, and I really never thought I'd be sticking up for the Pentagon, never in a million years. That's what the Republicans have driven me to, the bastards.

Why are you sticking with the Pentagram?

Hillary lied about Behghazi, just like she lies about everything else.

I thought Albright's confession of killing 500,000 children in Iraq "was worth it" but this is just sick.

by Anonymousreply 2105/08/2013

This is just a right-wing side-show.

They're desperate to find something on her to use against her in her run for President in 2016.

They're desperate for a scandal to bring down Obama, and are annoyed and frustrated that he's run one of the most scandal-free administrations in generations.

They're being petulant, childish, petty, and vindictive.

Republicans are just all around awful people, through and through, top to bottom, inside and out.

by Anonymousreply 2205/08/2013

R13's comment in graphic form. Share it on Facebook:

by Anonymousreply 2305/08/2013

r21= F&F

Get goin', Freeperina!

by Anonymousreply 2405/08/2013

Troll-dar r20, then begin the flagging process.

by Anonymousreply 2505/08/2013

Why, R25?

The facts are scary, but they are still facts.

Should I post from your fantasy land where the government, when controlled by Dems is wonderful, and only becomes evil when controlled by Reps?

What about Guantanamo? Or the raids of Medical Marijuana clubs, or the attacks on Syria and Egypt, or the non-committal terms he uses when talking about gay marriage...

You get the point. He is just a darker version of Bush 2.0

by Anonymousreply 2605/08/2013

[quote]Should I post from your fantasy land where the government, when controlled by Dems is wonderful, and only becomes evil when controlled by Reps?

I don't think that at all.

Actually, that's the point: I think, period, and it's clear that Benghazi is a fishing expedition and a political sideshow.

The people who are screeching about Benghazi are the same ones who were screeching about "The Fast and the Furious" and the dreaded "mosque at Ground Zero," and not a one of them could tell you where those world-shaking scandals stand today.

More than anything, it feeds into their persecution complex that The Mainstream Media Isn't Telling You These Things, even as every bit of information they get (specious as it may be) comes directly from the mainstream media.

by Anonymousreply 2705/08/2013

Rachel Maddow's segment "Concocting the Dots" tonight was simultaneously hilarious and terrifying.

by Anonymousreply 2805/08/2013

Libertarians aren't crazy.

They're fundamentally brain-damaged.

Big difference.

by Anonymousreply 2905/08/2013

These nutty Repubs can't do anything but scream BENGHAZI! over and over and try to suppress votes and same sex marriage and women's rights and destroy Obamacare. So much would get done if they weren't around to fuck everything up.

by Anonymousreply 3005/08/2013

Thank you r26 God forbid people realize that it doesn't matter what party is in power. R28: Maddow is a shill.

by Anonymousreply 3105/08/2013

I watched Rachel and Jon Stewart's take on Benghazi. Both brilliant and encapsulates the very reason why the Benghazi war cry is really just a political stunt. r13 provides a good list of all US Embassies that were attacked under Bush. Did the Dems politicize it? No. There were only 3 hearings total on embassy security.

The same GOP who are now all over Benghazi voted against the State Dept's request for funding in 2011. I watched it on CSPAN. Darryl Issa voted to cut funding even further.

So do I care about Benghazi? Well, does the GOP care about the working poor?

by Anonymousreply 3205/08/2013

I love the Republicans who created that complete mess and waste of time and human life The Iraq War going on about Benghazi. What happened to security forces in Iraq?

by Anonymousreply 3305/08/2013

They should hold an inquiry into Jody Arias' weird vagina.

by Anonymousreply 3405/09/2013

If you don't think the Repugs are not going to shout from the rooftops that Hilary Clinton couldn't keep a Diplomat safe and then lied about it, if she runs for President, then you're nutz. My GOD America, she can't keep you safe!

by Anonymousreply 3505/09/2013

Hmmm. The scandal that's bigger than Watergate ("Watergate times 10!") isn't powerful enough to top The Drudge Report, or even FoxNews.com.

by Anonymousreply 3605/09/2013

I'm sure the right wingers who want this to explode are pissed the hearings were blown off TV by the Cleveland and Arias stories.

