Dear GOP blog trolls: Drop Benghazi, Nobody Cares About Manufactuired Old News

[Paperman299]

But you're making the same mistake most liberals make. Clinton fell for that lie too. He was 'certain' Saddam Hussein had WMD in Iraq, and continued to issue ultimatum after ultimatum. Don't go after Bush before you consider who set forth the precedent.

Moreover, I consider it dishonest to go after people here who genuinely want to know why our government acted the way it did in Benghazi, without going after the people who tried to say that Bush was involved in the 9/11/01 attacks. We all have our kooks, your heart is in the right place, but you must know that Benghazi is a conspiracy, and the evidence is pointing in that direction. This isn't some wild goose chase. Maybe our politicians don't care, but we do.

Templar, I respectfully disagree. While I concede Clinton also took a strong stance against Iraq, it was only Bush whose "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," whose Secretary of State's Chief of Staff was doctoring intelligence, and whose administration gave info to the public at odds with what the intelligence community's own analysts were concluding.

And though it should be obvious that I think the Benghazi theory holds water like a leaky boot, my position at the moment is much narrower. If McCain had won in 2008, and if his administration had handled Benghazi in the exact same way, I don't believe Fox News would have pursued the Benghazi story. I especially don't believe that there would be so many conservatives insisting that there had been a government conspiracy. This is an opportunity for people who hate Obama to hate Obama.

Here's a thought: would liberals and MSNBC be pursuing the Benghazi story if things were flipped around? I don't know - maybe! - but then it would still just be a shallow opportunity for people who hate McCain to hate McCain.

 

[TemplarKormac]

But you're making the same mistake most liberals make. Clinton fell for that lie too. He was 'certain' Saddam Hussein had WMD in Iraq, and continued to issue ultimatum after ultimatum. Don't go after Bush before you consider who set forth the precedent.

Moreover, I consider it dishonest to go after people here who genuinely want to know why our government acted the way it did in Benghazi, without going after the people who tried to say that Bush was involved in the 9/11/01 attacks. We all have our kooks, your heart is in the right place, but you must know that Benghazi is a conspiracy, and the evidence is pointing in that direction. This isn't some wild goose chase. Maybe our politicians don't care, but we do.

Templar, I respectfully disagree. While I concede Clinton also took a strong stance against Iraq, it was only Bush whose "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," whose Secretary of State's Chief of Staff was doctoring intelligence, and whose administration gave info to the public at odds with what the intelligence community's own analysts were concluding.

And though it should be obvious that I think the Benghazi theory holds water like a leaky boot, my position at the moment is much narrower. If McCain had won in 2008, and if his administration had handled Benghazi in the exact same way, I don't believe Fox News would have pursued the Benghazi story. I especially don't believe that there would be so many conservatives insisting that there had been a government conspiracy. This is an opportunity for people who hate Obama to hate Obama.

Here's a thought: would liberals and MSNBC be pursuing the Benghazi story if things were flipped around? I don't know - maybe! - but then it would still just be a shallow opportunity for people who hate McCain to hate McCain.

I would have to disagree once again. At the time, I would have done the same as those conservatives did, however, being a libertarian now, I would have gone after McCain just as hard as Obama. I also noticed today how it was a popular theme to revert to how Bush did what he did about intelligence. Bush. I find it quite odd that others cannot focus on the people in the White House now, instead those who were there 6 years in the past.

Let's say McCain did indeed become president, lets also say he oversaw a Benghazi like tragedy where officials willingly lied to cover it up. Guess where the mainstream media would be? Breathing down the man's throat. So I say it is disingenuous to say that conservatives would have kept quiet, when it would have been equally as likely that liberals would have been the ones launching the Benghazi Crusades. The pattern of either party is quite predictable when it comes down to it.

Fact is, we don't live in a world based on assumptions, but on facts, observable patterns and reality.

 

[TemplarKormac]

To get to the nitty gritty Paperman, the law was violated when the State Department withheld documents from a congressional panel conducting an investigation. The White House doctored talking points which Susan Rice then iterated on five different news stations that following Sunday. Now, Mr. Rhodes could not have acted on his own, someone needed to have asked him to prep Susan Rice with those talking points. Either Obama is a very clueless man and a witless leader, or he knows more about this than he's letting on.

There was either a failure in the Chain of Command that night, or the FAST teams were ordered to go to Tripoli that night and stay there. It doesn't really matter how many people died, its the fact that they died needlessly with rescue just within arm's reach.

