Benghazi

[Tiberius]

You're simply incorrect. The message that was given at that point in time was entirely consistent (shockingly so) with the message that had been delivered for MONTHS previous.

 

Unless you're claiming that the Bush Administration, with malice aforethought, knew they were going to intentionally mislead the public for political gain months before they actually did, and in doing so established a political context that was entirely consistent with current and historical policies, you can't possibly be correct.

I actually agree with you. Bush really thought it was over. I've thought about this a lot since it happened and my theory is Bush was thinking of those Iraqis in the first Gulf war that surrendered to the news reporters they were so terrified and had Cheney telling him everything would be alright and the doofus really believed--like most Conservatives--that it was going to be a cakewalk

[DC Tom]

I actually agree with you. Bush really thought it was over. I've thought about this a lot since it happened and my theory is Bush was thinking of those Iraqis in the first Gulf war that surrendered to the news reporters they were so terrified and had Cheney telling him everything would be alright and the doofus really believed--like most Conservatives--that it was going to be a cakewalk

 

You're an idiot. You don't agree with me. That's not at all what I said.

[3rdnlng]

I actually agree with you. Bush really thought it was over. I've thought about this a lot since it happened and my theory is Bush was thinking of those Iraqis in the first Gulf war that surrendered to the news reporters they were so terrified and had Cheney telling him everything would be alright and the doofus really believed--like most Conservatives--that it was going to be a cakewalk

 

You calling someone else a doofus is pretty funny.

[Tiberius]

You're an idiot. You don't agree with me. That's not at all what I said.

Am I a bigger idiot than you?? Come on, I'm not THAT bad

[Chef Jim]

Am I a bigger idiot than you?? Come on, I'm not THAT bad

 

Idiot is too nice a word to use to describe you if you think what you babbled above was agreeing with Tom.

[DC Tom]

Am I a bigger idiot than you?? Come on, I'm not THAT bad

 

I have to go take a **** right now. That **** will be smarter than you.

[B-Man]

BENGHAZI DENIERS CONTINUE TO PANIC: Jim Treacher, spots columnists sparring on the pending Benghazi hearings.

 

 

 

Related: Meanwhile at MSNBC, Joe Scarborough Interrupts Alex Wagner’s Benghazi Denial: ‘Don’t Insult Our Intelligence

 

 

 

 

MARK STEYN: The Cavalry That Never Came.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do the Hearings Right

by Dr. Charles Krauthammer

[keepthefaith]

My take on the Dems wanting to boycott the committee is that they're abandoning Obama. They don't want to touch this thing as they can plainly see that the facts as they are uncovered are not on falling their way.

[DC Tom]

My take on the Dems wanting to boycott the committee is that they're abandoning Obama. They don't want to touch this thing as they can plainly see that the facts as they are uncovered are not on falling their way.

 

My take is the exact opposite: they want to marginalize it and convince the public that the Republicans are crazy.

[keepthefaith]

I have to go take a **** right now. That **** will be smarter than you.

 

I don't think that's fair. Mr. Gator is plenty intelligent. He's simply very misguided, a product of his environment and continues to immerse himself in bad information. GIGO.

 

My take is the exact opposite: they want to marginalize it and convince the public that the Republicans are crazy.

 

I agree that's the veil, but underneath I think they don't want to actually take the field in a game they know they can't win.

[3rdnlng]

The dems know that Obama & Hillary are guilty of at the very least lying to the american public. If they refuse to participate they will do what they often do and that is to tell the public that it is black when it is actually red. In other words they will refuse to participate and then tell the public it's all partisan politics when it turns out that the administration really !@#$ed up..

Edited May 9, 2014 by 3rdnlng

[Azalin]

My take is the exact opposite: they want to marginalize it and convince the public that the Republicans are crazy.

 

they don't want to convince anyone that republicans are crazy, they want to convince people that the republicans are so desperate to discredit the president that they'll do & say anything.

 

if the dems were smart, they would put 5 from their ranks on the committee in order to offer support for those called to testify, especially if Hillary is called to go before them. Ms Clinton could get beat up pretty badly otherwise, and all they'd have with which to defend her would be cries of partisanship after the fact.

[B-Man]

RICHARD FERNANDEZ: The Day Obama’s Presidency Died.

