U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (1 Viewer)

[SaintsInDome2006]

Gregory Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the attack, will apparently back up that charge. This weekend, Rep. Darryl Issa (R-Calif.), who heads the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, revealed some of what Hicks told congressional investigators: “My jaw hit the floor as I watched [Rice speak] .... I’ve never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career, as on that day. . . . I never reported a demonstration; I reported an attack on the consulate.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-a-benghazi-bombshell/2013/05/06/d7a4e3fe-b651-11e2-92f3-f291801936b8_story.html

I still think the most notable fact here is that the Secretary of State was not speaking on this but UN Ambassador Rice was.

This is the essence of plausible deniability but this was horribly done.

 

[timschochet]

I am really interested in hearing Hustlers answer about the jets with rockets, bombs and guns. This should be pretty classic.

An AC-130 would have been more than capable of dispersing the crowd; it has been reported that the (ex)seal(s) at the CIA Annex had laser illuminators. An AC-130 has a range of over 2,500 miles.

How fast does an AC-130 fly and where was the closest one, Eisenhower?

The post I replied to had to do with a jet providing cover; I never said in this particular case it would be feasible. Since you have top secret access why don't you tell us where the "closest" AC-130 was located.

You're a lot like Tim only you never know what the hell you are talking about.

Wait- was that a compliment (to me) or an insult? Hmm.

 

[timschochet]

This is a problem for Obama because why else would they have spent so much effort shoehorning this into the bogus video claim?

These things do have an effect, even if presidents are not deposed.

Nixon was deposed but they had LIVE tape on the guy, no way that happens here.

They may have emails on Obama & Co. though.

These things do have an electoral effect:

- Iraq War - Bush Jr. & GOP ended up losing Congress and the WH 2006-08 and the effects are still being felt. Part of it was the handling of the war itself post-victory, but much of it had to do with mistrust over WMD. Issue: Lies.

- Bush's 'no new taxes pledge' broken - well he went down in a party schism. Issue: Lies.

- Clinton's subborning of perjury (aka Lewinskygate) - Clinton was impeached and lost control of Congress, with a few variations a Southern quasi-Republican whose presidency people of both parties still seem pretty happy with to this day, maybe because the Congress for once took the reins back from the imperial presidency. Issue: Lies.

- Carter & 'who lost Iran' - in came Reagan. Issue: incompetence.

- Truman & 'who lost China' - Truman hung on for reelection but the Congress went heavily Republican. Issue: incompetence.

- Nixon & Watergate - delayed the GOP surge and brought in Carter. Issue: Lies.

Obama won with fewer votes and fewer electoral votes in his 2nd term, the only time that has happened in modern history, and he got a very big boost by the media being hyperfocused on Sandy in the closing week, with a slight assist from Candy Crowley. He has a health care bill that is a fiscal albatross in 2014 and which he had to pass with the promise of an executive order for Congreesmen on the fence because of the abortion issue, and he has an immigration law that was done by executive order with no Congressional approval. He has no other agenda victories.

Possible lies and incompetence arise here. Most likely Obama and his political team felt they had to shield themselves from events in Libya in order to secure victory in Novemer 2012. It's sad but that's what happened, now whether he really needed to do that I don't know but they clearly felt that way. He's gotten through this one time before with the selling of the Senate seat by Blagojevich, I am not sure he can just keep tripping around like this. Of course he won't be forced out of office but there will be damage and there already has been, just look how his team is acting.

Strongly disagree with your analysis:

1. The Iraq War hurt Republicans because the public didn't see a positive outcome and it went on and on, like Vietnam. The lies involved in getting into it in the first place were a peripheral issue, not a primary reason for the change in public attitude.

2. The main reason Bush Sr. lost in 1992 was not because of "no new taxes", but because the public rarely allows more than 12 years of the same political party to hold the presidency. Usually it's only 8. After that, there is a yearn for something new.

3. Clinton did not lose control of Congress over Lewinsky. Clinton lost control in 1994; Lewinsky happened in 1998.

4. Carter lost in 1980 for 3 reasons: inflation, the great charisma of Ronald Reagan, and Iran. Of the 3, Iran was the least important.

