Mr. Speaker! We Need To Get Back To Benghazi

[Bad_Doggie]

When they conspired to assassinate George H.W. Bush, and when they attacked our aircraft over the UN imposed no fly zone. Read the war resolution.

Scrapping the bottom of the barrel huh?

So you went to war because of an assassination “PLOT” that happen 10 year earlier and which had already been responded to by launching 23 Tomahawk missiles at various targets in Iraq!

As for no fly zones there was NO UN mandate for no fly zones these were independently imposed by the US, UK, France and Turkey in support of the Kurds in northern Iraq.

They were In fact declared ILLEGAL by the UN.

Even so the US and UK in particular often went outside of their own ILLEGAL mandate and consistently attacked an ever increasing number of ground targets.
It’s fairly safe to say this was provocation. Even worse at the time of the declaration the number of Iraqi responses to this provocation had reduced dramatically.

So add this to the list of fabricated reasons.

You cowards are all the same, blame Bush for 9-11 instead of al Qaeda.

That's cuz you're a dumb shit head who doesn't pay attention. I called for his impeachment, for not enforcing the law on the border.

Don’t bullshit me idiot, I asked where you called for his impeachment for the litany of errors and incompetence that facilitated 9/11.

And as for Bush’s “dereliction of duty” and not being in the Situation Room at the time of the attack we’ll just gleefully overlook that huh? We’ll also overlook his inability to bring OBL to book as well.

You’re to cowardly to admit you didn’t and are just another partisan hack parroting the Fox talking point du jour.

Woof!

 

[Bad_Doggie]

You are blaming Obama and not Al Qaeda for Benghazi.

Yes, why yes he is.

People did attack embassies while Bush was in office, way more often than they have under Obama.

And yeah, the Bush admin really hunted down the terrorists well. When he got a in Laden........oh.

Shhhhhh Mr constancy is ignoring that!

Woof!

 

[Busybody]

The President wasn't AWOL, he was in the Oval Office receiving intelligence briefings at the time of the attack o Benghazi
The rest is just more of the same old bull-shit opinion.

no one knows where NIGGER was, but for NIGGER UD

MARC THIESSEN IN THE WASHINGTON POST: Where was Obama during Benghazi? Ask the White House diarist.



What was President Obama doing during the eight hours that the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, was under attack? Amazingly, we still do not know 20 months later.

But there is an easy way to find out — just ask the White House diarist. When trying to keep track of the president’s time, most observers look at “WAVE records” (the White House visitors log listing everyone who enters the White House complex) and the “President’s Public Schedule” (which selectively lists the president’s public activities). But there is another document that meticulously records all the president’s activities, public and private, every second of every day. It is called the “President’s Daily Diary.”

Just outside the Oval Office is a room called the Outer Oval, where the president’s secretary and personal aide sit and through which all visitors coming to see the president pass. Staff members in the Outer Oval keep track of the president’s location at all times. They carefully record the names of all individuals who walk into the Oval Office — when they entered, how long they stayed, what the topic of discussion was. They keep a record of all calls made and received by the president, including the topic, participants and duration. They even record the president’s bathroom breaks (they write “evacuating” into the log).


Congress could also subpoena his Secret Service detail. Plus: “During Watergate, Richard Nixon had his infamous 18 1 / 2-minute gap. When it comes to Benghazi, Obama has an eight-hour gap. That gap needs to be closed. If Obama has nothing to hide, then he has nothing to fear.” Obviously he has something to hide, or he wouldn’t have hidden it for 20 months.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

it's about dereliction of duty and it's consequences.

Then what will satisfy the issue? How can it be resolved to your satisfaction?

 

[Busybody]

People did attack embassies while Bush was in office, way more often than they have under Obama.

oh.

by saying this

you show a lack of command of the THE ISSUES

 

[Bry1313]

Then what will satisfy the issue? How can it be resolved to your satisfaction?

Obama's impeachment is my guess.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

by saying this

you show a lack of command of the THE ISSUES

Truth hurts, Bunny.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Obama's impeachment is my guess.

We'll of course, they have been looking for a reason for that since the election results came in after the 2008 election.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Then what will satisfy the issue? How can it be resolved to your satisfaction?

A lynching, probably, for no other reason than he disagrees with his politics.

And fuck the majority of the American people and the fact that it's almost certain that he will leave the country in a far better state than he found it.

Woof!

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Bry1313]

Stop embarrassing yourself, you ignorant clown, READ THE FUCKING WAR RESOLUTION, God Dammit!

I have, it's a joke.

 

[Bry1313]

Hey butt head. 9-11 was Clinton's fault. He should have killed bin Laden when he had the chance and he should have never promoted Jamie Gorelick.

Bush had 8 months to get him and far more warning than was raised about Benghazi.

 

[RjThoughts]

I have, it's a joke.

He believes that Bush never lied to Congress.

 

[jeninflorida]

He believes that Bush never lied to Congress.

