@LDS LiberalLet's see...Deflecting blame for Fast
& Furious workedDeflecting blame for fiscal irresponsibility workedDeflecting blame for Solydra workedDeflecting blame for sluggish economy
workedBlaming Republicans for EVERY national problem has workedBlaming Republicans for interest in the Benghazi debacle has mostly workedSlamming at every possible event: Republicans, Tea Partiers, Conservatives,
and anyone who dares disagree with him has worked.The only thing the
Obama Administration has in their arsenal is to deflect blame. With a
heretofore willing press to peddle his propaganda, I'm sure he's
comfortable with Hillary's protective bubble.But now
they've bitten the hand that fed his hubris, and offended journalists are
now feasting on the previously impervious beast they helped to create.Facts will be very inconvenient to Democrats in 2016 when (if?) the press
actually pays attention to them.
When is the investigation of the Iraq war deaths and decision to boot boots on
Let see...Sarah Palin didn't work, Mitt Romney
didn't work, Slamming; Hispanics, Women, Young People, GLBTs,
the Poor, the Elderly and every other minority group didn't work,Fiscal Cliff didn't work, Invading other countries didn't
work,the only thing the GOP has left is to publically embarass and
blame Hillary Clinton from running in 2016.Based on everything else
they've tried, the Party of "NO" plan to win the WhiteHouse in 2016
isn't going to work this time either.
re:UtahBlueDevilApparently you haven't been following the
Benghazi hearings last week and the testimony of EACH of the witnesses. Am I
correct? I guess all these witnesses were lying too ..huh? You just can't
get yourself to accept the fact that your king is corrupt can you ...along with
his jesters. If you refuse to turn off MSNBC then I'm sorry for you. The
facts speak for themselves and they don't lie ...unlike your leader.
Don't really feel like recounting all the facts and the timeline but
suffice to say 4 hero's died in Benghazi and 2 disgraceful cowards were
re-elected. By the way...I would bet you are perhaps one of two people left in
the US who still believes this terrorist attack had anything to do with a
video...you and Jay Carney. Actually Jay - like Susan Rice - is told what to say
and when to say it irrespective of common sense.
"However in this discussion, since in fact the lies are being told ABOUT
Hillary Clinton in an attempt to smear her, and are not being told BY her, your
comment misses the point."Oh, so it was mob violence incited by
an anti-Muslim video? Thanks for clearing it all up for us, Furry. I thought
Obama said it was a terrorist attack in the Rose Garden.You
democrats can't have things both ways. Nixon was put under pressure after
trying to cover up Watergate. Let's see how much pressure democrats put
Obama under now that we know he covered up Benghazi.
This is the Republicans only hope. Sad.
@Ranch,You're admitting lying and incompetence on the part of the
administration, but think it's just fine because of past problems? In those
instances have you documented lying and cover up as happened after Benghazi? The
White House has never said the problem was lack of funding for security. Nice
try at letting the administration off the hook.
@regis 5:20 p.m. May 10, 2013"If the facts are against you,
argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the
facts are against you, pound the table and yell like (heck)." - quoted by an
Illinois native, Carl Sandburg, in The People, Yes (1936)Hilary
seems to have learned that adage pretty well.-------------------------I know that adage -- I learned it in law
school over 25 years ago. However in this discussion, since in fact the lies
are being told ABOUT Hillary Clinton in an attempt to smear her, and are not
being told BY her, your comment misses the point.
When government officials lie to protect their reputation they have already
lost. Time and the truth always reveal their foolishness.
The real truth: Bengazi, Americans were dying, Obama is still lying!
UtahBlueDevil: "Ok... it was a terrorist act versus a random act by a
militia gone out of control. Now what. How does this change the task ahead? What
difference does this now make?It makes a big difference because the
lying was going on during a presidential election and the lying was to deflect
attention away from Obama so he wouldn't have to pay a political price for
his cowardice. Perhaps the deaths would have occurred anyway but the response
and the lying about it for political purposed was was disgraceful and showed how
little character Obama has. How far would Nixon have gotten if he used the
excuse you use: "What difference does this now make?" Republicans
didn't support Nixon when he lied. Perhaps it is time for the Democrats to
stand up and be Americans instead of political wimps.