It's diluting the impact a lot.

by Anonymousreply 3705/09/2013

No, thank you R13.

This is just more Republican nonsense.

by Anonymousreply 3805/09/2013

Obama Lied, People Died!

by Anonymousreply 3905/09/2013

Done, R25. There was so much yellow on this thread I almost went blind. Idiot...

by Anonymousreply 4005/09/2013

It's the cover up and directly lying to the American people that always takes people down.

by Anonymousreply 4105/09/2013

There was no cover up and no lies, this is all nonsense.

by Anonymousreply 4205/09/2013

Yawn. When are the hearings on the Bush crimes going to begin? Nancy Pelosi was a fool not to investigate them when she had the chance.

by Anonymousreply 4305/09/2013

r41, don't compare Bill Clinton with Richard Nixon, Freeper fuck!

by Anonymousreply 4405/09/2013

[quote]If you don't think the Repugs are not going to shout from the rooftops that Hilary Clinton couldn't keep a Diplomat safe and then lied about it, if she runs for President, then you're nutz. My GOD America, she can't keep you safe!

Oh, dear.

Honey, she wiped the floor with them.

by Anonymousreply 4505/09/2013

[quote]Thank you [R26] God forbid people realize that it doesn't matter what party is in power. [R28]: Maddow is a shill.

Let me help you find your way back.

by Anonymousreply 4605/09/2013

[quote]Thousands of innocent people died as a result of that vile trio's lies and does congress give a shit? No. But Benghazi is a HUMONGOUS deal to those crooks in congress since it may stop Hillary's bid for the presidency.

Then who the fuck would want Hillary to be president? The Benghazi deaths were awful.

Hillary swore that her husband and the FEDS had great sources about the weapons in Iraq. In fact Bill said we were going in even if no weapons could be found since he KNEW they were there.

She backed the war and only gave a weak response when she was called on it.

by Anonymousreply 4705/09/2013

[quote]Should I post from your fantasy land where the government, when controlled by Dems is wonderful, and only becomes evil when controlled by Reps? What about Guantanamo?

It's freaky that in this day and age anyone actually thinks its significantly about the party.

You forgot the new drone policy & civilian deaths in Yemen & Pakistan. Not to mention killing "suspects" without a trial.

by Anonymousreply 4805/09/2013

Impeachment is off the table

by Anonymousreply 4905/09/2013

R48 is right-

Both Clintons supported the invasion and mass murder in Iraq. That alone should disqualify them from office, and since they are "leaders" should make them culpable. Clinton/Gore, Bush/Cheney and Obama/Biden should be tried for war crimes and executed if convicted.

They are shitstains on human decency, and their evil should be exposed to everyone.

by Anonymousreply 5005/09/2013

R50 - Libertarian Idiot Troll.

by Anonymousreply 5105/09/2013

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al-Qaida attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of “Bali Bombings.” No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al-Qaida terrorists storm the diplomatic compound killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name “David Foy.” This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what’s considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaida-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

by Anonymousreply 5205/09/2013

r47/r50 = F&F.

These two want Obama tried for murder.

by Anonymousreply 5305/09/2013

BTW, Bill Clinton said Iraq had WMD back in 1998. Can our two little trolls hightail it back to Freeperville?

by Anonymousreply 5405/09/2013

It's boring. Like we haven't heard about middle east killings before.

Yawn.

by Anonymousreply 5505/09/2013

Here is what Hillary Clinton said back in October 10, 2002:

[quote]In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

Now, can you kindly fuck off with your Right wing smear tactics? They're really getting old.

by Anonymousreply 5605/09/2013

R52: They should have blamed it on a videotape, allowing Muslims to look like psycho killers.

by Anonymousreply 5705/09/2013

I heard champagne was flowing at the WH after somebody talked Ariel into leaving the door open when he left.

