The Benghazi Story goes critical

[Fern]

Can't make this stuff up. It ain't about partisan politics, you can believe us, we is Republicans! We really really care about those Americans. We aren't raising money on their dead corpses!!




http://www.mediaite.com/tv/gowdy-to-nrcc-stop-fundraising-off-benghazi/

You do realize that the NRCC is a sec. 527 PAC, right?

All I see is that Gowdy demonstrates better sense than the 527.

Fern

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Can't make this stuff up. It ain't about partisan politics, you can believe us, we is Republicans! We really really care about those Americans. We aren't raising money on their dead corpses!!




http://www.mediaite.com/tv/gowdy-to-nrcc-stop-fundraising-off-benghazi/

Meanwhile we have a Democratic Congresswoman (Kyrsten Sinema) raising campaign money off the recent Veterans Hospital scandal where as many as 40 veterans may have died waiting for care. Democrats really really care about those Veterans....raising money on their dead corpses!! OMG!!!

 

[TerryMathews]

Meanwhile we have a Democratic Congresswoman (Kyrsten Sinema) raising campaign money off the recent Veterans Hospital scandal where as many as 40 veterns may have died waiting for care. Democrats really really care about those Veterens....raising money on their dead corpses!! OMG!!!

You can't make this stuff up. How's that foot taste, bshole?

Hint: indignation only works if your position is righteous.

 

[werepossum]

You do realize that the NRCC is a sec. 527 PAC, right?

All I see is that Gowdy demonstrates better sense than the 527.

Fern

Yeah, but it's still funny.

Meanwhile we have a Democratic Congresswoman (Kyrsten Sinema) raising campaign money off the recent Veterans Hospital scandal where as many as 40 veterans may have died waiting for care. Democrats really really care about those Veterans....raising money on their dead corpses!! OMG!!!

lol There is a very real principle in politics - if you can't get elected, you can't do anything about the problem. I have zero problem with either side campaigning and fundraising on either issue.

Hopefully both sides are on the same page with the VA, just disagreeing on who should be in charge when they pretend to fix the problem. With Benghazi, you have a choice between the Pubbies campaigning to embarrass the Democrats and the Democrats campaigning to keep the embarrassing truth safely hidden. Not a lot to choose from there . . .

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yeah, but it's still funny.


lol There is a very real principle in politics - if you can't get elected, you can't do anything about the problem. I have zero problem with either side campaigning and fundraising on either issue.

Hopefully both sides are on the same page with the VA, just disagreeing on who should be in charge when they pretend to fix the problem. With Benghazi, you have a choice between the Pubbies campaigning to embarrass the Democrats and the Democrats campaigning to keep the embarrassing truth safely hidden. Not a lot to choose from there . . .

I don't have a problem with this either. My issue lately is more with the political "tabloids" and the mindless parrots who constantly regurgitate their hyperpartisan tripe. Some people are stupid, embarrassingly stupid.

 

[Jhhnn]

Luckily Benghazi is a tiny, tiny village, so anyone in Benghazi on that particular day can reasonably be assumed to have been guarding the ambassador.

I'd ask if you're really that stupid, but that particular verdict came in years ago.

Caught in an obvious lie, you dodge & call me stupid.

Or you could kinda Man-up, offer that you were merely mistaken, perhaps misled into believing that the ambassador had no American security. You could offer that that he should have had more security, in your keyboard expert opinion.

Probably not. It's apparently very important to you for your team to make certain leaps of Faith, to believe in false premises that you promulgate, and to never ever reconsider anything based on factual evidence. If they catch you in one deliberate deception, they might take a second look at what else you've offered, might even look at themselves & what they believe. Can't have that. Never admit to being wrong. There's a name for that- "Propagandist".

Or you're just an unfortunate who first lies & then believes it himself. There's probably a name for that, too.

 

[Jhhnn]

Meanwhile we have a Democratic Congresswoman (Kyrsten Sinema) raising campaign money off the recent Veterans Hospital scandal where as many as 40 veterans may have died waiting for care. Democrats really really care about those Veterans....raising money on their dead corpses!! OMG!!!

Desperate often?

Are you likening VA care to a terrorist attack?

Or are you saying that the govt had the same sort of control at Benghazi that they have over the VA?

Can we change Benghazi, or can we change the VA?

Or is it not about anything like that at all, but rather about finger wagging shaming & blaming from a position of assumed moral superiority?

 

[Jhhnn]

With Benghazi, you have a choice between the Pubbies campaigning to embarrass the Democrats and the Democrats campaigning to keep the embarrassing truth safely hidden. Not a lot to choose from there . . .

The events of the attack itself are not in dispute, other than for people willing to lie to make a point. It's a textbook example of dealing with forces beyond one's control. In diplomacy, miscalculation is a fact of life with sometimes tragic consequences.

As information emerged, Repubs have moved to new layers of abstraction about events after the fact, meaning it has almost nothing to do with the incident itself, with Benghazi. It's all about putting spin on a rather poor PR effort from the Admin. They've been reduced to whining about the classification of documents at this point & likely selectively editing what they release if Issa's past practices are being followed. And now they're forming a super committee to beat that drum as loud as they can, hopefully keep people engaged over that non-issue, magically transform a loser into a winner.

