Mr. Speaker! We Need To Get Back To Benghazi

[Bry1313]

People have to be held responsible, this isn't 5th grade. Obama lied, the liberals denied, and Americans died...the guilty should be tried

Again, what are you accusing the administration of here, that is even close in scale to what we know the Bush admin did but without the witch hunt?

Ignored intelligence? We know that happened with 9/11
Misled America on intelligence? We know Bush did that with Iraq.
Misled America during an election? We know Bush did that leading up to 2004 with the terror threat.

At best (well from the perspective of those trying to get the President) this is a scale of 1/1,000 of those. Why outrage on Benghazi but not those other items?

I'm sure you aren't capable of a rational answer, but it would be great if you could give one.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Again, what are you accusing the administration of here, that is even close in scale to what we know the Bush admin did but without the witch hunt?

Ignored intelligence? We know that happened with 9/11
Misled America on intelligence? We know Bush did that with Iraq.
Misled America during an election? We know Bush did that leading up to 2004 with the terror threat.

At best (well from the perspective of those trying to get the President) this is a scale of 1/1,000 of those. Why outrage on Benghazi but not those other items?

I'm sure you aren't capable of a rational answer, but it would be great if you could give one.

He ain't gonna answer you straight-up. This is all they got.

Their ObamaCare sabotage didn't work out. Them trying to get Obama to bust a premature nut over Putin and the Ukraine didn't work out. Them trying to make Cliven Bundy into the Nu American Folk Hero du jour just straight up backfired. Hillary is making 'em knock-kneed for the future.

This limp-dicked retread Benghazi bullshit is literally all they got.

 

[garbage can]

No, you don't understand, this is worse than 9/11 and worse than Iraq and worse than manipulation of the terrorist threat level. Benghazi is the worst thing in the history of our republic! We'd never been attacked before!

Many of your Dem comrades don't think it even rises to scandal level.

 

[garbage can]

Issues that matter that the GOP is currently ignoring: minimum wage, paycheck fairness, and unemployment insurance.

It's the economy stupid



.

 

[RjThoughts]

It's to economy stupid



.

English please

 

[Sean Renaud]

Many of your Dem comrades don't think it even rises to scandal level.

It doesn't.

 

[unregistered]

 

[phrodeau]

A lie from President Bush: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

What is Obama's lie?

 

[garbage can]

A lie from President Bush: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

What is Obama's lie?

Obama believes his own lies, therefore he doesn't lie.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Obama believes his own lies, therefore he doesn't lie.

You do know that's actually true right? That if you believe the lie you're telling the truth?

 

[Disgustipated]

It's to economy stupid



.

DanLongCoooooch mentions all the shit the government shouldn't be involved with in the first place.

Your profile says your into writing and you can understand and support whatever the fuck that idiot was trying to type?

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Bry1313]

Many of your Dem comrades don't think it even rises to scandal level.

Because it isn't, poor intelligence and hasty talking points don't a scandal make.

 

[Bry1313]

Total bullshit leftist talking points.

You don't know shit. 9-11 wouldn't have happened if Clinton had taken bin Laden out when he had the chance. The left says Bush lied, the left said Bush was stupid, yet the left in all of their intellectual superiority voted to send Bush to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Own it, and shut the fuck up.

The doesn't exempt the administration from ignoring direct intelligence of warning of a planned attack on YS soil that was worse than Benghazi by a factor of 1,000.

The left voted to attack Iraq based on false intelligence provided by the administration. That vote does not exempt the direct lies, the killed more Americans than Benghazi by a factor of 2,500, and cost the nation trillions of dollars.

These are not BS talking points, these are issues that you are ignoring while trying to turn a sad affair into an impeachable offense because you can't stand that your side lost to Obama twice and you don't respect the American electorate.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

The doesn't exempt the administration from ignoring direct intelligence of warning of a planned attack on YS soil that was worse than Benghazi by a factor of 1,000.

The left voted to attack Iraq based on false intelligence provided by the administration. That vote does not exempt the direct lies, the killed more Americans than Benghazi by a factor of 2,500, and cost the nation trillions of dollars.

These are not BS talking points, these are issues that you are ignoring while trying to turn a sad affair into an impeachable offense because you can't stand that your side lost to Obama twice and you don't respect the American electorate.

Not to mention that Clinton was repeatedly accused of being "Obsessed with Bin Laden" and trying to "Wag the Dog" in an attempt to draw attention away from the Witch Hunt then being perpetrated by the GOP at the time.

The very same people who claimed that Clinton was obsessed with Bin Laden now try to claim that he didn't do enough. It's fucking ridiculous that they want to make political hay from the tragic deaths of 4 Americans in Libya after ignoring the flat out incompetence and massive intelligence failure of the previous administration that led to the 9/11 attacks and the death of thousands.

 

[KingOrfeo]

From Salon:

Wednesday, May 7, 2014 07:44 AM EDT

Benghazi derp’s chief enablers: Why pundits’ fear to call out liars has grave consequences

The real scandal: GOP's bad-faith opportunism, and White House reporters' refusal to focus on what actually matters

Simon Maloy

One of the cardinal rules of punditry states that when a conflict can be said to have two sides, blame shall be apportioned in such a way that both sides shall be made to seem culpable. Then, and only then, can your take be deemed smart. With both Benghazi and the Affordable Care Act topping the news this week, the volume of pox-on-both-houses punditry is seeing a short-term spike.

