ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [303] -- Benghazi Frenzy!

[ Posted Friday, May 9th, 2014 – 17:13 PDT ]

OK, I fully admit I wrote that headline with the express purpose of putting two "Z" words next to each other, just because. I did (in my own defense) reject "Lazy-Crazy Benghazi Frenzy!" as too over-the-top, however.

Ahem. Where was I? Oh, right, last week's news....

Sarah Palin, for some reason, was in the news last week. No, really. Although, we have to say, the mighty have indeed fallen when this news consisted of an interview with the television show Extra, which exists solely because some folks find reading People magazine to be too intellectually challenging. Seems perfect for Palin, doesn't it?

Speaking of the shallow swamps of the superficial, the annual "let's mash-up Hollywood stars and Washington wonks" dinner party was held last week as well. Joel McHale did a pretty good job of roasting everyone, so check out the video if you missed it.

White House security has had a pretty rough week, as first a confused tourist tailgated the president's daughters' motorcade right through the checkpoint, and then two people chucked mysterious items over the White House fence. But the disturbing security news this week was actually bipartisan, as a man was also arrested for making death threats against John Boehner (for not extending unemployment benefits).

Moving on, we have several Republicans saying such vile things about their political opponents that their own fellow Republicans had to denounce them. First, there was the Tennessee state representative who blogged: "Democrats bragging about the number of mandatory sign ups for Obamacare is like Germans bragging about the number of manditory [sic] sign ups for 'train rides' for Jews in the 40s." Even after his fellow Tennessee Republicans condemned the language, he issued the most non-apology apology we've ever read, expressing his "regret that some people miss the point of my post. It was not to offend. It was to warn. In no way was my post meant to diminish or detract from the pain, suffering and loss of human life that occurred during this dark time in human history. Instead the post was meant to draw attention to the loss of freedom that we are currently experiencing."

Out in California, Republican gubernatorial candidate Tim Donnelly caught some heat from within his party after he accused a fellow Republican in the race of supporting Sharia law. Because when the guy was a senior Treasury official, he participated in a forum to "inform the policy community about Islamic financial services, which are an increasingly important part of the global financial industry." This prompted an impressive denunciation from none other than Darrell Issa, who issued a scathing statement: "There is no place in any public discussion for this type of hateful and ignorant garbage. As far as I'm concerned, this type of stupidity disqualifies Tim Donnelly from being fit to hold any office, anywhere. Donnelly is no longer a viable option for California voters. It is crap like this that gives Republicans a bad name and there is no place in the Republican Party or in this race for someone like Tim Donnelly." We're not big fans of Issa in general, but have to compliment him on not holding back at all in his condemnation.

North Carolina's primary election generated some news this week. We speak, of course, of whether Clay Aiken won the Democratic nomination to run for a House seat this November. Even if he does manage to emerge victorious (the vote count is so close a recount may be in the cards), the district is pretty conservative, so it's a long shot at best (although the media would certainly love covering the race).

Seriously, though, the big race in North Carolina was Thom Tillis winning enough Republican primary votes to avoid a runoff with a Tea Party candidate (which would have cost him time and money). This is being touted as a big victory for the Establishment Republican wing of the party, but in reality Tillis is pretty close to a Tea Partier himself, when you take a look at his views. So pronouncements that the Tea Party is now dead are a bit premature, to say the least.

Senator Kay Hagen, whom Tillis is running to defeat, has pivoted from using anti-Obamacare fliers (in an attempt to scare Republican voters in the primary) to now giving a full-throated defense of the Medicaid expansion part of Obamacare. This is a potent issue for Democrats to use, in red states that turned down the expansion money, so other vulnerable Democratic candidates should take note.

Republicans as a whole seem to be pivoting away from their stated singular campaign theme of "Obamacare is the root of all the country's problems." There was a noticeable change this week, beginning with the Republicans holding a hearing where insurance company executives told them their made-up numbers were just flat-out wrong. This was followed by a politer-than-expected hearing for the woman nominated to lead the Health and Human Services Department (the replacement for Kathleen Sebelius). Add to this the fact that Republican candidates for Senate are getting more and more reluctant to even take a stand on whether expanding Medicaid is a good idea or not. And the Obamacare data keeps getting better, meaning that more and more Republican scare stories are fast being debunked. What it all signifies is a clear shift away from the "all Obamacare, all the time" strategy that was supposed to sweep Republicans to victory this year.

What was even more noticeable was what Republicans shifted to instead: Benghazi! Or, more accurately: "Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!" Yes, the Republicans are doubling down on holding yet another investigation -- in the hopes that this time an actual scandal will emerge, somehow. Also, to tarnish Hillary Clinton (always a worthy motive in Republicanland). Watch for this Benghazi frenzy to play out all summer long, since Republicans quite obviously have nothing positive to offer the voters this year.

OK, this is running long, so let's just quickly review the marijuana and religious news, and then get on with the awards. Five Nobel Prize winners (in economics) made public a letter calling for a global end to the drug war, which was also signed by former Reagan cabinet member George Shultz. In Colorado, state legislators moved to provide an alternate banking system that will allow marijuana-based businesses to have a bank account just like any other business (a step which was necessary because although the federal Justice Department tried to issue guidelines for banks, they didn't go far enough and the banks are still refusing to allow marijuana entrepreneurs access to banking). While states are moving forward, the federal government still seriously lags in the legal sphere, which leads to situations where people charged with marijuana crimes can't even speak about their medical use in federal courts.

More amusingly, Republican House member John Mica brought a fake joint to a hearing on Washington, D.C.'s new decriminalization law. Mica introduced his "evidence" (this article is worth checking out for the photos alone) with: "I have this joint here. Don't get too excited out there, some of you, this is not a real one, it's a mock one." Pro-reform Representative Steve Cohen, a Democrat, then asked Mica if he had rolled it himself, which prompted the response: "No, I had staff do it. They have more experience." You can pretty much make up your own punchline to that one, folks....

Speaking of humor in politics, the guy down in Florida who successfully put up a "Festivus pole" (made out of beer cans) in his statehouse's holiday display last year is now taking on his local town council. Days after the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of holding prayers before public meetings, Chaz Stevens sent his local town council a letter:

Dear City of Deerfield Beach;

With the recent US Supreme Court ruling allowing "prayer before Commission meetings" and seeking the rights granted to others, I hereby am requesting I be allowed to open a Commission meeting praying for my God, my divine spirit, my Dude in Charge.

Be advised, I am a Satanist.

Let me know when this is good for you.

We should be seeing more of this sort of thing in the near future, folks. After all, if the Satanists are getting public prayers, can the Pastafarians be far behind (and what would a prayer to the Flying Spaghetti Monster sound like)? Where are the members of the Church of the SubGenius™, for "Bob's" sake? The gauntlet has been thrown down, so who will next answer the call?

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

Both of our awards this week go to fairly obscure Democrats, however both were also fairly easy to choose because they stood out so prominently from anything other (or more well-known) Democrats did last week.

It is hard to top "Governor Saves Woman's Life" as a headline, after all. Which is why our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week is the governor of Oregon, John Kitzhaber. Kitzhaber, a former emergency room doctor, was on his way to dinner when he saw "someone along the edge of the street who seemed to be attempting to resuscitate a woman." The governor immediately halted his car, got out, and began giving CPR until the paramedics arrived and took over. By doing so, the governor likely saved the woman's life.

Again, that's pretty hard to top. There are impressive things people do in the world of politics, but then there are also impressive things some politicians occasionally do just as a human being. This obviously falls in the latter category. For using his medical skills to save a woman in distress, Governor John Kitzhaber is unquestionably this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

[Congratulate Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber on his official contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

Sadly, this one is also an easy call. It doesn't seem to have been in any way intentional, and the guy apologized profusely, but even so the magnitude of the error deserves a Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award.

Mike Wells, a Democratic candidate for the Fresno, California city council, created a flier which attacked his opponent over the subject of urban blight. The problem was the photo that someone chose for the backdrop. Instead of just a random burned-out building, what appeared instead was a photo of a building at Auschwitz.

Now, this doesn't seem to be in any way intentional -- in the CNN story, Wells is interviewed and looks and sounds appropriately shocked by the news that his campaign was guilty of such an egregious mistake. He apologizes with apparent sincerity.

But still, that's a pretty bad mistake for your campaign to make. Someone found that image and decided to use it. It was -- obviously -- not properly vetted. Wells wasn't trying to make a point, as some Republicans do when comparing Democrats to Nazis (for instance). He wasn't saying urban blight in any way meant we were all headed towards concentration camps, to put it another way.

But, unintentional or not, this graphic mistake on a campaign flier easily qualifies Mike Wells for this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award. Other Democratic candidates, please take note: in this age of search engines, please double-check everything that appears in your campaign literature. The extra time you spend doing so will be worth it, if it avoids mistakes like this.

[Mike Wells is a candidate for office, not an officeholder, and our standing policy is not to link to campaign websites, sorry.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 303 (5/9/14)

We've got a mixed bag this week in the talking points department. Most of these deal directly with the gigantic GOP pivot this week, from Obamacare to Benghazi. But then I just threw one curveball in at the end for the heck of it.

 

1
   That's all you got?

The first thing that needs pointing out this week is the lack of any positive Republican campaign issue. The tone to take would be: "taunting."

"Is this really the only thing Republicans have got to run on in an election year? Really? The number one issue before the country right now is supposed to be Benghazi? Republicans have nothing else to run on, I suppose, since the American public agrees with the Democrats that the minimum wage should be raised, immigration reform should pass the House, Medicaid should be expanded in all 50 states, and that taxes on the one percent are low enough already. Since they can't run on any of these because they are so out-of-touch with the lives of everyday working Americans, the only thing Republicans know how to do is try to throw a bunch of mud in the hopes that something will stick to the wall. I don't know about the hardcore Republican base, but most of the rest of America has already moved on from rehashing Obamacare and Benghazi one last time. I mean, seriously, this is all the Republicans have to run on? No vision for the future at all? They can't come up with one positive reason why the public should vote for them?"

 

2
   Benghazi fundraising

Democrats are already finding some traction with this one, as they well should.

"OK, so let me get this straight. The new Benghazi investigation -- what is it, the sixth? seventh? -- is supposedly going to ferret out how Benghazi was used politically by one party. That, after all, is supposed to be the heart of this so-called 'scandal.' Well, I would direct any Republicans who wish to see what politicizing Benghazi looks like to the national Republican Party, who is now fundraising off of the Benghazi hearings. Yes, you heard that right, folks -- the Republican Party is begging for partisan donations over the deaths of four Americans. That's something they never even accused President Obama of, and it is downright despicable. Speaker John Boehner refuses to say so, and he refuses to stop trolling for campaign cash by using this tragedy for nothing but political purposes. If anyone had the slightest doubt that this entire 'investigation' is nothing more than a purely political (and cynical) exercise by the Republican Party, look no further than this odious fundraising effort. I think it's pretty obvious which party has politicized Benghazi, and I don't think we need any more hearings to figure it out."

 

3
   The families don't want it

Nancy Pelosi has been leading the charge on this one.

"You know, John Boehner, when he was asked why he wasn't telling his fellow Republicans not to fundraise using Benghazi, responded by taking the high road, saying 'Our focus is on getting the answers to those families who lost their loved ones. Period.' But members of two of the four families affected have contacted Democrats to say that they would really prefer not to be subjected to yet another rehashing of their loved one's death. So Boehner is at least half wrong when he says he is speaking for 'those families who lost their loved ones' -- something the media might want to ask him about the next time he refuses to end these disgraceful Republican fundraising efforts."

 

4
   Uninsured rate down again

Democrats, of course, shouldn't allow Republicans to fully pivot away from Obamacare. Especially since the good news just keeps rolling in.

"The best measure of whether Obamacare is achieving its goals is how many Americans remain without health insurance. Gallup has noticed a big downturn in this number, ever since the first Obamacare open enrollment period began. In the third quarter of 2013, a full 18 percent of Americans did not have health insurance. This number has dropped every month since, and is now down to 13.4 percent -- the lowest-ever rate since they've been asking this question in their polls. What this means is that at least 4.6 percent of Americans are now insured -- people who didn't have insurance before Obamacare started. Of course, 13.4 percent is still too high, but I fully expect this number to shrink over the next few years, as more and more people benefit from Obamacare. Because Obamacare is working exactly as it was designed, as evidenced by the fact that more and more Americans are now insured."

 

5
   The bills are being paid, too

Republicans royally shot themselves in the foot over this one. Thankfully, Obamacare covers such self-inflicted injuries.

"Last week, Republicans in Congress tried to pull a fast one with a report that they said showed only 67 percent of people who had signed up for Obamacare had actually paid their first bill. They were so confident in their cooked-up numbers that they held a hearing for the insurance company executives. This spectacularly backfired in their faces, however, when all the insurance companies stated that the actual rate of people who paid was between 80 and 90 percent. This is only the latest Obamacare Republican lie to be debunked, folks -- there are certainly plenty of others. Maybe this is why Republicans have begun backing away from their single-minded focus on attacking Obamacare, who knows?"

 

6
   How many are being denied Medicaid? And why?

Kay Hagen is leading the charge on this one, but all vulnerable Democrats should take note (and insert the correct figures for their home states).

"Senator Kay Hagen was in the news recently, pointing out that 500,000 North Carolinians are right now being denied Medicaid because the Republicans in her state don't want them to have any health insurance. Denying your people Medicaid because you hate President Obama might have sounded like a good thing a few years ago, but now we are beginning to see what this actually means to people's lives. It means millions of Americans who don't get health insurance because they live in the wrong state. If you live on one side of a state line, you and your family can afford to go to the doctor when you get sick; but if you live on the wrong side, it means you have to suffer because you can't afford health care. All because Republicans hate Obama -- there's simply no other reason for it. How can Republicans defend the position of denying so much peace of mind to so many of their own constituents? It's tragic, when you get right down to it."

 

7
   Half a ton of weed

And finally, some good news. This is kind of funny, when you read the headline, but what it signifies is a much-needed shift in federal policy.

"The federal government just upped its order of legal marijuana by roughly half a ton. That's right -- over 1,400 pounds of legal federal marijuana will be available next year, folks! While this may sound amusing, what it means is that the federal government appears to be getting serious about allowing unbiased medical research on marijuana. This is the weed that is provided to approved studies of marijuana, and it has been kept so low because in years past, the federal government refused permission to anyone who wanted to study marijuana's benefits, instead of starting their research with the predetermined outcome that all marijuana is bad in all situations. The Justice Department has shown signs that it will be loosening up on granting permissions for serious medical research already this year, and the news that they have expanded the legal crop this year by half a ton means that -- hopefully -- multiple studies will now be allowed to happen. That, as Martha Stewart would say, is a good thing."