This is from the un-DL site.

by Anonymousreply 5805/09/2013

R 58 I heard the House Repubs broke down in tears when the Cleveland and Arias story broke the same week as their hearings.

by Anonymousreply 5905/10/2013

So the whole thing turned into a big snooze fest with no new information uncovered? Color me shocked.

by Anonymousreply 6005/10/2013

When it became clear last fall that the CIA's now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.

by Anonymousreply 6105/10/2013

Ask yourself who benefited from the attack? Who wanted to humiliate the Obama administration right before the election? Who wants to derail Hillary '16? What Middle East nation is always instigating war?

Before you dismiss any possibilities, remember the Iran hostage crisis,Iran-Contra, and Nixon sabotaging the 1968 Paris peace talks.

by Anonymousreply 6205/10/2013

Democrats need to call out Republicans for wasting taxpayers' money on this nonsense.

by Anonymousreply 6305/10/2013

Take Benghazi and stick it right up your ass. We know the CIA causes all the trouble here(USA) and in other countries and they would do anything to try and sabotage the Obama administration.

Republican congressman are revolting, evil human beings who are always in the pocket of our war machine.

by Anonymousreply 6405/10/2013

Actually some of the more senior Republican congressmen have distanced themselves a bit from the hearings.

by Anonymousreply 6505/10/2013

[quote]Both Clintons supported the invasion and mass murder in Iraq. That alone should disqualify them from office, and since they are "leaders" should make them culpable. Clinton/Gore, Bush/Cheney and Obama/Biden should be tried for war crimes and executed if convicted.

Of course. Americans are completely ignorant. Plus the bigger, "better" Patriot Act V2 in recent years.

And wtf is the obsession with Hillary Clinton on this board. Especially given her record on Iraq while backing Hub's claims when he said "There ARE weapons of mass destruction in Iraq- we must go in", even after the US had invaded. Then Bill trying to worm out of it by implying it was the video, that caused the Embassy attacks when it wasn't.

Real stupid heads here. It's like they don't want to know. Or think.

by Anonymousreply 6605/10/2013

^Joe Biden's record on the Middle East is exactly the same as Hillary Clinton's. Do you hold him to the same standard?

by Anonymousreply 6705/10/2013

Yes. Love it. Anything that makes the far side of any party's heads explode is good fun.

by Anonymousreply 6805/10/2013

R67 the idea is that all these administrations have increasingly bad policies. Why would Biden be any different? Did he oppose broadening of the Patriot Act or the new drone policy?

by Anonymousreply 6905/10/2013

Hearings,no. Earrings (and caftans),yes.

by Anonymousreply 7005/10/2013

The latest is that the I.R.S. is going after the whistleblowers and a few of those yet to come forward. Getting calls and letters. Good! This should shut that baby down.

by Anonymousreply 7105/10/2013

There is an argument I am seeing show up pretty regularly on Twitter. Someone tweets a link to a news story asking valid questions about Benghazi, or suggesting that there has been a cover-up (and history shows that fallout from coverups are always worse than the incidents that preceded them, but politicians never learn) someone intent on protecting the administration or Hillary Clinton tweets the equivalent of a sneer: “oh yeah? Well there were this many attacks on US Embassies while Bush was president, where were you then, huh? Why wasn’t anyone demanding investigations, then, huh?” Okay, well, I was wrong in calling that an argument; it’s really just your basic distraction tactic, meant to obfuscate and confuse, as we see Jon Stewart try to do, here

But the answer is actually pretty simple: yeah, there were x-number of embassy attacks under Bush and they did not require investigations. For that matter there were all of these attacks on embassies and American interests under President Clinton, and they didn’t require investigations, either.

Why not? Well, because under Bush the embassy attacks were taking place mostly in Iraq, and during a time of acknowledged war — right in the thick of it, in fact — and no one tried to argue that they were anything but planned and executed attacks.