5. The Democrats lost the Congress in 1946, not 1948, when "Who lost China?" became an issue. The main reason they lost was because the public, after 14 years of government control by Democrats, wanted a change.

6. Nixon was forced out by Watergate, but in all likelihood a Democrat would have been elected President in 1976 anyhow, after 8 years of a Republican.

So in conclusion I really dispute the notion that these sort of issues ever have a lasting effect on Presidential politics. Certainly this one won't.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

It was an Obama problem pre-election... but now the GOP has conveniently made it all about Clinton.

Hacks

 

[Carolina Hustler]

sporthenry, on 07 May 2013 - 11:34, said:

Carolina Hustler, on 07 May 2013 - 09:56, said:

QuoteState Department and White House spokespeople initially blamed the attack, which occurred less than two months before presidential elections, on a mob that formed spontaneously in response to an anti-Muslim video that appeared on the Internet.But several members of Congress say the initial assessment of the CIA that the attack was an operation by al-Qaeda linked terrorists was edited out of talking points disseminated by the Obama administration to the American public."It was scrubbed, it was totally inaccurate, there's no excuse for that," Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass

See this is what I'm talking about. I thought a couple pages back, we said we wanted to know why security wasn't beefed up or why no military responded. After getting some of your theories debunked, you jump back to the talking points crap. This is why Republicans lose credibility b/c after one allegation is refuted, they just jump to another one. So did we establish that the military response was adequate? Here is a hint. Most people don't give a #### what it was labeled in the immediate hours after the attack. Most people realized the investigation would eventually bring to light who did it, but I guess you conspiracy theorists really think the government was just going to lie to us forever about it but that doesn't seem plausible in today's society.

Guess you didn't recognize that Stephen Lynch was a democrat...And guess what, my "theories" weren't debunked.. You guys posted a bunch of contested statements by the administration that is basically under investigation as your proof..My theory is that we don't know the truth, debunk that.. Proof of lies above and you assume everything your party says is the truth.. You're theories have been debunked..

 

[jamny]

I'm just wondering how they're coming along in finding out who did this.

Or should we all just be saying "It happened a long time ago" "what difference does it make"

 

[tommyGunZ]

Can't imagine there is a bigger, more glaring example of the ridiculous media bias in this country than with this story.Sad that people on this board and in this administration would rather mock the tragedy than figure out what happened.

We're you outraged about Abu Ghraib? How about Valerie Plame?

So similar to Benghazi right?

The similarity is pretty obvious. It's a political story that partisans jump on because they're positive that the President did something evil and wrong. So there's hearings and a search for a smoking gun, and there is no result- because there is no smoking gun, and nobody really cares anyhow.

Here are some others in the past 30 years:

Started by Democrats against a Republican President:

October Surprise

Iran-Contra

Support for El Salvador's death squads

Downing Street Memo

George W. Bush's military record

Abu Ghraib

Valerie Plame

Started by Republicans against a Democrat President:

Whitewater

Travel Office firings

Death of Vince Foster

FBI files

Monica Lewinsky

Fast and Furious

Benghazi

After a while, these investigations all start to run together. They're all so similar, and so boring. And partisans are always positive that they're going to bring the President down. And nothing ever happens.

Those lists aren't even in the same universe.

 

[timschochet]

Can't imagine there is a bigger, more glaring example of the ridiculous media bias in this country than with this story.Sad that people on this board and in this administration would rather mock the tragedy than figure out what happened.

We're you outraged about Abu Ghraib? How about Valerie Plame?

So similar to Benghazi right?

The similarity is pretty obvious. It's a political story that partisans jump on because they're positive that the President did something evil and wrong. So there's hearings and a search for a smoking gun, and there is no result- because there is no smoking gun, and nobody really cares anyhow.