Any one who sincerely thinks this is "no big deal" has not watched this
week's Congressional hearing. If you had, you would be as outraged as the
rest of us:- All the intel from those on the ground in Libya indicated
this was a terrorist attack from the beginning. Ignoring that, the President,
Secretary Clinton, and Ambassador Rice all blamed it on an obscure YouTube video
that was not an issue in Libya.- Our security forces already in Libya who
were primed to board the C-130 to Benghazi to protect and rescue our personnel
were twice told to stand down.- When Congressman Chaffetz flew to Libya to
investigate on behalf of the Congressional oversight committee, the State
Department instructed Greg Hick, the head of mission in Libya, to not allow
himself to be interviewed or to be one-on-one with Chaffetz. - Several key
eye witnesses were not interviewed by the State Department's Accountability
Review Board, which was charged with investigating the incident.- No
stenographer was present during the ARB's interviews. Witnesses were not
allowed to review the ARB's report to ensure their testimony was entered
accurately....and there is MUCH more. Watch the hearing!
Oh boy, where do I begin?To those pointing out the embassy attacks
when Bush was president, the lack out outrage is due to the fact that Bush
didn't cover up the facts with lies."Obviously no one,
including Obama and Clinton wanted any Americans to get killed."Obviously the order for the reinforcements to "stand down" was to
protect the ambassador and his protectors. That makes sense."So
again. What is the big scandal?"The scandal is that the White
House knew an attack was happening, gave orders to stand down, knew the attack
was from an armed militia group but called it mob violence, only to say later
that they knew it was a terrorist attack.Obama is lying. You
can't have it both ways: Obama claimed that he called it a terrorist attack
from the beginning (see the presidential debate), but it is also true that he
called it mob violence resulting from the video. So, which is it, Obama? Mob
violence or terrorist attack? If you knew it was a terrorist attack, why did you
even bother with the "mob violence" excuse? Anyone, please feel free to
answer.That is the scandal.
@Open MindedMaybe some of the conservatives want to blame poor
intelligence and that Bush made a "mistake" like liberals want everyone
to thnk about Benghazi. As I've already stated, I think both
administrations lied, in both their respective cases. Politicians lie to cover
up what is politically detrimental, or take political advantage depending on the
circumstances. I believe the Obama administration did make a mistake, and then
lied about it to minimize or escape blame. I believe the Bush administration
lied about WMDs so we would all be sent on a wild goose chase while he used
military power to secure american oil interests in the middle east. That's
just my opinion, however, because if there's anything harder than believing
a politicians words, it's proving beyond a reasonable doubt they in fact
lied and covered their tracks.
@atl134"I don't see how it's politically advantageous for
the administration to lie for a week before getting it straightened out.
Logically it makes more sense for this to be a result of just being
wrong".I don't discredit that there may have just been
mistakes, but this was a pretty costly mistake if that's in fact the case.
Emails suggest the administration and state department knew these were terrorist
attacks shortly afterward and instead chose to continue peddling the youtube
video. You honestly don't see how covering up what may have even been a
mistake is advantageous? Maybe the question is better stated as, did the WH and
state dept lie to cover up their misjudgment and ineptitude ("just being
wrong") to prevent themselves from being blamed, which would have been
politically detrimental, rather than advantageous. That is certainly a plausible
scenario. All I'm suggesting is our government officials are corrupt from
the top down and aisle to aisle, and to assume any of them are honest even some
of the time is a naive assumption.
Hey Open Minded Mormon I agree with you on a lot of what Bush did wrong with the
long term wars. Bush never told the American people that he wanted to break
Iraq then stay around for 10 years to try to fix it with a democracy. He misled
us by only talking about WMD to justify getting us into the war. Shame on him
and his administration for that. That includes Powell, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice,
ect. However, I'd be careful about the 3 trillion of un-funded spending if
you are trying to defend Obama. Obama has doubled the un-funded spending to
about 6 trillion.
I can't help but notice the lack of integrity amongst the uber-cons.I previously noted I would be happy to share in their outrage over how
the Obama administration has handled Benghazi...But ONLY by the same
mete and measure as Bush's lies and deceptions over WMD's, 175,00 dead
Iraqi's, 5,000 dead American's, 75,000 American casualties, and $3
Trillion in un-necessary and un-funded spending.But Mike Richards, J
Thompson and the like can't even come to terms or man up that Bush did
ANYTHING wrong.Benghazi was a mistake. There - I admit it, and I
support your stupid witch-hunt.And?...
To all of you who think the Bush administration attacks prove something. The
point is, Bush DID NOT lie to the American people about what they were.
Terriorist attacks. Obama and Hillary and others made up a story. That is what
this is all about. The lies. And of course the non-rescue and stand down.
Remember, most of the Watergate folks were caught for lying under oath.
Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. Lying to the American people is
serious when you have been given the trust to hold public office. So, you Obama
supporters, get that straight.