And during the Clinton years, the attacks — which took place an average of every 18 months — were recognized as planned, organized attacks and no one tried to argue that they were anything different, either.

And while our embassies were attacked under these presidents, and others, none of our Ambassadors were murdered (along with Navy Seals) while multiple stand-down orders were given against mounting a rescue.

Neither the Bush nor Clinton administrations sought to mischaracterize the attacks on their embassies. Neither of them disseminated weirdly vague stories that was “really” took place was a spontaneous protest over an unseen, stupid video. And it was not the Bush (or Clinton) administration that — even after acknowledging a terror attack had occurred — repeated those lies to grieving parents or (weeks later) in a speech to the UN where the “video” was blamed six times

Neither the Bush nor Clinton administrations first claimed that it was too early to talk about the attacks, and then too late. None of their Secretaries of State first flatly said — two days after the event — that they would not talk about the attack, declared to congress “what does it matter” or fell back on stereotypical behavior of yelling and emotionalism to distract the press and scare her mostly-male congressional inquisitors into silence. And none of their Secretary of State’s successors started out his term by quickly announcing that he didn’t intend to talk about the attacks, either. (::::UPDATE::::Just breaking, now he says he will!:::END:::)

But mostly, the reason “no one investigated” attacks under Bush or Clinton is because no one lied about what they were, or refused to be clear about what their responses had been.

The truth is, had the administration come out and said “terrible attack; we absolutely did not just let Chris Stevens die, but it was too dangerous for us to mount a rescue; we are grieved and we’ll bring this to justice” the story would have been gone well before election day.

But they couldn’t be upfront; as Peggy Noonan notes, “The Obama White House sees every event as a political event.”

So, go on, keep talking about how many embassy attacks happened under George W. Bush — and under Clinton, too — and then asking “why do you care so much about this one, huh?”

The answer you will keep getting is this: because the Obama team lied about it.

And an administration that can be in some measure attached to bugging the opposition, and using the IRS to target political groups (after having “joked” about that very thing), loves to write more power into its bills and write 12 damn revisions to their Benghazi talking points after clearly making stuff up has earned some investigation on behalf of the people it is meant to serve, with accountability, and not rule with impunity.

by Anonymousreply 7205/10/2013

I watched some clips. It seemed scripted and rehearsed and performed badly.

by Anonymousreply 7305/10/2013

[quote]under Bush the embassy attacks were taking place mostly in Iraq, and during a time of acknowledged war — right in the thick of it, in fact — and no one tried to argue that they were anything but planned and executed attacks.

Hmmmmmm. Reallllllly? Let's repeat what has already been posted here for the liar @r72...

January 22, 2002 US Consulate in Kolkata attacked: 5 killed

June 14, 2002 US Consulate in Karachi attacked: 12 killed

February 28, 2003 US Embassy at Islamabad attacked: 2 killed

June 30, 2004: US Embassy in Tashkent attacked: 2 killed

December 6, 2004 US Compound at Saudi Arabia attacked: 9 killed

March 2, 2006 US Consulate in Karachi attacked again: 2 killed

September 12, 2006 US Embassy in Syria attacked: 4 killed

March 18 2008 US Embassy in Yemen attacked: 2 killed

July 9, 2008 US Consulate in Istanbul attacked: 6 killed

September 17, 2008 US Embassy in Yemen attacked again: 16 killed

Total deaths: 60 Outraged Republicans: 0

by Anonymousreply 7405/10/2013

r72

Cheney, Dubya, and Kindasleazy Rice told monumental lies in order to justify the unnecessary invasion of Iraq. An invasion that cost hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. Far worse than anything the Obama administration has done.

You really are a pathetic clown.

by Anonymousreply 7505/10/2013

Bush refused to testify under oath to the 9/11 Commission and insisted when he did talk with them that his daddy-figure Dick be in the room to answer questions for him.

by Anonymousreply 7605/10/2013

If you hate Cheney and Bush (as I do) it still doesn't explain why anyone would remain silent about a more extensive Patriot act under Obama not to mention the drone strikes.