Here are some others in the past 30 years:

Started by Democrats against a Republican President:

October Surprise

Iran-Contra

Support for El Salvador's death squads

Downing Street Memo

George W. Bush's military record

Abu Ghraib

Valerie Plame

Started by Republicans against a Democrat President:

Whitewater

Travel Office firings

Death of Vince Foster

FBI files

Monica Lewinsky

Fast and Furious

Benghazi

After a while, these investigations all start to run together. They're all so similar, and so boring. And partisans are always positive that they're going to bring the President down. And nothing ever happens.

Those lists aren't even in the same universe.

In other words, you find most of the first list believable and the second list ludicrous, of course.

But I really don't care, because that wasn't my point. My point is: there was a time when every item on both lists was predicted by partisans to bring down the President, and none of them ever did. It's very difficult to bring down the President. Benghazi won't do it, that's for sure.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I think the GOP is more concerned at this point with making Hillary look bad to hurt her chances in 2016. And given her culpability here, it might not be that hard, but the question is how much of it will stick to her in the long run, given the public's ambivalence towards this story combined with the media's willingness to always give the Democrats a pass.

 

[timschochet]

I think the GOP is more concerned at this point with making Hillary look bad to hurt her chances in 2016. And given her culpability here, it might not be that hard, but the question is how much of it will stick to her in the long run, given the public's ambivalence towards this story combined with the media's willingness to always give the Democrats a pass.

The public ambivalence is real. But the bolded part of your sentence is a myth. I know conservatives love to tell each other that this "pass" exists, but it doesn't. If there is a real scandal out there that the public is interested in, the press will be all over it even if it's a Democrat. (see Monica Lewinsky, or John Edwards.) The public doesn't care about this story so the media doesn't care either.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I am neither a conservative nor a liberal (believe it or not, it is possible to not be either, which baffles many in this day and age where everything has to be one extreme or the other), so don't dare lump me into that category.

The public probably would care more about this story if the media covered it more (although I agree that most Americans don't give a #### about attacks like this if they don't happen here in the States). You have it backwards. I am not saying the public would care as much about it as they do the Jodi Arias case, but concern would most certainly be higher. I think it says more about their love for Obama than it does about a specific liberal bias. Besides, Edwards and Monica were sex scandals, and the media absolutely loves those, no matter where they come from.

 

[sporthenry]

I think the GOP is more concerned at this point with making Hillary look bad to hurt her chances in 2016. And given her culpability here, it might not be that hard, but the question is how much of it will stick to her in the long run, given the public's ambivalence towards this story combined with the media's willingness to always give the Democrats a pass.

The public ambivalence is real. But the bolded part of your sentence is a myth. I know conservatives love to tell each other that this "pass" exists, but it doesn't. If there is a real scandal out there that the public is interested in, the press will be all over it even if it's a Democrat. (see Monica Lewinsky, or John Edwards.) The public doesn't care about this story so the media doesn't care either.

Agreed. If the public cared, the media would cover it b/c it would drive ratings. Not to mention, I thought this is what Fox News was made for. They can put any conservative spin they want to put on it.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Honestly, I'll bet Hillary is seething over this. Had they been forthright from the start when this first happened last September, I doubt this would even be a story still, but they had to duck, evade and misdirect to make sure that it didn't ruin Obama's reelection, and it might be at the cost of Hillary's chances in 2016 (if things goes badly and this does stick to her), and you know that has to be burning her ### like crazy considering the Clintons and Obamas privately are not fond of each other (even though they play nice publicly for the sake of the party).

 

[tommyboy]

This is gonna get ugly tomorrow

 

[sporthenry]

This is gonna get ugly tomorrow

How? You just have the whisteblowers testifying. I guess they can bring back Panetta and Dempsey at a later date but until then it is just he said, he said. I'm sure some will run with what they say, even though they cautioned earlier about only hearing one side of the story when Panetta and Dempsey spoke, but I suspect not much will come of it. You'll get your 30 second sound byte on the national news. Fox News will cover it all night and however long they want to and we'll resume our regularly scheduled programming everywhere else.

 

[Widbil83]

Holy crap. People are still talking about this?