Moreover, a Presidential Administration (regardless of party) should not be lying to the American people.

 

[Silhouette]

Does anyone really expect ignorant white trash Southern Republicans to drop Benghazi?...

The only people drumming up Benghazi are Dick Cheney's gang through their hand puppets at Fox News. Nobody else, and I mean NOBODY else is taking it seriously.

I've got friends on both sides of the aisle. Most of us are in the middle since the fringe groups are nutters on either side and tend to get themselves quietly uninvited to most social events we attend. I've got ranchers friends, rednecks, bird, deer, pig hunter friends. None of them are talking about Benghazi and on the rare occasion someone brings it up [usually because someone has Fox News on the tube], everyone is looking at each other and saying "there were only four Americans killed. Why aren't they going on about the Boston Bombing or Iraq or some other more massive tragedy?"

In other words, all of us are getting suspicious. Lately when Benghazi comes up on Fox, I see the remote come out and either "mute" is pushed or "jump channel".. It's like listening to CNN obsess on that plane disappearing or MSNBC obsess about Christie's bridgegate. Insanity is so off-putting to anyone.

Hilarious and telling in itself, I notice nearly 40 people voted that Benghazi is serious and should be fully played up. Nobody I know has had 40 people vote on any poll here. Certainly not on mine. Not even close. So you know something's up with this two year old lackluster story garnering so many votes. Almost like on cue, if you know what I mean...

 

[Paperman299]

But you're making the same mistake most liberals make. Clinton fell for that lie too. He was 'certain' Saddam Hussein had WMD in Iraq, and continued to issue ultimatum after ultimatum. Don't go after Bush before you consider who set forth the precedent.

Moreover, I consider it dishonest to go after people here who genuinely want to know why our government acted the way it did in Benghazi, without going after the people who tried to say that Bush was involved in the 9/11/01 attacks. We all have our kooks, your heart is in the right place, but you must know that Benghazi is a conspiracy, and the evidence is pointing in that direction. This isn't some wild goose chase. Maybe our politicians don't care, but we do.

Templar, I respectfully disagree. While I concede Clinton also took a strong stance against Iraq, it was only Bush whose "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," whose Secretary of State's Chief of Staff was doctoring intelligence, and whose administration gave info to the public at odds with what the intelligence community's own analysts were concluding.

And though it should be obvious that I think the Benghazi theory holds water like a leaky boot, my position at the moment is much narrower. If McCain had won in 2008, and if his administration had handled Benghazi in the exact same way, I don't believe Fox News would have pursued the Benghazi story. I especially don't believe that there would be so many conservatives insisting that there had been a government conspiracy. This is an opportunity for people who hate Obama to hate Obama.

Here's a thought: would liberals and MSNBC be pursuing the Benghazi story if things were flipped around? I don't know - maybe! - but then it would still just be a shallow opportunity for people who hate McCain to hate McCain.

I would have to disagree once again. At the time, I would have done the same as those conservatives did, however, being a libertarian now, I would have gone after McCain just as hard as Obama. I also noticed today how it was a popular theme to revert to how Bush did what he did about intelligence. Bush. I find it quite odd that others cannot focus on the people in the White House now, instead those who were there 6 years in the past.

Let's say McCain did indeed become president, lets also say he oversaw a Benghazi like tragedy where officials willingly lied to cover it up. Guess where the mainstream media would be? Breathing down the man's throat. So I say it is disingenuous to say that conservatives would have kept quiet, when it would have been equally as likely that liberals would have been the ones launching the Benghazi Crusades. The pattern of either party is quite predictable when it comes down to it.

Fact is, we don't live in a world based on assumptions, but on facts, observable patterns and reality.

I brought up Bush, not to compare Presidents, but to compare the collective conservative reactions to controversies. When someone pushing the Benghazi story tells me, "I do this for truth," my reply is: "Where is your consistency?" Why not turn some of this anger on Bush? As some of the Benghazi theorists have said on this very thread, it doesn't matter how much time has passed, where a crime involving the deaths of Americans is concerned. If their motivations were as they say they are, the lies of Bush and his administration would easily be the more urgent target. But it's not about Benghazi, and it's not even about dead Americans. It's about Obama.

Now I agree, Templar, as I said in the post you quoted, that many on the left could be no less susceptible to pursuing this story, and for political reasons that would be no less vapid. The patterns of either party are, just as you say, predictable. But if they did, it would also be no less of a shallow political strategy. So what frustrates me, Templar, is this outrageous common attitude among Benghazi theorists that they hold a moral high ground. Accusing others of "stubborn partisanship," when that's all that keeps this story alive, or a lack of patriotism, or having no concern for dead Americans, is not only spurious but nakedly hypocritical unless that person has been calling out government lies regardless of administration.

 

[Silhouette]

I brought up Bush, not to compare Presidents, but to compare the collective conservative reactions to controversies. When someone pushing the Benghazi story tells me, "I do this for truth," my reply is: "Where is your consistency?" Why not turn some of this anger on Bush? As some of the Benghazi theorists have said on this very thread, it doesn't matter how much time has passed, where a crime involving the deaths of Americans is concerned. If their motivations were as they say they are, the lies of Bush and his administration would easily be the more urgent target. But it's not about Benghazi, and it's not even about dead Americans. It's about Obama.

Now I agree, Templar, as I said in the post you quoted, that many on the left could be no less susceptible to pursuing this story, and for political reasons that would be no less vapid. The patterns of either party are, just as you say, predictable. But if they did, it would also be no less of a shallow political strategy. So what frustrates me, Templar, is this outrageous common attitude among Benghazi theorists that they hold a moral high ground. Accusing others of "stubborn partisanship," when that's all that keeps this story alive, or a lack of patriotism, or having no concern for dead Americans, is not only spurious but nakedly hypocritical unless that person has been calling out government lies regardless of administration.

BRAVO! Paperman

 

[Silhouette]

To get to the nitty gritty Paperman, the law was violated when the State Department withheld documents from a congressional panel conducting an investigation. The White House doctored talking points which Susan Rice then iterated on five different news stations that following Sunday. Now, Mr. Rhodes could not have acted on his own, someone needed to have asked him to prep Susan Rice with those talking points. Either Obama is a very clueless man and a witless leader, or he knows more about this than he's letting on.

There was either a failure in the Chain of Command that night, or the FAST teams were ordered to go to Tripoli that night and stay there. It doesn't really matter how many people died, its the fact that they died needlessly with rescue just within arm's reach.

Moreover, a Presidential Administration (regardless of party) should not be lying to the American people.

Yes, you mean like when Bush and Cheney lied to Congress in order to raid the Treasury to fund their hostile corporate takeover of the sovereign oil fields in Iraq? A lie like that? Where more than just four Americans were killed in the doing of?

How many Americans died from the Bush/Cheney/GOP lies vs any lies that might be uncovered from Benghazigate? Bearing in mind of course that that attack just before the election in 2012 would have statistically brought more votes for the GOP and the terrorists knew that..

These terrorists sure have a funny way of acting to ensure the GOP agenda over here and over there. I remember I think it was April 2009 when Obama was scheduled to arrive in Bahgdad to oversee the removal of troops, there was a bombing from "the terrorists". And the playing field had been pretty calm prior to that. Just odd coincidences that almost make one think that the terrorists really like the GOP's agenda and presence in the ME. Weird.

The terrorists are either:

1. Dumb and can't see the connection between their well-timed attacks and favoring the GOP agenda in the ME or

2. Smart and wanting their presence there.

Which kinda makes you wonder about #2...

 

[BDBoop]

Sil, they can't hear you. Ever. This is never going to happen. The people who believe Benghazi is important are locked on that thought, and no information will sway them.

It's just like when they thought Romney was going to win. The minute he didn't win "Oh, the election was fixed." Or "racists voted for a black man again, what a surprise."

I have too many friends on the right to get too happy in here, but that's what I see.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If our GOP would hold an objective, open investigation, no problem.

If it is a witch hunt, the American people will not buy it.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, they can't hear you. Ever. This is never going to happen. The people who believe Benghazi is important are locked on that thought, and no information will sway them.

It's just like when they thought Romney was going to win. The minute he didn't win "Oh, the election was fixed." Or "racists voted for a black man again, what a surprise."

I have too many friends on the right to get too happy in here, but that's what I see.

I hear you. I guess they'll just have to suffer the losses they're going to face. Really, nothing is more of a yawn that this topic. I just hear the word "Benghazi" and it's like kneejerk. Anger first at the GOP's hypocrisy and the Iraq invasion that killed so many more, and then just instant revulsion, *switch the channel*

Clearly the GOP is obsessed at this well-timed "terrorist" attack before the 2012 election. Ant the reasons for their obsession are beginning to become obvious and disturbing.. The only party that well-timed attack would favor, statistically, is the GOP. Chilling when you think about how they're attacking the dems about it now..

 

[BDBoop]

Sil, they can't hear you. Ever. This is never going to happen. The people who believe Benghazi is important are locked on that thought, and no information will sway them.

It's just like when they thought Romney was going to win. The minute he didn't win "Oh, the election was fixed." Or "racists voted for a black man again, what a surprise."

I have too many friends on the right to get too happy in here, but that's what I see.

I hear you. I guess they'll just have to suffer the losses they're going to face. Really, nothing is more of a yawn that this topic. I just hear the word "Benghazi" and it's like kneejerk. Anger first at the GOP's hypocrisy and the Iraq invasion that killed so many more, and then just instant revulsion, *switch the channel*

Clearly the GOP is obsessed at this well-timed "terrorist" attack before the 2012 election. Ant the reasons for their obsession are beginning to become obvious and disturbing.. The only party that well-timed attack would favor, statistically, is the GOP. Chilling when you think about how they're attacking the dems about it now..

::cough:: "Reagan" ::cough-cough:: "Beirut" ::cough::

 

[Katzndogz]

Bringing up whatever happened in the past is NOT going to help democrats today. Whatever happened 30 years ago COULD have been brought up at that time for a full investigation. It is NOT a defense to incompetence today. Incompetence or the deliberate design.

 

[WinterBorn]

Does anyone really expect ignorant white trash Southern Republicans to drop Benghazi? These are the same people who still fly their Confederate flags as if its something to be proud of. They don't know how to lose. They still want abortion outlawed, they still think that they can outlaw gay marriage, and they still want the drug war to continue even after you show them that marijuana saved America during World War II. They are complaining about someone using the argument that "that was two years ago," but when someone points out that we're still paying off the trillions of dollars squandered by fiscal conservatives on Iraq over lies, these people use the excuse that "that was six years ago." These people can't be reasoned with, they refuse to learn or advance, and they can't admit that they are wrong. All that the Republican party can do is try to tear Obama down to make him look as bad as Bush, but they get that entirely wrong because they're morons. They have to do this because they know that they don't have any realistic ideas for America.

George W. Bush needs to hang for war crimes. Whatever that you think Benghazi was, Iraq was infinitely worse. You can quote Democrats talking about WMD all day long but the official government documents say that the Bush administration used false information to justify the invasion. The official government documents are online at the National Security Archives at GWU.edu, not that anyone is going to read them.

https://www.google.com/search?q=gwu+iraq&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb
https://www.google.com/search?q=gwu+torture&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb
https://www.google.com/search?q=curveball+lied&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

These are the same people who still fly their Confederate flags as if its something to be proud of.

I never have to delve deeply into your posts to find the half truths and blatant ignorance.

The Confederate flag “southern cross” was never the official flag of the C.S.A. The Confederate flag is a symbol of heritage, not a symbol of hate.

The flag symbolizes a Southern society that regrettably included slavery as a component. To write the usage and display of the Confederate flag off as hateful because of this component, however, is a buffoonish ill informed conclusion.

Former Civil Rights Leader Defends Flying Confederate Flag

As for the rest of your post - sorry - I'll try and contain myself ...lmao

If you want to blame someone for equating that flag with racism & hatred, you need to blame those racists and hate-mongers who co-opted the flag as their symbol.

The swastika had a long history that had nothing to do with hatred. In fact, for a while is was a good luck symbol. But it was co-opted by the Nazis and will forever be attached to their insanity.

 

[Samson]

Sil, they can't hear you. Ever. This is never going to happen. The people who believe Benghazi is important are locked on that thought, and no information will sway them.

It's just like when they thought Romney was going to win. The minute he didn't win "Oh, the election was fixed." Or "racists voted for a black man again, what a surprise."

I have too many friends on the right to get too happy in here, but that's what I see.

I hear you. I guess they'll just have to suffer the losses they're going to face. Really, nothing is more of a yawn that this topic. I just hear the word "Benghazi" and it's like kneejerk. Anger first at the GOP's hypocrisy and the Iraq invasion that killed so many more, and then just instant revulsion, *switch the channel*

Clearly the GOP is obsessed at this well-timed "terrorist" attack before the 2012 election. Ant the reasons for their obsession are beginning to become obvious and disturbing.. The only party that well-timed attack would favor, statistically, is the GOP. Chilling when you think about how they're attacking the dems about it now..

::cough:: "Reagan" ::cough-cough:: "Beirut" ::cough::

Ironic.

Especially in light of this Thread's Title.

 

[Papageorgio]

The old guard at the GOP learns slow... Maybe they're senile?

WASHINGTON) -- Republicans are again calling for a joint committee to investigate the Obama administration's handling of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya on Sept. 11, 2012 that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire say that there are still no clear answers as to what happened on the night of the siege that was initially blamed on a mob protesting an anti-Islam film produced in the U.S.

GOP lawmakers have charged the White House with trying to cover up the facts in order to burnish President Obama's foreign policy credentials during a heated reelection bid.

Speaking for his colleagues, McCain told reporters at a press briefing Wednesday, "We will not stop until this issue is completely well known to the American people.

Read On ABC News Radio: GOP Senators Pushing Again for Joint Committee on*Benghazi - Politics News - ABC News Radio

So, yeah. We get it. You want to witch hunt Hillary & the dems over this curiously manufactured crisis that happened, again, on "9-11" just on the eve of a pivotal election year 2012.

We all know about how middle voter people tend to vote when they are afraid of a crisis: republican, obviously...the "father figure" party. So what were terrorists thinking striking so close to a pivotal American election when doing so would surely give the GOP an advantage...when they know the GOP is the party all-about invading their countries, meddling in their affairs and all about oil? Doesn't add up.

Anyway...

Even if it did make sense and the dems were negligent, it's OLD NEWS and the GOP's illegal invasion of Iraq where tens of thousands were killed pales the story of Benghazi, where less than 10 Americans were killed.

Again, doesn't add up.

The more the GOP harps on Benghazi, the more people in the middle will lean left. It has become beyond obvious what is going on. If the GOP wants a chance, they should pay attention to the yawns and the switching of channels when they start up on it again. It's hard to stump to a crowd when they're walking away..

Very funny, I wonder why the left wants this dropped so bad, if it is REALLY no big deal, the left wouldn't be trying to bury it.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

 

[mudwhistle]

Dude, everyone knows the GOP cut funding.

There just wasn't enough left after Obama paid off the unions and spent $1.4 billion a year on himself and his family.

They didn't have any money left to fly them out of there, nor did they even have the money to give the security guards guns.

It's actually the Tea Party's fault, cuz they're racist, homophobic, terrorists. They won't let Obama spend whatever he wants.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The old guard at the GOP learns slow... Maybe they're senile?

WASHINGTON) -- Republicans are again calling for a joint committee to investigate the Obama administration's handling of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya on Sept. 11, 2012 that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire say that there are still no clear answers as to what happened on the night of the siege that was initially blamed on a mob protesting an anti-Islam film produced in the U.S.

GOP lawmakers have charged the White House with trying to cover up the facts in order to burnish President Obama's foreign policy credentials during a heated reelection bid.

Speaking for his colleagues, McCain told reporters at a press briefing Wednesday, "We will not stop until this issue is completely well known to the American people.

Read On ABC News Radio: GOP Senators Pushing Again for Joint Committee on*Benghazi - Politics News - ABC News Radio

So, yeah. We get it. You want to witch hunt Hillary & the dems over this curiously manufactured crisis that happened, again, on "9-11" just on the eve of a pivotal election year 2012.

We all know about how middle voter people tend to vote when they are afraid of a crisis: republican, obviously...the "father figure" party. So what were terrorists thinking striking so close to a pivotal American election when doing so would surely give the GOP an advantage...when they know the GOP is the party all-about invading their countries, meddling in their affairs and all about oil? Doesn't add up.

Anyway...

Even if it did make sense and the dems were negligent, it's OLD NEWS and the GOP's illegal invasion of Iraq where tens of thousands were killed pales the story of Benghazi, where less than 10 Americans were killed.

Again, doesn't add up.

The more the GOP harps on Benghazi, the more people in the middle will lean left. It has become beyond obvious what is going on. If the GOP wants a chance, they should pay attention to the yawns and the switching of channels when they start up on it again. It's hard to stump to a crowd when they're walking away..

Since the once and no more GOP feels old news is good news one need only remember their Messiah Ronald Reagan's greatest failure, when his negligence cause the deaths of 220 Marines, 18 sailors and three soldiers in Beirut in 1983.

Or G.W. Bush sending American troops into Iraq without the means to protect themselves from IEP's ( "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time," Mr. Rumsfeld said.)! See:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/08/international/middleeast/08cnd-rumsfeld.html?_r=0

 

[Silhouette]

Very funny, I wonder why the left wants this dropped so bad, if it is REALLY no big deal, the left wouldn't be trying to bury it.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

Read some of my threads and decide where my political affiliation is. The MIDDLE is sick of it. Yes, the left may be freaking out but we in the middle are bored to death with it.

 

[Samson]

The old guard at the GOP learns slow... Maybe they're senile?

WASHINGTON) -- Republicans are again calling for a joint committee to investigate the Obama administration's handling of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya on Sept. 11, 2012 that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire say that there are still no clear answers as to what happened on the night of the siege that was initially blamed on a mob protesting an anti-Islam film produced in the U.S.

GOP lawmakers have charged the White House with trying to cover up the facts in order to burnish President Obama's foreign policy credentials during a heated reelection bid.

Speaking for his colleagues, McCain told reporters at a press briefing Wednesday, "We will not stop until this issue is completely well known to the American people.

Read On ABC News Radio: GOP Senators Pushing Again for Joint Committee on*Benghazi - Politics News - ABC News Radio

So, yeah. We get it. You want to witch hunt Hillary & the dems over this curiously manufactured crisis that happened, again, on "9-11" just on the eve of a pivotal election year 2012.

We all know about how middle voter people tend to vote when they are afraid of a crisis: republican, obviously...the "father figure" party. So what were terrorists thinking striking so close to a pivotal American election when doing so would surely give the GOP an advantage...when they know the GOP is the party all-about invading their countries, meddling in their affairs and all about oil? Doesn't add up.

Anyway...

Even if it did make sense and the dems were negligent, it's OLD NEWS and the GOP's illegal invasion of Iraq where tens of thousands were killed pales the story of Benghazi, where less than 10 Americans were killed.

Again, doesn't add up.

The more the GOP harps on Benghazi, the more people in the middle will lean left. It has become beyond obvious what is going on. If the GOP wants a chance, they should pay attention to the yawns and the switching of channels when they start up on it again. It's hard to stump to a crowd when they're walking away..

Since the once and no more GOP feels old news is good news one need only remember their Messiah Ronald Reagan's greatest failure, when his negligence cause the deaths of 220 Marines, 18 sailors and three soldiers in Beirut in 1983.

Or G.W. Bush sending American troops into Iraq without the means to protect themselves from IEP's ( "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time," Mr. Rumsfeld said.)! See:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/08/international/middleeast/08cnd-rumsfeld.html?_r=0

Sure, start a thread, see how much interest there is.......

 

[Wry Catcher]

The old guard at the GOP learns slow... Maybe they're senile?

WASHINGTON) -- Republicans are again calling for a joint committee to investigate the Obama administration's handling of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya on Sept. 11, 2012 that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire say that there are still no clear answers as to what happened on the night of the siege that was initially blamed on a mob protesting an anti-Islam film produced in the U.S.

GOP lawmakers have charged the White House with trying to cover up the facts in order to burnish President Obama's foreign policy credentials during a heated reelection bid.

Speaking for his colleagues, McCain told reporters at a press briefing Wednesday, "We will not stop until this issue is completely well known to the American people.

Read On ABC News Radio: GOP Senators Pushing Again for Joint Committee on*Benghazi - Politics News - ABC News Radio

So, yeah. We get it. You want to witch hunt Hillary & the dems over this curiously manufactured crisis that happened, again, on "9-11" just on the eve of a pivotal election year 2012.

We all know about how middle voter people tend to vote when they are afraid of a crisis: republican, obviously...the "father figure" party. So what were terrorists thinking striking so close to a pivotal American election when doing so would surely give the GOP an advantage...when they know the GOP is the party all-about invading their countries, meddling in their affairs and all about oil? Doesn't add up.

Anyway...

Even if it did make sense and the dems were negligent, it's OLD NEWS and the GOP's illegal invasion of Iraq where tens of thousands were killed pales the story of Benghazi, where less than 10 Americans were killed.

Again, doesn't add up.

The more the GOP harps on Benghazi, the more people in the middle will lean left. It has become beyond obvious what is going on. If the GOP wants a chance, they should pay attention to the yawns and the switching of channels when they start up on it again. It's hard to stump to a crowd when they're walking away..

Very funny, I wonder why the left wants this dropped so bad, if it is REALLY no big deal, the left wouldn't be trying to bury it.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

"The Left" doesn't speak with one voice, that's what defines the echo chamber, a set of of 'parrots' who hold opinions fed to them by the propagandists of the vast right wing conspiracy, focused on fundamentally changing America into an Oligarchy.

Behghazzzzzzzzi is one more manufactured 'scandal' within an entire host of unproven allegations which has dominated the debate since President Obama was nominated by the Democratic Party.