 

The curious thing about September 11, 2012 — the day of the Benghazhi attack — is that

for some reason it marks the decline of the Obama presidency as clearly as a milepost

. We are told by the papers that nothing much happened on that day. A riot in a far-away country. A few people killed. And yet … it may be coincidental, but from that day the administration’s foreign policy seemed inexplicably hexed. The Arab Spring ground to a halt. The Secretary of State ‘resigned’. The CIA Director was cast out in disgrace. Not long after, Obama had to withdraw his Red Line in Syria. Al-Qaeda, whose eulogy he had pronounced appeared with disturbing force throughout Africa, South Asia and the Arabian Peninsula. Almost as if on cue, Russia made an unexpected return to the world stage, first in Syria, then in the Iranian nuclear negotiations.

 

Worse was to follow. America’s premier intelligence organization, the National Security Agency, was taken apart in public and the man who took its secrets, Edward Snowden, decamped to Moscow with a laptop full of secrets. But it was all just a curtain raiser to the dismemberment of Ukraine and the disaster in Eastern Europe. . . . And still there’s no acknowledgement of anything being fundamentally wrong.

 

Read the whole thing. Including this:

 

“The lie is much more dangerous than the truth. America can live with an Obama mistake. But it can’t live with an Obama who cannot acknowledge his mistakes.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Benghazi, Which Democrat Will Play the Role Howard Baker Played In Watergate?

 

My guess: None. Howard Baker had scruples.

[Security]

RICHARD FERNANDEZ: The Day Obama’s Presidency Died.

 

The curious thing about September 11, 2012 — the day of the Benghazhi attack — is that

for some reason it marks the decline of the Obama presidency as clearly as a milepost

. We are told by the papers that nothing much happened on that day. A riot in a far-away country. A few people killed. And yet … it may be coincidental, but from that day the administration’s foreign policy seemed inexplicably hexed. The Arab Spring ground to a halt. The Secretary of State ‘resigned’. The CIA Director was cast out in disgrace. Not long after, Obama had to withdraw his Red Line in Syria. Al-Qaeda, whose eulogy he had pronounced appeared with disturbing force throughout Africa, South Asia and the Arabian Peninsula. Almost as if on cue, Russia made an unexpected return to the world stage, first in Syria, then in the Iranian nuclear negotiations.

 

Worse was to follow. America’s premier intelligence organization, the National Security Agency, was taken apart in public and the man who took its secrets, Edward Snowden, decamped to Moscow with a laptop full of secrets. But it was all just a curtain raiser to the dismemberment of Ukraine and the disaster in Eastern Europe. . . . And still there’s no acknowledgement of anything being fundamentally wrong.

 

Read the whole thing. Including this:

 

“The lie is much more dangerous than the truth. America can live with an Obama mistake. But it can’t live with an Obama who cannot acknowledge his mistakes.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Benghazi, Which Democrat Will Play the Role Howard Baker Played In Watergate?

 

My guess: None. Howard Baker had scruples.

 

See, this time, it actually has to be a women or minority democrat as well.

 

This person who be called an Uncle Tom by black men, and the women will be called a traitor to the cause. There are many more things going on here.

[B-Man]

 

The Benghazi probe didn't have to come to this ...

 

 

Many Democrats have a hard time understanding why Republicans want to keep investigating the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.

Some see the GOP trying to score partisan points for this November's midterms. Others see a plot to undermine Hillary Clinton's 2016 prospects. Still others see Republican psychosis, the Benghazi variant of Obama Derangement Syndrome.

 

 

Republican sources on Capitol Hill say that in general, the Pentagon's cooperation has been a model of how to deal with such an investigation, while the State Department and White House have been models of what not to do.

 

If the rest of the administration had followed the military's example, the Benghazi controversy would likely be over by now.

 

The probe started with three questions.

One, was the U.S. adequately prepared for possible trouble abroad on the anniversary of Sept. 11?

 

Two, did the government do everything it could to try to rescue the Americans who were under attack for seven and a half hours?

 

And three, did the Obama administration tell the straight story about what happened?

 

Responsibility for answering the first and third questions fell heavily on the State Department and the White House.

 

In general, their response has been incomplete, unreliable, confrontational, and deeply frustrating for investigators trying to piece together the Benghazi puzzle.

 

But responsibility for answering the second question, about the immediate response to the attack, fell mostly to the Pentagon. And that has been an entirely different story.

 

 

 

 

 

More at the link:

 

 

 

 

Head Of ‘Benghazi Truth Squad’ Comes Up Short On Answers To Basic Questions

 

Former Clinton Administration official Lanny Davis is all about damage control. In fact, his latest book is called Crisis Tales and it’s all about his career

helping important people out of very tough jams. So, it’s no surprise that he’s been mobilized to run interference for his long-time college pal Hillary Clinton.

