Mr. Speaker! We Need To Get Back To Benghazi

[RobDownSouth]

Still seeing no evidence for the GOP claims of conspiracy. Maybe they need to invent more fake stories. Just ask Alex Jones he'll do it.

Evidence? EVIDENCE? Silly boy, this is the Right Wing Echo Chamber we're talkin' about here!

 

[Busybody]

Evidence? EVIDENCE? Silly boy, this is the Right Wing Echo Chamber we're talkin' about here!

really?

Dan is now your go to guy?

 

[dan_c00000]

Evidence? EVIDENCE? Silly boy, this is the Right Wing Echo Chamber we're talkin' about here!

Ha very true!

In their attemps to go after Hilary they keep making themselves look worse and worse.

President Obama continues to hold a substantial advantage over congressional Republicans in public regard. Obama’s job approval is back in positive territory at 51%, after slipping to 47% in March. By comparison, just 22% approve of the job Republican leaders in Congress are doing, among the lowest approval rating for congressional leaders from either party in 20 years.

 

[dan_c00000]

really?

Dan is now your go to guy?

Better than vette, or you, or brietbart. Face it, every time you post I make you look like more and more of a bitch. Dummy.

 

[Busybody]

Dan=dummy

 

[dan_c00000]

i'm a racist.

Well put. Glad you're admiting it.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Of some interest/relevance:

Ron Fournier, Doomsayer
Reports of President Obama’s demise turn out to be greatly exaggerated.

Eric Alterman May 22, 2013 | This article appeared in the June 10-17, 2013 edition of The Nation.


“When two storms collide, the weather gets hairy. For President Obama, the IRS and Benghazi stories converged this weekend for a self-inflicted tempest that threatens his credibility.”
 
Ignore the beauty of National Journal editorial director Ron Fournier’s marvelously (and multiply) mixed metaphors for a moment. Consider, instead, the nature of these “hairy” storms and “self-inflicted” tsunamis (or whatever) allegedly menacing Barack Obama’s “credibility.”

Hairy hurricane number one refers to the decision made by some people in a Cincinnati IRS office to scrutinize the applications for tax-free status by Tea Party–related organizations. The decision—justifiable, perhaps, on professional grounds given the proliferation of such groups and the shadiness of their funding process—was clearly ham-handed politically, as it failed to pay fealty to the iron “both sides do it” law of present-day political discourse. More to the point, however, it had nothing whatever to do with Barack Obama. The president did not appoint the employees concerned, and we have no indication that anyone in the White House was in any way involved. How does Fournier deal with these inconvenient facts? He writes, citing the opinion of a Democratic consultant named Chris Kofinis, that the “White House needs to explain itself,” because… well, because.

With regard to storm number two—the catastrophe in Benghazi—Fournier explains that “Obama’s team stuck with [its] story until the truth was exposed amid a GOP congressional investigation. Emails leaked to news organizations last week show that both the White House and State Department were directly involved in scrubbing the CIA talking points of any mention of past threats and al-Qaida involvement. That is the exact opposite of what the Obama White House had claimed. Inexplicably, White House spokesman Jay Carney refused late Friday to acknowledge the contradiction.” Actually, Carney did have an explanation: he was telling the truth. The “talking points” were presumably doctored by some (still) anonymous GOP congressional staffer seeking to use reporters like Fournier as scandal-mad lapdogs. So when Fournier insists that Obama “may need to forcefully condemn the half-truths and distortions disseminated under his name,” the irony thickens considerably. The “half-truths and distortions” were disseminated not by Obama, much less “under his name”—whatever that means—but by Fournier and his colleagues based on a doctored transcript leaked to a gullible Jonathan Karl of ABC News. If Fournier has “forcefully condemned” himself, it has so far escaped the attention of your intrepid columnist.

In certain respects, it’s unfair to focus too much attention on Fournier. He is at the top of his game, with a prestigious position at National Journal and a regular invite to the Sunday morning shows, but he is really no better or worse than most members of the Beltway pack. Typical of DC insiders who define themselves by the access they are accorded, Fournier admits that he grants blanket automatic anonymity to his regular sources, a practice that in effect allows them to lie with impunity (just as Jonathan Karl’s source did about the Benghazi e-mail trail).

No less typically, Fournier works within a deep and inflexible ideological prism, though he believes himself to be doing just the opposite. The crux of this prism is nicely described by Fournier himself: “Which side’s approach to averting the sequester, and solving the deficit, [do I] actually agree with? I honestly don’t have a strong opinion. Like most independent voters, I just want it fixed. I want my leaders to lead.” Again characteristic of the contemporary punditocracy, Fournier is addicted to the ideology of “balance,” in which perpetrators and victims are equally to blame. As the New York Times editorial board observes, “At every opportunity since they took over the House in 2011, Republicans have made it clear that they have no interest in reaching a compromise with the White House…. Mr. Obama hasn’t given up inviting the Republicans to join him in making the hard choices of governing, but he has been rebuffed each time.” And yet actual, observable reality does not impress Fournier.