Another point is no one complained about Clinton's address to the nation in 1998 regarding the need to invade Iraq then (video of it available online). But were critical when we invaded Iraq 2003.(as they should have been)

But aren't critical of Hillary who supported it and want her to run for office? - Although that may just be a Datalounge thing- let's hope so.

Crazy, or completely braindead society.

by Anonymousreply 7705/10/2013

You just hate the Clintons, obviously, so every point you try to make is biased.

Joe Biden was the original source of the Patriot Act - do you hate him as well? Biden also voted to invade Iraq in 2002.

by Anonymousreply 7805/10/2013

People will try to pass the the buck as high up as it will go. Could gave, would have, should have. It isn't as if we had high level government representatives misleading us BEFORE happened. There was damage control, but no damn conspiracy.

by Anonymousreply 7905/10/2013

r77 Hillary said that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 in 2003. Everything Bill said was from back in 1998. Look at John Kerry's statements. Take a visit to Snopes and educate yourselves before running your mouths.

This thread is full of so many damn Freeper fucks, it's unbelievable.

by Anonymousreply 8005/10/2013

[quote]Another point is no one complained about Clinton's address to the nation in 1998 regarding the need to invade Iraq then

Saddam had a weapon program going in the 90s, dumbass! The sanctions worked.

by Anonymousreply 8105/10/2013

You gays do know how much Obama laughs at your blind devotion, right?

by Anonymousreply 8205/10/2013

Who gives a shit if they were mischaracterized in the beginning. What difference does it make? None, I tell you. You'd think that Hillary killed them herself by the way Republicans are carrying on over this.

by Anonymousreply 8305/10/2013

Can't we just agree that the Clintons, Bush, Cheney and Obama are all evil fuckers and put them all on trial for war crimes?

by Anonymousreply 8405/10/2013

No, r84. Now kindly fuck off.

by Anonymousreply 8505/10/2013

Great posts, R13 and R23.

by Anonymousreply 8605/10/2013

I swear as God is my witness, that Obama will be impeached for something! I just swear it okay?

by Anonymousreply 8705/10/2013

Why, R85?

Obama has done more to destroy civil liberties than Bu$h, and has killed almost as many innocent civilians.

by Anonymousreply 8805/10/2013

R88 here, clarifying my post--

At least the "Left" gave lip service to the idea that what Bu$h was doing- invading foreign lands, usurping legislative and judicial realms, destroying civil liberties, etc.- was evil and dangerous.

Now that Obama is in the Oval Orifice they cannot even call him out for the most egregious and destructive acts, like the NDAA or domestic drones that are authorized to kill innocent US citizens.

That is why libertarians laugh at your pathetic attempts to argue. You are just whores for your "Party Leader" and deserve whatever happens to you.

At least libertarians can sleep well at night knowing we don't support mass murderers and child killers.

by Anonymousreply 8905/10/2013

All I know is I see what Republicans have done and I hate them, one and all. If wishing could make it so, our legislature would be dead.

Do I believe Obama is controlled by our CIA and military complex, of course but he tries to do a few good things for the people. The lowlife Republicans won't let him. America. A very sad country run by the military...a bunch of murdering thugs. The USA and Israel, worst terrorist countries in the world.

by Anonymousreply 9005/10/2013

By the way, Libertarians are the worst of the worst...no conscience, never a care for their fellow man, greedy, cheap, cruel, I'd rather deal with Fred Phelps then deal with a libertarian.

by Anonymousreply 9105/10/2013

I misread the title. I thought this was about Ben Maisani, not Ben Ghazi.

by Anonymousreply 9205/10/2013

Ben sucked cocks in Gazi

by Anonymousreply 9305/11/2013

no threads on the DL

by Anonymousreply 9405/11/2013

I noticed that, too, R94. What is happening? Are we the only two here?

by Anonymousreply 9505/11/2013

Amazon ewes are down.

by Anonymousreply 9605/11/2013

You can only access threads on wit and wisdom and whatever you have on thread watcher. We'd better get an extra day on our subscriptions.

by Anonymousreply 9705/11/2013

I'm here, too, and can't see anything either. WTF is going on?

by Anonymousreply 9805/11/2013

Was it something we said?

by Anonymousreply 9905/12/2013

SNL did a good slam of the hearings with their cold opening last night.