Let’s turn first to Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, who wrote a column arguing that “if Republicans succeed in turning the Benghazi ‘scandal’ from a nothingburger into a Double Big Mac, the Obama White House can blame its own secrecy and obsessive control over information.” If you haven’t been following the latest Benghazi news, the new development is that Republicans are freaking out over a previously unreleased email from a White House aide that was intended to help prepare Susan Rice for her post-Benghazi Sunday talk show circuit. The Republicans think that this email is proof of a cover-up conspiracy of some sort because it wasn’t included in a previous batch of Benghazi-related documents released by the White House.

Why that email wasn’t included in the previous document dump is a legitimate question to ask. But that’s where the legitimacy of all this begins and ends. The email itself is decidedly uncontroversial. As Kevin Drum’s neat summation of the affair makes plain, its contents don’t deviate from the CIA’s position at the time. All it shows is that “like any administration, the Obama White House wanted to put the best face on its Middle East policy.” Not exactly earth-shaking stuff.

And yet, its release prompted Republicans to form a House select committee on Benghazi and, as Milbank writes, “a White House press briefing was dominated for a third time by questions about Benghazi.”

Milbank himself acknowledges that the Benghazi “scandal” is the weakest of weak tea. “The Republican allegations,” he writes, “even if true, don’t amount to much.” If that’s the case, then what he’s describing is an opposition party and a White House press corps obsessively hounding the administration over failing to release in a more timely fashion a document that, ultimately, isn’t important.

Sure, let’s agree the White House should be more transparent. All for that. But what’s driving this current round of Benghazi-mania — and every round that preceded it — is the opportunistic bad-faith behavior of the Republicans and the inability of the White House press corps to focus on stories that actually matter.

Now let’s turn to Ron Fournier of the National Journal, who was very upset with the New York Times’ Paul Krugman for calling out the House Republicans who lied about the number of Obamacare enrollees who had paid their first month’s premiums.

Krugman wrote that “the fact that” lying of this sort “has become standard operating procedure for a major party bodes ill for America’s future.” Fournier bristled, writing that Krugman “undermines his argument by leaving out important context: His friends at the White House skew the truth, too.”

I tend to disagree: It’s perfectly appropriate – encouraged, even! – to criticize just the GOP for being irresponsible liars when they are in fact being irresponsible liars.

“The GOP would have no excuse to release a biased survey had the White House bothered to conduct one of its own,” Fournier writes, righty noting that the administration has to date not released data showing how many enrollees have paid their premiums. But here’s the funny part about this: the GOP has ably demonstrated over the last few years that they don’t actually need an “excuse” to lie about the Affordable Care Act. Take the whole “death panel” obsession as an example: Can the White House be faulted for that because they didn’t say at the outset that no federal dollars would go toward euthanizing the elderly and infirm?

The suggestion that the White House gave them an excuse to lie on premium payments is frankly absurd. The Republicans made a deliberate attempt to put out misinformation – that’s on them, and only them.

Fournier also attempts to head off his critics by denying that he’s engaging in false equivalence: “I’m not arguing that GOP skewing is equal to the Democratic skewing. That would be stupid.” Then what exactly is the point? If one party is lying more and more significantly than the other party, then I say by all means call out that party. Krugman’s argument is that the Republican opposition to Obamacare is rooted in falsehoods that are intended to rile up their base headed into the midterm elections. That’s unquestionably true, and pointing out that Democrats have been caught in lesser untruths is not germane to that argument.

But Fournier’s argument is that criticism of just one side necessarily implies the purity of the other side. Therefore, the only way to be a True Pundit™ is to blame both sides whenever possible, even when doing so accomplishes nothing beyond smug self-satisfaction.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

More lies, the intelligence agencies of the free world and the UN all agreed on the available intelligence, dunce. Get a clue. Read the war resolutions.

You're confused.

He's talking about the warnings to the Bush Administration of the impending attack on the United States. You know, the ones that they ignored. You remember the counterterrorism task force? The one that didn't meet a single time before 9/11?

You seem to be stuck on the invasion of Iraq.. Dunce.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Already refuted that BS a week ago with the Jamie Gorelick post. We all know why information was not disseminated among agencies in those days. See the 9-11 Commission report.

That's a bullshit cop out.
The CIA sent a warning, a daily briefing, to President Bush AND dispatched an officer to his ranch in Crawford.

8/6/01
On vacation in Crawford, Bush receives a Presidential Daily Briefing warning, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US." FBI highlights Al Qaeda activities consistent with hijacking preparations, as well as surveillance of federal buildings.

CIA officer flies to Crawford to call Bush's attention to document. Bush replies, "All right, you've covered your ass now."

this has nothing to do with interdepartmental dissemination of intel. The Commander in Chief was informed in writing AND in person by the CIA. He did nothing.

 

[dan_c00000]

It's the economy stupid



.

http://winkprogress.com/images/2013/07/Boehner_Jobamacare.jpg

 

[KingOrfeo]

Many of your Dem comrades don't think it even rises to scandal level.

Well, of course it doesn't. You don't really think so either, do you?