Benghazi hearings

[fan_since79]

I want to know who gave the "stand down" order. Someone did, but so far nobody's telling.

[Blarg]

Yes, it terribly sad what happened and that four lives were lost.  However, why the focus on Benghazi?

 

http://news.yahoo.com/u-military-plane-disappears-radar-kyrgyz-kazakh-border-102355010.html

 

Less than a week ago, at least three Americans dead - barely a peep in the news.  Yet, Benghazi is critical.  Why are the dead people from Benghazi more important than these dead people? 

You seriously cannot understand the difference between a transport plane crash and an attack on a US Embassy that resulted in the death of the Embassador?

Glen, you are a dumbass sometimes.

[HaloMagic]

Why did the transport crash?

[Glen]

Why did the transport crash?

 

 

 

It's a conspiracy.  HIllary Clinton.

[Blarg]

Why do I care when it is not related to Benghazi?

You see individual events can have their own individual significance or just be a diversion to ignore a more significant event.

Demeaning the significance of an attack on an embassy makes me wonder if you guys just like the mental masturbation of talking politics like politicians.

[Glen]

You seriously cannot understand the difference between a transport plane crash and an attack on a US Embassy that resulted in the death of the Embassador?

Glen, you are a dumbass sometimes.

 

 

 

It didn't crash.  It exploded in mid-air.  Big difference. 

[Glen]

Why do I care when it is not related to Benghazi?

You see individual events can have their own individual significance or just be a diversion to ignore a more significant event.

Demeaning the significance of an attack on an embassy makes me wonder if you guys just like the mental masturbation of talking politics like politicians.

 

 

 

Speaking of masturbation:

 

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/47564

 

No, it's not porn. 

[HaloMagic]

Why do I care when it is not related to Benghazi?

You see individual events can have their own individual significance or just be a diversion to ignore a more significant event.

Demeaning the significance of an attack on an embassy makes me wonder if you guys just like the mental masturbation of talking politics like politicians.

LOL at "you guys". All one of them?

[DowningRules]

Interesting day for the White House and Jay Carney.  Seems Carney's assertion that the talking points memo had only one revision needs some revisioning.

 

ABC News (ie:  not Fox News) reported that the talking points had 12 revisions.  Not small ones, either. 

 

The mainstream press is beginning to cover the situation...It reminds me of the bit in "All the President's Men" when the initial break-in story was tucked away inside the newspaper but eventually made it to the front page.  I'm not suggesting that Benghazi is on the same scale as Watergate, but it feels like it has some legs to it, despite Jon Stewart's protestations.

[HaloMagic]

I think it only feels that way because you want it to be a scandal. It certainly doesn't feel that way to me.

[DowningRules]

Funny, I think it feels that way because the White House spokesman said something that was proved totally false by evidence contradicting what he had previously said in defending the White House.  And we still don't know whose idea it was to accuse the anti-muslim video as the reasoning for the attacks.  Though I didn't use the word scandal, it's looking more like that is the case, so your use of the word is probably not too far off-base. 

I think it only feels that way because you want it to be a scandal. It certainly doesn't feel that way to me.

[Jason]

This admin is doing a poor job in their cover up.

[Glen]

Hopefully, pretty soon we can get to the point where the republicans impeach Obama for lying about getting a blowjob.  

[mtangelsfan]

Glen, you think it's the same?  It really seems you are complacent simply because you are more comfortable with Obama as president.  

[Glen]

Nope.  The parallels are pretty obvious.  Trying to smear a current democratic president in his second term to reduce the chances of the democrats holding the office of president in the next election.  The republicans didn't care this much about getting to the bottom of 9/11 and pretty much forgave Bush after the 9/11 commission report came out.  Again, why is Benghazi so much more important to them?

 

I've already said many times I don't like Obama as president but it seems like the republicans are determined to focus on the unimportant shit like this because it rings their Pavlovian bell about democrats being weak on defense.  I'd much rather focus on Obama's use of drones, his crackdown on legal marijuana medical dispensaries throughout the US, his total lack of interest in punishing anybody responsible for the financial meltdown, and a bunch of other things.  Benghazi doesn't even register for me.  

[mtangelsfan]

I guess it's easy to claim being smeared these days.  Do something wrong, and then when someone calls you on it just claim you are being smeared.

 

Profit

[Glen]

Why didn't the republicans care as much about the faulty intelligence Bush used to get us into Iraq as they do about a 'stand down' order in Benghazi?

[Lifetime]

Just guessing here, but probably for the same reasons the Democrats don't really care about getting to the bottom of this. 

[DowningRules]

I suggest emailing this to the White House to use as a talking point re:  Benghazi defense.  It references Bush, so it's sure to be used.

 

Why didn't the republicans care as much about the faulty intelligence Bush used to get us into Iraq as they do about a 'stand down' order in Benghazi?

[mtangelsfan]

Why didn't the republicans care as much about the faulty intelligence Bush used to get us into Iraq as they do about a 'stand down' order in Benghazi?

 

Ha!  Classic tin.

[Glen]

Classic republicans, too. This kind of thing is really important to them, when a democrat is in office. Otherwise, not so much.

[Spirit]

Just guessing here, but probably for the same reasons the Democrats don't really care about getting to the bottom of this. 

 

It almost sounds like both sides are playing politics.

[HaloMagic]

I like how any time the issue is brought up the death of the four Americans is referenced ("I would hunch the families of the four dead Americans are 100% interested.""No issue here. Only 4 Americans died."). Yet somehow most of the questioning is focused on stuff like campaign politics and talking point revisions. It's perfectly acceptable to inquire who changed the talking points but when someone else states they don't think it's important don't bring up the deceased. The talking points were after they died. The talking points had nothing to do with their deaths. To continue to mention them and then ask about talking points is actually pretty disgusting.

[Spirit]

I agree they're separate issues.  Changing the talking points around for political reasons in middle of a campaign is disgusting.  Turning down a request to send in people to assist with an embassy that was under attack is troubling.  But they're certainly two different issues. 

[mtangelsfan]

One could see the second point as an effort to cover up the first, couldn't they?

If so, they would be connected and should be.