Darrell Issa is the West Coast's Peter King.

And Louis "Gomer" Gohmert has the Texas nest of right wing crackpots covered.

by Anonymousreply 10005/12/2013

no more threads on the DL

by Anonymousreply 10105/12/2013

[bold]REPORT: NBC SPIKED STORY ID'ING BENGHAZI WHISTLEBLOWER AS OBAMA/CLINTON VOTER[/bold]

by Anonymousreply 10205/12/2013

Even "The New Yorker" smells a coverup

by Anonymousreply 10305/12/2013

Not only yeah but hell yeah.

by Anonymousreply 10405/12/2013

[quote]You can only access threads on wit and wisdom and whatever you have on thread watcher. We'd better get an extra day on our subscriptions.

I'm glad you mentioned this. I thought my computer was broken.

by Anonymousreply 10505/12/2013

"CBS News President David Rhodes and ABC News President Ben Sherwood, both of them have siblings that not only work at the White House, that not only work for President Obama, but they work at the NSC on foreign policy issues directly related to Benghazi."

by Anonymousreply 10605/12/2013

Is Obama pulling an Ed Muskie?

by Anonymousreply 10705/13/2013

R107-

Obama deserves an Oscar for that.

by Anonymousreply 10805/13/2013

Instead of doing what they are paid to do (work for THE PEOPLE) Republicans are (as usual) wasting money and time on trumped up charges that will not hold water. If someone could drop a cluster bomb on our legislature when it is in session, they would be doing the world a favor.

by Anonymousreply 10905/14/2013

[quote]Do I believe Obama is controlled by our CIA and military complex, of course but he tries to do a few good things for the people. The lowlife Republicans won't let him. America. A very sad country run by the military

Is that why he broadened the Patriot Act?

Did you hear Diane Feinstein's softball drone questions to John Brennan. Do you honestly think our drone policy is human? What about assassinations? Do you really thing Bradley Manning should have been arrested much less locked up. The Dems are multiplying the offenses that the Reps started. And were complicit from the start. Hillary voted FOR the Patriot Act version 1 in '01 under Bush!

Chris Hedges is suing Obama there are so many Constitutional violations. Is he a "Fweeper" too? (yeah I know it's with an "r" but DLers sound like babies it practicing namecalling when they say it.)

And to an earlier post– there were NO weapons of mass destruction found in '98 when Clinton said war was inevitable (although cleverly invasion wasn't on his watch) and Hillary did indeed continue to back up Bill's FBI sources after she held a senate seat. Shit women I know don't give a fuck about Hillary what's the big shit-storm for here?

by Anonymousreply 11005/14/2013

R103

That's a pretty damning article from a staunchly liberal magazine.

R110

You're wasting your time. Re-read some of the posts here from people that deny that Obama has made drone strikes on US citizens on US soil legal, or strengthened the Patriot Act, or spied on US citizens. They just go "nyah-nyah-nyah I can't hear you" and refuse to believe the facts. The fact that he is just as bad (if not worse) than Bush conflicts with their worship of him, and so they just pretend it isn't true.

by Anonymousreply 11105/14/2013

R111 Well if the Hedges suit doesn't wake them up I guess nothing will.

by Anonymousreply 11205/14/2013

You know, the Patriot Act was and is disgusting but if we have to put up with it, then I say...hit the White Supremacist (with a drone), I'll be fine with that.

by Anonymousreply 11305/14/2013

All you lowlife right wingers on this thread...it's nothing but twisting the truth and making something of nothing.

by Anonymousreply 11405/14/2013

R114-

The NEWfuckingYORKER is right wing?