Better come up with some stronger juice before 2016 GOPers. If this is all you got Hillary's a shoe in.

I don't think the whistleblowers tomorrow will care much about Hillary in 2016. She only left them to die.

 

[Novice2]

Has that offensive YouTube video been taken down yet?

 

[Novice2]

New information will be publicly made today says CNN!

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Honestly, I'll bet Hillary is seething over this. Had they been forthright from the start when this first happened last September, I doubt this would even be a story still, but they had to duck, evade and misdirect to make sure that it didn't ruin Obama's reelection, and it might be at the cost of Hillary's chances in 2016 (if things goes badly and this does stick to her), and you know that has to be burning her ### like crazy considering the Clintons and Obamas privately are not fond of each other (even though they play nice publicly for the sake of the party).

You're kidding, right? Obama had to cover up this debacle because he was up for re-election. I was certain Hill was asked to resign. If it were Donald Trump, he would have taken great pleasure to tell her, "YOU'RE FIRED!"

 

[pittstownkiller]

I think the GOP is more concerned at this point with making Hillary look bad to hurt her chances in 2016. And given her culpability here, it might not be that hard, but the question is how much of it will stick to her in the long run, given the public's ambivalence towards this story combined with the media's willingness to always give the Democrats a pass.

The public ambivalence is real. But the bolded part of your sentence is a myth. I know conservatives love to tell each other that this "pass" exists, but it doesn't. If there is a real scandal out there that the public is interested in, the press will be all over it even if it's a Democrat. (see Monica Lewinsky, or John Edwards.) The public doesn't care about this story so the media doesn't care either.

Wasn't Edwards affair initially hidden by one of the big three (CBS, I think)?

 

[Novice2]

I think the GOP is more concerned at this point with making Hillary look bad to hurt her chances in 2016. And given her culpability here, it might not be that hard, but the question is how much of it will stick to her in the long run, given the public's ambivalence towards this story combined with the media's willingness to always give the Democrats a pass.

The public ambivalence is real. But the bolded part of your sentence is a myth. I know conservatives love to tell each other that this "pass" exists, but it doesn't. If there is a real scandal out there that the public is interested in, the press will be all over it even if it's a Democrat. (see Monica Lewinsky, or John Edwards.) The public doesn't care about this story so the media doesn't care either.

Wasn't Edwards affair initially hidden by one of the big three (CBS, I think)?

nope never happened.

 

[pittstownkiller]

I think the GOP is more concerned at this point with making Hillary look bad to hurt her chances in 2016. And given her culpability here, it might not be that hard, but the question is how much of it will stick to her in the long run, given the public's ambivalence towards this story combined with the media's willingness to always give the Democrats a pass.

The public ambivalence is real. But the bolded part of your sentence is a myth. I know conservatives love to tell each other that this "pass" exists, but it doesn't. If there is a real scandal out there that the public is interested in, the press will be all over it even if it's a Democrat. (see Monica Lewinsky, or John Edwards.) The public doesn't care about this story so the media doesn't care either.

Wasn't Edwards affair initially hidden by one of the big three (CBS, I think)?

nope never happened.

 

[pittstownkiller]

I think the GOP is more concerned at this point with making Hillary look bad to hurt her chances in 2016. And given her culpability here, it might not be that hard, but the question is how much of it will stick to her in the long run, given the public's ambivalence towards this story combined with the media's willingness to always give the Democrats a pass.

The public ambivalence is real. But the bolded part of your sentence is a myth. I know conservatives love to tell each other that this "pass" exists, but it doesn't. If there is a real scandal out there that the public is interested in, the press will be all over it even if it's a Democrat. (see Monica Lewinsky, or John Edwards.) The public doesn't care about this story so the media doesn't care either.

Wasn't Edwards affair initially hidden by one of the big three (CBS, I think)?

nope never happened.

Lewinsky was also talked down, until "the dress" was produced.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

I tell you, it is very unlucky to work for Hillary.