Bush fucked up, and can never be forgiven for the patriot act. as obama is using this to turn America into a police state.

now, back to you. don't you feel less of a man for not being able to pay your own way in life? was this due to drugs...being a meth baby....or just a ignorant man like child making your way through life?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Hey butt head. 9-11 was Clinton's fault. He should have killed bin Laden when he had the chance and he should have never promoted Jamie Gorelick.

We have covered this before. Clinton was trying to get Bin Laden and was accused of being obsessed and trying to wag the dog to distract form the current GOP witch hunt.

W. was informed of the threat by the leaving administration. The counter-terrorism task force never met once in the months leading up to 9/11. Bush was warned AGAIN by the CIA in August 2011 with a report entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”, who even went so far as to dispatch an agent to Crawford, to which W. replied "OK, you've covered your ass now." and went fishing.

The fact that you STILL try to lay this at Clinton's feet shows just exactly what an ill-informed hyper-partisan moron you are.

 

[jeninflorida]

We have covered this before. Clinton was trying to get Bin Laden and was accused of being obsessed and trying to wag the dog to distract form the current GOP witch hunt.

W. was informed of the threat by the leaving administration. The counter-terrorism task force never met once in the months leading up to 9/11. Bush was warned AGAIN by the CIA in August 2011 with a report entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”, who even went so far as to dispatch an agent to Crawford, to which W. replied "OK, you've covered your ass now." and went fishing.

The fact that you STILL try to lay this at Clinton's feet shows just exactly what an ill-informed hyper-partisan moron you are.

no denying it, you are a special kind of stupid

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Hey butt head. 9-11 was Clinton's fault. He should have killed bin Laden when he had the chance and he should have never promoted Jamie Gorelick.

Well of course; sounds a bit cowardly and inconsistent, but, of course we wouldn't have expected anything else.

But, I feel I must draw your attention to the fact that you still haven’t explained why you never called for Bush’s impeachment; seeing as it happened on his watch, while he wasn’t in the operations room at the time it happened, even though he knew the attack was imminent, have you hmmmm?

Play the race card you ignorant fuck.

Obama doesn't have the majority behind him anymore. 61% think the investigation should go forward. he squandered whatever political capital he had when he started lying to the American people and fucking up the country. Now go lick your balls, puppy.

Who mentioned race? (although I can appreciate why you’d make that jump)

We all know that you’d much rather lynch Hiliary at this point, which is the intent of this charade anyway.

After the last election we both know the validity of your polls (I still can't believe you believed all that landslide bullshit), but, at any rate I dunno what you’re arguing for here?

I thought you guys had a legal process for dealing with such matters; are you really saying that impeachment should be carried out based on the result of a poll (sounds like a lynching to me) or is it just when you personally have a feeling he’s a liar?

We await with baited breath some evidence, any evidence, that a serious breach of conduct has been made. At the moment it looks like another of those throw some shit and hope it sticks tactics; ya know like the billon dollars, the birth cert, he’s a terrorist, he’s a communist etc etc etc.

Stop embarrassing yourself, you ignorant clown, READ THE FUCKING WAR RESOLUTION, God Dammit!

And be as knowledgeable as you?

So far you’ve cited a clearly illegal act and provocation on the part of the US and UK and a non-event that happened 10 years before the resolution was written.

I can only suggest a do over.

Woof!

 

[RjThoughts]

Well of course; sounds a bit cowardly and inconsistent, but, of course we wouldn't have expected anything else.

But, I feel I must draw your attention to the fact that you still haven’t explained why you never called for Bush’s impeachment; seeing as it happened on his watch, while he wasn’t in the operations room at the time it happened, even though he knew the attack was imminent, have you hmmmm?



Who mentioned race? (although I can appreciate why you’d make that jump)

We all know that you’d much rather lynch Hiliary at this point, which is the intent of this charade anyway.

After the last election we both know the validity of your polls (I still can't believe you believed all that landslide bullshit), but, at any rate I dunno what you’re arguing for here?

I thought you guys had a legal process for dealing with such matters; are you really saying that impeachment should be carried out based on the result of a poll (sounds like a lynching to me) or is it just when you personally have a feeling he’s a liar?

We await with baited breath some evidence, any evidence, that a serious breach of conduct has been made. At the moment it looks like another of those throw some shit and hope it sticks tactics; ya know like the billon dollars, the birth cert, he’s a terrorist, he’s a communist etc etc etc.



And be as knowledgeable as you?

So far you’ve cited a clearly illegal act and provocation on the part of the US and UK and a non-event that happened 10 years before the resolution was written.

I can only suggest a do over.

Woof!

Of course the "manly" GOP'ers forget that, when he was told of the attack, he sat on his ass, surrounded by children, instead of heading of heading back to Air Force 1.

That's a man for you. Fucking Coward!

 

[Bry1313]

Of course the "manly" GOP'ers forget that, when he was told of the attack, he sat on his ass, surrounded by children, instead of heading of heading back to Air Force 1.

That's a man for you. Fucking Coward!

