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

[tommyGunZ]

Most transparent administration ever?

They probably are.You can't count any administrations prior to the Freedom of Information Act- ALL of them were more secretive. That leaves us Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama. All of these were accused by their enemies of not being transparent enough. All of them had congressional investigations, and in each case Congress complained that getting info was like pulling teeth.

We've seen this game played over and over. Nothing is ever proven, there is never a smoking gun, it's a circus that gets in the way of governance. Only the partisans that hate the President whoever he is seem to love this stuff; the rest of us are bored out of our minds and wish it would just go away. So ####### tiresome.

You are a ####### moron.

Insightful stuff from Grumpy Grandpa as usual.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Most transparent administration ever?

They probably are.You can't count any administrations prior to the Freedom of Information Act- ALL of them were more secretive. That leaves us Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama. All of these were accused by their enemies of not being transparent enough. All of them had congressional investigations, and in each case Congress complained that getting info was like pulling teeth.

We've seen this game played over and over. Nothing is ever proven, there is never a smoking gun, it's a circus that gets in the way of governance. Only the partisans that hate the President whoever he is seem to love this stuff; the rest of us are bored out of our minds and wish it would just go away. So ####### tiresome.

You are a ####### moron.

Insightful stuff from Grumpy Grandpa as usual.

Just slightly more insightful than the propoganda you post.

 

[GrandpaRox]

TGUNZ you just continue to post the BS lies and coverups of this most corrupt administration in my life time. The FFA has become such a cesspool of MSNBC garbage that it is almost unreadable.

You are actually a bigger ####### moron than Tim and that is sayin something.

May as well call the FFA MSNBC LITE.

You have chased all the good posters away, congrats you have helped turn FBG into a worthless site.

See you in another 6 months.

 

[tommyGunZ]

TGUNZ you just continue to post the BS lies and coverups of this most corrupt administration in my life time. The FFA has become such a cesspool of MSNBC garbage that it is almost unreadable.

You are actually a bigger ####### moron than Tim and that is sayin something.

May as well call the FFA MSNBC LITE.

You have chased all the good posters away, congrats you have helped turn FBG into a worthless site.

See you in another 6 months.

Who are you? Is this an alias?

 

[Abraham]

Is this where we come to still not care about this? Or is there another thread for that?

 

[HellToupee]

Grandpa's feisty tonight

 

[timschochet]

TGUNZ you just continue to post the BS lies and coverups of this most corrupt administration in my life time. The FFA has become such a cesspool of MSNBC garbage that it is almost unreadable.

You are actually a bigger ####### moron than Tim and that is sayin something.

May as well call the FFA MSNBC LITE.

You have chased all the good posters away, congrats you have helped turn FBG into a worthless site.

See you in another 6 months.

Who are the "good posters" that tommygunz chased away?

 

[greenroom]

TGUNZ you just continue to post the BS lies and coverups of this most corrupt administration in my life time. The FFA has become such a cesspool of MSNBC garbage that it is almost unreadable.

You are actually a bigger ####### moron than Tim and that is sayin something.

May as well call the FFA MSNBC LITE.

You have chased all the good posters away, congrats you have helped turn FBG into a worthless site.

See you in another 6 months.

What are you smoking. The FFA is all about Fox News and the right wing propaganda. It is amazing when you can actually post a thought that is not relayed from Hannity, Rush or what other fear mongering news site you subscribe to.

 

[Jim11]

Most transparent administration ever?

They probably are.You can't count any administrations prior to the Freedom of Information Act- ALL of them were more secretive. That leaves us Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama. All of these were accused by their enemies of not being transparent enough. All of them had congressional investigations, and in each case Congress complained that getting info was like pulling teeth.

We've seen this game played over and over. Nothing is ever proven, there is never a smoking gun, it's a circus that gets in the way of governance. Only the partisans that hate the President whoever he is seem to love this stuff; the rest of us are bored out of our minds and wish it would just go away. So ####### tiresome.

You can't seriously believe this, Tim. Between Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the IRS Scandal they have been everything BUT transparent.

They're not even translucent.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

You have chased all the good posters away,

 

[timschochet]

Even if you think this is a big deal, even if you think the Obama administration really did something wrong here, don't you already know how this is going to play out? There will be a further investigation by the House (by the Senate next year if the GOP wins). The White House will be accused of not giving information fast enough. Conservatives will point to every revelation and say "THAT'S the smoking gun!". Progressives will dismiss the entire matter. Both sides will scream and shout at each other on talk shows. And the 80% of the public who are not partisans won't pay any attention whatsoever.

There will be no final result. Conservatives will continue to bring up "Benghazi" as a criticism of the Obama Presidency, and it will have just as much impact as Iran-Contra does on the Reagan presidency, and will change just as many people's minds.

All of you know this is going to happen. And as it takes place, you're either going to be pissed or bored off your ###, depending on who you are. So why do you care so much?

 

[Todd Andrews]

BENGHOOFY!1!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!!!!!1!11!!!!!!!!!11!1!!1!!!!11!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!

 

[Courtjester]

Wow, Nixon would have just loved to have guys like Tim and Tommy around during his presidency.