All of which is pretty amusing when we think about all the real issues in this election, all the real issues that Repubs are desperately trying to avoid. I don't think that screaming "Benghazi!" will do much more than keep the choir in the loft.

 

[werepossum]

I don't have a problem with this either. My issue lately is more with the political "tabloids" and the mindless parrots who constantly regurgitate their hyperpartisan tripe. Some people are stupid, embarrassingly stupid.

Yup. For an example of such . . .

Caught in an obvious lie, you dodge & call me stupid.

Or you could kinda Man-up, offer that you were merely mistaken, perhaps misled into believing that the ambassador had no American security. You could offer that that he should have had more security, in your keyboard expert opinion.

Probably not. It's apparently very important to you for your team to make certain leaps of Faith, to believe in false premises that you promulgate, and to never ever reconsider anything based on factual evidence. If they catch you in one deliberate deception, they might take a second look at what else you've offered, might even look at themselves & what they believe. Can't have that. Never admit to being wrong. There's a name for that- "Propagandist".

Or you're just an unfortunate who first lies & then believes it himself. There's probably a name for that, too.

The ambassador had no armed American forces at hand, period. Maybe "security" means something different to you.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yup. For an example of such . . .


The ambassador had no armed American forces at hand, period. Maybe "security" means something different to you.

Yeh, first you said there was no American security, and now you claim they weren't armed, another lie. Ignoring commonly known facts to make some conspiracy theory point is your agenda entirely.

DSS agents are highly trained in the use of firearms, often carry sidearms-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_Security_Service#Weapons

From all accounts, there were heavier weapons for their use in the compound-

Diplomatic Security Service Special Agent Scott Strickland secured Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith, an information management officer, in the main building's safe haven.[66][68] Other agents retrieved their M4 carbines and tactical gear from another building. They tried to return to the main building but encountered armed attackers and retreated.[66]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack#Assault_on_the_Compound

Clearly, the attack was a complete surprise, but that doesn't mean the ambassador was w/o armed American DSS agents as you've claimed, or w/o loyal Libyan security, either.

Your position is absurd.

 

[werepossum]

Yeh, first you said there was no American security, and now you claim they weren't armed, another lie. Ignoring commonly known facts to make some conspiracy theory point is your agenda entirely.

DSS agents are highly trained in the use of firearms, often carry sidearms-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_Security_Service#Weapons

From all accounts, there were heavier weapons for their use in the compound-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack#Assault_on_the_Compound

Clearly, the attack was a complete surprise, but that doesn't mean the ambassador was w/o armed American DSS agents as you've claimed, or w/o loyal Libyan security, either.

Your position is absurd.

So Ambassador Stevens had armed guards, they just didn't have their, um, arms. Priceless!

Perhaps President Obama could hire David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times. If Kirkpatrick can immediately identify the culprits and get statements of culpability - not to mention establish that al Qaeda's call for attacks, statement of justification, and intercepted phone call to the contrary are bogus - then clearly such an enterprising young fellow can be of great help to our doughty President as he fights to find those responsible and bring them to justice.

 

[Jhhnn]

So Ambassador Stevens had armed guards, they just didn't have their, um, arms. Priceless!

That's not what it says, no matter how much you need it to be that way.

Perhaps President Obama could hire David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times. If Kirkpatrick can immediately identify the culprits and get statements of culpability - not to mention establish that al Qaeda's call for attacks, statement of justification, and intercepted phone call to the contrary are bogus - then clearly such an enterprising young fellow can be of great help to our doughty President as he fights to find those responsible and bring them to justice.

Perhaps you need a diversion away from the exposure of your lies.

 

[Thebobo]

FOX news is chipping in to help with the outrage - look at their coverage.

Since Healthcare is working
Since Bundy is a wacko
Lets try Benghazi!

They are going full retard benghazi!

 

[senseamp]

FOX news is chipping in to help with the outrage - look at their coverage.

Since Healthcare is working
Since Bundy is a wacko
Lets try Benghazi!

They are going full retard benghazi!

Obamacare bashing is not going their way, so need to change the subject. I am all for it. Let them talk about talking points and emails, it's better than trying to sabotage health care access for working Americans.

 

[HomerJS]

Obamacare bashing is not going their way, so need to change the subject. I am all for it. Let them talk about talking points and emails, it's better than trying to sabotage health care access for working Americans.

So who is wagging who Fox News or the GOP?

 

[senseamp]

So who is wagging who Fox News or the GOP?

Two sides of same dog.

 

[boomerang]

The nervous chatter, while unsurprisingly juvenile in nature, is encouraging. The left always tells us what they're most afraid of.

 

[thraashman]

The nervous chatter, while unsurprisingly juvenile in nature, is encouraging. The left always tells us what they're most afraid of.

Um ... you need to understand something crazy person. We're not afraid, we're mocking you.

 

[brycejones]

Hey has this thing gone critical yet or we still talking about the echo chamber?

 

[blankslate]

Hey has this thing gone critical yet or we still talking about the echo chamber?