It would have upset those kids not to finish the book

 

[KingOrfeo]

This explains a lot.

All this reminded me of Karen Armstrong’s discussion of mythos and logos in the introductory chapter of “The Battle for God” — two distinctly different ways of making sense of the world. “Logos,” Armstrong explained, “was the rational, pragmatic, and scientific thought that enabled men and women to function well in the world.” In contrast:

Myth was not concerned with practical matters, but with meaning. Unless we find some significance in our lives, we mortal men and women fall very easily into despair. The mythos of a society provided people with a context that made sense of their day-to-day lives; it directed their attention to the eternal and the universal. It was also rooted in what we would call the unconscious mind.

We all have need of both logos and mythos in our everyday lives. And yet, it’s obvious that liberals focus collectively and politically around logos — they don’t call it “the reality-based community” for nothing — while conservatives do the same around mythos, instead, albeit a rather paranoid version of it.

This difference helps enormously when it comes to trying to get a deeper understanding of the politics of Benghazi vs. “#Benghazi,” as Hayes savvily refers to it. In the real world, the attack on Benghazi in which four Americans were killed was a regrettable tragedy — but just one such example among all too many. Just one week after the Benghazi attacks, a Pakistani newspaper published a list of 44 attacks on U.S. embassies since 1958 (13 of them under George W. Bush), and MSNBC’s Timothy Noah topped that recently, writing:

Deadly violence against U.S. diplomats, sadly, is a frequent occurrence. The State Department counts 86 “significant attacks” against diplomatic outposts just in 2012, the year of the Benghazi attack. The death toll from these 2012 attacks was not four, but 24. And this is not a new problem. Since 1970, there have been 521 attacks on U.S. diplomatic targets, killing 500 people. The deadliest of these was not Benghazi but a truck bomb explosion in Nairobi, Kenya that killed 213 people, 12 of them Americans. Since 1977, 66 American diplomats have been killed by terrorists.

Needless to say, no other attack on U.S. diplomats has gotten anywhere near the prolonged attention focused on #Benghazi. Certainly not the 1983 Beirut Embassy bombing, in which 63 people were killed, including 17 Americans, on Ronald Reagan’s watch — not to be confused with the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, six months later, in which 241 American servicemen were killed, along with 58 French servicemen, six civilians and two suicide bombers. Ronald Reagan is a beloved, god-like figure on the right, who can Do No Wrong. Barack Obama is the exact opposite. By the dictates of mythos, investigations are arranged accordingly — the number of casualties is not even an afterthought. Facts simply do not matter in the framework of mythos and #Benghazi.

Meanwhile, in the real world, facts do matter. Facts about the attacks on Benghazi, about the context surrounding them, about how the Obama administration responded to them, even about how they talked about them. And because facts matter, it matters that the facts uncovered by past investigations have failed to validate hysterical right-wing claims. (See Media Matters on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee report, and the declassified transcripts from House Armed Services Committee hearings, for example.) It matters that even Buck McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said in early April that he was satisfied with the military response to the attack:

“I think I’ve pretty well been satisfied that given where the troops were, how quickly the thing all happened and how quickly it dissipated, we probably couldn’t have done more than we did”

<snip>

This is how the elements all fit together to produce birtherism, and sustain it at remarkably high levels. But a similar dynamic was behind the GOP’s opposition to Obamacare as well. After all, Obama’s proposal was originally based on the Heritage Foundation’s alternative to the Clinton proposal in 1993/94, which in turn inspired RomneyCare. There simply was no logos-based foundation for vehemently denouncing Obamacare as some kind of exotic alien takeover plot — and yet, that’s just what their mythos demanded be done. And so it was.

#Benghazi is more of the same. There are legitimate issues surrounding Benghazi, but Republicans have shown zero interest in them. They do not do logos, period. More money for embassy security? You’ve got to be kidding! Even more so, if you expect them to change. What they are after is political theater, period, end of sentence, end of story. Or, if you will, political ritual:

Myth only became a reality when it was embodied in cult, rituals, and ceremonies which worked aesthetically upon worshipers, evoking within them a sense of sacred significance and enabling them to apprehend the deeper currents of existence.

In short, #Benghazi is a ritual of purification and unification, drawing together all “true Americans” as the likes of Sarah Palin and Cliven Bundy like to call them. Its complete disconnect from the world of logos is a feature, not a bug. In the world of logos, Obamacare has lost its luster as something to run against—and even Fox News knows that. In fact, any logos-based politics risks generating some kind of friction or other. Whenever you have to deal with facts, they can get in the way of uniting different factions, whether it’s foreign policy in Ukraine, immigration reform, gay marriage or the new faux concern with inequality. With all the logos-based pitfalls out there, the question isn’t why the GOP is rushing to embrace #Benghazi. The real question is: What took them so long?

 

[jeninflorida]

wow, if KingofHemoids spend the same amount of time looking for a job, as the loser spends cut and copying that socialist shit .... yeah, who am I kidding the nut will never work

 

[unregistered]