Goddamnit some of you people are stupid.

by Anonymousreply 11505/14/2013

At least I'm not a Libertarian, R115. That's a different category of stupid entirely.

by Anonymousreply 11605/14/2013

R116-

So, you believe that the Patriot Act is good? That the Drug War is good? That bailing out big banks with your money is a good thing?

Tell me, specifically, what about freedom and liberty that you disagree with?

by Anonymousreply 11705/14/2013

The wingnuts have no control over Obama or his administration so they run to the blogs to express their dismay. So funny.

by Anonymousreply 11805/14/2013

I'm still shocked at how R116 can breathe without mechanical help, since she's obviously too stupid to have a brain.

by Anonymousreply 11905/14/2013

R119: oh honey, being called stupid by a Libertarian is a profound compliment.

I'm not brain-damaged enough to believe that Obama is worse than Bush. It takes weapon's-grade levels of stupidity to get to that particular place.

by Anonymousreply 12005/15/2013

R120-

Since libertarians want to end the drug war, oppose the overseas wars, want to stop putting innocent black men in jail for "DWB", oppose the Patriot Act, are in favor of gay marriage...what is it you hate about us?

Since you post the same shit on every thread, you must just have a mental illness.

by Anonymousreply 12105/15/2013

[quote]Since you post the same shit on every thread, you must just have a mental illness.

AGAIN with the projection. Jesus.

by Anonymousreply 12205/15/2013

r121

Ron Paul and Rand Paul are racists who are opposed to civil rights legislation. Ayn Rand was a psychopathic monster who thought the rich and powerful should rule the world and everyone else should be slaves. You need to disavow scum like them if you want libertarianism to be taken seriously.

by Anonymousreply 12305/15/2013

Wasn't Benghazi and TV show from the 60s about doctors and hospitals?

by Anonymousreply 12405/15/2013

Let me get this straight, so we do NOT want Benghazi?

by Anonymousreply 12505/15/2013

R121

Simple-minded, grossly inaccurate, and easily destroyed falsehoods like that are why most people don't take socialist children like you seriously. People who parrot what they read on DailyKos are worse than Freepers.

by Anonymousreply 12605/15/2013

r124

Yes, Vince Edwards starred in the 1960s television medical drama [italic]Ben Ghazi[/italic].

by Anonymousreply 12705/15/2013

Well said R20 at least someone here realizes that both parties are pretty much the same and to blame.

by Anonymousreply 12805/20/2013

Trolldar reveals that R126 is calling himself a Socialist. Which says a lot about Libertarian intellectual capacity.

by Anonymousreply 12905/20/2013

R6 I think you are right then again both the Democrats and Republicans do not like the Clintons and yeah Hillary is annoying and a closeted lesbian, Bill is bisexual and has a problem with cocaine and eating way too much junk food like eating Big Macs daily for years.

by Anonymousreply 13005/21/2013

R122-

If that's projection, please tell which of the points in R121 with which you disagree.

Ending the drug war?

Opposing the overseas wars?

Putting innocent black men in jail for "DWB"?

Opposing the Patriot Act?

Please, enlighten us.

by Anonymousreply 13105/24/2013

CIA was smuggling weapons (MANPADS, etc.) out of Benghazi to the rebels in Syria in exchange for the WMD that the Syrians had received when they were smuggled out of Saddam's Iraq. Russia found out, got pissed, and met with Turkey's leaders. Turkey Consul General Ali Sait Akin, went to Benghazi, ate dinner w/Ambassador Stevens, told him things he didn't want to hear, and left. Less than 1 hour later, the compound was 'ambushed' leaving Ambassador Stevens, and 3 others, deceased.

Speaker Boehner refuses to apoint a special committee or even talk about it, as Speaker Boehner was in the loop from the beginning on the entire thing. As a last resort, he (along with many in another gov't branch) will claim National Security as the reason for silence and/or misinformation.

The truth will come out...

by Anonymousreply 13208/08/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.
×

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed


recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!