Something might go critical.


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewi...ss-obama-impeachment-without-using-the-i-word

Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing Tuesday to discuss the prospect of impeaching President Barack Obama – they just weren't very eager to use the dreaded "I-word."

If you can't beat them see if you can "I-word" them.

According to Hearst, the House Republicans detailed a laundry list of Obama's alleged transgressions that could warrant impeachment:

Examples included bombing Libya without congressional authorization; delaying implementation of some provisions of Obamacare; waiving immigration restrictions to enable children of illegal immigrants to remain in the United States; easing federal drug enforcement in states that have legalized the medicinal or recreational use of marijuana; ending mandatory-minimum prison sentences for some drug offenses; and permitting the Internal Revenue Service to scrutinize conservative organizations’ applications for non-profit, tax-exempt status.

too bad Intrade isn't around anymore it was an interesting betting site while it was still around. And this definitely would be something that is being wagered on.


....

 

[senseamp]

Something might go critical.


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewi...ss-obama-impeachment-without-using-the-i-word



If you can't beat them see if you can "I-word" them.



too bad Intrade isn't around anymore it was an interesting betting site while it was still around. And this definitely would be something that is being wagered on.


....

Seeing how the Clinton impeachment worked out for them, I am crossing fingers that GOP is stupid enough to go for it.

 

[mrjminer]

Um ... you need to understand something crazy person. We're not afraid, we're mocking you.

I would argue that people tossing up graphs of news coverage and claiming it as evidence of something other than the news covering an upcoming event of public interest rather than just repeatedly covering the same topics that have been covered, and are currently beyond the point of the public having an immediate effect over, are either afraid, or doing a poor job of mocking.

In this matter, democrats are merely unwilling to accept the reality that people should be held accountable for gross incompetence which leads to the avoidable deaths of our citizens due to blind party affiliation, and it shows to anyone that isn't blind. Otherwise, what's the big deal? Give politicians a free pass at sitting idly while our citizens are killed because they are... politicians? The inquiry is crucial to ensuring steps are taken to prevent and/or inhibit things like this from happening again instead of just letting it be buried in bullshit, and allowing those holding the shovel to continue burying it deeper. Not to mention, it wouldn't even need to be done if people would just tell the truth, admit where fuckups occurred, but we couldn't possibly have people advocating against their one-sided political viewpoint to realize that it wouldn't have been an issue in the first place if people weren't lying their asses off, right?

Both "sides" are stupid, though. Republicans just happen to be on the right side of this one (harhar!).

 

[ivwshane]

I would argue that people tossing up graphs of news coverage and claiming it as evidence of something other than the news covering an upcoming event of public interest rather than just repeatedly covering the same topics that have been covered, and are currently beyond the point of the public having an immediate effect over, are either afraid, or doing a poor job of mocking.

In this matter, democrats are merely unwilling to accept the reality that people should be held accountable for gross incompetence which leads to the avoidable deaths of our citizens due to blind party affiliation, and it shows to anyone that isn't blind. Otherwise, what's the big deal? Give politicians a free pass at sitting idly while our citizens are killed because they are... politicians? The inquiry is crucial to ensuring steps are taken to prevent and/or inhibit things like this from happening again instead of just letting it be buried in bullshit, and allowing those holding the shovel to continue burying it deeper. Not to mention, it wouldn't even need to be done if people would just tell the truth, admit where fuckups occurred, but we couldn't possibly have people advocating against their one-sided political viewpoint to realize that it wouldn't have been an issue in the first place if people weren't lying their asses off, right?

Both "sides" are stupid, though. Republicans just happen to be on the right side of this one (harhar!).

I again remind the reality challenged that this was investigated and conclusions/recomendations were made in a 2012 report.

You idiots are a fucking joke!

 

[mrjminer]

I again remind the reality challenged that this was investigated and conclusions/recomendations were made in a 2012 report.

You idiots are a fucking joke!

Oh, ok. Thanks for the insight. I'll just leave this here for people like you. You know, people who aren't idiots that are a fucking joke: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack#Investigation

 

[kage69]

Um ... you need to understand something crazy person. We're not afraid, we're mocking you.

Crazy? I just think ego compels them to dismiss what they're worried about however they can, even if that puts them at absurd odds with reality. They know this latest swing with Benghazi is pathetic, but they don't really have any alternatives and who is going to zip it or look beat up before the big game? That's how these tribal, 'team over issue' conservatives see 2016. To their credit they are getting shit done too, the old guard has been waging a rather successful offensive on teahadi lately, so you could argue the level of crazy within the GOP is actually on the decline. But desperation? Yeah not so much.


I watched http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/09/johnmica-benghazi_n_5294767.html just now and oddly enough I don't feel fearful at all. I can't speak for Dems, or even other Indies, but the thought of guys like Mica and Issa being tasked with oversight in DC makes me feel something between disgust and resentment, certainly it's deserving of scorn. I will grudgingly admit a small amount of sympathy for the few moderate, sane republicans who are stuck on that ride along with their desperate, shameless brethren. The ones with their sanctimonious noses in the air over Benghazi are good for laughs, and that's about it.