 

Davis will be heading up something he calls “The Truth Squad,” and will position himself right outside the committee room where Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) will be conducting his investigations into the events of the Sept 11th Benghazi attacks.

 

more at the link:

[B-Man]

Clinton allies pressured Dems on Benghazi

 

Hillary Clinton’s world was so worried about a Republican investigation of the Benghazi attacks, they sent a message to House Democrats: We need backup.

 

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) publicly considered boycotting the panel, an idea that Clinton supporters feared would leave the potential 2016 candidate exposed to the enemy fire of House Republicans.

 

So Clinton emissaries launched a back channel campaign, contacting several House Democratic lawmakers and aides to say they’d prefer Democrats participate, according to sources familiar with the conversations.

 

 

Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz32SBz9x1l

 

 

 

 

If the Clintons sent what Politico tellingly terms a "We need backup" message, they were trying to drag the House Democrats away from their immediate concern about winning their districts this fall and into the service of Hillary Clinton's 2016 interests.

 

"We need backup" is an ironic reminder of the failure of the United States to respond to the request for backup from those under attack in Benghazi.

 

 

 

.

[Tiberius]

Clinton allies pressured Dems on Benghazi

 

Hillary Clinton’s world was so worried about a Republican investigation of the Benghazi attacks, they sent a message to House Democrats: We need backup.

 

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) publicly considered boycotting the panel, an idea that Clinton supporters feared would leave the potential 2016 candidate exposed to the enemy fire of House Republicans.

 

So Clinton emissaries launched a back channel campaign, contacting several House Democratic lawmakers and aides to say they’d prefer Democrats participate, according to sources familiar with the conversations.

 

 

Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz32SBz9x1l

 

 

 

 

If the Clintons sent what Politico tellingly terms a "We need backup" message, they were trying to drag the House Democrats away from their immediate concern about winning their districts this fall and into the service of Hillary Clinton's 2016 interests.

 

"We need backup" is an ironic reminder of the failure of the United States to respond to the request for backup from those under attack in Benghazi.

 

 

 

.

Democrats talking to Democrats about how to respond to the GOP witch hunt? How dare they!

[keepthefaith]

Democrats talking to Democrats about how to respond to the GOP witch hunt? How dare they!

 

 

You know, there comes a point when the smell of dog **** is indisputable and everyone nearby has to admit, yeah it smells really bad. I'd say we're at the point where supporters of the President have to admit they can smell it, it doesn't smell good and the time to temper the criticism of the opposite party has come because the stench and the evidence of the problem have become obvious.

[Chef Jim]

You know, there comes a point when the smell of dog **** is indisputable and everyone nearby has to admit, yeah it smells really bad. I'd say we're at the point where supporters of the President have to admit they can smell it, it doesn't smell good and the time to temper the criticism of the opposite party has come because the stench and the evidence of the problem have become obvious.

 

You're wasting your time. People like gator see, hear and smell no evil whatsoever with what's going on in the WH. That is until the day a Republican is back in the WH. Then they'll see, hear and smell evin around every corner even though nothing will have changed.

[OCinBuffalo]

It's hilarious that Benghazi the story exists in terms of: having nothing at all to do with Hillary, and, having so much to do with Hillary that it's necessary to send in the aides to guarantee Democratic involvment on the select committee, at the same time.

 

Don't they realize that it would be better for them if they did NOTHING? Never mind the right thing. Nothing would have produced a better outcome.

 

Here's an example...sorta.

The dems know that Obama & Hillary are guilty of at the very least lying to the american public. If they refuse to participate they will do what they often do and that is to tell the public that it is black when it is actually red. In other words they will refuse to participate and then tell the public it's all partisan politics when it turns out that the administration really !@#$ed up..

I don't think they lied, at least not initially. The de facto lies are now obvious. The worst is: they didn't need to lie.

 

Or, perhaps a better way to say it is: I think they go into EVERY issue with the same "template". They seem incapable of just starting with the facts, the real facts, and working from there. No. Their template always starts with at least some bastardization of the facts, if not bastardizing each fact individually, and they proceed to base their entire media strategy, logic chain, on these false constructs.

 

They doom themselves to failure by doing this. No matter how good Jay Carney is, and how good the communications office stafff is, they are always going to be tripped up by some inaccuracy, or logic fail, that may be small, but is also, undeniable. This makes their entire strategy start working against them, because now the whole thing looks, as you say, like a pack of lies.

 

If they would just throw away this templatiing approach, and begin with the facts, unadulterated?

Yeah, I believe lots of things would have been "over a long time ago".