How exactly is Obama to “fix” the problem that so concerns Fournier? That’s easy. “Great presidents rise above circumstance,” he explains, but this Obama fellow, I kid you not, is “unwilling or unable to overcome stubborn GOP opposition.” After all, and I am still not kidding, Fournier writes, “That’s how it works in the sports pages.”

Were this all there is to the story, it would be bad enough, but Fournier merges his mindlessness with a weird personal hero worship of right-wing politicians (oblivious, naturally, to the consequences of their policy proposals). Like so many of his homies, Fournier fell hard for John McCain in 2000. But he kept it up harder and longer than most, going so far as to interview for a high-level position in McCain’s far-right 2008 campaign. Things did not work out, but Fournier’s coverage of that election for the allegedly impartial AP demonstrated an odd affinity for Republican talking points. (For instance, he opined, oddly, that Obama’s selection of Joe Biden for the vice presidency somehow demonstrated a “lack of confidence”—which is pretty funny in retrospect, when you consider who McCain picked.)

But McCain was hardly the only object of Fournier’s affection. When he was still at the AP, Fournier sent Karl Rove a private mash note that waxed lyrical about the wisdom of “the Lord” in allowing “great and free” nations like the United States to flourish and advising him to “keep up the fight.” Lately, Fournier has also taken up the cause of Obama’s predecessor, demanding that the rest of us “Admit it: George W. Bush Is a Good Man.”

I’ll admit this much: he’s at least as good a man as Ron Fournier is a reporter… which helps to explain, a little, the mess we’re in.

 

[Busybody]

Ha very true!

In their attemps to go after Hilary they keep making themselves look worse and worse.

President Obama continues to hold a substantial advantage over congressional Republicans in public regard. Obama’s job approval is back in positive territory at 51%, after slipping to 47% in March. By comparison, just 22% approve of the job Republican leaders in Congress are doing, among the lowest approval rating for congressional leaders from either party in 20 years.

QUINNIPIAC POLL: Obama’s Job Approval Drops to 45%, 76% Want IRS Special Prosecutor.

 

[dan_c00000]

QUINNIPIAC POLL: Obama’s Job Approval Drops to 45%, 76% Want IRS Special Prosecutor.

Gallup and those clowns at your favorite right wing polling place have him at 49 and 51. What's your point?

Oh right you have none because if you can't spout racist spam there's no point in you posting.

 

[Busybody]

Dan=Ree Tard

 

[landslider2000]

"Pat Smith, mother of Sean Smith (killed in Benghazi) said that Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Susan Rice all told her the attack was due to the video. They told her this after hugging her at the ceremony when the bodies arrived back."

 

[Sean Renaud]

Citation please?

 

[RjThoughts]

Citation please?

Washington Times talked with her
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/tygrrrr-express/2013/may/12/benghazi-mom-pat-smiths-mothers-day-message-hillar/

Where is the outrage from the GOP at the military when diplomats and military personnel told them that it was the MILITARY themselves that told special forces not to go?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583014/diplomat-u.s-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/

And there's this about Faux News:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/09/fox-ignores-benghazi-witness-testimony-proving/193981

And..
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/07/world/la-fg-benghazi-hearing-20130508

The point: Smith's mother can say what she did, she's grieving, but it does sound like it's coming out of the Republican echo chamber. She should aim her anger towards the military.

 

[Busybody]

Where is the outrage from the GOP at the military when diplomats and military personnel told them that it was the MILITARY themselves that told special forces not to go?..............THE LINK DOESNT SAY THAT AT ALL...........YOU FUCKING CANT READ!

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583014/diplomat-u.s-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/



The point: Smith's mother can say what she did, she's grieving, but it does sound like it's coming out of the Republican echo chamber. She should aim her anger towards the military.............YOU HAD NO PROBLEM WHEN SHITTY SHITCAN WAS PARADING AROUND.

asshole

STFU with BULLSHIT

 

[landslider2000]

Sean Smith's mother specifically said she had no interest in politics and didn't want Republicans to exploit her comments for political gain.

The sad thing is that even a grieving mother wasn't told the truth, but was instead handed the fairy tale about a video.

No matter where a person stands politically, that's low.

 

[RjThoughts]

Sean Smith's mother specifically said she had no interest in politics and didn't want Republicans to exploit her comments for political gain.