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: Democrats For Progress
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

161 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [303] -- Benghazi Frenzy!”

  1. [1] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Wow ... apparently planet Republican is about to leave the solar system completely.

    I'm really hoping that Democrats just boycott the whole circle jerk. Let 'em talk to their been-crazhi base. We should be talking to the rest of the American people.

    -David

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Can you at least admit that ya'all were wrong when ya'all claimed that Benghazi was just a 2012 Election issue and that, after the 2012 Election, no one would hear anything about Benghazi..

    I stated at the time that Benghazi was such a serious incident (a 9/11 Anniversary terrorist attack where our AMBASSADOR was brutally murdered) that we would be hearing about it for the next several elections at least...

    Can ya'all admit ya'all were wrong??

    Enquiring minds want to know.. :D

    Michale

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    It was -- obviously -- not properly vetted. Wells wasn't trying to make a point, as some Republicans do when comparing Democrats to Nazis (for instance).

    Or, when Democrats accuse Republicans of being terrorists..

    I'm just sayin'... :D

    As far as Benghazi, you people just don't get it..

    The Administration lied. The lie goes ALL THE WAY UP to Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor..

    THERE is your connection to Obama's White House..

    You will recall (much to ya'alls chagrin, I am sure) that the administration was STILL touting the "it was the anti-islam video" BS (along with ya'all, much to your chagrin) a couple weeks after the attack. Whereas I nailed it as a terrorist attack within hours...

    Now, ya'all can be excused. Ya'all are simply slaves to your ideology, so it's understandable that ya'all would back the Administration, right or wrong. I get that. I do it all the time..

    But Obama lied solely and completely to win an election...

    Nixon did what he did for the same reasons.. And he resigned over it..

    Ya'all better get used to hearing more and more about Benghazi. It's going to be with us for at LEAST another 3-5 years..

    Of course, this pre-supposes that Obama and the Democrats continue to lie and obfuscate and hide documents....

    Benghazi is an issue that's going to be with us for a long long time.

    Remember, you heard it hear first...

    Michale

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    Regarding #5..

    Wait a tic???

    Obama and his administration has stated over and over and over and over and over (you see where this is going?? :D) and over again that they CAN'T provide any numbers on who has paid and who hasn't paid..

    NOW you are saying that ALL Republicans had to do was to ASK the Insurance Companies???

    So, basically what ya'all are saying is that Obama LIED again!

    Well, color me surprised... :D

    Ya see, people... It's all in the spin.... :D

    Michale

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Administration lied. The lie goes ALL THE WAY UP to Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor..

    So, basically what ya'all are saying is that Obama LIED again!

    Just to be clear. Those were POLITICAL LIEs..

    Ya know.. The type of lie that is THE "biggest threat to this country and democracy"...

    I'm just sayin'

    Michale

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    . That, after all, is supposed to be the heart of this so-called 'scandal.' Well, I would direct any Republicans who wish to see what politicizing Benghazi looks like to the national Republican Party, who is now fundraising off of the Benghazi hearings.

    That's something they never even accused President Obama of, and it is downright despicable.

    Oh really???

    And how do ya'all feel about Democrats trolling for campaign cash OVER THE GRAVES OF 26 DEAD CHILDREN!!!

    Isn't THAT despicable??

    Of course it is..

    So, why wasn't anything said when Democrats were soliciting cash after the Newton massacre???

    Once again, the Left whines and complains about the Right doing something that the Left is ass deep into doing..

    Pot... Kettle...

    Or if you prefer my version. Simply two different sides of the same corrupt and perverse coin..

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, ya'all want to talk about "despicable"??

    Using the "horror" of the "massacre of 20 beautiful children" at a time when critical legislation honoring their memory is at stake to beg for $5 for your next political campaign is as tasteless as it gets.
    http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20130411/editorial-blumenthal-uses-sandy-hook-to-raise-campaign-cash?viewmode=default

    Let me repeat that for the cheap seats...

    AS TASTELESS AS IT GETS

    Democrats have absolutely NO MORAL AUTHORITY to complain about Republicans fundraising off the Benghazi hearings..

    NONE... ZERO.... ZILCH.... NADA....

    Am I wrong??

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Can you at least admit that ya'all were wrong when ya'all claimed that Benghazi was just a 2012 Election issue and that, after the 2012 Election, no one would hear anything about Benghazi.

    I guess we should never be surprised by the paranoia and willingness to play politics of Republicans.

    Let me ask you this, Michale ... Whatever happened to all the other phony scandals?

    - Obama's birth certificate
    - Obama's IRS
    - Obama's concentration camps (you do know that there are many people who seriously believe Obama is running concentration camps, right?)
    - Bill Ayers
    - Solyndra
    - The Fast and the Furious scandal
    - The New Black Panthers

    You do realize what pushing all of this Been-crazhi stuff with nothing but suspicion makes Republicans look like, right?

    It's a shame because there are actually many real shortcomings of the Obama administration. With all of the real issues, why do they keep pushing all the made up stuff?

    -David

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    I guess we should never be surprised by the paranoia and willingness to play politics of Republicans.

    Is that a "Yes, Michale. We were wrong and you were right"??? :D

    Change "Republicans" to "Democrats" and your claim is still factually accurate.. :D

    Obama's IRS

    It's still a scandal..

    Here's the funny thing. The Left, to this day, condemns Nixon for using the IRS as his politico Enforcer Squad..

    Obama does it??

    Not a peep from the Left..

    Funny, iddn't it?? :D

    You do realize what pushing all of this Been-crazhi stuff with nothing but suspicion makes Republicans look like, right?

    Well, except for there is documented evidence that Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser put out a memo that everyone should lie about the cause of the Benghazi terrorist attack.

    Except for that... :D

    It's a shame because there are actually many real shortcomings of the Obama administration. With all of the real issues, why do they keep pushing all the made up stuff?

    You mean like Democrats pushed all the "made up stuff" under the Bush Administration??

    That's the point ya'all always forget...

    Democrats, Republicans?? No difference.. They ALL put their political agendas ahead of what's right..

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's likely that the GOP won't even NEED Benghazi or the Nigerian terrorist group to derail Hillary's POTUS aspirations..

    Think about it. You’re married to a man with no pants. He uses women like other people use washcloths. But you need him to get the power you think you’re entitled to, so you help in destroying the credibility and lives of anyone who exposes your husband for what he is.

    It’s bad enough when a man is a sex addict. It’s even more obscene when the one woman who could stop him chooses instead to enable her predator husband because it will get her something she wants.

    That’s cold, and malignantly narcissistic.
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/05/09/why-hillary-fears-monica-stirring-memories-politics-personal-destruction-could/?intcmp=obnetwork

    Hillary's War On Women (patent pending) is going to derail her coronation...

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    Republicans trying to MAKE Benghazi an issue is NOT Benghazi is still an issue. To everyone but desperate Republicans Benghazi has long been settled, and NOT an issue. There was no cover-up, there was no lie.
    Benghazi is yet another attempt to manufacture an Obama Administration scandal. The select committee is nothing more than an attempt by Republicans to pretend that it is an issue for the elections. Just another Republican lie. ("You can tell its a lie because their lips are moving.")

  12. [12] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Thank you for this week's column.

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Republicans trying to MAKE Benghazi an issue is NOT Benghazi is still an issue.

    That's your opinion...

    An opinion, I might add, that is unsupported by the facts..

    Irregardless of all that, the simple fact is ya'all said it WASN'T going to be an issue after the 2012 election..

    It turns out, it still IS an issue...

    Ya'all were wrong...

    Just another Republican lie. ("You can tell its a lie because their lips are moving.")

    Do you REALLY want me to list Obama's lies?? :D

    Lies that even TPTB here in Weigantia has ACKNOWLEDGED as lies...

    Yer call... :D

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    Just for the record, I was first introduced to this site do to my need to tell CW he was wrong. This isn't the progressive equivalent of the bubble you inhabit. Talking Points are talking points, opinions on political spin, not fact-checking, not evidence. I understand you pretend opinions are evidence and that you get to choose WHICH opinions are "facts". But the rest of us don't share your self-delusions.

    Its almost never profitable to confront Republican lies that Obama lied by directly refuting them. The President's priority is on doing his job, not correcting the record. Democrats care about governing and winning elections, not defending Obama.

    You constantly insist that the opinions of people you claim agree with you are proof of the rectitude of your positions.--Carefully cherry-picked opinions I might add, as you only seem to think Talking Points indicative of factual conclusiveness if you think they support your beliefs. Its just one of the MANY ways in which YOU lie about Obama lying.

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    LD,

    If you can point to ANY time that I used people's opinions as FACT, by all means, do so..

    But, like you talking to a lawyer about the Fifth Amendment issue, I have a feeling we will be waiting a long LONG time... :D

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Like I said, no one here wants to acknowledge ANY facts that put Obama or the Democrats in a bad light..

    Comment #6 epitomizes that exact point..

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Lol,

    Michale, when do you NOT use peoples opinions as fact? When you challenged me to prove Obama didn't lie when he said "you can keep your policy..." and I did so, your rejoined was that "everybody knows that he lied." Then there's your incredible claim that there's "plenty of precedent" for the notion that Learner "abdicated" her right to take the fifth. Precedent?! NO COURT has EVER sustained Congress attempting to prosecute invoking the fifth. THAT is a FACT. There is NO PRECEDENT for Congress prosecuting someone for pleading the fifth. NONE. EVERY court has ALWAYS declared it ILLEGAL. You insist that I "talk to a lawyer" as if their OPINION is fact.

    I argue my opinions with facts, because I base my opinions on facts. You argue your opinions with opinions, because you base your opinions on opinions. You, and Republicans can "prove" ANYTHING with opinion, because you all simply lie.

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale, when do you NOT use peoples opinions as fact?

    All you have to do is point to one example.. :D

    I argue my opinions with facts,

    And yet, you provide absolutely NOTHING in the way of facts.. :D

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Why do I even try?! :D

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here, I'll start you off slow..

    Democrats are attacking the Republicans for fundraising off the Benghazi hearings..

    FACT...

    Democrats were fundraising off the massacre of 26 children and teachers at the Sandy Hook elementary school..

    FACT...

    These are facts... Not opinions..

    Conclusion?

    Democrats are being hypocrites...

    FACT...

    Your comments??

    Here's another easy one...

    Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser issued a memo to all hands that the Benghazi attack was to be blamed on an Anti-Islam Video, even though it was common knowledge within the Administration that it was an actual terrorist attack to coincide with the 9/11 Anniversary...

    FACT....

    Not opinion.. Not conjecture.. Not supposition..

    FACT....

    Now, address the facts....

    You refuse because it puts Obama/Democrats in a bad light...

    FACT....

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    akadjian wrote:

    You mean like Democrats pushed all the "made up stuff" under the Bush Administration?

    Like 2 wars?

    And crashing the economy?

    And tax cuts that only helped the rich?

    C'mon. Even Republicans try to mention Bush as little as possible because his ideas worked terribly. The same ideas they still seem to want more of.

    That's why they have to push some new nutsense every week. Because otherwise people might realize how corporate ideas (like the crusade against the American government) are destroying our country.

    If you ever get tired of pushing crazy though, c'mon over. We're a pretty ok bunch.

    -David

  22. [22] 
    akadjian wrote:

    p.s. A burning question.

    Why do Tea Party types (who hate the American government) wave the American flag around so much?

  23. [23] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    @ Michale [20]

    So were the other 26 attacks that happened around the world on the same day all terrorist attacks too to coincide with the 9/11 anniversary?

    @Lew Dan [19]

    It's pointless.

  24. [24] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    @Michale

    So no doubt you'll be happy when SCOTUS finally get around to allocating votes according to wealth so billionaires get a billion votes each and the poor get one if they're lucky and SCOTUS is feeling generous that day. And it will be fair won't it because the 1% do more for the country than anyone else and Republicans will win every seat in Congress and the presidency and all the state governments. There won't be a need for any more select committees; they'll be too busy figuring out how to bury the dead before they stink up the place (poor people are so inconsiderate, aren't they?) and you can dance in the streets screaming at the top of your voice in utter joy at how right you all are about everything.

  25. [25] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale [20],

    Not that you'll listen to anything but the voices in your head, but--

    Democrats are attacking Republicans for fundraising off Benghazi hearings because there is nothing to investigate. And as if anyone even NEEDED proof of that the previous 13 hearings should be more than sufficient!

    Democrats did NOT fundraise off the massacre of 26 children. They fundraised off Republicans obstructing efforts to PREVENT ANOTHER ONE by blocking ANY attempt at gun control.

    Phony "scandal" vs real issue. Partisan lie vs public policy. Fundraising off tragic death by claiming to investigate a wholly manufactured scandal that's ALREADY been investigated a dozen times vs fundraising off tragic death in order to get SOMETHING done that might prevent more tragic deaths.

    There IS no equivalency. Fundraising off unfounded slander using tragic American deaths as an excuse? Despicable. Fully deserving of derision. Fundraising off support for policy positions to provide greater security to the public preventing future tragic American deaths? Wholly appropriate. Simply an example of the political process.--Democrats aren't hypocrites, Republicans are liars. If they ever find a legitimate issue they're willing to address honestly they're free to fundraise without meriting criticism.

    And there's NOTHING wrong with the National Security Advisor directing the release of the information that the Benghazi attack was a result of the video, IT WAS. The only question is how much of a role the video played.

    There was no direction to hide the fact that it was a terrorist attack. That absurd claim is yet another Republican lie. How anyone can pretend to believe that confirming the deaths of four Americans, including our Ambassador, in an embassy attack, is NOT announcing a terrorist attack is beyond me. And everyone who knew what day it was knew it coincided with 9/11. They did not know precisely WHO conducted the attack. They did not know how much , or even IF, it was related to the 9/11 attack. And even IF Whitehouse had known and not immediately announcing it publicly just how would that have deceived anyone? How could it POSSIBLY have influenced the election?

    Not only is there no evidence of any Whitehouse orchestrated cover-up. There's no evidence OF any cover-up, or even of anything to BE covered-up! Trying to pretend the WH was trying to cover-up a terrorist attack because no one used the words "terrorist attack" for the first 24 hours is STUPID! If Republicans are too dumb to understand that ANY group of people who attack our embassy and murder Americans constitute a "terrorist attack" without being explicitly told the words "terrorist attack?"--That's a personal problem, NOT a cover-up.

    THOSE are the facts. I've addressed them. And the ONLY ones they make "look bad" are Republicans.

    We don't need a Benghazi hearing to know the President did not cover-up the fact that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack to influence the election. All we need to know is that Americans (at least those who are not Republican) are not idiots.

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Like 2 wars?

    And crashing the economy?

    And tax cuts that only helped the rich?

    Funny how Bush is responsible for EVERY THING that happens under his Administration..