 

[Chaka]

HELP. I AM IN A VIOLENT COUNTRY. I SHOULD BE IN TRIPOLI, BUT IT'S TOO LATE NOW. PLEASE SEND AN AIRSTRIKE. I AM A US AMBASSADOR WHO DOESN'T KNOW THE LAWS OF A DECLARATION OF WAR. I TOOK THE JOB BECAUSE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE GLAMOROUS. LITTLE DID I KNOW THAT I ACTUALLY NEEDED TO KNOW WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE. WHO TOLD ME BENGHAZI WAS DANGEROUS, AND WHERE ARE THE GUARDS?

WTF? Poor form.

 

[Chaka]

TGUNZ you just continue to post the BS lies and coverups of this most corrupt administration in my life time. The FFA has become such a cesspool of MSNBC garbage that it is almost unreadable.

You are actually a bigger ####### moron than Tim and that is sayin something.

May as well call the FFA MSNBC LITE.

You have chased all the good posters away, congrats you have helped turn FBG into a worthless site.

See you in another 6 months.

You're one of those people who thinks Sesame Street is a communist indoctrination program, amiright?

 

[RBM]

Wow, Nixon would have just loved to have guys like Tim and Tommy around during his presidency.

Nixon wasn't black.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Most transparent administration ever?

They probably are. You can't count any administrations prior to the Freedom of Information Act- ALL of them were more secretive. That leaves us Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama. All of these were accused by their enemies of not being transparent enough. All of them had congressional investigations, and in each case Congress complained that getting info was like pulling teeth.

We've seen this game played over and over. Nothing is ever proven, there is never a smoking gun, it's a circus that gets in the way of governance. Only the partisans that hate the President whoever he is seem to love this stuff; the rest of us are bored out of our minds and wish it would just go away. So ####### tiresome.

 

[cstu]

Most transparent administration ever?

They probably are.You can't count any administrations prior to the Freedom of Information Act- ALL of them were more secretive. That leaves us Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama. All of these were accused by their enemies of not being transparent enough. All of them had congressional investigations, and in each case Congress complained that getting info was like pulling teeth.

We've seen this game played over and over. Nothing is ever proven, there is never a smoking gun, it's a circus that gets in the way of governance. Only the partisans that hate the President whoever he is seem to love this stuff; the rest of us are bored out of our minds and wish it would just go away. So ####### tiresome.

Which administration has been more transparent? I'll assume if you can't say and provide any evidence that you believe the Obama administration is the most transparent and all you've got is

 

[Stinger Ray]

Most transparent administration ever?

They probably are.You can't count any administrations prior to the Freedom of Information Act- ALL of them were more secretive. That leaves us Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama. All of these were accused by their enemies of not being transparent enough. All of them had congressional investigations, and in each case Congress complained that getting info was like pulling teeth.

We've seen this game played over and over. Nothing is ever proven, there is never a smoking gun, it's a circus that gets in the way of governance. Only the partisans that hate the President whoever he is seem to love this stuff; the rest of us are bored out of our minds and wish it would just go away. So ####### tiresome.

Which administration has been more transparent? I'll assume if you can't say and provide any evidence that you believe the Obama administration is the most transparent and all you've got is

 

[Stinger Ray]

And he was so transparent when it came to his promise to televise health care negotiations. Oh wait....he broke that promise too.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/02/obama-acknowledges-broken-c-span-promise/

 

[dozer]

Plus he wasn't even born here.

 

[cstu]

And he was so transparent when it came to his promise to televise health care negotiations. Oh wait....he broke that promise too.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/02/obama-acknowledges-broken-c-span-promise/

You laughed at Tim's statement so the burden is on you to show that Obama has been less transparent than other Presidents.

This is not whether he's 100% transparent or broke promises, we can all agree on those.

 

[Stinger Ray]

And he was so transparent when it came to his promise to televise health care negotiations. Oh wait....he broke that promise too.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/02/obama-acknowledges-broken-c-span-promise/

You laughed at Tim's statement so the burden is on you to show that Obama has been less transparent than other Presidents.

This is not whether he's 100% transparent or broke promises, we can all agree those.

I laugh at Tim for many reasons.

 

[Aerial Assault]

So now we've got the wingnuts in here comparing this to Watergate. Yeah, not so comparable.

 

[Stinger Ray]

So now we've got the wingnuts in here comparing this to Watergate. Yeah, not so comparable.

Yep....no one died with Watergate.

 

[Aerial Assault]

So now we've got the wingnuts in here comparing this to Watergate. Yeah, not so comparable.

Yep....no one died with Watergate.

So now we've got the wingnuts in here comparing this to Watergate. Yeah, not so comparable.

Yep....no one died with Watergate.

Got to be parody at this point

 

[Stinger Ray]

So now we've got the wingnuts in here comparing this to Watergate. Yeah, not so comparable.

Yep....no one died with Watergate.

So now we've got the wingnuts in here comparing this to Watergate. Yeah, not so comparable.

Yep....no one died with Watergate.

Got to be parody at this point

I was agreeing with you. They aren't comparable.

 

[MaxThreshold]

HELP. I AM IN A VIOLENT COUNTRY. I SHOULD BE IN TRIPOLI, BUT IT'S TOO LATE NOW. PLEASE SEND AN AIRSTRIKE. I AM A US AMBASSADOR WHO DOESN'T KNOW THE LAWS OF A DECLARATION OF WAR. I TOOK THE JOB BECAUSE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE GLAMOROUS. LITTLE DID I KNOW THAT I ACTUALLY NEEDED TO KNOW WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE. WHO TOLD ME BENGHAZI WAS DANGEROUS, AND WHERE ARE THE GUARDS?

WTF? Poor form.

Although, I'm not surprised it was drummer who made fun of Americans who died in service of their country.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Even if you think this is a big deal, even if you think the Obama administration really did something wrong here, don't you already know how this is going to play out? There will be a further investigation by the House (by the Senate next year if the GOP wins). The White House will be accused of not giving information fast enough. Conservatives will point to every revelation and say "THAT'S the smoking gun!". Progressives will dismiss the entire matter. Both sides will scream and shout at each other on talk shows. And the 80% of the public who are not partisans won't pay any attention whatsoever.

There will be no final result. Conservatives will continue to bring up "Benghazi" as a criticism of the Obama Presidency, and it will have just as much impact as Iran-Contra does on the Reagan presidency, and will change just as many people's minds.

All of you know this is going to happen. And as it takes place, you're either going to be pissed or bored off your ###, depending on who you are. So why do you care so much?

Conservatives will point to every revelation and say "THAT'S the smoking gun!". Progressives will dismiss the entire matter.

I think the problem is that the concept of "success" for the political parties has become whether a president or a program merely survive.

It's kind of sad that some Democrats view the success of the ACA as being that it still exists and that they view the success of President Obama on the fact that he hasn't been made to resign. It's kind of sad that some Republicans view the ACA as something that must be 100% repealed and Pres. Obama as someone who must be impeached.

Beghazi matters because:

• Our embassies were attacked in the late 90's, it was a run-up to the attacks on NYC & DC on 9/11/01. We have a war against terrorists out there still, though perhaps it is really once again becoming more of a war by them against us rather than a 2-way battle. The perpetrators of the Beghazi attack have never been brought to justice. We have done nothing about it, nothing, and I think we all agree that something is called for, including the President who himself personally vowed justice.
• Security: again, we went down this road in the late 90's, protecting our embassies matters, but even today we do not have this covered? Congress, State, GOP, Demo, someone has to answer for this woefully inadequate force.
• Even political foes with poor motives have a right to know what is going on in our government. The problem is that the WH produced one set of documents to Congress, a different set to a federal court. That's a problem.
• The NSA is involved with writing political talking points to fit political goals. No, that should not be happening; that's different from providing intelligence analysis that political advisers then use to write political speeches and appearances.
• Why the hell is the leader of the Joint Chiefs calling a private citizen about his personal religious views and free speech? Did the president order this?
• Why did the SOS make a statement about jailing someone who made a personal movie, and then why later why was that person actually jailed for free speech?
• What was the president doing? Don't we have a right to know this? Has anyone, can anyone, detail one news story or snipped about what our commander in chief did when the sht was hitting the fan? Was he in the Situation Room? No. Was he in personal touch with military and diplomatic personnel? No. Here's something about the issue of air support not being called in - the President should make that call, he has to, it was an attack on a foreign country. The SOS could not make it, the Joint Chiefs of Staff cannot make that call. What was our president doing? Simple question, nobody, not you or the most ardent liberal claims we don't have a right to know.
• We need to ask why was the president still talking about the stupid video 2 weeks after the fact. This is constantly ignored by his supporters, even sometimes by his critics. This is one reason the GOP is doing a disservice to everyone. To me the incompetence and the complete disconnect from real, hard on the ground intelligence is a far big bigger problem than what is a very unlikely conspiracy scenario. How often has this been going on and where else?

 

[timschochet]

Saints, it's just so much eyewash to anyone that follows history. You ask where Obama was? He was probably out campaigning. OMG! That sounds terrible, doesn't it? But did you know that during the several attacks in Lebanon that eventually led to hundreds of marines dying during the 1980s, Reagan couldn't be found? He was out campaigning for his re-election. And nobody ever questioned him on it. (And you should read up on how Reagan handled those attacks).

All of this stuff is baseless. When people evaluate Reagan's presidency, nobody talks about Lebanon, and nobody's going to talk about Benghazi in relation to Obama either. Because you're wrong, it doesn't matter.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saints, it's just so much eyewash to anyone that follows history. You ask where Obama was? He was probably out campaigning. OMG! That sounds terrible, doesn't it? But did you know that during the several attacks in Lebanon that eventually led to hundreds of marines dying during the 1980s, Reagan couldn't be found? He was out campaigning for his re-election. And nobody ever questioned him on it. (And you should read up on how Reagan handled those attacks).

All of this stuff is baseless. When people evaluate Reagan's presidency, nobody talks about Lebanon, and nobody's going to talk about Benghazi in relation to Obama either. Because you're wrong, it doesn't matter.

The attack on the Lebanon barracks was one of the things that ultimately led us down the road to AQ declaring war on us. I'd say yeah that was an extremely important historical moment and it is a huge moment in Reagan's presidency.

Reagan was often portrayed as a bumbling, occasionally senile president who was obsessed with vanity and his campaign image over doing his job beyond a few basic themes. What shall we make of Obama then if what you say is true? There is also a difference between us assuming that President Obama was out campaigning and him being under a duty to tell us that, which he is. We should know as much about Obama's activities as we do about Reagan's.

 

[timschochet]

Salon has it dead to rights:

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/05/gops_benghazi_addiction_why_conservatives_so_desperately_need_a_scandal/

Benghazi!™ is about portraying the Obama administration as being wimpy on terrorism, of course. But think about that for a minute. The Obama administration is the one that killed bin Laden and is taking down terrorists — and anyone who might accidentally look like one, which is a whole other story — with drone strikes all over the Middle East and Africa. (It’s true that he’s failed to invade a random country just to prove America’s manhood, but he’s still got a couple of years.) The sad truth is that the Obama administration has made not one single move on terrorism with which the right would normally quarrel. But they simply cannot admit that this or one of their most important organizing principles is off the table: National security is as fundamental to them as low taxes and gun rights. If Democrats are not lily-livered cowards hiding beneath the camo-costumes of Real Americans, then they are missing a huge piece of their argument. So they’re doing what it takes: They’re making a national security scandal up out of whole cloth.

But this isn’t about Obama, not really. They have another Clinton to kick around and her involvement in Benghazi!™ as secretary of state gave them a perfect opportunity to dust off the old scandal sheet music and brush up on those old songs. They’re hoping that the mere sound of it will set off a Pavlovian reaction in independent voters and older Democrats who cringe at the prospect of a replay of the ’90s. And if the worst should happen and Clinton does get the nod, it’s the gift that keeps on giving. They will very likely control the House and we can expect to see many more “select committees” to investigate Republican hallucinations.

It beats governing. And by that time nearly half the country will already believe that Hillary Clinton ordered the attack on Benghazi in order to cover up her involvement in something even worse. They won’t know exactly what that is, but where there’s smoke there’s fire and this just doesn’t pass the smell test. No doubt **** Morris will write a book about it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Salon has it dead to rights:

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/05/gops_benghazi_addiction_why_conservatives_so_desperately_need_a_scandal/

Benghazi!™ is about portraying the Obama administration as being wimpy on terrorism, of course. But think about that for a minute. The Obama administration is the one that killed bin Laden and is taking down terrorists — and anyone who might accidentally look like one, which is a whole other story — with drone strikes all over the Middle East and Africa. (It’s true that he’s failed to invade a random country just to prove America’s manhood, but he’s still got a couple of years.) The sad truth is that the Obama administration has made not one single move on terrorism with which the right would normally quarrel. But they simply cannot admit that this or one of their most important organizing principles is off the table: National security is as fundamental to them as low taxes and gun rights. If Democrats are not lily-livered cowards hiding beneath the camo-costumes of Real Americans, then they are missing a huge piece of their argument. So they’re doing what it takes: They’re making a national security scandal up out of whole cloth.

But this isn’t about Obama, not really. They have another Clinton to kick around and her involvement in Benghazi!™ as secretary of state gave them a perfect opportunity to dust off the old scandal sheet music and brush up on those old songs. They’re hoping that the mere sound of it will set off a Pavlovian reaction in independent voters and older Democrats who cringe at the prospect of a replay of the ’90s. And if the worst should happen and Clinton does get the nod, it’s the gift that keeps on giving. They will very likely control the House and we can expect to see many more “select committees” to investigate Republican hallucinations.

It beats governing. And by that time nearly half the country will already believe that Hillary Clinton ordered the attack on Benghazi in order to cover up her involvement in something even worse. They won’t know exactly what that is, but where there’s smoke there’s fire and this just doesn’t pass the smell test. No doubt **** Morris will write a book about it.

You talk about partisanship but then look at the articles this woman has written, she makes McCarthy look like a bedfellow.

http://www.salon.com/writer/heather_digby_parton/

Digby is the pseudonym of liberal political blogger Heather Parton from Santa Monica, California who founded the blog Hullabaloo. She has been called one of the "leading and most admired commentators" of the progressive blogosphere

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digby_%28blogger%29

What's the other POV here, something from Breitbart?

 

[Stinger Ray]

Saints, it's just so much eyewash to anyone that follows history. You ask where Obama was? He was probably out campaigning. OMG! That sounds terrible, doesn't it? But did you know that during the several attacks in Lebanon that eventually led to hundreds of marines dying during the 1980s, Reagan couldn't be found? He was out campaigning for his re-election. And nobody ever questioned him on it. (And you should read up on how Reagan handled those attacks).

All of this stuff is baseless. When people evaluate Reagan's presidency, nobody talks about Lebanon, and nobody's going to talk about Benghazi in relation to Obama either. Because you're wrong, it doesn't matter.

What are you talking about? The attack in Lebanon that killed 241 people was the result of a bombing.

 

[timschochet]

Saints, it's just so much eyewash to anyone that follows history. You ask where Obama was? He was probably out campaigning. OMG! That sounds terrible, doesn't it? But did you know that during the several attacks in Lebanon that eventually led to hundreds of marines dying during the 1980s, Reagan couldn't be found? He was out campaigning for his re-election. And nobody ever questioned him on it. (And you should read up on how Reagan handled those attacks).

All of this stuff is baseless. When people evaluate Reagan's presidency, nobody talks about Lebanon, and nobody's going to talk about Benghazi in relation to Obama either. Because you're wrong, it doesn't matter.

What are you talking about? The attack in Lebanon that killed 241 people was the result of a bombing.

There were several attacks that led up to it.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Salon has it dead to rights:

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/05/gops_benghazi_addiction_why_conservatives_so_desperately_need_a_scandal/

Benghazi!™ is about portraying the Obama administration as being wimpy on terrorism, of course. But think about that for a minute. The Obama administration is the one that killed bin Laden and is taking down terrorists — and anyone who might accidentally look like one, which is a whole other story — with drone strikes all over the Middle East and Africa. (It’s true that he’s failed to invade a random country just to prove America’s manhood, but he’s still got a couple of years.) The sad truth is that the Obama administration has made not one single move on terrorism with which the right would normally quarrel. But they simply cannot admit that this or one of their most important organizing principles is off the table: National security is as fundamental to them as low taxes and gun rights. If Democrats are not lily-livered cowards hiding beneath the camo-costumes of Real Americans, then they are missing a huge piece of their argument. So they’re doing what it takes: They’re making a national security scandal up out of whole cloth.

But this isn’t about Obama, not really. They have another Clinton to kick around and her involvement in Benghazi!™ as secretary of state gave them a perfect opportunity to dust off the old scandal sheet music and brush up on those old songs. They’re hoping that the mere sound of it will set off a Pavlovian reaction in independent voters and older Democrats who cringe at the prospect of a replay of the ’90s. And if the worst should happen and Clinton does get the nod, it’s the gift that keeps on giving. They will very likely control the House and we can expect to see many more “select committees” to investigate Republican hallucinations.

It beats governing. And by that time nearly half the country will already believe that Hillary Clinton ordered the attack on Benghazi in order to cover up her involvement in something even worse. They won’t know exactly what that is, but where there’s smoke there’s fire and this just doesn’t pass the smell test. No doubt **** Morris will write a book about it.

salon? Geesh.

They might as well be the propoganda arm of the DNC.

 

[timschochet]

Salon has it dead to rights:

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/05/gops_benghazi_addiction_why_conservatives_so_desperately_need_a_scandal/

Benghazi!™ is about portraying the Obama administration as being wimpy on terrorism, of course. But think about that for a minute. The Obama administration is the one that killed bin Laden and is taking down terrorists — and anyone who might accidentally look like one, which is a whole other story — with drone strikes all over the Middle East and Africa. (It’s true that he’s failed to invade a random country just to prove America’s manhood, but he’s still got a couple of years.) The sad truth is that the Obama administration has made not one single move on terrorism with which the right would normally quarrel. But they simply cannot admit that this or one of their most important organizing principles is off the table: National security is as fundamental to them as low taxes and gun rights. If Democrats are not lily-livered cowards hiding beneath the camo-costumes of Real Americans, then they are missing a huge piece of their argument. So they’re doing what it takes: They’re making a national security scandal up out of whole cloth.

But this isn’t about Obama, not really. They have another Clinton to kick around and her involvement in Benghazi!™ as secretary of state gave them a perfect opportunity to dust off the old scandal sheet music and brush up on those old songs. They’re hoping that the mere sound of it will set off a Pavlovian reaction in independent voters and older Democrats who cringe at the prospect of a replay of the ’90s. And if the worst should happen and Clinton does get the nod, it’s the gift that keeps on giving. They will very likely control the House and we can expect to see many more “select committees” to investigate Republican hallucinations.

It beats governing. And by that time nearly half the country will already believe that Hillary Clinton ordered the attack on Benghazi in order to cover up her involvement in something even worse. They won’t know exactly what that is, but where there’s smoke there’s fire and this just doesn’t pass the smell test. No doubt **** Morris will write a book about it.

You talk about partisanship but then look at the articles this woman has written, she makes McCarthy look like a bedfellow.

http://www.salon.com/writer/heather_digby_parton/

Digby is the pseudonym of liberal political blogger Heather Parton from Santa Monica, California who founded the blog Hullabaloo. She has been called one of the "leading and most admired commentators" of the progressive blogosphere

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digby_%28blogger%29

What's the other POV here something from Breitbart?

She's very partisan. But on this issue, particularly the passage I quoted, I pretty much agree with her. The difference between her and me is that if we had a Republican President when Benghazi happened and it was the Dems who were attacking, this woman would either stay quiet or join the attackers, I suspect. But I wouldn't- I would repeat the same thing I'm saying now: it's all crap. That goes, by the way, for 99% of all of these conspiracy theories.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Salon has it dead to rights:

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/05/gops_benghazi_addiction_why_conservatives_so_desperately_need_a_scandal/

Benghazi!™ is about portraying the Obama administration as being wimpy on terrorism, of course. But think about that for a minute. The Obama administration is the one that killed bin Laden and is taking down terrorists — and anyone who might accidentally look like one, which is a whole other story — with drone strikes all over the Middle East and Africa. (It’s true that he’s failed to invade a random country just to prove America’s manhood, but he’s still got a couple of years.) The sad truth is that the Obama administration has made not one single move on terrorism with which the right would normally quarrel. But they simply cannot admit that this or one of their most important organizing principles is off the table: National security is as fundamental to them as low taxes and gun rights. If Democrats are not lily-livered cowards hiding beneath the camo-costumes of Real Americans, then they are missing a huge piece of their argument. So they’re doing what it takes: They’re making a national security scandal up out of whole cloth.

But this isn’t about Obama, not really. They have another Clinton to kick around and her involvement in Benghazi!™ as secretary of state gave them a perfect opportunity to dust off the old scandal sheet music and brush up on those old songs. They’re hoping that the mere sound of it will set off a Pavlovian reaction in independent voters and older Democrats who cringe at the prospect of a replay of the ’90s. And if the worst should happen and Clinton does get the nod, it’s the gift that keeps on giving. They will very likely control the House and we can expect to see many more “select committees” to investigate Republican hallucinations.

It beats governing. And by that time nearly half the country will already believe that Hillary Clinton ordered the attack on Benghazi in order to cover up her involvement in something even worse. They won’t know exactly what that is, but where there’s smoke there’s fire and this just doesn’t pass the smell test. No doubt **** Morris will write a book about it.

You talk about partisanship but then look at the articles this woman has written, she makes McCarthy look like a bedfellow.

http://www.salon.com/writer/heather_digby_parton/

Digby is the pseudonym of liberal political blogger Heather Parton from Santa Monica, California who founded the blog Hullabaloo. She has been called one of the "leading and most admired commentators" of the progressive blogosphere

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digby_%28blogger%29

What's the other POV here something from Breitbart?

She's very partisan. But on this issue, particularly the passage I quoted, I pretty much agree with her. The difference between her and me is that if we had a Republican President when Benghazi happened and it was the Dems who were attacking, this woman would either stay quiet or join the attackers, I suspect. But I wouldn't- I would repeat the same thing I'm saying now: it's all crap. That goes, by the way, for 99% of all of these conspiracy theories.

The point was there is important, relevant information beyond the conspiracy claims.

Saying it's "conspiracy or bust" is a false alternative.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Saints, it's just so much eyewash to anyone that follows history. You ask where Obama was? He was probably out campaigning. OMG! That sounds terrible, doesn't it? But did you know that during the several attacks in Lebanon that eventually led to hundreds of marines dying during the 1980s, Reagan couldn't be found? He was out campaigning for his re-election. And nobody ever questioned him on it. (And you should read up on how Reagan handled those attacks).

All of this stuff is baseless. When people evaluate Reagan's presidency, nobody talks about Lebanon, and nobody's going to talk about Benghazi in relation to Obama either. Because you're wrong, it doesn't matter.

What are you talking about? The attack in Lebanon that killed 241 people was the result of a bombing.

There were several attacks that led up to it.

I'd like to know more and where Reagan was out campaigning as you claim.

 

[timschochet]

Saints, it's just so much eyewash to anyone that follows history. You ask where Obama was? He was probably out campaigning. OMG! That sounds terrible, doesn't it? But did you know that during the several attacks in Lebanon that eventually led to hundreds of marines dying during the 1980s, Reagan couldn't be found? He was out campaigning for his re-election. And nobody ever questioned him on it. (And you should read up on how Reagan handled those attacks).

All of this stuff is baseless. When people evaluate Reagan's presidency, nobody talks about Lebanon, and nobody's going to talk about Benghazi in relation to Obama either. Because you're wrong, it doesn't matter.

What are you talking about? The attack in Lebanon that killed 241 people was the result of a bombing.

There were several attacks that led up to it.

I'd like to know more and where Reagan was out campaigning as you claim.

The campaigning part was something I've heard several times on the radio in the last few days. I'm looking for confirmation. However:

http://www.phillyburbs.com/entertainment/in-debacle-reagan-escaped-the-blame-game/article_0174fce9-b60c-5b6b-8934-915bd3c2bcf7.html

The Reagan administration immediately attempted to deflect blame for the attack with a deluge of false statements and misrepresentations. In a televised speech four days after the bombing, the president insisted the attack was unstoppable, erroneously declaring that the truck crashed through a series of barriers, including a chain-link fence and barbed-wire entanglements, and argued that the U.S. mission was succeeding.

Despite the fact that Reagan had dispatched the Marines into an impossible situation and then had issued orders that led to their inability to defend themselves, he suffered relatively little criticism from the press or partisan opponents, and after months of vigorous campaigning was overwhelmingly re-elected the following year.

Contrast this with the controversy over the recent attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, where on Sept. 11, U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were assassinated.

Within hours of that attack, and with no evidence as to how or why it had occurred or how it could have been prevented, presidential candidate Mitt Romney broke from what has long been traditional political protocol in situations of this type and attacked President Barack Obama, accusing him of sympathizing with anti-American interests in the Muslim world.

This, despite the initial assessment from U.S. intelligence sources that the attack had begun spontaneously following earlier protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, over the showing of an anti-Islamic motion picture.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saints, it's just so much eyewash to anyone that follows history. You ask where Obama was? He was probably out campaigning. OMG! That sounds terrible, doesn't it? But did you know that during the several attacks in Lebanon that eventually led to hundreds of marines dying during the 1980s, Reagan couldn't be found? He was out campaigning for his re-election. And nobody ever questioned him on it. (And you should read up on how Reagan handled those attacks).

All of this stuff is baseless. When people evaluate Reagan's presidency, nobody talks about Lebanon, and nobody's going to talk about Benghazi in relation to Obama either. Because you're wrong, it doesn't matter.

What are you talking about? The attack in Lebanon that killed 241 people was the result of a bombing.

There were several attacks that led up to it.

I'd like to know more and where Reagan was out campaigning as you claim.

Tim, did you make this up? What radio shows did you hear this report about the "campaigning" canard on?

http://books.google.com/books?id=OeCyyaw2OjoC&pg=PT254#v=onepage&q&f=false

Look at Ch. 11, after "Lesson Learned 3":

On October 23, 1986 the day of the attack President Reagan:

• Chaired two National Security Group meetings
• Announced his intention to retaliate with military force
• Coordination with the French
• Before the end of the day he had identified the perpetrators
• Signed a national security directive

What can we say President Obama's response was?

 

[timschochet]

Just for the record: I am NOT blaming Reagan for all of the errors, misrepresentations and false statements that he gave the public at that time. Nor do I blame FDR for doing the same thing after Pearl Harbor. Nor do I blame George W. Bush for making misstatements after 9/11. These situations are hard to deal with, they happen suddenly, and lots of people working for the government are out to cover their asses.

But what all of these events have in common with Benghazi, besides the mistakes, is this: every time we are surprise attacked in such a manner, certain members of the opposition to the President assume conspiracy. They think the President is hiding something, that he knew what was going to happen, or that he wanted it to happen, or that he deliberately covered up what actually happened. And it's always bull####. Always.

 

[Sand]

Saints, it's just so much eyewash to anyone that follows history. You ask where Obama was? He was probably out campaigning. OMG! That sounds terrible, doesn't it?

Actually, you're completely correct. Where he was is irrelevant. Unlike the early 80s we have very good communications for the common man, and what the President must have at his disposal must be incredible. Last I checked the Pres has a blackberry, if nothing else. So who made the decision to not send anyone in? I gather it was Obama? After all he can be brought up to speed with instant video conferencing wherever he is. If it wasn't him at the helm why not? Is not an attack on one of our embassies enough to pull him away from one of his fundraising dinners?

I'm personally wondering whether we don't know anything about his activities during these lost 10 hours because he didn't get involved or because he did get involved and made a horrible call.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Just for the record: I am NOT blaming Reagan for all of the errors, misrepresentations and false statements that he gave the public at that time. Nor do I blame FDR for doing the same thing after Pearl Harbor. Nor do I blame George W. Bush for making misstatements after 9/11. These situations are hard to deal with, they happen suddenly, and lots of people working for the government are out to cover their asses.

But what all of these events have in common with Benghazi, besides the mistakes, is this: every time we are surprise attacked in such a manner, certain members of the opposition to the President assume conspiracy. They think the President is hiding something, that he knew what was going to happen, or that he wanted it to happen, or that he deliberately covered up what actually happened. And it's always bull####. Always.

Tim, leave the conspiracy thing out of it.

There is plenty factual basis for incompetence and negligence, not to mention supporting even political opponents' right to know and discover facts.

 

[timschochet]

Saints, it's just so much eyewash to anyone that follows history. You ask where Obama was? He was probably out campaigning. OMG! That sounds terrible, doesn't it? But did you know that during the several attacks in Lebanon that eventually led to hundreds of marines dying during the 1980s, Reagan couldn't be found? He was out campaigning for his re-election. And nobody ever questioned him on it. (And you should read up on how Reagan handled those attacks).

All of this stuff is baseless. When people evaluate Reagan's presidency, nobody talks about Lebanon, and nobody's going to talk about Benghazi in relation to Obama either. Because you're wrong, it doesn't matter.

What are you talking about? The attack in Lebanon that killed 241 people was the result of a bombing.

There were several attacks that led up to it.

I'd like to know more and where Reagan was out campaigning as you claim.

Tim, did you make this up? What radio shows did you hear this report about the "campaigning" canard on?

http://books.google.com/books?id=OeCyyaw2OjoC&pg=PT254#v=onepage&q&f=false

Look at Ch. 11, after "Lesson Learned 3":

On October 23, 1986 the day of the attack President Reagan:

• Chaired two National Security Group meetings
• Announced his intention to retaliate with military force
• Coordination with the French
• Before the end of the day he had identified the perpetrators
• Signed a national security directive

What can we say President Obama's response was?

I did not make up the part about campaigning. But I can see that you're going to focus on it to the detriment of the rest of my point, which is about how Reagan handled those attacks. Since I can't back up the part about campaigning, go ahead and dismiss it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saints, it's just so much eyewash to anyone that follows history. You ask where Obama was? He was probably out campaigning. OMG! That sounds terrible, doesn't it?

Actually, you're completely correct. Where he was is irrelevant. Unlike the early 80s we have very good communications for the common man, and what the President must have at his disposal must be incredible. Last I checked the Pres has a blackberry, if nothing else. So who made the decision to not send anyone in? I gather it was Obama? After all he can be brought up to speed with instant video conferencing wherever he is. If it wasn't him at the helm why not? Is not an attack on one of our embassies enough to pull him away from one of his fundraising dinners?

I'm personally wondering whether we don't know anything about his activities during these lost 10 hours because he didn't get involved or because he did get involved and made a horrible call.

Thank you.

Yes, the president does not have to be there there. Maybe not in the Situation Room itself is ok, but how about a video conference with the personnel there? What decisions did he make? When? This is the simple, basic stuff of history.

 

[timschochet]

Just for the record: I am NOT blaming Reagan for all of the errors, misrepresentations and false statements that he gave the public at that time. Nor do I blame FDR for doing the same thing after Pearl Harbor. Nor do I blame George W. Bush for making misstatements after 9/11. These situations are hard to deal with, they happen suddenly, and lots of people working for the government are out to cover their asses.

But what all of these events have in common with Benghazi, besides the mistakes, is this: every time we are surprise attacked in such a manner, certain members of the opposition to the President assume conspiracy. They think the President is hiding something, that he knew what was going to happen, or that he wanted it to happen, or that he deliberately covered up what actually happened. And it's always bull####. Always.

Tim, leave the conspiracy thing out of it.

There is plenty factual basis for incompetence and negligence, not to mention supporting even political opponents' right to know and discover facts.

Of course there was negligence and a certain amount of incompetence. But I just don't see how it's on the executive level.

And anyhow, didn't we just have months of Senate hearings on this? They debunked all of the theories and determined there was nothing there. Why are we doing the whole thing again.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saints, it's just so much eyewash to anyone that follows history. You ask where Obama was? He was probably out campaigning. OMG! That sounds terrible, doesn't it? But did you know that during the several attacks in Lebanon that eventually led to hundreds of marines dying during the 1980s, Reagan couldn't be found? He was out campaigning for his re-election. And nobody ever questioned him on it. (And you should read up on how Reagan handled those attacks).

All of this stuff is baseless. When people evaluate Reagan's presidency, nobody talks about Lebanon, and nobody's going to talk about Benghazi in relation to Obama either. Because you're wrong, it doesn't matter.

What are you talking about? The attack in Lebanon that killed 241 people was the result of a bombing.

There were several attacks that led up to it.

I'd like to know more and where Reagan was out campaigning as you claim.

Tim, did you make this up? What radio shows did you hear this report about the "campaigning" canard on?

http://books.google.com/books?id=OeCyyaw2OjoC&pg=PT254#v=onepage&q&f=false

Look at Ch. 11, after "Lesson Learned 3":

On October 23, 1986 the day of the attack President Reagan:

• Chaired two National Security Group meetings
• Announced his intention to retaliate with military force
• Coordination with the French
• Before the end of the day he had identified the perpetrators
• Signed a national security directive

What can we say President Obama's response was?

I did not make up the part about campaigning. But I can see that you're going to focus on it to the detriment of the rest of my point, which is about how Reagan handled those attacks. Since I can't back up the part about campaigning, go ahead and dismiss it.

Excuse me, Tim, WADR, but you ought to admit it was a canard and maybe say what radio programs you got that off of. I doubt it was the BBC but rather a hack partisan program.

As to your point, I posted a book that talked about Reagan's actual actions the day of the attack. I think criticism of Reagan's actions before the attack is very fair, but we know what they were. As a matter of fact we learned a lot about what was wrong with our defenses and many realities about the new age of terrorism because of the investigations of those events.

Do we know what Obama's actions were before the attack and after at all?

 

[tommyGunZ]

Beghazi matters because:

• Our embassies were attacked in the late 90's, it was a run-up to the attacks on NYC & DC on 9/11/01. We have a war against terrorists out there still, though perhaps it is really once again becoming more of a war by them against us rather than a 2-way battle. The perpetrators of the Beghazi attack have never been brought to justice. We have done nothing about it, nothing, and I think we all agree that something is called for, including the President who himself personally vowed justice. How do you know "nothing" has been done? Are you personally being briefed by the NSA, CIA, DoJ, DoS, etc. w/re to what they are doing to find the perpetrators?
• Security: again, we went down this road in the late 90's, protecting our embassies matters, but even today we do not have this covered? Congress, State, GOP, Demo, someone has to answer for this woefully inadequate force. Pretty sure everyone wants our embassies to be bulletproof. Unfortunately, that's costly, and not possible. #### happens. I am 100% sure that a review was made and processes are being changed to make an effort to prevent this in the future. It's silly to assume otherwise, simply because you haven't been briefed on the changes.
• