Is The Reason For The Most Recent Benghazi Flare Up Political?

[emilynghiem]

Oh my goodness. Yes, there is something there if you let the GOP make up their own facts. But nothing if you rely on the truth.

Note: Not ONE of there rabid far RW bastards has posted ONE new thing that was discovered by this recent Benghazi flare up. Not ONE!

These klowns really are entertaining!

That's because it's a follow up, not a flare up.

Of course it follows the same points, arguments and trajectory as before.

The point has always been that the Democrat leadership in the WH put their political image first before telling the family and public the truth. They went with a spin that would deflect attention, and cleverly also made the Republicans look bad in their response which may be have been unintentional. They continue to use this to try to discredit Republicans instead of focusing on the issues.

So this still shows that politics is more important than resolving what went wrong.

NOTE: I do not believe it was about causing this incident by negligence "directly."
I believe what upsets Republicans is that the political campaign was more important, and high level govt were willing to go with "made stories" for political expedience.

Overall, the IMAGE of Democrats as being REACTIONARY and not pre-emptive in defense can be argued as INVITING enemy forces to attack to TEST the President and US reaction.

 

[MarcATL]

When this iteration of the Benghazi 'scandal' fizzles I wonder if the cons will try another round of the birther strategy?

Virtually every conservative on this forum was a birther until the bitter end, until it became literal insanity to deny the facts, now,

most of them are in the birther? what birther? category.

Yes, you are right. I recall rather clearly that to a man, every RW USMBer were either screaming for, or understanding of those that were screaming for Obama's birth certificate.

Most are still mildly holding on to that nonsense. Just that they've latched on to the more recent Benghazi nonsense now, because in their DELUSIONAL far RW brains, they BELIEVE they actually have something to argue about.



So sad.

*SMH*

 

[boedicca]

When this iteration of the Benghazi 'scandal' fizzles I wonder if the cons will try another round of the birther strategy?

Virtually every conservative on this forum was a birther until the bitter end, until it became literal insanity to deny the facts, now,

most of them are in the birther? what birther? category.

Yes, you are right. I recall rather clearly that to a man, every RW USMBer were either screaming for, or understanding of those that were screaming for Obama's birth certificate.

Most are still mildly holding on to that nonsense. Just that they've latched on to the more recent Benghazi nonsense now, because in their DELUSIONAL far RW brains, they BELIEVE they actually have something to argue about.



So sad.

*SMH*

Right on cue! Do you get a special moonbat bonus today?

Ann Althouse nailed why you all are so intent on painting Benghazi as some fringe issue.

We need people to hear the word "Benghazi" as a buzzword of nuts. Somebody says "Benghazi" and the reflex reaction is "Oh, no, here we go again with the conspiracy theories." It should be like when somebody brings up Area 51 or Vince Foster was murdered. A normal person is like "Ugh! Leave me alone." That's the way "Benghazi" should feel. Somebody says "Benghazi" and all anybody thinks is "conspiracy nutcase." Nobody who wants to be considered mainstream in this election should be able to say "Benghazi" anymore. Case closed, and you've built in the respect for Hillary saying "What difference at this point does it make?" Everybody decent — if we get this idea across — will react to Benghazi with a Hillary-esque exasperated "What difference does it make?" If it makes a difference to you, you're crazy. This is a circus. You're a clown. A scary clown. Boo! Aliens! Benghazi! Vince Foster!

Althouse: Jane Harman recited not the talking points, but the opposite of talking points on Benghazi.


And the more you do it, the more you prove that it is a serious scandal.

 

[Freewill]

Watergate was just as political.

 

[MarcATL]

Oh my goodness. Yes, there is something there if you let the GOP make up their own facts. But nothing if you rely on the truth.

Note: Not ONE of there rabid far RW bastards has posted ONE new thing that was discovered by this recent Benghazi flare up. Not ONE!

These klowns really are entertaining!

That's because it's a follow up, not a flare up.

Of course it follows the same points, arguments and trajectory as before.

The point has always been that the Democrat leadership in the WH put their political image first before telling the family and public the truth. They went with a spin that would deflect attention, and cleverly also made the Republicans look bad in their response which may be have been unintentional. They continue to use this to try to discredit Republicans instead of focusing on the issues.

So this still shows that politics is more important than resolving what went wrong.

NOTE: I do not believe it was about causing this incident by negligence "directly."
I believe what upsets Republicans is that the political campaign was more important, and high level govt were willing to go with "made stories" for political expedience.

Overall, the IMAGE of Democrats as being REACTIONARY and not pre-emptive in defense can be argued as INVITING enemy forces to attack to TEST the President and US reaction.

WRONG. On all counts Emily.

The only people with that Overal Image, are Republicans. That's not surprising.

It's cute how you span flare-up into follow-up, I could learn a thing or two from you.

Flare-up or follow-up, unless you have something NEW to bring to the table, it's just another far RW FOUL-UP.

So what NEW thing do you have to bring to the table on the Benghazi tragedy Emily?

 

[MarcATL]

Watergate was just as political.

No it wasn't.

When all the facts came out, all the Republicans, to a man, came out AGAINST that crook Nixon.

What he did was inexcusable.

That's why his name REMAINS mud today.

 

[boedicca]

Watergate was just as political.

No it wasn't.

When all the facts came out, all the Republicans, to a man, came out AGAINST that crook Nixon.

What he did was inexcusable.

That's why his name REMAINS mud today.

Indeed. The Republicans acted in the best interested of America, unlike the circling mob of cowards that worship The Won.

 

[Freewill]

Watergate was just as political.

No it wasn't.

When all the facts came out, all the Republicans, to a man, came out AGAINST that crook Nixon.

What he did was inexcusable.

That's why his name REMAINS mud today.

Indeed. The Republicans acted in the best interested of America, unlike the circling mob of cowards that worship The Won.

I thought the comment might bring out the fact that the only reason Nixon left is because Republicans see a wrong and fix it. Clinton actually violated the law as has Obama and the democrats support it.

 

[MaxGrit]

Note: Not ONE of there rabid far RW bastards has posted ONE new thing that was discovered by this recent Benghazi flare up. Not ONE!

These klowns really are entertaining!

That's because it's a follow up, not a flare up.

Of course it follows the same points, arguments and trajectory as before.

The point has always been that the Democrat leadership in the WH put their political image first before telling the family and public the truth. They went with a spin that would deflect attention, and cleverly also made the Republicans look bad in their response which may be have been unintentional. They continue to use this to try to discredit Republicans instead of focusing on the issues.

So this still shows that politics is more important than resolving what went wrong.

NOTE: I do not believe it was about causing this incident by negligence "directly."
I believe what upsets Republicans is that the political campaign was more important, and high level govt were willing to go with "made stories" for political expedience.

Overall, the IMAGE of Democrats as being REACTIONARY and not pre-emptive in defense can be argued as INVITING enemy forces to attack to TEST the President and US reaction.

WRONG. On all counts Emily.

The only people with that Overal Image, are Republicans. That's not surprising.

It's cute how you span flare-up into follow-up, I could learn a thing or two from you.

Flare-up or follow-up, unless you have something NEW to bring to the table, it's just another far RW FOUL-UP.

So what NEW thing do you have to bring to the table on the Benghazi tragedy Emily?

A good example by Hillary Clinton on how to spin believable fiction for the MSM.

 

[MarcATL]

Virtually every conservative on this forum was a birther until the bitter end, until it became literal insanity to deny the facts, now,

most of them are in the birther? what birther? category.

Yes, you are right. I recall rather clearly that to a man, every RW USMBer were either screaming for, or understanding of those that were screaming for Obama's birth certificate.

Most are still mildly holding on to that nonsense. Just that they've latched on to the more recent Benghazi nonsense now, because in their DELUSIONAL far RW brains, they BELIEVE they actually have something to argue about.



So sad.

*SMH*

Right on cue! Do you get a special moonbat bonus today?

Ann Althouse nailed why you all are so intent on painting Benghazi as some fringe issue.

We need people to hear the word "Benghazi" as a buzzword of nuts. Somebody says "Benghazi" and the reflex reaction is "Oh, no, here we go again with the conspiracy theories." It should be like when somebody brings up Area 51 or Vince Foster was murdered. A normal person is like "Ugh! Leave me alone." That's the way "Benghazi" should feel. Somebody says "Benghazi" and all anybody thinks is "conspiracy nutcase." Nobody who wants to be considered mainstream in this election should be able to say "Benghazi" anymore. Case closed, and you've built in the respect for Hillary saying "What difference at this point does it make?" Everybody decent — if we get this idea across — will react to Benghazi with a Hillary-esque exasperated "What difference does it make?" If it makes a difference to you, you're crazy. This is a circus. You're a clown. A scary clown. Boo! Aliens! Benghazi! Vince Foster!

Althouse: Jane Harman recited not the talking points, but the opposite of talking points on Benghazi.


And the more you do it, the more you prove that it is a serious scandal.

No JACKASS, it doesn't work that way.

Screaming and wailing that it's a scandal does not make it so, no matter how much you want it to be or in your addled RW brains believe it to be. You have to PROVE something is a serious scandal before it's a serious scandal. JACKASS.

I mean...really!


*SMH*

 

[jillian]

That's because it's a follow up, not a flare up.

Of course it follows the same points, arguments and trajectory as before.

The point has always been that the Democrat leadership in the WH put their political image first before telling the family and public the truth. They went with a spin that would deflect attention, and cleverly also made the Republicans look bad in their response which may be have been unintentional. They continue to use this to try to discredit Republicans instead of focusing on the issues.

So this still shows that politics is more important than resolving what went wrong.

NOTE: I do not believe it was about causing this incident by negligence "directly."
I believe what upsets Republicans is that the political campaign was more important, and high level govt were willing to go with "made stories" for political expedience.

Overall, the IMAGE of Democrats as being REACTIONARY and not pre-emptive in defense can be argued as INVITING enemy forces to attack to TEST the President and US reaction.

WRONG. On all counts Emily.

The only people with that Overal Image, are Republicans. That's not surprising.

It's cute how you span flare-up into follow-up, I could learn a thing or two from you.

Flare-up or follow-up, unless you have something NEW to bring to the table, it's just another far RW FOUL-UP.

So what NEW thing do you have to bring to the table on the Benghazi tragedy Emily?

A good example by Hillary Clinton of how to spin believable fiction for the MSM.

yes.... just like the "unskewed polls" were legitimate and romney really won.

benghaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!

 

[Freewill]

Watergate was just as political.

No it wasn't.

When all the facts came out, all the Republicans, to a man, came out AGAINST that crook Nixon.

What he did was inexcusable.

That's why his name REMAINS mud today.

The whole affair dragged out for months on end this situation sounds surprisingly similar. Obama lied and his administration lied, now we only need know why.

 

[srlip]

OF COURSE WE WOULD. The enemy is the enemy, regardless of what he's pretending to do/be.

 

[boedicca]

Yes, you are right. I recall rather clearly that to a man, every RW USMBer were either screaming for, or understanding of those that were screaming for Obama's birth certificate.

Most are still mildly holding on to that nonsense. Just that they've latched on to the more recent Benghazi nonsense now, because in their DELUSIONAL far RW brains, they BELIEVE they actually have something to argue about.



So sad.

*SMH*

Right on cue! Do you get a special moonbat bonus today?

Ann Althouse nailed why you all are so intent on painting Benghazi as some fringe issue.

We need people to hear the word "Benghazi" as a buzzword of nuts. Somebody says "Benghazi" and the reflex reaction is "Oh, no, here we go again with the conspiracy theories." It should be like when somebody brings up Area 51 or Vince Foster was murdered. A normal person is like "Ugh! Leave me alone." That's the way "Benghazi" should feel. Somebody says "Benghazi" and all anybody thinks is "conspiracy nutcase." Nobody who wants to be considered mainstream in this election should be able to say "Benghazi" anymore. Case closed, and you've built in the respect for Hillary saying "What difference at this point does it make?" Everybody decent — if we get this idea across — will react to Benghazi with a Hillary-esque exasperated "What difference does it make?" If it makes a difference to you, you're crazy. This is a circus. You're a clown. A scary clown. Boo! Aliens! Benghazi! Vince Foster!

Althouse: Jane Harman recited not the talking points, but the opposite of talking points on Benghazi.


And the more you do it, the more you prove that it is a serious scandal.

No JACKASS, it doesn't work that way.

Screaming and wailing that it's a scandal does not make it so, no matter how much you want it to be or in your addled RW brains believe it to be. You have to PROVE something is a serious scandal before it's a serious scandal. JACKASS.

I mean...really!


*SMH*

That's what the Select Committee is for...to get to the truth. And that's why the Dems are shatting all over themselves.

 

[whitehall]

Was "Watergate" political? Noooo, never happen. The hippie and the red diaper baby reporters were just looking for justice. Nobody died in the Watergate Inn. People died in Benghazi and Barry Hussein lied.

 

[MarcATL]

Right on cue! Do you get a special moonbat bonus today?

Ann Althouse nailed why you all are so intent on painting Benghazi as some fringe issue.

We need people to hear the word "Benghazi" as a buzzword of nuts. Somebody says "Benghazi" and the reflex reaction is "Oh, no, here we go again with the conspiracy theories." It should be like when somebody brings up Area 51 or Vince Foster was murdered. A normal person is like "Ugh! Leave me alone." That's the way "Benghazi" should feel. Somebody says "Benghazi" and all anybody thinks is "conspiracy nutcase." Nobody who wants to be considered mainstream in this election should be able to say "Benghazi" anymore. Case closed, and you've built in the respect for Hillary saying "What difference at this point does it make?" Everybody decent — if we get this idea across — will react to Benghazi with a Hillary-esque exasperated "What difference does it make?" If it makes a difference to you, you're crazy. This is a circus. You're a clown. A scary clown. Boo! Aliens! Benghazi! Vince Foster!

Althouse: Jane Harman recited not the talking points, but the opposite of talking points on Benghazi.


And the more you do it, the more you prove that it is a serious scandal.

No JACKASS, it doesn't work that way.

Screaming and wailing that it's a scandal does not make it so, no matter how much you want it to be or in your addled RW brains believe it to be. You have to PROVE something is a serious scandal before it's a serious scandal. JACKASS.

I mean...really!


*SMH*

That's what the Select Committee is for...to get to the truth. And that's why the Dems are shatting all over themselves.

How many more investigations do you people need to "Get to the truth?" There's been 5 conducted already...and you came up snake eyes.

How many more MILLIONS of American tax-payer dollars must we WASTE on this partisan far RW witch-hunt to satisfy your lust?

Hmmmmm...!!?!?!??

 

[Paperman299]

These comparisons to Watergate that keep cropping up are, I think, pretty unjust. All kinds of legitimate news sources were tracking that story from the beginning. After six months, seven men had been convicted of conspiracy and other charges, three of them former White House aides. Some three months after that, four more Nixon aides resigned and his counsel was fired. All of this was covered in detail by the media.

Nearly two years out from the Benghazi attack, and we've yet to see any substantial accusations of criminal wrongdoing. Comparing Watergate and Benghazi because we're at nearly a similar point in time is like claiming any two football games were alike because the lengths of the fields were the same.

 

[RandomVariable]

Anyone going to bring this up in the "investigation"? How did Romney have a statement prepared the same time Clinton announced the first death in the attack? Who did Romney have inside the intern circle of the the ongoing attack? Do not hold this investigation unless Romney is subpoenaed. If Obama was lying then Romney should know all about it. If Romney is not questioned this whole thing is a sham. (We already know the answer to that question though.)

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/12/us/politics/libya-statements.html?_r=0

...
Tuesday, 10:08 p.m.
Clinton Confirms Death of One American in Libya
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton initially announced that one American had been killed in the attack in Libya.

...
Tuesday, 10:24 p.m.
Romney Criticizes Administration's Response
Romney's comment, apparently referring to the embassy statement, was sent to The New York Times about 10:10 p.m., originally embargoed until midnight. The embargo was lifted at 10:24 p.m.

I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.
...

 

[MarcATL]

These comparisons to Watergate that keep cropping up are, I think, pretty unjust. All kinds of legitimate news sources were tracking that story from the beginning. After six months, seven men had been convicted of conspiracy and other charges, three of them former White House aides. Some three months after that, four more Nixon aides resigned and his counsel was fired. All of this was covered in detail by the media.

Nearly two years out from the Benghazi attack, and we've yet to see any substantial accusations of criminal wrongdoing. Comparing Watergate and Benghazi because we're at nearly a similar point in time is like claiming any two football games were alike because the lengths of the fields were the same.

Do you expect anything more from the far RW Republicans?

Really?

 

[HUGGY]

Has the RW media trumped up the recent Benghazi report as another made-up scandal for political reasons to rev up their base for November?

And is it working?

Will the RW base rush to polls in November because of Benghazi?

The question is more to the independents on the fence regarding culpability of the democrat administration. The RW base knew Obama and Hillary were to blame for Benghazi, Fast & Furious, drone murders of American citizens etc.. We'll see if the independents are willing to over look the evidence. We know the democrats are willing to overlook anything that keeps the welfare checks coming.

Ya.. The tragedy caused by terrorists in Benghazi causes the States to grant public assistance.

You do know that you are bat shit crazy...right?

Why don't you move to some African third world country where they offer no public assistance?

EVERY civilized country on the planet offers some form of public assistance to it's less fortunate citizens..

Every country that diverts some funds towards helping the poorest citizens survive also investigates fraud as best they can to mitigate missuse.

If you have actionable evidense someone is stealing DSHS funding you should call your local authorities and tell them what you know. I'm sure we all as will they appreciate your vigilance.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQkpes3dgzg]You Talking To Me? - Taxi Driver 1976 in HD - YouTube[/ame]