    Yet Obama has absolutely NO RESPONSIBILITY for ANYTHING that happens under his Administration..

    Can you explain that??

    "Can you explain that, Colonel? The fact is, there was no transfer order. Santiago wasn't going anywhere. Isn't that right, Colonel?"
    -Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN

    Why do Tea Party types (who hate the American government) wave the American flag around so much?

    The fact that you equate the Obama Administration with America indicates the EXACT problem here... :D

    As much as it pains me to say this, Obama and his administration is the ANTI-thesis of everything America is all about..

    Mopshell,

    So were the other 26 attacks that happened around the world on the same day all terrorist attacks too to coincide with the 9/11 anniversary?

    I am not sure what you are trying to say..

    What "26 attacks" are you referring to??

    It's been established as fact that the 9/11/12 attack in Benghazi was planned FOR 9/11.. There is a theory that the attack was actually supposed to be a kidnapping of our Ambassador, but it went wrong..

    #24

    And what are Democrats doing to prevent it??

    Not a damn thing. You go on and on and on and on about the 1% and how bad it is, yet you fail to realize that your Democrats **ARE PART** of that 1%...

    The problem you face is that you think that Democrats are actually BETTER than Republicans, despite ALL THE FACTUAL EVIDENCE that proves that Democrats and Republicans are simply two sides of the same corrupt and perverse coin..

    LD,

    Democrats are attacking Republicans for fundraising off Benghazi hearings because there is nothing to investigate. And as if anyone even NEEDED proof of that the previous 13 hearings should be more than sufficient!

    This is your EXACT problem, LD.. When you get backed into a corner, intellectually, you simply make shit up..

    Read CWs Talking Point. Read the articles.. Democrats are NOT attacking the fundraising of Benghazi because of the (in their eyes) "useless" investigations..

    They are attacking the fundraising because it's crass and low to fund raise off the backs of dead Americans...

    Which is EXACTLY what Democrats did when they did fundraising off the Newtown Massacre...

    And there's NOTHING wrong with the National Security Advisor directing the release of the information that the Benghazi attack was a result of the video, IT WAS. The only question is how much of a role the video played.

    And ANOTHER example of you just making shit up.

    The video had absolutely NOTHING to do with the Benghazi Terrorist attack..

    NOTHING.

    The CIA knew this within HOURS of the attack... The CIA informed the White House within HOURS of the attack...

    This was the testimony of the CIA analysts..

    These are the FACTS, LD..

    But, just as I predicted, you don't accept ANY facts that put Obama in a bad light...

    Your criteria to accept facts is simple..

    If it shows something bad about Obama, it's not a fact.. Simple...

    You have proven that time and time and time again...

    But, keep trying.. I'll always be around to set ya straight.. :D

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Funny how Bush is responsible for EVERY THING that happens under his Administration..

    Yet Obama has absolutely NO RESPONSIBILITY for ANYTHING that happens under his Administration..

    Examples:

    Bush is completely responsible for Abu Ghraib, but Obama is completely blameless for the IRS targeting conservative groups.

    Bush is completely responsible for the Katrina response but Obama is completely blameless for the DOJ targeting news reporters that file stories the Administration doesn't like.

    Bush is completely responsible for 9/11, but Obama is completely blameless for Fast/Furious...

    You sensing the pattern??

    Economists predict that there will be another economic crash (bigger than 2008) within the next 2 years..

    I have to wonder. Will Obama get the blame for that??

    Or will it be Bush's fault?? ;D

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    @Michale

    Don't tell me you didn't know about the other 26 attacks, 25 in the Middle East and 1 in Indonesia (also a Muslim country), on the exact same day as the Benghazi attacks?

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't tell me you didn't know about the other 26 attacks, 25 in the Middle East and 1 in Indonesia (also a Muslim country), on the exact same day as the Benghazi attacks?

    Do enlighten me.. :D

    "And, you can PROVE that, right!?? Oh yea, that's right. I forgot! You were absent the day they taught LAW at Law School!"
    -Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN

    :D

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    And...

    How many of those terrorist attacks were on American Embassies or American interests??

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    AND...

    How many of those terrorist attacks had our Ambassador brutally murdered and there was a cover-up by the Obama Administration so as to win an election??

    Satan is in the specifics, as they say... :D

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Bush is completely responsible for Abu Ghraib, but Obama is completely blameless for the IRS targeting conservative groups.

    There was no targeting of conservative groups by the IRS.

    The IRS was trying to figure out how to implement new confusing rules around 501(3c) groups.

    Another conservative conspiracy.

    Bush is completely responsible for 9/11, but Obama is completely blameless for Fast/Furious.

    Fast and Furious is another conservative conspiracy.

    The report on F&F, which House Republicans praised, shows there is no conspiracy. (None of which, of course, ever stops a good conspiracy)

    Bush is completely responsible for the Katrina response but Obama is completely blameless for the DOJ targeting news reporters that file stories the Administration doesn't like.

    On this, I actually side with you in condemning the administrations policies. I will point out, however, that the policies aren't specific to "conservatives" but rather to whistle blowers.

    These policies are wrong. Period. We need this freedom of the press.

    So I think you're 1 of 3. My point, however, still stands.

    When there are real issues w/ the Obama administration, why are conservatives focusing on so many #Been-crazhi conspiracies?

    -David

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    There was no targeting of conservative groups by the IRS.

    Oh bullshit...

    You see my point? Ya'all deny reality if it puts Obama in a bad light.

    Obama HIMSELF conceded that the IRS targeted conservative groups unfairly...

    The IRS was trying to figure out how to implement new confusing rules around 501(3c) group

    And it's all just a big huge coincidence that ONLY conservative groups were snared in the IRS' "confusion"..

    Come on, David.. Remember. "AT" night.. Not "LAST" night...

    Fast and Furious is another conservative conspiracy.

    Once again, you deny reality..

    Thousands of guns were lost over the border in Mexico. One of those guns had a hand in killing a BP agent...

    These are FACTS, David. Documented and substantiated FACTS...

    On this, I actually side with you in condemning the administrations policies. I will point out, however, that the policies aren't specific to "conservatives" but rather to whistle blowers.

    Do you think I care whether or not conservatives were involved??

    So, we are in complete agreement. Obama's DOJ targeted reporters that were filing stories that the Administration didn't like.. And, since it happened under Obama's watch, Obama is responsible for it..

    We agree on that??

    Let the tap dancing begin... :D

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    You see my point? Ya'all deny reality if it puts Obama in a bad light.

    Let me put it this way...

    What you are attempting to do is the same as if ya'all blamed Bush for the economic crash of 2008 and I say, "Oh, that didn't happen at all. It was just all a big Leftist Conspiracy"..

    The EXACT same thing...

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Sorry, Michale. There's some huge differences you seem willing to completely ignore.

    Bush, as commander in chief, took us into 2 wars. Wars which cost tremendous amounts of money but were never paid for.

    At the same time as he took us into these wars, he issued an unpaid for tax cut.

    Ever wonder why our deficit is so high?

    It's because we keep giving out tax cuts (which benefit rich people) and then having to rescue private industry (bank bailouts).

    Bush was not alone (see Clinton and Reagan) in bad policies (like deregulation) which crashed the economy. But he was a big proponent of these corporate policies.

    When it comes to the things you're talking about, all of the evidence points to there being no conspiracy.

    "I wasn't born yesterday" is not evidence. It's conspiracy suspicion.

    Do you think I care whether or not conservatives were involved?

    Yes. You didn't seem to care at all about the same policies under the Bush administration.

    In fact, you would have said Bush was protecting national security interests. The same reason Obama would give today.

    In other words, you were for it before you were against it, Mr. Blows Like the Wind.

    So, we are in complete agreement. Obama's DOJ targeted reporters that were filing stories that the Administration didn't like.

    Quit twisting words, Spinderella.

    I disagree with the administrations policy on going after whistle blowers. And yes, Obama is responsible for continuing the policies put in place by the Bush administration.

    Why do you support these policies under one President and condemn them under another?

    Tap, tap, tap ... tap-a-tap tappa :D

    -David

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sorry, Michale. There's some huge differences you seem willing to completely ignore.

    The ONLY difference that is relevant to your argument is that Bush has an '-R' after his name and Obama has a '-D' after his name..

    Yes. You didn't seem to care at all about the same policies under the Bush administration.

    Which policies are we talking about?

    I disagree with the administrations policy on going after whistle blowers. And yes, Obama is responsible for continuing the policies put in place by the Bush administration.

    THANK you...

    That's all I wanted to hear...

    Why do you support these policies under one President and condemn them under another?

    I DO support those policies under BOTH POTUSess...

    My argument is (and, incidentally, ALWAYS has been) WHY did ya'all oppose those policies under Bush, yet don't say a word in protest about those policies under Obama??

    Because Obama has a '-D' after his name..

    That's the ONLY reason ya'all don't go after Obama like ya'all went after Bush...

    Tap, tap, tap ... tap-a-tap tappa :D

    hehehehehehehe :D

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's the ONLY reason ya'all don't go after Obama like ya'all went after Bush...

    I honestly don't see why ya'all continue to deny this.

    Ya'all are simply loyal Democrats..

    Why the big denial?? :D

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    akadjian wrote:

    That's the ONLY reason ya'all don't go after Obama like ya'all went after Bush.

    Almost all the criticism of Obama's NSA continuation has come from the left with the exception of some libertarian voices.

    Very little has come from the corporate media. Would be great to see more.

    Maybe if they weren't focusing on the 8th congressional conspiracy committee on #Been-crazhi ...

    *sigh*

    -David

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Almost all the criticism of Obama's NSA continuation has come from the left...

    I say again... Bullshit....

    Sure, there is a Lefty here or a Lefty there who might pipe up with a whine or two..

    But you simply CANNOT claim that the voice from the Left against the NSA is at the same level as it was during the Bush years..

    Nancy Pelosi **SAVED** the NSA fer chreest's sake!!

    Sorry, David. That bird won't hunt... That dog won't fly...

    Comparatively speaking, the Left (including EVERYONE here) is absolutely silent on Obama's CT and Domestic Surveillance policies...

    During the Bush years, there were DAILY unsolicited comments here in Weigantia denouncing Bush and his CT/DS policies....

    Under Obama, how many??

    None.. Zero... Zilch.... Nada....

    Maybe if they weren't focusing on the 8th congressional conspiracy committee on #Been-crazhi ...

    And maybe if Democrats hadn't spent the first 4 years chasing Bush Conspiracy Theories, we would be well on our way to a REAL recovery..

    Once again.. it works both ways..

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    And maybe if Democrats hadn't spent the first 4 years chasing Bush Conspiracy Theories, we would be well on our way to a REAL recovery..

    In other words, when Democrats are at fault, Democrats are all about fixing the problem..

    When Republicans are at fault, Democrats are all about fixing the blame..

    Granted, the converse is also true..

    But it is undeniable that this IS the case..

    The facts allow no other possible conclusion..

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale [26],

    It IS "crass and low" to fundraise off the backs of dead Americans. I thought I made that clear. The DIFFERENCE is that when your issue is fraudulent all you are doing is fundraising off the backs of dead Americans. Addressing LEGITIMATE issues is "representing your constituents," aka "doing your job" when you're an elected official, not simply fundraising off the backs of dead Americans.

    Although I can understand your failure to grasp the nuance as Republicans are unfamiliar with either concept. Then again, to you, Republicans robbing banks is no different than Democrats writing checks--because everyone takes money from banks. So no matter what the difference you'd refuse to see a distinction.

  42. [42] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale [26],

    At the very least, the video, and the worldwide protests it generated provided cover for the Benghazi attack. EVERYONE knew that! Even us civilians. Claiming the video had NO bearing, without presenting ANY hard proof, is NOT credible.

    And not supported by the evidence generated in those 13 hearings. Not to mention the minor detail that its IRRELEVANT. Whether or not the video was a factor has NOTHING to do with whether it was a terrorist attack or how voters would respond to the attack. There was STILL no cover-up. No reason TO cover anything up.

    You wingers not only can't come up with any evidence of a cover-up. You can't even come up with a reason FOR a cover-up. You not only don't have smoking-gun, you don't even have anything suggestive. You can't even come up with a plausible hypothetical.

    Benghazi is the Birther version of foreign events. Believed only by people willing to believe ANYTHING simply because they are desperate for there to be an Obama scandal. Any scandal.

  43. [43] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale [35],

    Oh, and I support Obama "targeting reporters". You wingers are NOTHING if not hypocritical. You condemn Obama for exercising discretion with regard to enforcing immigration law, even though his policies are far more effective that the Republicans' were under Bush, but pretend to be outraged that he doesn't ignore the law and allow reporters to break it at will.

    Trying to use the first amendment as a shield against prosecution for espionage is the same as trying to use the first amendment as a shield against have
    Ing to provide insurance that covers contraception. The first amendment protects the right to publish. It does not grant immunity for any act a reporter claims is catering information TO publish.

    And "whistleblowing" is exposing wrongdoing, particularly illegal activities. "@Exposing" completely legal policies which you disagree with, policies which in fact are already public knowledge is NOT "whistleblowing." Particularly when the exposure was politically motivated. Under the current rationale that Snowden is a hero for "raising public awareness" anyone who distributes information, no matter how it was acquired, is supposedly immune from prosecution under the first amendment.

    Apparently Congress totally wasted their time granting immunity to telecom coconspirators under Bush's illegal wiretapping operations. They were "whistleblowers" protected by the first amendment! And all the hacker "whistleblowers" being cruelly persecuted for selling peoples personal information are clearly protected by the first amendment! Fraudsters and grey-marketers persecuted for copyright and patent infringement are apparently just first amendment activists being unconstitutionally targeted.

    The stupidity of the belief that simply passing on information is a get-out-of-jail-free card for having stolen it being completely lost on the morons deluding themselves that espionage is protected free speech, and that being a reporter gives you a right to coconspirator status in any crime without fear of prosecution, or even investigation! Lunacy.

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, and I support Obama "targeting reporters".

    Newsflash for ya, sunshine.

    SO DO I!! :D

    My problem is that you only support Obama BECAUSE it's OBAMA...

    If a GOP'er did that, ya'all would hysterically condemn said GOP'er to the high heavens..

    THAT is my point..

    Ya'all are completely enslaved by your political ideology that, if Obama does ANYTHING, ya'all would support it to the hilt.

    If a GOP'er did that EXACT same thing, you would hysterically condemn it..

    It's pure unadulterated hypocrisy...

    Michale

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    It IS "crass and low" to fundraise off the backs of dead Americans. I thought I made that clear.

    Then condemn Democrats for fundraising off the backs of 26 dead American children...

    The fact that I have to PROMPT you to do this is very telling...

    Michale...