The sad thing is that even a grieving mother wasn't told the truth, but was instead handed the fairy tale about a video.

No matter where a person stands politically, that's low.

Your MAJOR assumption is that they told her this, knowing all the facts. You're echoing facts Fox has lied about, but since they can do that, you see it's okay.

 

[Busybody]

Your MAJOR assumption is that they told her this, knowing all the facts. You're echoing facts Fox has lied about, but since they can do that, you see it's okay.

she said they did

is she LYING?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Sean Smith's mother specifically said she had no interest in politics and didn't want Republicans to exploit her comments for political gain.

The sad thing is that even a grieving mother wasn't told the truth, but was instead handed the fairy tale about a video.

No matter where a person stands politically, that's low.

Yeah, keep f****n' that chicken!

 

[landslider2000]

The tactics are to aver the event didn't transpire.

Failing that, question the source.

Failing that, lob some insult into cyberspace.

The probability is that this non-political grieving mother was told lies by three politicians (Obama, Hillary, Rice).

 

[RjThoughts]

The tactics are to aver the event didn't transpire.

Failing that, question the source.

Failing that, lob some insult into cyberspace.

The probability is that this non-political grieving mother was told lies by three politicians (Obama, Hillary, Rice).

Next time, use English, you know, the language your ilk want as the official language of the US!!

The insults are that the GOP are looking for facts on the attacks, and when those they find do not correspond with those they believe happen, they keep holding more and more and more hearings, which bring up facts that the military themselves did not send in help, which lead to Fox ignoring that fact.

You see, the GOP is looking not only bad but foolish.

 

[CHNOPS]

Derpers: Would you have preferred a war? Any thoughts on the strategic implications of military intervention in Libya? It's true, Al Qaeda slipped one through the goalie here. Not to belittle it, but it's about their 1000th similar small-scale attack. They've killed way more than those 4 people, often more than 4 at a time. Would you prefer that we use that one event as a context to invade another unstable Arab Republic without an exit plan?

If not, what are you really complaining about?

I have no idea, personally, and I've TRIED to follow it. Is it that we didn't get on TV and say "We'll get Al Qaeda in their hidey holes inside whatever sovereign country we damn well wish, and we dare you to try to stop us"?

If so, you may want to catch up on 12 years or so of newspapers and magazines.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The tactics are to aver the event didn't transpire.

Failing that, question the source.

Failing that, lob some insult into cyberspace.

The probability is that this non-political grieving mother was told lies by three politicians (Obama, Hillary, Rice).

It's certainly a possibility. There is no way to confirm it one way or the other but let's assume that it did happen. (Even though they were on television before that claiming the video was just an excuse not the cause). What would you have us do?

 

[phrodeau]

she said they did

is she LYING?

She said that Susan Rice did. That is all.

 

[dan_c00000]

Derpers: Would you have preferred a war? Any thoughts on the strategic implications of military intervention in Libya? It's true, Al Qaeda slipped one through the goalie here. Not to belittle it, but it's about their 1000th similar small-scale attack. They've killed way more than those 4 people, often more than 4 at a time. Would you prefer that we use that one event as a context to invade another unstable Arab Republic without an exit plan?

If not, what are you really complaining about?

I have no idea, personally, and I've TRIED to follow it. Is it that we didn't get on TV and say "We'll get Al Qaeda in their hidey holes inside whatever sovereign country we damn well wish, and we dare you to try to stop us"?

If so, you may want to catch up on 12 years or so of newspapers and magazines.

I see what you're saying but the point here is two-fold and sadly has nothing to do with what you just wrote. Here's what's actually going down.

1. The GOP needs to blame Hiliary because they've lost the popular vote on 5 of the last 6 elections. And have only 1 election victory since 1992. Damaging Hiliary was the only way to get past this.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Technology/ht_marco_rubio_drink_water_nt_130213_wblog.jpg

2. The GOP brand is so tarnished that attempting to blame the Democrats for anything and everything will hopefully bring the Democrats down as well. Of course this isn't working as I've already pointed out.

 

[CHNOPS]

I see what you're saying but the point here is two-fold and sadly has nothing to do with what you just wrote. Here's what's actually going down.

1. The GOP needs to blame Hiliary because they've lost the popular vote on 5 of the last 6 elections. And have only 1 election victory since 1992. Damaging Hiliary was the only way to get past this.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Technology/ht_marco_rubio_drink_water_nt_130213_wblog.jpg

2. The GOP brand is so tarnished that attempting to blame the Democrats for anything and everything will hopefully bring the Democrats down as well. Of course this isn't working as I've already pointed out.

You are getting Once-ler-level annoying.

That's a lot of annoying.