 

[pantherclub]

I think the GOP is more concerned at this point with making Hillary look bad to hurt her chances in 2016. And given her culpability here, it might not be that hard, but the question is how much of it will stick to her in the long run, given the public's ambivalence towards this story combined with the media's willingness to always give the Democrats a pass.

The public ambivalence is real. But the bolded part of your sentence is a myth. I know conservatives love to tell each other that this "pass" exists, but it doesn't. If there is a real scandal out there that the public is interested in, the press will be all over it even if it's a Democrat. (see Monica Lewinsky, or John Edwards.) The public doesn't care about this story so the media doesn't care either.

Wasn't Edwards affair initially hidden by one of the big three (CBS, I think)?

nope never happened.

Lewinsky was also talked down, until "the dress" was produced.

Christalmighty dude, what world are you living in?

 

[pittstownkiller]

I think the GOP is more concerned at this point with making Hillary look bad to hurt her chances in 2016. And given her culpability here, it might not be that hard, but the question is how much of it will stick to her in the long run, given the public's ambivalence towards this story combined with the media's willingness to always give the Democrats a pass.

The public ambivalence is real. But the bolded part of your sentence is a myth. I know conservatives love to tell each other that this "pass" exists, but it doesn't. If there is a real scandal out there that the public is interested in, the press will be all over it even if it's a Democrat. (see Monica Lewinsky, or John Edwards.) The public doesn't care about this story so the media doesn't care either.

Wasn't Edwards affair initially hidden by one of the big three (CBS, I think)?

nope never happened.

Lewinsky was also talked down, until "the dress" was produced.

Christalmighty dude, what world are you living in?

The one where I watch the news. Are you honestly saying that Lewinsky was covered in earnest before the dress was produced?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Still confused what the conspiracy is supposed to be here. False flag?

For starters..[/Alex Jones]

 

[GroveDiesel]

I think the GOP is more concerned at this point with making Hillary look bad to hurt her chances in 2016. And given her culpability here, it might not be that hard, but the question is how much of it will stick to her in the long run, given the public's ambivalence towards this story combined with the media's willingness to always give the Democrats a pass.

The public ambivalence is real. But the bolded part of your sentence is a myth. I know conservatives love to tell each other that this "pass" exists, but it doesn't. If there is a real scandal out there that the public is interested in, the press will be all over it even if it's a Democrat. (see Monica Lewinsky, or John Edwards.) The public doesn't care about this story so the media doesn't care either.

Wasn't Edwards affair initially hidden by one of the big three (CBS, I think)?

nope never happened.

I hope you're being sarcastic. The Enquirer was the one that had to break the story and they were immediately ripped by the Big 3.

 

[RBM]

Hey Tim, please contact this mother and set her straight. This is a non story and to move on.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/05/07/mother_of_slain_benghazi_victim_rips_hillary_clinton_i_blame_her.html

 

[RBM]

Has that offensive YouTube video been taken down yet?

I think they are still holding the filmmaker just in case.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Has that offensive YouTube video been taken down yet?

I think they are still holding the filmmaker just in case.

I do not know what charges he is being held under but having him pulled out of his house in the middle of the night was a rather low-point for the Administration.

 

[pantagrapher]

Did Brietbart find teh secret tapes?

 

[pantagrapher]

Holy crap. People are still talking about this?

Better come up with some stronger juice before 2016 GOPers. If this is all you got Hillary's a shoe in.

Darrel Issa's jaw hit the floor, this is gonna be huge!

 

[RBM]

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) wrote Tuesday he believes major revelations about the lead up to the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, are imminent, in a Facebook message:

“I think the dam is about to break on Benghazi. We’re going to find a system failure before, during, and after the attacks.

“We’re going to find political manipulation seven weeks before an election. We’re going to find people asleep at the switch when it comes to the State Department, including Hillary Clinton.

“The bond that has been broken between those who serve us in harms way and the government they serve is huge — and to me every bit as damaging as Watergate.”

 

[pantagrapher]

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) wrote Tuesday he believes major revelations about the lead up to the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, are imminent, in a Facebook message:“I think the dam is about to break on Benghazi. We’re going to find a system failure before, during, and after the attacks.“We’re going to find political manipulation seven weeks before an election. We’re going to find people asleep at the switch when it comes to the State Department, including Hillary Clinton.“The bond that has been broken between those who serve us in harms way and the government they serve is huge — and to me every bit as damaging as Watergate.”

Well if they convinced Lindsay Graham that's it. IMPEACH

 

[CrossEyed]

Holy crap. People are still talking about this?

Jay Carney, is that you?

 

[timschochet]

Hey Tim, please contact this mother and set her straight. This is a non story and to move on.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/05/07/mother_of_slain_benghazi_victim_rips_hillary_clinton_i_blame_her.html

Do you believe we should listen to the Newtown parents regarding gun control issues?

 

[Ghost Rider]

Hey Tim, please contact this mother and set her straight. This is a non story and to move on.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/05/07/mother_of_slain_benghazi_victim_rips_hillary_clinton_i_blame_her.html

Do you believe we should listen to the Newtown parents regarding gun control issues?

Apples and oranges.

Parents of kids killed by gun violence voicing their opinions on gun laws is very different than a mother wanting to know why her son was killed in a terrorist attack where security was lacking, despite being asked for repeatedly. Both scenarios are very sad, and no one should have to go through either of them ever.

 

[timschochet]

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) wrote Tuesday he believes major revelations about the lead up to the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, are imminent, in a Facebook message:I think the dam is about to break on Benghazi. Were going to find a system failure before, during, and after the attacks.Were going to find political manipulation seven weeks before an election. Were going to find people asleep at the switch when it comes to the State Department, including Hillary Clinton.The bond that has been broken between those who serve us in harms way and the government they serve is huge and to me every bit as damaging as Watergate.

It won't help him. No matter how tough Graham and McCain appear on this issue, they'll still be regarded as RINOs by most conservatives, mainly because of their stance on immigration. Remember when I posted those two lists of scandals earlier? In everyone of them, "as damaging as Watergate" or a similar phrase was used by a prominent politician.

 

[timschochet]

Hey Tim, please contact this mother and set her straight. This is a non story and to move on.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/05/07/mother_of_slain_benghazi_victim_rips_hillary_clinton_i_blame_her.html

Do you believe we should listen to the Newtown parents regarding gun control issues?

Parents of kids killed by gun violence voicing their opinions on gun laws is very different than a mother wanting to know why her son was killed in a terrorist attack where security was lacking, despite being asked for repeatedly. Both scenarios are very sad, and no one should have to go through either of them ever.

 

[timschochet]

Hey Tim, please contact this mother and set her straight. This is a non story and to move on.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/05/07/mother_of_slain_benghazi_victim_rips_hillary_clinton_i_blame_her.html

Do you believe we should listen to the Newtown parents regarding gun control issues?

Parents of kids killed by gun violence voicing their opinions on gun laws is very different than a mother wanting to know why her son was killed in a terrorist attack where security was lacking, despite being asked for repeatedly. Both scenarios are very sad, and no one should have to go through either of them ever.

RBM's post is supposed to make me feel shame, as if by my attitude on this scandal, I am unsympathetic to this woman, and spitting on her loss. That was the expect same purpose of having the Newtown parents testify in public. It's a call to emotion.

Apples and oranges.

 

[timschochet]

I am neither a conservative nor a liberal (believe it or not, it is possible to not be either, which baffles many in this day and age where everything has to be one extreme or the other), so don't dare lump me into that category.

The public probably would care more about this story if the media covered it more (although I agree that most Americans don't give a #### about attacks like this if they don't happen here in the States). You have it backwards. I am not saying the public would care as much about it as they do the Jodi Arias case, but concern would most certainly be higher. I think it says more about their love for Obama than it does about a specific liberal bias. Besides, Edwards and Monica were sex scandals, and the media absolutely loves those, no matter where they come from.

I didn't call you a conservative (I have no idea what your politics are.) I merely stated that your comment, "the media's willingness to always give Democrats a pass" is a conservative meme.

 

[greenroom]

Hey Tim, please contact this mother and set her straight. This is a non story and to move on.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/05/07/mother_of_slain_benghazi_victim_rips_hillary_clinton_i_blame_her.html

Do you believe we should listen to the Newtown parents regarding gun control issues?

Apples and oranges.

Parents of kids killed by gun violence voicing their opinions on gun laws is very different than a mother wanting to know why her son was killed in a terrorist attack where security was lacking, despite being asked for repeatedly. Both scenarios are very sad, and no one should have to go through either of them ever.

Actually when the son signed up for military duty or if you serve in a government position you know there are risks. Kids getting killed are not signing up for risk so yes it is very different. Not saying that what happened in Benghazi was right. But if you go to a hostile area you put yourself at risk. And we will never know what the truth is as the Republicans are not looking for the truth, they are trying to press an agenda, and yes the Dems are pushing their own agenda on this topic as well.

 

[RBM]

Hey Tim, please contact this mother and set her straight. This is a non story and to move on.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/05/07/mother_of_slain_benghazi_victim_rips_hillary_clinton_i_blame_her.html

Do you believe we should listen to the Newtown parents regarding gun control issues?

C'mon man, cut the crap. They are not even remotely similar.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Hey Tim, please contact this mother and set her straight. This is a non story and to move on.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/05/07/mother_of_slain_benghazi_victim_rips_hillary_clinton_i_blame_her.html

Do you believe we should listen to the Newtown parents regarding gun control issues?

The President does when he parades a Newtown parent up after the gun control bills fails; including a boxing style introduction for himself.

 

[timschochet]

Hey Tim, please contact this mother and set her straight. This is a non story and to move on.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/05/07/mother_of_slain_benghazi_victim_rips_hillary_clinton_i_blame_her.html

Do you believe we should listen to the Newtown parents regarding gun control issues?

The President does when he parades a Newtown parent up after the gun control bills fails; including a boxing style introduction for himself.

That's my point. I didnt like it.

 

[timschochet]

Hey Tim, please contact this mother and set her straight. This is a non story and to move on.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/05/07/mother_of_slain_benghazi_victim_rips_hillary_clinton_i_blame_her.html

Do you believe we should listen to the Newtown parents regarding gun control issues?

C'mon man, cut the crap. They are not even remotely similar.

You're trying to elicit an emotional response rather than one based on reason. In that sense it's EXACTLY the same.

 

[RBM]

Hey Tim, please contact this mother and set her straight. This is a non story and to move on.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/05/07/mother_of_slain_benghazi_victim_rips_hillary_clinton_i_blame_her.html

Do you believe we should listen to the Newtown parents regarding gun control issues?

Apples and oranges.

Parents of kids killed by gun violence voicing their opinions on gun laws is very different than a mother wanting to know why her son was killed in a terrorist attack where security was lacking, despite being asked for repeatedly. Both scenarios are very sad, and no one should have to go through either of them ever.

Actually when the son signed up for military duty or if you serve in a government position you know there are risks. Kids getting killed are not signing up for risk so yes it is very different. Not saying that what happened in Benghazi was right. But if you go to a hostile area you put yourself at risk. And we will never know what the truth is as the Republicans are not looking for the truth, they are trying to press an agenda, and yes the Dems are pushing their own agenda on this topic as well.

I'm sure she understands all that, but does that mean she doesn't deserve a straight story?

 

[pittstownkiller]

Hey Tim, please contact this mother and set her straight. This is a non story and to move on.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/05/07/mother_of_slain_benghazi_victim_rips_hillary_clinton_i_blame_her.html

Do you believe we should listen to the Newtown parents regarding gun control issues?

The President does when he parades a Newtown parent up after the gun control bills fails; including a boxing style introduction for himself.

That's my point. I didnt like it.

People intimately involved in a story will have a microphone shoved in their face, regardless of emotion; can you remember Cindy Sheehan? It doesn't change the story.

 

[Lutherman2112]