"If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you,
argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and
yell like (heck)." - quoted by an Illinois native, Carl Sandburg, in The
People, Yes (1936)Hilary seems to have learned that adage pretty
Why do liberals try to divert attention away from Obama's lies and
deceptions by telling us that Bush "killed" thousands or even hundreds
of thousands? Does that diversion change Obams's culpability? Using that
same logic, how many thousands has Obama "killed"? Obama
lied. Hillary Clinton lied. Susan Rice lied. They lied about the cause of the
Benghazi terrorist attack. They lied about the people who attacked Americans.
They lied about what we could have done. They lied and lied and lied.Bill Clinton lied about having sex with an intern. For his lies, he was
impeached. No one died in that incident. Richard Nixon lied about
Watergate. His lies concerned what happened AFTER the burglary. No one was
killed. He resigned for the "good of the Country" when it was obvious
that the next step was impeachment.Obama watched the attack in the
"ready room". He saw what was happening with his own eyes. He saw that
terrorists were attacking Americans on American soil. He chose to do nothing -
then he lied about what happened.What is at issue is the fact that
he lied - repeatedly.Is he better than Nixon or Clinton?
@Mike RichardsGeorge W. Bush took us to war in Iraq on false pretenses
where several thousand people died unnecessarily. Obama's team mishandled a
situation and straightened it out within two weeks. Conservatives are such
Patriot.... you know... when you can point to a perfect republican... oh wait...
conservative, please do so. The facts were there were multiples of
riots that day in multiple cities. That is a fact. Many of these
'disturbances' did have a element of that stupid film as their basis.
This too is a fact. In the larger scope, no one, not even the smartest
republican/conservative could tell you which groups were doing which riots.This idea that you have found the smoking gun of this administration...
that this is evidence of gross incompetence shows just how thin and weak the
anti-everything argument has gotten. If this is absolutely the worst thing that
comes out, we are all lucky.You all really need to find something
more constructive to do with your lives. The endless pursuit of everything and
anything negative is really sad. There are so many ways to create and impact
change.... running with this media hyped stuff is sad.Richards...
over 100,000 civilians died under Bush. 3,000 Americans died under Bush. Tens
of thousands of American soldiers came home from Iraq dead or injured under
Bush. Your indignation feels hollow.
The DN article on the Benghazi controversy is unfortunately another example of
the ends justifying the means. Whether the assault on the U.S. consulate was
planned or spontaneous or even spun one way or the other in the immediate
aftermath of the attack is of little real import, as numerous posters have well
explained.Rather, besmirching the Democrats and in particular
Hillary Clinton (of whom I'm no fan) seems to be the DN design. And for me
this is the problem. If Democratic policies and Hillary Clinton are what
troubles you, then why not say so? I respect that. But why the need to always
resort to trumped up, falsely exaggerated charges to somehow "prove"
your point of view? Why not leave that to Rush, Sean, Dick and Ann?In the meantime where do we turn for legitimate honest news coverage and
Those who are covering for Obama need to compare what he did to what happened to
Nixon. Nixon was not in the "ready room" watching the Watergate
BURGLARY. In Watergate, nobody died. Now let's look at Benghazi. Obama
was in the "ready room". Obama knew that people were going to die.
Obama knew that Tyrone Woods had "painted the target".Nixon
covered up a BURGLARY.Obama is trying to cover up death and
destruction to Americans by terrorists.There is a difference in
magnitude. What Obama did during and after the terrorist attack is far worse
than what Nixon did.The Democrats railroaded Nixon out of office for
lying. Now they're covering for Obama for lying and for allowing the death
of Americans on his watch when he could have done something to try to help.
Democrats are covering for Obama and his administration when they decided to LIE
about Benghazi. Democrats are telling us that Benghazi happened a long time
ago. How LONG did it take Democrats to drive Nixon out of
office?How long will they support a President who makes Nixon look
like an angel?People DIED. Obama LIED.
The left wing around the country and especially liberal DN readers are in full
panic mode, DefCon 4. In the second presidential debate Mr. Obama was offended
when Mr. Romney implied that there was a Benghazi coverup. He vowed that he
would never politicize the affair. Mitt was right on. Congressional hearings
clearly have shown that Benghazi was politicized and that the president, Ms.
Clinton, Susan Rice and Jay Carney lied. Liberals try to deflect and talk about
Bush, Fox News, et al, anything but the incompetence and mendacity in the White
House. It's all very Nixonesque. As David Geffen, the liberal billionaire,
said when he stopped supporting them, the Clintons are not truthful. There seems
to be contagion at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
@Furry1993 "...decreased funding for embassy security..."From an oversight hearing, Oct. 10, 2012 --Rep. Dana Rohrabacher:
“Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not
to increase the number of people in the security force there?”Charlene Lamb: "No, sir."Recall that Charlene Lamb's
job was on the line, and that she was in fact, later removed from her position.
If lack of budget had offered her a job-saving excuse, don't you think she
would have taken advantage of it?
"are so eerily silent when it comes to John swallow. Why is that?"
Maverick, the John Swallow problem has been turned over to independent
investigation. What you are disappointed in, is the failure to convict on the
word of Jim Dubakkis.
Benghazi was just a spontaneous protest due to a video produced by a right wing
guy slamming Muslims. Barack and Hilary did everything in their power to save
the lives of the 4 who were killed. Barack and Hilary are so sad that this
"spontaneous protest" ever happened and wish people would be responsible
before making U-Tube videos. We are all thankful for the ever-watchful eye of
our great leaders to protect us and come to our aid when threats occur. Oh...
and there was no cover up or lying or politics involved either... just so you
know. It is imperative that we prepare Hilary Clinton for her first term as
president of the United States in 2016 and keep her from silly distractions such
as this little Benghazi thing...where 4 brave Americans lost their lives. Just
remember - Obama is honest and so is Hilary and we can always trust them to tell
the truth. This completes the MSNBC talking points for the day....
@CougsndawgsI don't see how it's politically advantageous for
the administration to lie for a week before getting it straightened out.
Logically it makes more sense for this to be a result of just being wrong.
"The scandal is that Obama deliberately lied to protect himself
politically."What a silly comment. If it had immediately been
acknowledged that this was a terrorist retaliation for the taking of Osama bin
Laden..... what political damage would Obama incurred. What?4
people were killed - one an ambassador. This is administration shaking news if
it were the result of terrorist? Why now... and not when 3,000 civilians were
killed on US soil.... or a couple hundred marines in Lebanon.... or sailors on
a US Destroyer bombed in the gulf. What "damage" was he trying to
protect himself from.The partisan attacks over this event started
before the bodies of these 4 men were even extracted. The Republicans wanted
their WMD moment. They are still looking for that WMD moment. This isn't
it.It is tragic. It showed failures in our system, by career people
who were long in place before this administration was a twinkling in anyones
eye. Obama is no more to blame for this, then is Bush to blame for
9/11. Sometimes world events get out of our control. Get used to it.
Obama and Clinton lied then covered up ... helped of course by their ever ready
media outlets of NBC - CBS and CNN. You would have to either be living in a log
cabin in the deep woods of Montana or be a regular MSNBC viewer to not know this
whole ugly thing was a tragic and treasonous cover up - for political purposes.
Barack Obama will do ANYTHING to retain power and I think he even surprised his
most hardened attackers at the levels he will stoop to in order to win an
election. The man is a corrupt Chicago political machine - void of conscious and
honor. Clinton is a chip off the same ugly block. Both are disgraceful traitors
that not only embarrassed the US in Benghazi but were THE reason 4 Americans
hero's lost their lives. The aftermath of Benghazi - 4 dead
hero's and 2 re-elected cowards. Sorry liberals but your king has no
I find the comments on this piece both laughable and fascinating. The finger
pointing of the left saying the right is trying to make Obama look bad, the
right pointing to the left saying they lied.NEWS FLASH- THIS JUST
IN...politicians lie! It never ceases to crack me up how dems delude themselves
into thinking Obama is honest and doesn't lie...why? Because he's
liberal and sits on the same side of the aisle as you? Same goes for republicans
and neo cons...delude themselves into thinking bush was honest and never covered
anything up...as if oil had nothing to do with the war in Iraq. C'mon
people. Politicians lie to gain favor and get votes, and regardless of which
side of the aisle we sit is it really so hard to believe that, god forbid,
Hillary Rodham or Obama would actually lie to gain political advantage? That
bush would lie to maintain America's energy interests in the Middle East?
Maybe in both Benghazi and Iraq they were errant or telling the truth, but to
fight each other about a politicians ethics is an exercise in futility.
So let's say that Susan Rice had said 'terrorist attack' instead
of 'spontaneous attack arising out of video protests.' How would
anything be any different? What matters is catching the guys who did it, and
improving embassy security. Neither of which was impacted by a few comments on
Sunday talk shows.
It's so odd to me that those who scream so loudly against Clinton and Obama
are so eerily silent when it comes to John swallow. Why is that?
@DougSAfter perusing your comment I think you're bitter Romney lost
and have no sense of what law is in this nation. At this point Republicans have
beaten this dead horse so bad they've got nothing but a bottle of glue to
show for it.@jsf"Obama's lies don't matter.
"There's a difference between lying and being wrong.
@Mike Richards"Benghazi makes Watergate look like a Sunday School
picnic. "Are you kidding me? Watergate involved criminal action.
Benghazi involves sloppy mistakes. I'm not sure what your logic would then
extrapolate to when it comes to the failure of stopping 9-11 or the blunderous
war in Iraq for phantom WMDs. @JerseyGirl"The scandal is
that Obama deliberately lied to protect himself politically."Actually he did call it an act of terror in the Rose Garden (thinking that was
a reference to 9-11 is incorrect, he was clearly talking about the current event
that took place) and took responsibility for the failure in the 2nd debate.
Oh please. When the Republicans confess their grotesque manipulation of the
truth in the run-up to Iraq and apologize to the THOUSANDS of dead and the
American taxpayer footing a trillion-dollar war bill--at that moment I will
start believing this Benghazi thing is anything but a nasty little political
tantrum. In the meantime, spare me your ridiculous outrage.
8 months later Carney is outraged at being asked about something 'so
yesterday'. Really?? So maybe we should just drop charges and
investigations for all crimes older than 8 months? The criminals would love
that. From the article, "What difference, at this point, does it
make?" asked former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in her testimony
before Congress, implicitly conceding that the Obama administration had been
less than truthful — but so what? So apparently they
frequently tell filthy lies to cover heinous acts, and they are accustomed to
getting away with it. What have we missed?
So the jest of your comment LDS Liberal, is that President Bush lied and
thousands died because of it. So because Bush lied, Obama's lies
don't matter. Remember, before you vote for Hillary in 2016,
she lied about WMD's in Iraq, and she lied about Benghazi. Her honesty
factor is very low. And you are aware Obama has continued to
prosecute the wars in Afganistan and Iraq. (For Oil?) He still has not removed
all troops from these countries and continues to block oil development at home
requiring continued dependence on oil in Iraq. And don't say for
humanitarian reasons, because he along with Bush did nothing for Darfur.
"what would have changed politically is that a large chunk of the rationale
for Obama's reelection was that the death of bin Laden had the terrorists
on the run, so acknowledging the fact that terror is still alive and well would
have undermined a key component of Obama's reelection strategy."Ah yes, and had a "key component of Obama's reelection
strategy" been undermined, he would not have been re-elected, and
Hillary's chances for election would be diminished as well. Thus, we know the impetus for all the uproar. This whole
contrived "cover-up" what is known in the international diplomacy arena
as a big "nothin-burger". Enjoy your lunch, Fox
KJB1 and Ranch, Your right where is the outrage, oh wait, you know what happened
under Bush, The issue is not the attacks, the issue is the lying coverup.
Remember Clinton was not brought up for impeachment because of the Monica
stupidity. It was because he lied about it.The reason Bush's
popularity dropped is because a majority of country believed he lied to them.As now reported on CBS, CNN, NBC, and ABC, the President lied, Hillary
Clinton lied, George Peneta lied, Susan Rice lied. A man's integrity is
only as good as his first lie.
The lives of Americans killed by terrorists on American soil are not important
to the Left. They cover up the ineptitude of a President who did nothing as
Commander in Chief. They cover up the lies told to the entire world after the
Benghazi attack. They cover up the fact that Tyrone Woods "painted" the
target, meaning that there was either an armed drone or an armed aircraft in the
immediate area that had the the capability to strike that target. They cover up
the fact that Tyrone Woods was killed because "painting" the target
revealed his location to the terrorists. They cover up the fact that Tyrone
Woods was told to "stand down". They cover up the fact that because
Tyrone Woods disobeyed a direct order, that more than thirty Americans were
saved.They cover up. They twist. They distort. They pretend that
Obama was not responsible for "doing nothing" in a time of crisis. That
"doing nothing" is the problem. He chose to let Americans die and then
to lie about it because he was in the middle of an election.He won
the election, but he lost everything that was important in life.
This horse is dead. But republicans can make it live and breathe again.
Johnson: When was the first time you spoke to, or have you ever spoken to, the
returnees, the evacuees? Did you personally speak to those folks?Clinton: ..I waited until after the ARB had done its investigation because I
did not want there to be anybody raising any issue that I had spoken to anyone
before the ARB conducted its investigation. Clinton: I would
recommend highly you read what the ARB said, because, even today, there are
questions being raised. Now, we have no doubt they were terrorists, they were
militants, they attacked us, they killed our people. But what was going on and
why they were doing what they were doing is still unknown(1/2013)Johnson: No, again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests...Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it
because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who
decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this
point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything
we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.
REP. RAUL LABRADOR (R-ID): I just have a quick question for Lieutenant Colonel
Wood and Mr. Nordstrom. Given the information that you saw on TV and your
knowledge of the situation in Libya, did you come to a conclusion as to whether
this was a terrorist act or whether it was based on some film that was on the
Internet?NORDSTROM: The -- the first impression that I had was that
it was going to be something similar to one of the brigades that we saw there,
specifically the -- the brigade -- and it's been named in the press -- that
came to my mind was Ansar al-Sharia. It was a -- a unit or a
group that Lieutenant Colonel Wood's personnel and I had -- had tracked for
quite some time, we were concerned about. That specific group had been involved
in a similar but obviously much smaller scale incident at the end of June
involving the Tunisian consulate in Benghazi where they stormed that facility
and it was in protest to what they claimed was an anti-Islamic film in Tunis.
[House Oversight Committee hearing on consulate security in Benghazi, 10/11/120
Having just perused a "time line" recap of the events concerning
Bengazi, I am of the opinion that: 1. Hillary should be charged with lying to
congress. 2. Obama should be impeached for complicity in the deaths of
American Embassy personnel. John Boener should be awakened and asked to take
the lead in the foregoing actions.. BTW, none of the time line data was
published in the Des News...
I will join the FoxNews/uber-Cons outrage with Benghazi, With
precisely the exact same mete and measure of outrage that I do the OTHER
Consulate and Embassies attacks under GW Bush, and the 5,000 men and women
killed, and 35,000 seriously maimed and wounded though out the Middle Eastern
Wars for Oil [not counting the 55,000 soliders who've committed suicide
since returning home, or the 200,000 soliders still suffering permanent hearing
loss and PTSD].So, let's see .. Benghazi?ready?....1...2...3......hrmpf...!There, are you happy now?
From the different versions of the news stories and the wildly different
opinions from the commenters, it is clear that the first 5 days after the
Benghazi attacks our govenment was in the "fog-of-terrorist-attack"
(similar to fog-of-war). The same conditions have occurred in virtually every
terrorist attack. And the same outcomes: (1) We find out who did it. (2) We
kill them. (3) We learn from it. (4) It happens again, in a different way. Now the politicos take hold and the spins are running. One of the
problems is the purpose of the political skirmish is not to correct or fix
anything. It is simply to make one or the other party look bad for purely
political purposes. The Congress (Senate and House) have become so bitterly
divided that all possble means are employed to increase the division.I hope the vast majority of Americans can see through and beyond the political
games at play.
Republicans are shooting spitballs at the wall in an effort to discredit Hillary
Clinton. Remember when they accused Hillary of faking illness--a concussion--to
avoid having to testify before Congress? Remember when Congressional
Republicans spent 10 days and 140 hrs investigating the Clinton's Christmas
Card list? Furthermore,"Remember how Senate Intelligence
committee chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) delayed until after the 2004 elections
any investigation into how the administration might have misused intelligence in
the run-up to the Iraq war? Well, in late April he announced his intention to
again postpone that still-unfinished investigation, presumably until after the
2006 elections. In March, his committee also rejected, on a straight party-line
vote, a Democratic call for a probe of the administration's wiretapping
program. Senate Republicans have blocked the Armed Services committee from
hearing the testimony of the retired generals who have publicly called for
Rumsfeld's resignation.(Washington Monthly June 2006)Do
Republicans seriously think this is going to help them in the next election?
"what would have changed politically is that a large chunk of the rationale
for Obama's reelection was that the death of bin Laden had the terrorists
on the run, so acknowledging the fact that terror is still alive and well would
have undermined a key component of Obama's reelection strategy."Gee, and all this time I thought that Obama won reelection because he
gave away all that free stuff. The American people know without
doubt that "terror is still alive and well" The attack on the embassy in
Benghazi did not change that. Give the American people more credit than
that.And, sorry to say, there will be more. And they will happen
under GOP presidents and they will happen under Democratic presidents.If you think differently, you have a naive world view when it comes to
terrorism.And Mountanman"there were 54 terrorist
attacks during the Bush administration with no investigation"Why
no investigations? Maybe because the Democrats didn't push them for purely
partisan reasons. As has been detailed. There were many similar attacks during
Bush.To say that they were all "Al Qaida attacks during the Iraq
war, IN Iraq." is clearly not true.
Autocorrect got me. Don't know what "ponta Roy" is. I was trying to
say "spontaneous."Roland, Obama did no such thing. He said
"no acts of terror" will shake this nation, referring specifically to
the 9/11 attacks in 2001. To claim he was referencing Benghazi, which he
continually blamed on YouTube in the remarks you cite, is revisionist
history.Truthseeker, you are citing discredited sources. Even the
Obama administration has even forced to concede that there was never any doubt
this had nothing to do with the video.
"As the Intelligence Community collects and analyzes more information
related to the attack, our understanding of the event continues to evolve. In
the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the
attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in
Cairo. We provided that initial assessment to Executive Branch officials and
members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly
and provide updates as they became available. Throughout our investigation we
continued to emphasize that information gathered was preliminary and
evolving."( Shawn Turner, Office of National Intelligence 9/28/12)"To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there
is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants
struck without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the
video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their
anger at the video.. A spokesman for Ansar al-Shariah praised the attack as the
proper response to such an insult to Islam. "We are saluting our people for
this zeal in protecting their religion, to grant victory to the Prophet,"
the spokesman said. (NYTimes 10/15/12)
JoeBlow, when you know there was now ponta Roy's demonstration, and you
repeatedly and loudly claim there was, that's a lie. Hardly a stretch. And
what would have changed politically is that a large chunk of the rationale for
Obama's reelection was that the death of bin Laden had the terrorists on
the run, so acknowledging the fact that terror is still alive and well would
have undermined a key component of Obama's reelection strategy. Easy peasy
- no conspiracy theory required.
The outrage over the Benghazi attack was drummed up by Fox News to defeat Obama
in the last election. Now it's being used to defeat Clinton in the next
election. It was a tragedy, there was certainly incompetence involved, but
that's it. As to the video, there were demonstrations about it
in many Arab countries going on at the time. It was not unreasonable to think
that this was part of those same demonstrations. But the president did call the
attack "an act or terror" the very next da6y.
Thanks for the editorial. I have tweeted and asked why Des News wasn't
covering the hearing. Dems don't seem to understand what a cover up
is. They sure knew when it was Nixon who was trying to cover up a 3rd rate
bungled burglary. It was never proved that he knew anything about it before it
happened.Now we have a pres and sec of state who lied about the
reason for the attack. Why? The pres made 1 phone call. Where was he
the rest of the night? Why wasn't he engaged and sending help? They had
asked over and over for more security and Hillary turned them down and even
reduced security-Valerie Jarrett has more security in the WH than Amb Stevens
had. Hillary said she never knew about it. Emails say differently.Remember 0bama had destroyed terrorists & these were terrorists.They
also have put a target on the back of the film maker, who still is in jail.Lying about this? What else? Cost of health care? Fast & Furious?
Is it OK for the pres to lie to the American people?I submit it
"The scandal is that Obama deliberately lied to protect himself
politically"Quite the stretch. But, lets say you
are correct. Lets say that they knew it was the work of terrorists but
initially claimed it was a spontaneous demonstration.How did it
"protect him politically"?What would have changed for him
politically had he claimed it was terrorism?Take your assertions to
their conclusion.I am still curious......
To those how claim there were 54 terrorist attacks during the Bush
administration with no investigation you are being dishonest! You are counting
Al Qaida attacks during the Iraq war, IN Iraq. Another difference is the Sec of
State didn't lie about the attacks in Iraq and blame it on a video no one
saw. Hillary is lying and she knows she is lying. The 3rd difference is that the
Benghazi attack was down played and lied about to deflect White House
malfeasance during an election. Just come clean! If what Hillary is saying is
true she ahs nothing to fear! Its the constant cover-up the lying and the stone
walling that is the problem.
The scandal is that Obama deliberately lied to protect himself politically. They
knew from the first moment that there was no spontaneous demonstration, but they
lied, because the guy who got bin Laden was uncomfortable acknowledging a
terrorist attack just weeks before an election. Citing all the times embassies
were attacked under Bush misses the point entirely. If Bush had gone before the
United Nations, as Obama did, and claimed those attacks were not the work of
terrorists but rather spontaneous YouTube video demonstrations that got out of
hand, the press would still be hounding him about it today. This is a huge
"So the new approach, it seems, is to pretend it doesn't matter."
..and just how does it matter what it's called at the moment of occurrence
or even shortly thereafter? That was Hillary's point, and it's still
the point. Albeit Mr. Richards is not accurate..at all..about the
readiness of the military to respond, but even if he was, would it make a
difference to the military if those calling for help said we're under a
terrorist attack or just said we're under attack and we think it started
when a mob got out of control? Benghazi makes Watergate look like a
Sunday school picnic. And I suppose it probably makes the Iran Contra deal look
like child's play. That is really funny Mike. If you recall multiple
people went to jail in both instances. Even if someone should have called
Benghazi a terrorist attack how many years in jail do you get for that?
I consider Benghazi a breakdown. It was unfortunate and certainly in hindsight
should have been handled differently.But, I dont see the big
scandal.Obviously no one, including Obama and Clinton wanted any
Americans to get killed.So again. What is the big scandal? Is it because it was initially NOT called a terrorist attack?In hindsight, had it been called a Terrorist attack from the onset, what would
have changed? Would the Americans still be alive?Would
Romney won the election? Is that what some think?As has been
pointed out, there are many killed in Embassy's over time.Yes,
it is tragic and sad. But, hardly unprecedented.So again. Someone
explain. What is the big scandal?I sincerely don't get it.
"The administration's cynical manipulation of this story "Really.... The political exploitation of these events is the most blatant
example of partisanship at any cost I have seen in a long time. The millions of
dollars and distraction away from other issues this nation is spending on
determining if this was a terrorist act or the random result of a mob gotten out
of control show how the cost of a partisan victory has no upper limit.Ok... it was a terrorist act versus a random act by a militia gone out of
control. Now what. How does this change the task ahead? What difference does
this now make?I am all in favor of getting to the root cause of the
intelligence failure and if anything could have been done in response. But as
one who works in the oil and gas business.... I fail to see the same quest for
answers for the families of those killed on Deep Sea Horizon. Nor do I see a
rush to hearings to see how three young lades could be held sex slaves for 10
years. Why are these failures ok?This is partisanship - not a
quest for justice.
Excellent summary of facts that needed to be written. That editorial should be
written in every newspaper in America and every American citizen should read and
ponder the facts instead of allowing press secretaries to distort history so
that Obama will not be "embarrassed".Benghazi makes
Watergate look like a Sunday School picnic. It's time that Obama was held
accountable for his actions as Commander In Chief. It's time that everyone
involved in the Benghazi cover-up be held accountable. Lives were lost.
American lives. The military was ready and willing to act. The military was
ordered to "stand down". Who issued that order? Who commanded military
commanders to NOT do their duty to protect American soil and Americans who were
on that soil when those Americas were under attack by terrorists?
US Embassy and Consulate attacks under George W. BushJan 22, 2002;
US Consulate at Kolkata, 5 killedJun 14, 2002; US Consulate at Karachi, 12
killedFeb 28, 2003; US Embassy at Islamabad, 2 killedJun 30, 2004;
US Embassy at Tashkent, 2 killedDec 6, 2004; US Compound at Saudi Arabia,
9 killedMar 2, 2006; US Consulate in Karachi; 2 killedSep 12, 2006;
US Embassy at Syria, 4 killedMar 18, 2008; US Embassy at Yemen, 2
killedJul 9, 2008; US Consulate as Istanbul, 6 killedSep 17, 2008;
US Embassy at Yemen, 16 killedTotal deaths: 60Outraged
Republicans: 0Can we spell Hypocrites?
The Obama administration was covertly supplying arms from Benghazi to Turkey and
transshipping to the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, in violation of UN
declarations. This explains the reduction in Benghazi security and ham-fisted
coverup. When Al Queda learned of the arms shipments to the Muslim Brotherhood
they tried to kill Ambassador Chris Stevens who was coordinating the arms
shipments. Al Queda is the enemy of Saudi Arabia, which supports and finances
the spread of Wahhabism throughout the world, hoping to establish a Caliphate,
initially by subterfuge and then by force. The Obama administration
now has many Muslim Brotherhood operatives who are eliminating any reference to
Muslim jihad in our military and State Department. The administration refuses to
call Muslim jihad by its proper name and instead uses terms such as
"workplace violence". Meanwhile, the Muslim Brotherhood is killing and
abusing hundreds of Christians and causing tens of thousands of Christians to
flee their native counties. Why is our government supporting the
Muslim Brotherhood and its killing and abusing of Christians in the Middle East?
Barack Hussein Obama has no satisfactory explanation.Is the Obama
Administration supporting the greatest threat to the United States of America?
In this discussion, please have Jason Chaffetz explain why he willingly
decreased funding for embassy security, and why he is not being held accountable
for that now.
Nothing became of Fast and Furious, What am I to expect from Benghazi. Trust and
confidence, What a Joke. no one is laughing.
There were 54 attacks on diplomatic targets during the Bush administration that
resulted in the deaths of 13 Americans. Where was the outrage then? Or is this
yet another desperate attempt to distract us from how Republicans have nothing
to offer but hatred of Democrats and tantrums?
"In order to restore trust and accountability, Congress should continue to
clarify who knew what and when those oh-so-distant eight months ago."Seriously? Congress is dysfunctional, at best, and you expect them to agree
on what happened? Even if every Congressmen signed off on a statement that laid
out the facts, the unity would end with the next Sunday talk show. The facts
about Benghazi were long ago tossed aside in favor of political rhetoric.