  46. [46] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    @Michale

    How many of those terrorist attacks had our Ambassador brutally murdered

    Oh right so you're just going to ignore 26 other attacks on the same day because they were just coincidental and couldn't possibly have anything whatsoever to do with the Benghazi attack? And how are we supposed to know this? Because you all intuitively think, without bothering to investigate any links, that it's all pure coincidence? And your lame excuse for your precious Republican committees not bothering about the other 26 attacks is because they didn't result in the death of an ambassador? I notice the other three deaths don't count for anything in this excuse. So much for the GOP claiming to care about them.

    But of course since it's Republicans who've decided that Obama is guilty until proven guilty (is that the new American justice we can expect from GOP leadership now?) it must be right because your Republicans can do no wrong. As long as they have an R after their name, you'll support anything and everything they say or do. If it were a Republican president and the Democrats holding these endless investigations (which will no doubt go on for the next ten years); if Democrats did the exact same thing, you would hysterically condemn it. It's pure unadulterated hypocrisy.

  47. [47] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale [44],

    No, I support Obama "targeting reporters" because I believe in the rule of law, and defending the country. And I know you do too. Most if those here, including CW disagree. They don't care that its Obama doing it. Once again you claim your opinion, crap you just make up, is fact. It is not.

    I was against Bush surveillance because IT WAS ILLEGAL. A point you persistently, and conveniently choose to ignore. I disagreed with the Patriot Act and creation of Homeland Security because I thought they were bad policy. But once they became law I accepted them.

    Unlike you I don't cherry-pick WHICH laws I consider legitimate. Whether you are with them or not once a law is passed by Congress and signed by the President its legitimate, unless its unconstitutional, like DOMA was. In which case its illegal even though it was passed by Congress and signed by the President.

    The one "enslaved by political ideology" is you! You pretend Democrats treated Bush the same way Republicans treat Obama because you are a liar. EVERYONE gave BUSH the benefit of the doubt. EVERYONE gave him their full support after 9/11. NO ONE tried very hard to stop him invading Iraq. It was Bush's demonstrated incompetence and contempt for the rule of law that bought him such backlash NOT his being Republican.

    Republicans, however, entered into a calculated strategy of opposing everything and anything Obama supported for absolutely no other reason than to attempt to prevent him from succeeding as President. They don't care WHAT he wants to do. Even Republican plans accepted by Obama suddenly become anathema to every Republican. Bush never had to face ANYTHING like the obstruction and vilification heaped on Obama by Republicans. NO other President ever has!

    The pure unadulterated hypocrisy is yours. The pure unadulterated lies are yours. Your completely unfounded OPINION that "if a GOP'er did that EXACT same thing, you would hysterically condemn it" is just a lie that YOU made up. Just like the rest of the paranoid delusions you trot out to "justify" unconscionable behavior.

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mopshell,

    Oh right so you're just going to ignore 26 other attacks on the same day because they were just coincidental and couldn't possibly have anything whatsoever to do with the Benghazi attack?

    WHAT Terrorist attacks??

    You still haven't provided any evidence of these alleged "attacks"..

    Irregardless, the issue is NOT the attack although that is heinous enough.

    The ISSUE is the Obama's attempt to blame an obscure anti-Islam video. You weren't around here during that time, but Weigantians bought that BS story hook, line and sinker.. FOR WEEKS

    Even though I clearly (and dead on ballz accuratly) identified the attack AS a terrorist attack within hours.. You see, such things are right up my alley of expertise..

    And your lame excuse for your precious Republican committees not bothering about the other 26 attacks is because they didn't result in the death of an ambassador? I notice the other three deaths don't count for anything in this excuse. So much for the GOP claiming to care about them.

    Who CARES about the GOP??

    Not me, surely... (Don't call me Shirley :D)

    MY sympathies lie with the families of those Americans who were brutally murdered and who were sacrificed on the altar of Obama's re-election campaign...

    But of course since it's Republicans who've decided that Obama is guilty until proven guilty (is that the new American justice we can expect from GOP leadership now?) it must be right because your Republicans can do no wrong. As long as they have an R after their name, you'll support anything and everything they say or do. If it were a Republican president and the Democrats holding these endless investigations (which will no doubt go on for the next ten years); if Democrats did the exact same thing, you would hysterically condemn it. It's pure unadulterated hypocrisy.

    If it were a Republican POTUS who was doing all this, I would be right up there condemning him (or her) EXACTLY as I am right now..

    The only difference would be that YA'ALL would be emphatically agreeing with me..

    You see, I am a political agnostic.. A registered NPA (No-Political-Affiliation)...

    I am not enslaved by ANY political ideology or dogma..

    Socially, I am VERY liberal, married to a wonderful bi-sexual woman for 33 wonderful, glorious and exciting years...

    In areas of National Security, Self Defence and the like, I am very much to the right...

    My unique (at least around here) perspective allows me to condemn and castigate BOTH Partys without the slightest devotion or loyalty to either...

    Michale

  49. [49] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    This is a little off-thread, shall I say, but ...

    What questions remain unanswered about what happened in Benghazi and why?

    Personally, I think there are a number of questions that need to be answered and I'll bet the new select committee doesn't ask one of them. That's my problem with this new investigation.

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    What questions remain unanswered about what happened in Benghazi and why?

    You can always be counted on to ask the insightful questions.. :D

    There are many questions of the attack itself that need to be answered.

    Was the US Military told to stand down??

    Was ready and able help only hours away??

    There were hundreds of security incidents in the months leading up to the 9/11 attack. Why wasn't more security on scene?

    Why was a gay ambassador assigned to a muslim dominated country in the throes of upheaval??

    Those questions demand answers..

    But the aftermath is where Obama really frak'ed up..

    Remember, this was the home stretch of the Presidential Election. Obama ran on a plank that Al Qaeda was on the run.. Was on the ropes. Was completely decimated..

    Obama simply COULD NOT have an actual honest to goodness bona fide Terrorist Attack on a US Embassy where our Ambassador and other Americans were brutally murdered..

    So, the White House ordered everyone to lie.. Blatantly and unabashedly lie..

    These are what the released facts indicate... Obama's Deputy National Security's email to Rice et al is VERY damning... And Carney's attempt to explain it away ("that email had nothing to do with Benghazi") was incompetently laughable...

    There are SO MANY unanswered questions... The idea that a special committee is not needed is ALSO laughable..

    The problem that Weigantians have with it is that ya'all KNOW that Democrats are dirty...

    And Democrats are terrified that Benghazi will lose them control of the Senate...

    And, rightly so...

    But, as I said, leave it to you to crystallize the issue to shimmering clarity... :D

    "ARE WE CLEAR!!??"
    "Crystal..."

    -A FEW GOOD MEN

    :D

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    But the aftermath is where Obama really frak'ed up..

    Nixon found out that it's not the crime, it's the cover-up..

    Obama may very likely learn the same lesson...

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    @Michale

    Demonstrations also turned violent when protesters tried to attack the US Embassy compound. Four people were killed and another 46 were wounded in the clashes between demonstrators and police, Reuters reported, citing state television figures. Police fought hundreds of rioters who smashed windows, threw firebombs and stones at police from inside, and started fires in the embassy.

    Sound familiar? Only this happened in Tunis, the capital of Tunisia and is one of the attacks I was talking about. Four people died there too but none of them was the ambassador so the Republican House committees don't consider these lives worthy of investigation.

    Here's an article about the attacks which I'm sure you'll like:

    http://liberalbias.com/post/3540/congressional-map-proves-benghazi-caused-video/

    So you're a political agnostic. Thank you for clarifying that for me. I would never have guessed.

  53. [53] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    @Elizabeth Miller

    Out of interest, what are your questions, Liz?

  54. [54] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale (and Mopshell),

    It has been well documented that the Benghazi outpost was, for all intents and purposes, a CIA-run operation. And, yet, the latest investigation may involve subpoenas for Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, the former and current Secretary of State.

    Why doesn't the new select committee want to hear from General David Petraeus, the then director of central intelligence? What information has he already given in closed sessions of congressional committee hearings?

    What was the CIA's mission in Benghazi and why was Ambassador Stevens there when the attack occurred?

    What accounts for what appears to have been a massive intelligence failure?

    I don't know that Ambassador Stevens was gay and I don't know why that matters. By all accounts that I have read, Ambassador Stevens was a first-rate diplomat who knew the country and its people very well and was well-respected by them. In fact, he seems to have been the very kind of diplomat that the US needs more of, particularly in this part of the world.

  55. [55] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    The military was not told to stand down. There was no help close enough to arrive in time. The GOP Congress cut funding for embassy security and ordered reductions. Those questions have been asked and answered over and over again.--Which is the reason for the select committee. Since truth isn't what you want to hear you pretend you don't know the answer.

    Neither have you explained your absurd conspiracy theory about Obama trying to hide a terrorist attack. Announcing an embassy attack with loss of life IS announcing a terrorist attack. And the President himself specifically condemned the "terrorist attack" within 48 hours. WELL before the election.

    Your delusional conspiracy is not even remotely supported by the facts, is ridiculous on its face, and without a shred of evidence in support even after 13 hearings, 50 briefings, and tens of thousands of pages of documentation.--You've got nothing. So, of course, you're positive your allegations right and the same questions just need to be asked again, until you get the answers you want to hear.

    You don't care about the victims or their families. You just want to use them as an excuse to further your personal political vendetta against Obama and his administration. THAT'S what's "crass and low" the dishonest disrespectful EXPLOITATION of Americans who gave their lives in service to their country. YOU even stoop so low as to inject the ambassador's sexuality into it!

    The only scandal involving Benghazi is the Rights corrupt abuse of their Congressional oversight authority.

  56. [56] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Lew Dan,

    The only scandal involving Benghazi is the Rights corrupt abuse of their Congressional oversight authority.

    Do you know what the CIA was up to at that Benghazi complex? Obviously, they weren't gathering much intelligence. Ahem.

    There may be an abuse of congressional oversight authority here but I think the incompetence of congressional oversight is a far bigger problem.

  57. [57] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    @Liz

    Why doesn't the new select committee want to hear from General David Petraeus, the then director of central intelligence? What information has he already given in closed sessions of congressional committee hearings?

    Patraeus did testify to the Senate Intelligence Committee and that was a closed session because of the sensitivity of his information. Patraeus certainly had access to intelligence that would put people's lives in danger if it were made public.

    Nevertheless, Sen King couldn't get to the media fast enough afterwards to give his version of what was said, all of which is hearsay because it has never been backed up by anyone else on that committee.

    I have no idea why he isn't being called to testify to the House Select Committee. Possibly because Trey Gowdy doesn't have much respect for "expert witnesses" and he puts Patraeus in that category. It could also be because he's been told that Patraeus is off-limits to a committee which cannot be trusted to hold their tongues.

    What was the CIA's mission in Benghazi...

    Libya had been through a very turbulent time with the ousting of Ghadaffi and the inauguration of a democratic government. There was concern about factional trouble from activist and tribal groups so the CIA, was there to monitor the situation. The US had already provided considerable help to Libya in setting up the new government and had a vested interest in seeing that the country was able to attain peace and stability. In fact, one Senator John McCain said during a visit to Libya February 2012, ““We are very happy to be back here in Libya and to note the enormous progress and changes made in the past few months… We know that many challenges lie ahead… but we are encouraged by what we have seen.”

    ...and why was Ambassador Stevens there when the attack occurred?

    One of the reasons Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi was because intelligence declared it as one of the safer places in Libya. Diplomatic cables have been leaked that show that Stevens was told not to return to Tripoli because CIA intelligence considered it more dangerous than staying where he was. Mr. Stevens, his security detail and most of his Libyan guards died because of that error in judgement.

    If another reason Stevens was there was to share intelligence with the CIA, does anybody want the whole world to know what that intelligence was, especially if it placed Libyans and Americans in danger? Republican hearings in the House of Representative have already revealed the names of Libyans talking to the US consulate, thus endangering their lives and harming US efforts to understand the situation in the country, since who would risk talking to the embassy if they know about Darrell Issa’s big mouth? And Trey Gowdy can't be trusted either.

    What accounts for what appears to have been a massive intelligence failure?

    Given that this all happened shortly after the Arab Spring and multiple uprising in Middle Eastern countries (which are still going on - look at Syria), the situation would have been both confusing and dangerous. No matter how good CIA agents are, they are not perfect, they are human beings and surely we know well that human beings get things wrong, even big important things. We tend to place these people on a kind of pedestal, perhaps engendered by film-makers and story-tellers as much as anyone, then we're outraged that they don't live up to the super human hero status we unthinkingly come to expect.

    In fact, he seems to have been the very kind of diplomat that the US needs more of, particularly in this part of the world.

    I agree. Stevens was a friend of Obama's and he was devastated when he learned of his death; a fact so readily overlooked in all this.

  58. [58] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mopshell,

    The performance of the CIA in this case was very far from anything remotely resembling perfection.

    That is a very big problem that needs to be fixed, post haste.

  59. [59] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    To be clear, Mopshell, I expect competence from the CIA, not perfection.

    I think most Americans would as well.

  60. [60] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mopshell,

    Senator John McCain's assessment of the situation in Libya was not accurate.

  61. [61] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    @ Liz

    [58] The performance of the CIA in this case was very far from anything remotely resembling perfection.

    That is a very big problem that needs to be fixed, post haste.

    [59] To be clear, Mopshell, I expect competence from the CIA, not perfection.

    I think most Americans would as well.

    I think that's fair comment, Liz. I really can't argue with that. I didn't have you in mind when I wrote that but, as any writer worth their salt will tell you, that is a very big sin. My apologies.

    I do wonder how good their intel was but, to be fair, we'd expect them to be damn good at assessing it by now.

    [60] Senator John McCain's assessment of the situation in Libya was not accurate.

    Their assessment (Sen Lindsey Graham was with him) may have been quite good at the time - it was seven months before the attack and, by all accounts, the place was pretty quiet at then.

    I've also read journalists' accounts, British as well as American, who were there either in the two weeks before or a week after the attack and all said there was no sense of heightened alert or concern among the people apart from the actual day of the attack. The Libyans seem to value some peace and quiet after all the upheaval of Ghadaffi's overthrow - except for the groups that attacked that night. Even the tribal elders are working with the government towards expelling the trouble-makers.

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mopshell,

    Sound familiar? Only this happened in Tunis, the capital of Tunisia and is one of the attacks I was talking about. Four people died there too but none of them was the ambassador so the Republican House committees don't consider these lives worthy of investigation.

    That was a DEMONSTRATION..

    NOT a Terrorist Attack...

    And those killed were NOT Americans..

    So, why should the US House Of Representatives investigate that??

    Liz,

    It has been well documented that the Benghazi outpost was, for all intents and purposes, a CIA-run operation. And, yet, the latest investigation may involve subpoenas for Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, the former and current Secretary of State.

    Actually, the Annex was CIA. The main compound, where the attack began, was a State Department facility.. A Consulate..

    The CIA provided security for the Consulate as is usually the case for Consulates (not full Embassies) worldwide..

    Since the State Department is in charge, it's natural that the State Department would bear the brunt of the fact finding investigations..

    Why doesn't the new select committee want to hear from General David Petraeus, the then director of central intelligence? What information has he already given in closed sessions of congressional committee hearings?

    THAT is a very good question..

    Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has already effectively silenced General Patreaus...

    What was the CIA's mission in Benghazi and why was Ambassador Stevens there when the attack occurred?

    Intelligence indicates that the CIA was running guns to Libyan rebels..

    Ambassador Stevens was at the Consulate when the attack began, ostensibly to inspect the area..

    I don't know that Ambassador Stevens was gay and I don't know why that matters.

    The Obama Administration is on record and goes to great lengths NOT to offend muslims..

    Then the Administration sends a gay Ambassador to a muslim country???

    It doesn't make any sense...

    The performance of the CIA in this case was very far from anything remotely resembling perfection.

    In Benghazi, the CIA took their marching orders from the State Department.

    Any failure here originates at State..

    Senator John McCain's assessment of the situation in Libya was not accurate.

    Do you mean his assessment now or his assessment at the time??

    Because, at the time, McCain's assessment was DOBA... :D

    LD,

    The military was not told to stand down. There was no help close enough to arrive in time.

    Yea, that's the Administration's story. And, of course, the Administration would never lie, right?? {chortle} {chortle}

    There has been testimony from high ups in the TOP command that they were, in fact, told to stand down.

    And THAT is why there needs to be more investigation.. Because there is a conflict between what the Administration is saying and what people on the ground at the time are saying..

    Neither have you explained your absurd conspiracy theory about Obama trying to hide a terrorist attack. Announcing an embassy attack with loss of life IS announcing a terrorist attack. And the President himself specifically condemned the "terrorist attack" within 48 hours. WELL before the election.

    Again, you are making shit up..

    The Administration went to great lengths for almost TWO WEEKS to AVOID saying "terrorist attack"... For that two weeks, both here in Weigantia and in the national airwaves, everyone was saying "It was the anti Islam video"...

    *I* was the ONLY one here in Weigantia who was saying it was a terrorist attack..

    The Obama Administration was wrong. Ya'all were wrong..

    I was right...

    The only scandal involving Benghazi is the Rights corrupt abuse of their Congressional oversight authority.

    Spoken like a true Democrat enslaved by political ideology.. :D

    Mopshell,

    I have no idea why he isn't being called to testify to the House Select Committee. Possibly because Trey Gowdy doesn't have much respect for "expert witnesses" and he puts Patraeus in that category. It could also be because he's been told that Patraeus is off-limits to a committee which cannot be trusted to hold their tongues.

    There is no reason to expect that Gowdy WON'T call General Patraeus to testify...

    Why do you and Liz think that Patraeus won't testify??

    I agree. Stevens was a friend of Obama's and he was devastated when he learned of his death; a fact so readily overlooked in all this.

    Yea and if Obama had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin :^/

    Obama is so broken up about the Ambassador's death that it's been almost two years and not ONE SINGLE PERPETRATOR has been brought to justice..

    Yea... Obama is really broken up... :^/

    But all your questions and all Liz's questions prove beyond any doubt as to why a Special Investigation is required..

    The Obama Administration has stonewalled and obfuscated to hell and back...

    It's long past time that the American people learn the facts..

    At least the facts that the people CAN learn..

    Michale

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Grrrrrr I hate it when I don't close an attribute..

    Let me clarify...

    Mopshell,

    Sound familiar? Only this happened in Tunis, the capital of Tunisia and is one of the attacks I was talking about. Four people died there too but none of them was the ambassador so the Republican House committees don't consider these lives worthy of investigation.

    That was a DEMONSTRATION..

    NOT a Terrorist Attack...

    And those killed were NOT Americans..

    So, why should the US House Of Representatives investigate that??

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Holy carp!!
    ===================================
    Mopshell,

    Sound familiar? Only this happened in Tunis, the capital of Tunisia and is one of the attacks I was talking about. Four people died there too but none of them was the ambassador so the Republican House committees don't consider these lives worthy of investigation.

    That was a DEMONSTRATION..

    NOT a Terrorist Attack...

    And those killed were NOT Americans..

    So, why should the US House Of Representatives investigate that??

    =============================

    Jeeeezzus, I guess I didn't have the required amount of diet coke this morning before typing.. :D

    PREVIEW is my friend... PREVIEW is my friend...

    Michale

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Turning to Immigration, I have a question I am hoping all of you might be able to help me with..

    Why, on the gods' green earth, would Republicans want to pass amnesty for illegals??

    Everyone knows that Republicans are just in it (politics) for the power.. Their greedy, power-hunger power mongers..

    So, someone... ANYONE...

    Please explain to me why it's in the best interests of the Republican Party to create up to 30 million new freshly minted Democrat voters??

    "Anyone?? Anyone?? Beuhler??"

    Michale

  66. [66] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Your faith that a congressional select committee is capable of discovering the truth of this matter surprises me.

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your faith that a congressional select committee is capable of discovering the truth of this matter surprises me.

    Well, let me put it this way..

    Basically, we have two choices here..

    To have a Congressional Special Committee investigate the Benghazi debacle..

    Or to NOT have a Congressional Special Committee NOT investigate the Benghazi debacle..

    Of the two choices, which has a better chance of getting to the facts??

    :D

    In short (too late :D) it's better than nothing..

    Michale

  68. [68] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    There is no reason to expect that Gowdy WON'T call General Patraeus to testify...Why do you and Liz think that Patraeus won't testify??

    That really misses the point.

    The point being that all of the talk from this committee is about subpoenas for Clinton and Kerry and not a word about the guy they should really be concerned about hearing from.

    Oh, and, you don't seriously expect anyone to believe that the CIA was operating at their Benghazi complex under the control of the state department, do you?

    To be clear, all I am suggesting here is that there has been too much focus on the state department in this affair and not nearly enough on what the CIA involvement was. Consequently, it's hard to take seriously anything that the congressional committees say or do on this matter until they lose their fixation with Hillary and Kerry and focus on the people that actually do have the answers they say they are searching for.

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, and, you don't seriously expect anyone to believe that the CIA was operating at their Benghazi complex under the control of the state department, do you?

    Of course I do..

    Because I know for a fact that it happens like that all over the world..

    When the CIA works out of Embassies, yes.. The CIA and State are diametrically different operations..

    But in backwater areas where Consulates are the norm, the CIA is nothing more than a glorified security force..

    Which is not to say that the CIA doesn't (and didn't) have it's own OPs running. I am certain they did..

    But the Benghazi terrorist attack was an attack on the CONSULATE, not the CIA annex..

    That makes it under the purview of the State Department..

    To be clear, all I am suggesting here is that there has been too much focus on the state department in this affair and not nearly enough on what the CIA involvement was.

    Let me put it this way...

    If there was an attack on a US Embassy, do you focus the investigation on the State Department??

    Or on the military because there was an Air Force Base 10 miles away??

    Further, the State Department is the agency that would have signed off on ANY security arrangements the CIA wanted to make.. And, in THIS case, the evidence clearly shows that the State Department did NOT want any augmented security at the Benghazi Consulate..

    Therefore, the focus on the State Department is logical, both Pre and Post attack..

    Michale

  70. [70] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mopshell,

    Their assessment (Sen Lindsey Graham was with him) may have been quite good at the time - it was seven months before the attack and, by all accounts, the place was pretty quiet at then.

    I've also read journalists' accounts, British as well as American, who were there either in the two weeks before or a week after the attack and all said there was no sense of heightened alert or concern among the people apart from the actual day of the attack...

    That is completely false.

    The security situation in Libya had been deteriorating, especially in the east of the country, during the many months leading up to the attack in the absence of a strong and functional central government.

    Not surprisingly, this went largely unreported by the western media.

  71. [71] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If there was an attack on a US Embassy, do you focus the investigation on the State Department?? Or on the military because there was an Air Force Base 10 miles away??

    I think that is an extremely inept analogy.

    Of course, a focus on the state department is logical. Have you read their report on this? But, NOT to the exclusion of the CIA.

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    I've also read journalists' accounts, British as well as American, who were there either in the two weeks before or a week after the attack and all said there was no sense of heightened alert or concern among the people apart from the actual day of the attack...

    That is completely false.

    The security situation in Libya had been deteriorating, especially in the east of the country, during the many months leading up to the attack in the absence of a strong and functional central government.

    Actually, you are both right.

    Liz, your right. There were hundreds of security incidents leading up to the 9/11 Terrorist Attack..

    But Mopshell is also right in that there was no sense of heightened alert or extra security.

    Because SecState Clinton vetoed any extra security arrangements.

    THAT is why we need a Special Investigation and THAT is why the State Department is bearing the brunt of the scrutiny..

    Michale

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think that is an extremely inept analogy.

    I've had better.. :D

    Of course, a focus on the state department is logical. Have you read their report on this? But, NOT to the exclusion of the CIA.

    Oh, I agree. Don't EXCLUDE the CIA... I want to hear more about their heroic last stand at the Annex.. I also want to hear more about exactly what orders the CIA were given from the White House both during and after the terrorist attack..

    The CIA's story and the White House's story contradict each other.. Of course, both are playing CYA...

    Which is why a Special Investigation is warranted..

    This very discussion illustrates THAT perfectly..

    Michale

  74. [74] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Actually, you are both right.

    Ah, no.

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Uh yep...

    There WERE hundreds of security incidents in Benghazi in the months leading up to the 9/11 Terrorist Attack, as you said..

    There was also NO heightened security or threat levels, as Mopshell indicated...

    Ergo, yer both right... :D

    Michale

  76. [76] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Just to be clear, Michale ... what exactly is the latest supposed "scandal" with Benghazi?

    Isn't it about someone editing talking points?

    -David

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just to be clear, Michale ... what exactly is the latest supposed "scandal" with Benghazi?

    Isn't it about someone editing talking points?

    Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes sent an email September 14, 2012 advising everyone (including Susan Rice) that they were to state that the Benghazi attack was the result of an anti-Islam video and was NOT the result of any policy, action or in-action on the part of the Obama Administration.

    That was a blatant lie..

    The White House KNEW it was a blatant lie...

    There's your cover-up...

    Michale

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    If anyone has an inclination, I would LOVE to hear ya'alls thoughts on #65....

    Michale

  79. [79] 
    akadjian wrote:

    That was a blatant lie.

    Ummm ... Wasn't it based on the best knowledge they had at that point? Wasn't it based on CIA talking points?

    The White House KNEW it was a blatant lie.

    On what evidence is this based?
    (NOTE: "I wasn't born yesterday" isn't evidence and you're going to need some pretty strong evidence to convince me that the administration deliberately lied for some reason. So far, I've seen nothing even close.)

    ----

    p.s. I'm sorry, Michale, but even if every single Republican accusation about this is true, it still seems like trying to make a big deal out of a small regional blunder in order to score political points.

    Hence, a new Congressional committee (after they're already been what? 6 or so investigations) designed just in time for the 2014 election.

    By not that big of a deal, I mean compare this to George W. Bush lying us into a war in Iraq. Of course, it's tragic that 4 people were killed in Benghazi, but again, compare this to lying us into a trillion dollar war where tens of thousands of people were killed for no reason.

    Are you sure this #Been-crazhi strategy isn't going to backfire for the GOP?

    -David

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ummm ... Wasn't it based on the best knowledge they had at that point? Wasn't it based on CIA talking points?

    Nope.. At the time, the prevailing wisdom stated that the video had absolutely nothing to do with the terrorist attack..

    On what evidence is this based?

    Testimony from CIA officials who stated under oath that they informed the White House...

    p.s. I'm sorry, Michale, but even if every single Republican accusation about this is true, it still seems like trying to make a big deal out of a small regional blunder in order to score political points.

    You don't seem to mind that when it's Democrats who are scoring the points.. :D

    So, you don't mind being lied to by your President??

    Hmmmmmmm. Ya'all sure seemed to mind it (A LOT) when it was a GOP POTUS who was doing the "lying"...

    "A small regional blunder"??

    Do you know the last time a US Ambassador was murdered??? Almost 50 years ago..

    It's a VERY serious incident..

    By not that big of a deal, I mean compare this to George W. Bush lying us into a war in Iraq.

    Except, it's been well established by the facts that Bush didn't lie..

    But you prove my point perfectly..

    It the POTUS has an '-R' after his name, lying is a big deal..

    When the POTUS has a '-D'??

    Not so much..

    Are you sure this #Been-crazhi strategy isn't going to backfire for the GOP?

    It's likely going win the GOP control of the Senate and the White House in 2016...

    And I have been dead on ballz accurate so far concerning Benghazi.. So I have a well established track record. :D

    Michale

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    make a big deal out of a small regional blunder in order to score political points.

    Yea.. And the Sandy Hook massacre was just small schoolyard fisticuffs... :^/

    Michale

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    By not that big of a deal, I mean compare this to George W. Bush lying us into a war in Iraq.

    You prove my point in another way as well..

    Bush "lied" even though he had absolutely NO CONNECTION to the faulty intel.. Yet, in YOUR mind, Bush is responsible..

    Obama actually DID lie with regards to the "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan" BS...

    Yet, Obama is NOT RESPONSIBLE and get gets a pass from you...

    Thereby, once again, proving the awesome unlimited power of the almighty '-x'

    Michale

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    "People died and Obama lied"

    Has a ring to it, eh?

    Michale

  84. [84] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    Claiming everyone knew the video had nothing to do with the terrorist attack is not only not true the testimony gathered by Republican investigators proved the protests were used, at minimum, as cover for the attacks. Nor is it remotely credible to assume that a video which outraged Muslims all over the world inciting anger at the West didn't in any way influence the attitudes of extremists militants who already hate the West and blame us and consider themselves in a Holy war because of our attacks on Islam.

    Like your claim the President was trying to cover-up a terrorist attack its absurd on its face and completely unsupported by the facts. Just as you ignore all the military commanders who testified that there was no stand-down order, the the nearest response team was too far away, you choose to ignore the facts and lie. The claims by the Right that they don't trust the administration are specious. Your paranoia and conspiracy theories are NOT facts to be assumed to be true until proven.

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    And in other news...

    http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/17401/

    Liberal Political Correctness is going to be the end of this country... :^/

    Michale

  86. [86] 
    akadjian wrote:

    That's just it, though.

    I don't see "lying". Or evidence of "lying".

    None of the 6 investigations so far has either.

    As usual, it's been fun, Michale. Unfortunately, once again we've reached the point where there's no further point.

    Best of luck in your ever ongoing quest to make Obama look bad!

    -David

  87. [87] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Liz,

    You seem to have unreasonable expectations of intelligence agencies. There job is to provide us with needed information that we wouldn't ordinarily have as much as they can. It is not to provide us with all the information we need. The latter being impossible.

    it isn't a police failure everytime there's a crime. It isn't fire department failure everytime there's a fire. A dentist failure everytime someone gets a cavity. A physician failure everytime a patient dies. A teacher failure everytime a student flunks.

    Your assumption that any and every intelligence failure represents error "that needs to be corrected" is neither realistic nor constructive. Scapegoating people risking their lives to protect yours because it makes you feel better is not an admirable quality. When there is evidence of error it should be addressed. But failing to obtain the desire you wish is not necessarily evidence of failure.

    You also seem to be willing to whitewash the abuse of official power to promote an election-year slander campaign on the basis of a supposed possibility that they might actually investigate unrelated matters. Matters which also have already been fully investigated.

    You appear to be susceptible to Big Lie propaganda and sloppy "where there's smoke there's fire" reasoning. There is no legitimate purpose to be served by this select committee, nor will any legitimate purpose be served. Your qualified support for it simply makes you a part of the problem. Which is exactly the point, and what Republicans want. Creating misperceptions like yours is what this slander campaign has always been about. An attempt to manufacture an unwarranted impression of Obama administration incompetence and corruption

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    I don't see "lying". Or evidence of "lying".

    Of course you don't...

    It's EXACTLY as I said. Ya'all don't see ANY facts that would put Obama in a bad light..

    But, when Obama's White House tells people that a terrorist attack was actually just a protest gone bad and Obama's White House KNOWS that this is not true, then that is what is called "a lie"..

    I don't expect you to see it, let alone acknowledge it.

    Ya'all have a blind spot when it comes to Obama. It's a symptom of ya'alls Obama Derangement Syndrome..

    Read PERRY'S PLANET... Same concept..

    Michale

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    #87...

    Ya see??

    Everything is the fault of the GOP.. NOTHING the GOP does is EVER good or right...

    Obama and the Democrats are pure as the driven snow... Everything Obama does is all goodness and light. Obama is ALWAYS right on everything and has always been totally and completely good and honest..

    We are at war with East Asia. We have always been at way with East Asia.

    Michale

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Best of luck in your ever ongoing quest to make Obama look bad!

    I don't have to lift an eyebrow...

    Obama is doing a bang up job of that all by hisself.. :D

    Michale

  91. [91] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale [88],

    Once again YOU are lying. Obama never said a terrorist attack was "just protest gone bad." He said a protest gone bad turned into a terrorist attack. You keep trying to twist reality to suit your prejudices. "A protest gone bad" that results in storming an embassy and killing people is a terrorist attack. You wingers keep trying to pretend that only violent attacks perpetrated by people of color and non-Christians are terrorist attacks.

    Attacks on abortion clinics or providers are terrorist attacks. Attacks on gays and lesbians are terrorist attacks. Attacks on schools and government facilities are terrorist attacks. Terrorists ALWAYS are protesting something. Protest and terrorist are not mutually exclusive.

    Obama never tried to paint the terrorist attack as a nonviolent protest as you try to imply. NO ONE thought the attack WASN'T a terrorist attack. You, and Republicans are, once again, attempting to misrepresent what was actually said to make it a lie.

    In a country that has ALWAYS rallied around the President when attacked you pretend that, for no reason at all, Obama would so fear a backlash, just because an embassy was attacked, that he felt the need to try to conceal the attack. And in your deluded worldview he actually thought that saying our ambassador and three aids were kill in our consulate due to a protest would mislead people into believing that there was no terrorist attack. That the contusion his masterful deception and delay of 24 hours before actually using the words "terrorists" in the middle of September surely would throw the election in November by keeping the public ignorant.--It isn't blind partisanship that keeps people from believing that Obama lied.--Its the abject STUPIDITY of your argument. The complete lack of anything remotely like supporting evidence. And all the documented evidence against you.

    That NONE of that matters to you is simply evidence of YOUR blind partisanship, and no one elses.

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    He said a protest gone bad turned into a terrorist attack.

    And THAT was a lie, because there was absolutely NO PROTEST whatsoever..

    SO, we agree...

    Obama lied...

    Michale

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    Terrorists ALWAYS are protesting something.

    Where were the protests on 9/11/2001?? Using your reasoning, there HAD to have been protests in New York City that turned into terrorist attacks.. :D

    Dance!!! Dance!!!! {guffaw} {guffaw}

    So, what you are saying is that basically, EVERY PROTEST that has violence in it is automagically a terrorist attack.. :D

    I would LOVE to know what training you have that would lead you to spew THAT totally irrational piece of flotsam... :D

    Face it, LD... Obama lied and tried to cover his worthless and incompetent ass..

    And you (and he) are PETRIFIED of this Special Investigation because it will get to these facts and the American people will learn how worthless and incompetent Obama really is..

    Michale

  94. [94] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale

    Are you now unable to read as well as comprehend? There were protests all over the world. Mist believed the attacks were protests and the hearings proved the attackers, at minimum, used the protests as cover. They did so by pretending to be protesters.

    I don't think anyone other than the attackers knows how much the video had to do with the attacks. Buy your insistence that Obama lied is a lie. There is NO proof no support it.

  95. [95] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale[93],

    Maybe inventing reality works for you among fellow wingers, here you just found stupid. The Twin Towers weren't attacked because Al Queda didn't have anything better to do. The U.S. Exploits other peoples with weak or corrupt governments. We're hardly alone in that, but it occasionally results in terrorists pushing back in protest.

    You love to lie by trying to impose your own delusional definitions on words to suit your current deception. Marching in the park is PEACEFUL protest, NONVIOLENT protest. While no doubt Gandhi and Dr. King would be proud that you claim protests must be peaceful and nonviolent in order to BE "protests." As usual the truth is otherwise.

    lol... And I should be "terrified" of the Select Committee investigation because...?!--There's some reason to believe they're going to uncover some magical evidence the previous 6 committees, and 50 hearings failed to disclose?--Once more for the hat trick.--Your arguments are too STUPID to be believed. No partisanship required.

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    The U.S. Exploits other peoples with weak or corrupt governments. We're hardly alone in that, but it occasionally results in terrorists pushing back in protest.

    Ahhhhhh I see...

    So the US is to blame for the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks...

    "Well, it's nice to have you out of the closet."
    -SecState Arthur Curry, THE FINAL OPTION

    :D

    lol... And I should be "terrified" of the Select Committee investigation because...?!--There's some reason to believe they're going to uncover some magical evidence the previous 6 committees, and 50 hearings failed to disclose?

    Fine.. Then you have nothing to worry about with ANOTHER committee that has infinitely more power than the others..

    After all, the FACTS are on your side, right??

    Then why are you so worked up that you have to add to the almost 100 comments regarding Benghazi??

    If there's nothing to find, then you should be ECSTATIC that the GOP is wasting their time and their political capital, right??

    Like I said. Me thinks thou doth protest TOO much... :D

    Michale

  97. [97] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    You think everyone else should defer to you because you claim to be a counter terrorism expert and you don't even know what causes terrorism?! I remember black kids in church being bombed by whites protesting blacks being allowed to attend white schools. I remember our Iranian embassy being invaded and the staff held hostage in protest of our support for the murderous dictator who oppressed Iran for decades, largely thanks to us. I remember blacks rioting in the streets in protest of discrimination. I remember one of your redneck fellow travelers blowing up an IRS office in protest of "big gub'mint." I remember police rioting in the streets against people simply attending a Democratic convention in protest of protesters!

    Since you seem to have such difficulty with the English language let me 'splain something to you.--Terroism, by definition, is action intended to "terrorize" others into altering their behavior. It is done ostensibly either to stop someone from doing something you don't want, to force someone to do what you want, or both. Peaceful protests seek to persuade people to either stop doing what you don't want, force someone to do what you want, or both through nonviolent means. Violent protests seek to achieve their goals through terrorist tactics.

    Now, Mr. CT Expert, you can dispense your little pearls of expert wisdom without being so completely clueless!--You can thank me later.

    Oh, and as for your typical attempt to twist the words of another, thank you for yet another demonstration proving my point, you simply lie about what others say. I never said America directly causes terrorist attacks. And I certainly never said the 9/12 attacks were America's fault. I said America's actions are the terrorists justifications, that they engage in terrorist attacks in protest. That is not to say those justifications ate legitimate. Just as Obama's actions are your justifications for opposing him, even though Obama has done nothing to warrant your opposition.--But as I understand your lack of rational arguments leaves you little but to lie in attempted ridicule. Far be it for me to try and stand in the way of you demonstrating the depths of your ignorance and childishness.

    As for my being "ecstatic" over Republicans staging a fishing event media event for the next five months in order to pretend there's a serious Benghazi issue raising serious questions about the quality of Democratic governance?! Sorry. However convenient that might be for you, unlike you, I'm not that stupid.

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    You think everyone else should defer to you because you claim to be a counter terrorism expert and you don't even know what causes terrorism?

    Yea, right. Terrorism has absolutely NOTHING to to with the psychotic behavior of lesser men. It's ALWAYS about the poor downtrodden and misunderstood..

    Leftist Bleeding Heart Terrorism 101

    Gimme a frakin' break..

    But, as I said, it's nice to have you out of the closet.. You are one of those who believe that the US *DESERVED* the 9/11 attacks...

    Spoken like a true terrorist..

    Michale

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me clue you in on a little reality here...

    TERRORISM is *NEVER* justified..

    I don't care HOW many weak governments are exploited by the US..

    NOTHING JUSTIFIES TERRORISM..

    If you weren't so enslaved by racial and political ideology and dogma, you would see that...

    The idea that the US has ANY culpability or responsibility for the terrorist attacks that have been perpetrated world wide is the WORST kinds of bullshit of ALL the kinds of bullshit there is in the world..

    It's psychotic insanity brought about by hysterical political ideology... Pure and simple..

    Thank gods, I am not afflicted by that... :D

    Michale

  100. [100] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    Most Americans feel terrorism IS sometimes justified. There's this little series of terrorist incidents known as the American Revolution that the bulk of us consider "A Good Thing."--Its called "patriotism."--Look it up.

    Whether terrorism is "justified" depends on how and why, like everything else. (And, of course, on who wins.) You didn't have ANY problem with your boy Bush deciding to terrorize a little country called Iraq. YOU seemed the think that was justified. Now the insurgents fighting back were under the impression that defending their country against foreign invasion made THEM justified. Now, personally, I find your absurd contention that The U.S. has every right to engage in terror but that NO ONE ever, under ANY circumstances EVERY is justified in fighting back the same way to be insane, not just irrationally arrogant.

    Your not a CT expert. Your just another bigot. "Psychotic behavior of lesser men?!" Just what would "lesser men" be? Those who aren't members of the "Master Race," or those who aren't white, those who aren't American, or just those who aren't you?--Because I gotta tell you, its thinking like that that's the reason terrorists on occasion ARE justified. Ask those who were in the French Resistance in WWII. Instead of throwing around terms like "psychopathic" you might want to look in the mirror and consider ones like sociopathic and megalomaniacal.

    You only think terrorism is never justified because when YOU support terrorism campaigns, like, say Bush's TORTURE policies, it isn't REALLY terrorism.--Just one more example of your intellectual dishonesty, self-delusion, and lying. Not to mention your LACK of credibility as an expert on terrorism.

  101. [101] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    LewDan,

    You seem to have unreasonable expectations of intelligence agencies.Your assumption that any and every intelligence failure represents error "that needs to be corrected" is neither realistic nor constructive. Scapegoating people risking their lives to protect yours because it makes you feel better is not an admirable quality.

    You also seem to be willing to whitewash the abuse of official power to promote an election-year slander campaign on the basis of a supposed possibility that they might actually investigate unrelated matters.You appear to be susceptible to Big Lie propaganda and sloppy "where there's smoke there's fire" reasoning.

    There is no legitimate purpose to be served by this select committee, nor will any legitimate purpose be served. Your qualified support for it simply makes you a part of the problem. Which is exactly the point, and what Republicans want. Creating misperceptions like yours is what this slander campaign has always been about. An attempt to manufacture an unwarranted impression of Obama administration incompetence and corruption.

    Wow. I have to admit that your comments have completely blind-sided me.

    Your assumptions and assertions about me couldn't be further from the truth if you actually put some effort into it.

    I'll have no further interaction with you here, on this topic or any other.

  102. [102] 
    YoYoTheAssyrian wrote:

    Well it's been an interesting read, thanks for that, all involved.

    I was going to take Michale to task for bloviating about immigrants, but seriously, if he doesn't realise that he's descended from american immigrants at this point, he never will.

    "So, someone... ANYONE...
    Please explain to me why it's in the best interests of the Republican Party to create up to 30 million new freshly minted Democrat voters??"

    But then again...

    This has been said a thousand times, Republicans should support immigration reform because it's right. We take your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, and we turn them into owners of your local 7/11. Because that's the American dream. I would not deny that to any man or woman. Period. My great- grandfather (to name just ONE immigrant in my family) came to this country from Poland (probably austria-hungary) in the very early 20th century. He would not have been able to do this post WW1 because that's when immigration quotas and other nativist nonsense were given credence. We still have his sledgehammer btw. Apparently B&O railroads was minimum wage and all the sledgehammers you can steal back in the day. In any case, the only reason I even exist was because of permissive immigration policies. We need to welcome and embrace the new generation, any other argument is racist bullshit. Including yours Michale. Complaining that Republicans don't appeal to anyone who isn't white (and further turn off a significant percentage of white people) doesn't make anti-immigration any less of the racist base pandering that it is.

    In my america, everyone is welcome. Including those who made and epic trek across a water-less desert to be here. Fuck man, I'm not sure I'd do that to get back in, anyone who does that just for a chance at being American deserves to be welcomed by a party that says, "here's your water, here's how you start the process to be an american citizen."

    As far as Benghazi phhhhffffffftt.....

    come back to me when mister i'll put epic music over my questioning

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5-qTNRroAw

    does something that's not a grandstanding piece of nonsense. Until then I'll wait.

    Also this bit.

    "Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has already effectively silenced General Patreaus..."

    So Obama made Petraeus cheat on his wife? This is a new one frankly. Please Michale, tell me more.

  103. [103] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    @ Liz

    [70]That is completely false.

    In that case I should stop reading anyone's reports and certainly not quote anybody. Sorry. I was obviously wrong.

    @ Michale

    I'm wrong about everything and you're right about everything. Happy now?

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    LD,

    Most Americans feel terrorism IS sometimes justified.

    What a completely and utterly BULLSHIT statement..

    Prove it!

    You only think terrorism is never justified because when YOU support terrorism campaigns, like, say Bush's TORTURE policies, it isn't REALLY terrorism.--Just one more example of your intellectual dishonesty, self-delusion, and lying. Not to mention your LACK of credibility as an expert on terrorism.

    You are obviously completely ignorant of what terrorism is...

    Ignorance is not dishonorable..

    Denying it is...

    YoYo,

    I was going to take Michale to task for bloviating about immigrants, but seriously, if he doesn't realise that he's descended from american immigrants at this point, he never will.

    Where did I "bloviate" about immigrants?? Not one single place did ANYTHING about immigrants cross my lips.. er... fingers??

    I simply asked a question about ILLEGAL immigrants..

    This has been said a thousand times, Republicans should support immigration reform because it's right.

    It's only right for the Democratic Party..

    Giving amnesty to ILLEGAL immigrants will put TEXAS in play, fer chreest's sake!!

    Face it.. Democrats ONLY support illegal immigrant amnesty because it will mint fresh new Democrat voters by the millions.

    If ILLEGAL immigrants supported the GOP, then Democrats would be as against it as the GOP is..

    In my america, everyone is welcome. Including those who made and epic trek across a water-less desert to be here. Fuck man, I'm not sure I'd do that to get back in, anyone who does that just for a chance at being American deserves to be welcomed by a party that says, "here's your water, here's how you start the process to be an american citizen."

    Yes, in America ALL are welcome.

    As long as they OBEY our laws

    THAT's the point you don't seem to want to understand.

    To put it into a perfect context...

    Let's say you and your family go away for a month long vacation.. You come back and you have a family living in your house, eating your food, consuming your resources and running up your bills...

    Since you are a loyal Democrat, you give them amnesty and let them stay in your home and you and your family suffer and go elsewhere.

    That is the EXACT same situation that illegal immigration poses to America and Americans. Illegal immigrants have broken into our "home", are consuming our resources and running up our bills.

    And giving NOTHING back...

    Until then I'll wait.

    Of course you will.. But you were all gung ho when Democrats where doing witch hunt after witch hunt after witch hunt on the Bush Administration, right??

    Ya'all are so transparent.. If Democrats are on the witch hunt with "useless" investigations, ya'all are just fine with that..

    Does the term "hypocrisy" mean anything to you?? :D

    So Obama made Petraeus cheat on his wife? This is a new one frankly. Please Michale, tell me more.

    You DO realize that blackmail/extortion is a crime, right??

    But this is interesting.. You don't see a problem with the White House using leverage to silence Patraeus. After all, Patraeus cheated on his wife, so it's all HIS fault, eh??

    Could your nose be any further up Obama's ass??? :D

    But anyways, getting back to ILLEGAL immigration..

    The GOP would be signing their own death warrants if they push thru amnesty..

    My logic is as simple as it is dead on ballz accurate..

    No matter WHAT the GOP does, ILLEGAL immigrants will NEVER support the GOP... NEVER.. Not in a million years.

    Why?? Because of the mentality of the ILLEGAL immigrant and the fact that the Democratic Party is the FREE RIDE Party. The FREE STUFF Party..

    The GOP simply cannot compete with that, nor should they try..

    This country was built on HARD WORK and sweat and toil... This is totally anti-thesis to the FREE RIDE/FREE STUFF concept that the Democratic Party epitomizes..

    If the GOP pushes thru amnesty for ILLEGAL immigrants, then we won't see a GOP government in my lifetime..

    And THAT is the ONLY reason that the Left supports ILLEGAL immigrants.

    It's not about what's right, as you claim.

    It's about who is going to be in power in this country..

    "These are the facts. And they are undisputed."
    -Captain 'Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

    So spare me the preaching and sermonizing and the OH MY GODs!!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!" bullshit..

    Democrats don't care about what's right.

    They only care about what's in it for them...

    Mopshell,

    I'm wrong about everything and you're right about everything. Happy now?

    Whoa now... I actually said you were right... So I am not sure where this is coming from..

    You've been through a lot of pain in the dirt, and I know you've got the scars to prove it
    -ROCK AND ROLL DREAMS COME TRUE, MeatLoaf

    As someone who has the scars to prove it, a thick skin is a must here in Weigantia.. :D

    Michale

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://cis.org/ICE-Document-Details-36000-Criminal-Aliens-Release-in-2013

    So much for Obama's claim that only illegal immigrants who DON'T commit crimes are safe from deportation..

    Another Obama lie....

    Thank you President Obama for releasing murderers, thieves, rapists and other assorted criminals onto our streets so they are free to prey on innocent Americans again..

    Yer a real peach... :^/

    Obama and the Democrats are culpable and responsible for EACH and EVERY crime these ILLEGAL alien criminals commit while they are free..

    Michale

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    LD,

    And, just so we're clear..

    NOTHING.... NO THING.... NOT ONE SINGLE THING.... Justifies terrorism.

    Bush never committed any acts of terrorism.

    Israel never committed any acts of terrorism.

    And NO AMERICAN who IS an American would ever, EVER think Terrorism is justified..

    The ONLY animals who think terrorism is justified ARE terrorists themselves...

    I hope I have made my position clear...

    Michale

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://nypost.com/2014/05/11/obama-shrinks-away-in-the-face-of-evil/

    Once again, a DEMOCRAT puts it all in perspective...

    Michale

  108. [108] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mopshell,

    In that case I should stop reading anyone's reports and certainly not quote anybody. Sorry. I was obviously wrong.

    Well, that's not the conclusion you should have drawn from my reply.

    You just need to be aware that the western media is often pretty clueless on matters involving the Middle East and North Africa, among other geographical regions and geopolitical issues. You just have to know who to trust and where to find solid information about what is going on there.

    Senators McCain and Graham are also not your best sources for enlightened analysis, to put it mildly.

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    Senators McCain and Graham are also not your best sources for enlightened analysis, to put it mildly.

    Sure they are.. At least in the case of the Benghazi Terrorist Attack..

    The only person who called it faster than those two was yours truly... :D

    Despite HEAVY opposition from the Weigantian Peanut Gallery, I might add.. :D

    Where has Michty been anyways!!??? :D

    Michale

  110. [110] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I think Senator McCain has acquired a strong tendency to see what he wants to see. Consequently, his analysis of any given situation comports little with reality.

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think Senator McCain has acquired a strong tendency to see what he wants to see. Consequently, his analysis of any given situation comports little with reality.

    While you may (or may not) be right, that doesn't negate the fact that McCain (and Graham AND me :D) was dead on ballz accurate about Benghazi being a Terrorist Attack...

    Michale

  112. [112] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    There is very little accuracy around here with respect to what happened and didn't happen in Benghazi, I'm afraid.

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    I was going to take Michale to task for bloviating about immigrants..

    This is EXACTLY the problem that ya'all have..

    You make an argument for IMMIGRANTS, but NO ONE is talking about immigrants at all..

    The issue at hand, the issue that ya'all simply REFUSE to address is the issue of ILLEGAL immigrants...

    Illegal immigrants are, by definition, criminals...

    America is ALWAYS open and ALWAYS willing to welcome immigrants..

    AS LONG AS IMMIGRANTS OBEY ARE LAWS...

    So, can we lose the straw man arguments and actually discuss what the REAL issue is??

    ***ILLEGAL*** immigrants...

    Michale

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    Did someone around here say that TrainWreckCare is "working"???

    http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/05/13/Over-5-Billion-and-Counting-Obamacare-Websites

    If THAT is how things "work" it's well and truly factual that Obama and the Democrats have royally frak'ed this country...

    Michale

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is very little accuracy around here with respect to what happened and didn't happen in Benghazi, I'm afraid.

    And you can thank the Obama Administration for that. Because of all their lies and obfuscations and outright BS...

    All the American people want are the facts...

    Why is the Obama White House stonewalling the release of these facts at every turn??

    THAT is why we need a Special Committee with subpoena powers...

    Michale

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    Having said all of that, we DO know quite a few things about Benghazi..

    We know for a fact that it was NOT a protest gone bad..

    We know for a fact that the anti-Islam video that had been in circulation for many many months had nothing to do with the Benghazi attack.

    We know for a fact that officials within the CIA knew it was a PLANNED terrorist attack right from the outset. There NEVER was a question of that.

    We know for a fact that Obama's White House issued a talking points memo to various people, including Susan Rice, that told them to blame the attack on the anti-islam video and steer anyone away from believing it was because of policy decisions.

    We know for a fact that Obama and his administration lied thru their teeth for almost two weeks, saying that it was NOT a terrorist attack, but rather it was in response to an anti-islam video..

    We know for a fact that our Ambassador and other Americans were brutally murdered during the attack..

    We know for a fact that NOT ONE SINGLE PERPETRATOR of the Benghazi Terrorist Attack has been brought to justice...

    We know for a fact that military officials high up in the TOP have testified that they received orders from the NCA to "stand down"...

    Now, here's what we don't know...

    We don't know where our Commander In Chief was during the attack.. The Left has well established that it is VITAL, it is IMPERATIVE that the CnC whereabouts are known during a national emergency.. We don't know where Obama was...

    That about sums up the facts of Benghazi. At least all that is readily known...

    Have I missed anything??

    Michale

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, and we know for a fact that, despite heavy oppositon from those here in Weigantia, I called the Benghazi attack as a terrorist attack within HOURS of the attack taking place.

    Beating the Obama Administration by almost two weeks... :D

    Not that I am one to toot my own horn or anything..

    But.... BEEEP BEEEEP :D

    Michale

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    If this entire comment thread has proven one thing, it's that Benghazi is NOT going to go away until Obama's White House answer to the American People...

    It's THAT simple...

    Michale

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, pivoting back to ILLEGAL immigration??

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/12/feds-released-hundreds-immigrant-murderers-drunken/

    Yea....

    Amnesty for ILLEGAL immigrants..

    What could POSSIBLY go wrong??

    Michale

  120. [120] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    @ Liz

    You just need to be aware that the western media is often pretty clueless on matters involving the Middle East and North Africa, among other geographical regions and geopolitical issues. You just have to know who to trust and where to find solid information about what is going on there.

    I'm afraid I'm just not smart enough to know what I should and shouldn't read or should and shouldn't believe. The logical course of action for me is to stop reading about and discussing Benghazi altogether, forget I ever heard of it.

    @ Michale

    I can't even be right about being wrong and you are right again. I give up.

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    I can't even be right about being wrong and you are right again. I give up.

    I am sure you didn't mean to, but THAT was funny!! :D

    Michale

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mopshell,

    You are going to be told you are wrong, time and time again.. Probably EVERY time.

    If not by me (99% of the time) then by someone else (1% of the time)...

    Weigantians rarely agree on ANYTHING..

    But, as a wise sage once told me and as I recently re-learned myself, it's not the capitulation or the surrender that's the fun part..

    It's the landing of the punches.. :D

    One of my old Police Academy instructors once told us:

    "Yea, it's fun running huckley-buckley Code 3 to a crime scene and gawk.. But it's a lot more fun to park over an overpass, catch the perp, screw a shotgun in his ear and take him to jail"

    The Weigantian version??

    It's fun to hear, "Yea, you were right, I was wrong"...

    It's MUCH more fun to intellectually pummel someone so hard, so fast and so precisely that such admissions, concessions or capitulations are superfluous and unnecessary, as the result is obvious for all to see.. :D

    We're all like a bunch of Tellarites.. We love to argue. We LIVE to argue.. :D

    I have seen many a commenter.. One-comment-wonders who make a smart, insightful and witty comment, but simply cannot handle the rebuttal and run from Weigantia screaming hysterically.

    You have held on longer than most...

    The one trick to keep in mind in surviving Weigantia is to not take ANY of it too seriously..

    Even seasoned veterans sometimes forget that..

    Anyways, my 2 cents worth...

    Hope you stick around...

    Michale

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:
  124. [124] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale [107],

    The greatest terrorist attack of the twentieth century, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Japan was justified as it saved tens of thousands of lives in the Allied Japan invasion fleet, and as a response to the terrorist attack on Pearl Harbor Hawaii by Japanese forces which started the World Ear Two. And the greatest terrorists of the twentieth century were Nazi German WWII troops.

    Niether President Roosevelt, the Japanese navy, or the common German soldier were "psychotic" or "lessor peoples." Terrorist" isn't defined by irregular troops, your enemies, or both. Its defined as those who use terror as a tactic. And the tactic used can't be the sole factor determining justification. If it were no war, which ALWAYS relies on the tactic of murder, would NEVER be justified.

    You simply display a consistent tendency to interpret everything to support your personal prejudices. If Al Qaeda had kidnapped people off the streets in America, labeled them "enemy combatants," held them indefinitely without charges or trial, and tortured them, you'd definitely call it "terrorism." But when George Bush did it you considered it justice and justified. You are not an expert on terrorism. Your bigotry and prejudice prevent you from even recognizing terrorism except when it suits and serves your prejudices.

    You cannot solve a problem until you first identify the problem. Anyone who deludes themselves into thinking all terrorists are "psychotic lesser people" instead of seeking to identify the terrorists justifications, real or imagined, is of no use giving advise on how to combat terrorism. Anyone who thinks that nothing uniformed services personnel do, and particularly American military, can be terrorism is useless advising on terrorism. And anyone who thinks any tactic is arbitrarily off the table and never justified is useless advising on any security issue.

    No tactic yet devised is more insane than that of "mutually assured destruction"--of the Human Race! And yet it was embraced by the United States of America and the Soviet Union.--And it worked! A tactic relying on terror. A "terrorist" tactic, which you wingers love to canonize St. Reagan for. President Reagan obviously being a "psychotic lesser person" with no justification for his terrorism.

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's a sad, sad day in Amerika when someone can't say, "I don't like this, that or the other thing" without getting fined, fired or sent to re-education camp...

    Michale

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    The greatest terrorist attack of the twentieth century, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Japan was justified as it saved tens of thousands of lives in the Allied Japan invasion fleet, and as a response to the terrorist attack on Pearl Harbor Hawaii by Japanese forces which started the World Ear Two. And the greatest terrorists of the twentieth century were Nazi German WWII troops.

    Like I said.. You are completely clueless as to what terrorism is..

    Terrorism is defined as ongoing and systematic attacks of violence specifically targeted against innocent civilian persons or property for the purpose of furthering a political, economical or ideological agenda.

    The dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan served a military purpose. The fact that it terrorized is happenstance and doesn't indicate intent..

    Even IF one could make a case, the fact that you have to go back over 70 years to MAKE that case (even if you could) indicates how weak your argument is..

    The problem LD, is you ascribe simple attributes to your definition to suit your agenda.

    If someone is scared, then it MUST be terrorism is how you look at things.

    You are wrong...

    Israel didn't commit terrorism in the formation of the country..

    Reagan didn't commit terrorism just because people were afraid of a nuclear war.

    Bush didn't commit terrorism just because he took this country to war..

    WAR =! terrorism

    It's THAT simple...

    Michale

  127. [127] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    "Terrorism" is defined as acts intended to instill terror. Those who employ tactics intended to instill terror or called "terrorists."

    You dehumanize your adversaries, deluding yourself that they are all "psychotic lesser people" which justifies attempts to terrorize them. That is exactly what terrorists do. THAT is what makes a "terrorist."

    The "military purpose" of dropping atom bombs WAS TO TERRORIZE. To terrorize Japan into immediate surrender ahead of the invasion. It wasn't about taking out military production, destroying a military force, or securing a military position. It had one objective, and only one objective, to so terrorize the people of Japan that they would immediately and unconditionally surrender.

    The PURPOSE of Mutually Assured Destruction is to so terrorize your adversaries they are afraid to attack.

    The PURPOSE of Bush "arresting" people en mass, on any suspicion, of "associating with terrorists" was to terrorize people into being too afraid to support Al Qaeda.

    And I DON'T have to go back 70 years, not that even if I did it would invalidate my point. That claim is just another example of you interpreting reality, adding arbitrary conditions and qualifications, to arrive at the conclusion you want. But, as I said Bush engaged in his own campaign of terror, WHICH YOU SUPPORTED AS "JUSTIFIED." And it was just six year ago. In fact, YOU claim its STILL ongoing.

    "War=terrorism," "terrorism is NEVER justified," all terrorists are "psychotic lesser peoples." So anyone who engages in war is an unjustified psychotic lesser person and a terrorist?--And YOU were a career soldier?!

    You see, that's the problem with intellectual dishonesty like yours. Trying to twist facts so that you are always on the side of the angels, and your adversary always a tool of the devil, only makes you a hypocrite or an idiot, or both.

    It is not "War=terrorism." It is attempting to terrorize=terrorism. "Justification" being a separate issue, not mutually exclusive.

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's a sad, sad day in Amerika when someone can't say, "I don't like this, that or the other thing" without getting fined, fired or sent to re-education camp...

    I should amend that to say that CONSERVATIVES can't say "I don't like this, that or the other thing" without getting fined, fired or sent to re-education camp...

    If a Liberal blovioates on how bad Christians are, they get a job with a major MSM rag...

    Michale

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Terrorism" is defined as acts intended to instill terror. Those who employ tactics intended to instill terror or called "terrorists."

    You prove EXACTLY my point..

    Using YOUR definition, telling a ghost story or setting up a Haunted House on Halloween is "terrorism"... After all, the goal is to "terrorize"..

    Michale

  130. [130] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    I never mentioned Israel, but since you did... The Allies established Israel because we sure as hell didn't want them all in America! So our "feel good" solution to satisfy both parties was the establishment of the State of Israel ON SOMEBODY ELSE LAND.

    The Israelis sure as hell DID commit terrorism establishing Israel. The people now known as Palestinians didn't volunteer their homes an property for the formation of Israel. The Israelis, with American backing, threatened to kill anyone who interfered. There was no state of war. There was no purchase. There was no treaty. It was terrorism, plain and simple. Terrorism in order to perpetrate grand theft. A theft, and terrorism, that is ongoing with each expansion of the East Bank.--Whether it was "justified" is another matter.

    If it were YOUR home, YOUR family, YOUR life, and YOUR livelihood being threatened and seized YOU'D call it terrorism THEN!

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    It was terrorism, plain and simple.

    It was war... plain and simple..

    The Palestinians lost... plain and simple..

    Just like here at home..

    The new country, America, expanded.. It was war.. Native Americans lost...

    Plain and simple..

    You see, the problem with your definition of terrorism is that it postulates that the GOAL is terror...

    With terrorism, intent is 80% of the definition..

    In the case of America, the goal wasn't to terrorize Native Americans. It was to defeat them and take their land..

    AKA... WAR...

    Michale

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Israelis sure as hell DID commit terrorism establishing Israel

    Point to ONE ACT of terrorism committed by Israel?

    You can't because none exists..

    Michale

  133. [133] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    NOW you've got it! Telling a ghost story IS "terrorism." Terrorism isn't automatically, bad, insane, unjustified, or anything OTHER than attempting to instill terror.

    Like everything else in life its all in the details. You can not simply prejudge ANYTHING. THAT'S what's wrong with prejudice.

    Relying on prejudice, prejudging, your complete disdain for nuance and context, is where you invariably go wrong.

  134. [134] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Oh, and Michale,

    Adding the American genocide against indigenous natives in support of your claim that "terrorists are psychotic lesser people" and "never justified" isn't helping your case.

    Neither is your latest bit of personal insanity that, "it isn't terrorism if you win!" Although I expect Hezbollah and Al Queada agree with you! You're only further establishing that there is no fundamental difference between the way that you think and the way terrorists think, in spite of your imagined moral and mental superiority.

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    Further....

    I never mentioned Israel, but since you did... The Allies established Israel because we sure as hell didn't want them all in America! So our "feel good" solution to satisfy both parties was the establishment of the State of Israel ON SOMEBODY ELSE LAND.

    Now, I am not a religious theologian by ANY stretch of the imagination..

    But it's my understand that Israel created their new state on the land that was promised to them by god..

    The druthers of the Americans had very little to do with that...

    "Are you aspiring to be god, eh??"
    -BY THE RIVERS OF BABYLON, Nelson DeMille

    :D

    Michale

  136. [136] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    I keep giving you examples, and you keep ignoring them and demanding that I provide examples! And I am wearying of it. Jews were NOT at war when they seized Palestinian land. And neither were the Allies. The war was OVER. And it was Germany and Japan who instigated and prosecuted the war, not Arab states.

    And yet, its reasonable to displace Arabs and seize their homes and property? While spending 50 years calling for the reunification of Germany? That while Germany and Japan are rebuilt, at our expense, Arabs deserved to be permanently punished merely for being their allies?!

    Once again you demonstrate that what you consider fact depends entirely upon the outcome you desire. Depends entirely upon your prejudices, in other words.

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    NOW you've got it! Telling a ghost story IS "terrorism." Terrorism isn't automatically, bad, insane, unjustified, or anything OTHER than attempting to instill terror.

    You have officially gone off the deep end, LD :D

    I apologize.. I didn't realize we were having a metaphysical or semantical discussion where EVERYTHING is terrorism..

    I thought we were talking about reality..

    Silly me.. :D

    Michale

  138. [138] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale [135],

    And, according to terrorists, they're in a Holy War to take Palestinian lands back.--Maybe God changed his mind?

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    That while Germany and Japan are rebuilt, at our expense, Arabs deserved to be permanently punished merely for being their allies?!

    A- We're not talking about Arabs, we're talking about Palestinians

    2- The ONLY reason that Palestinians are being "punished" is because they keep trying to solve their problems with terrorism..

    The Palestinians would be free to live in peace side by side with Israel if Palestinians would simply be content to live in peace side by side with Israel..

    But the STATED goal of Palestinians is to destroy Israel..

    As long as Palestinians refuse to give Israel the peace that Palestinians themselves demand, they will continue to be "punished"..

    Due to the Palestinians continued use of terrorism, Israel will ALWAYS have the moral and ethical high ground and will have, pretty much, a blank check to do what Israel needs to do...

    It's really THAT simple...

    Michale

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    You see, LD your problem is this.

    You want to define terrorism with some nebulous situational-dependent definition so you can apply it as you see fit..

    But terrorism has a hard objective defintion...

    But you DO raise an interesting question..

    Due to the drone attacks by Obama Administration, is Obama a terrorist??

    By your own definition as you applied it to Bush, the Obama would HAVE to be a terrorist..

    What say you??

    Michale

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, according to terrorists, they're in a Holy War to take Palestinian lands back.--Maybe God changed his mind?

    You see, that's the problem with organized religion..

    Like Human Caused Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption/Climate Chaos, god is responsible for everything and religion allows anything, no matter how heinous..

    The perfect fall guy...

    Michale

  142. [142] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    That terrorists aren't necessarily psychotic, unjustified, evil, or even bad! IS reality!--And you were SO CLOSE!

    Terrorism is evil, not necessarily terrorists. Plenty of evil goes on in the world. Sometimes its even necessary.

    When your definition of evil always condemns your adversary and always exonerates you?!--Now THAT IS EVIL.

  143. [143] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    So having blown up the twin towers America should just forget about it? Its over? Our Ambassador was murdered in Benghazi. According to you Obama lied about it. Forget about it! It's over!--Lamest excuse on planet Earth.

    If someone stole MY home it damn well WOULDN'T be over until I got it back! And I wouldn't hesitate for a second to engage in terrorism against the perpetrators either!--You just go right on trying to tailor reality to suit your prejudices. I feel quite confident reality will go right on refusing to oblige you.

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    LD,

    That terrorists aren't necessarily psychotic, unjustified, evil, or even bad! IS reality!--And you were SO CLOSE!

    We'll just have to agree to disagree..

    In my humble opinion, based on LOTS of personal experience, terrorists are like child molesters..

    NO REDEEMING VALUE whatsoever. About the ONLY thing they are worth is a bullet to the head..

    So having blown up the twin towers America should just forget about it? Its over? Our Ambassador was murdered in Benghazi. According to you Obama lied about it. Forget about it! It's over!--Lamest excuse on planet Earth.

    Uhhhh Are you making my arguments for me?? :D

    Michale

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh wait, I see what you are saying..

    You are saying that the Palestinians have a right to fight back..

    You are absolutely right.

    They do.

    But NOT by using terrorism..

    By using terrorism, they forfeit ALL legality and morality...

    I have no doubt that Palestinians have some real and legitimate concerns..

    But by employing terrorism, they utterly DESTROY that legitimacy..

    Do you know why??

    Because NOTHING JUSTIFIES TERRORISM...

    Let the Palestinians fight back within the rules of warfare..

    Hell, I might even cheer them on...

    But by employing terrorism??

    The give Israel the moral and ethical high ground and carte blanche in the pursuit of Israeli security..

    Michale

  146. [146] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mopshell,

    <I'm afraid I'm just not smart enough to know what I should and shouldn't read or should and shouldn't believe. The logical course of action for me is to stop reading about and discussing Benghazi altogether, forget I ever heard of it.

    Okay, now THAT was funny!

    Sorry.

    Seriously, I think the logical course of action for you would be to stick around long enough to learn how to critically discriminate between sources for news and analysis.

    Although, I would agree with you that you should avoid all things Benghazi. That was a little joke. :)

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other news...

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/14/dem-disarray-florida-house-candidate-drops-out-conyers-kept-off-ballot/?intcmp=latestnews

    With (dis)organization like this, Democrats don't NEED Republicans to screw them over..

    They are doing a bang-up job all by themselves.. :D

    Michale

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    WAR: NYT JILL FIRED AFTER ASKING 'FOR EQUAL PAY'
    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/currency/2014/05/why-jill-abramson-was-fired.html

    GOP War On Women??

    hehehehehehehehehehehehehehe

    Michale

  149. [149] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-documents-show-irs-hq-control-tea-party-targeting/

    Drip, Drip, Drip.....

    The Obama Administration is sinking... Drop by drop by drop.... :D

    Michale

  150. [150] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale [145],

    I'm saying the Palestinians have as much right to use whatever means necessary as we do. I'm saying your support of American terrorism under Bush while arbitrarily limiting Palestinians to tactics that won't hurt Israelis isn't a moral position its a bigoted one. Your terrorist enemies are "like child molesters, no redeeming value." Your terrorist friends, Israel and Bush, for example, are fully "justified" heroic defenders. Your hypocrisy is the result if your prejudice, not the result of any differences in tactics.

  151. [151] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm saying the Palestinians have as much right to use whatever means necessary as we do.

    And I am saying your wrong. NO civilized human being has the right to resort to terrorism.

    NOTHING justified terrorism..

    I'm saying your support of American terrorism under Bush while arbitrarily limiting Palestinians to tactics that won't hurt Israelis isn't a moral position its a bigoted one.

    You are operating under the false premise that Bush committed terrorism.. You are in error.

    If you believe that Bush committed terrorism then your precious Democrats AUTHORIZED that terrorism.

    If you believe that Bush committed terrorism then you MUST believe that Obama is committing terrorism right now..

    Your terrorist friends, Israel and Bush, for example, are fully "justified" heroic defenders.

    G I G O

    Your data is faulty, therefore your conclusion is garbage..

    IS Obama a terrorist??

    Michale

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay YoYo??

    Obama Makes It Clear That Amnesty Will Help Democrats
    http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/051414-700940-obama-knows-more-immigrants-mean-more-democrat-votes.htm?ref=HPLNews

    Yea, it's all about "doing what's right", eh??

    You mean, doing what's right for the Democratic Party and to hell with the country...

    THAT's what ya mean... :D

    Michale

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    Further, consider this..

    Employment wise, the LARGEST groups that are going to be hurt by dumping 30 million legal unskilled workers into the job pool are the low income minority groups...

    What do you say to that??

    Michale

  154. [154] 
    Michale wrote:

    "And the hits just keep on coming...."

    Veterans scandal risks engulfing Obama
    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/328546c0-dd10-11e3-8546-00144feabdc0.html#axzz31uvHRdxe

  155. [155] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    The one thing I know about Benghazi is that the President did not sleep through the attack. And if I know this, then all the committee members of the various Benghazi committees must know it too which makes me wonder why good ole boy Republicans like Ted Cruz are lying.

  156. [156] 
    Michale wrote:

    The one thing I know about Benghazi is that the President did not sleep through the attack. And if I know this, then all the committee members of the various Benghazi committees must know it too which makes me wonder why good ole boy Republicans like Ted Cruz are lying.

    No one knows where Obama was...

    Or, more accurately, no one is saying where Obama was...

    Obama initially said he was in the Situation Room and that turned out to be a lie..

    Michale

  157. [157] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    I know where Obama was and anyone with an ounce of common sense could work it out.

  158. [158] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know where Obama was and anyone with an ounce of common sense could work it out.

    Do tell.. :D

    Michale

  159. [159] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    When the attack started, he and the First Lady were at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Maryland, visiting wounded warriors.

  160. [160] 
    Michale wrote:

    When the attack started, he and the First Lady were at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Maryland, visiting wounded warriors.

    Cite???

    Michale

  161. [161] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-where-was-obama-during-benghazi-ask-the-white-house-diarist/2014/05/12/70c6b898-d9cc-11e3-bda1-9b46b2066796_story.html

    Apaprently, it's still unknown where Obama was...

    Sure, he was at Walter Reed right at the beginning of the terrorist attack at Benghazi..

    Where did he go after that?? He wasn't in the Situation room as he had claimed.

    So he lied..

    WHY did he lie??

    WHERE was he??

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.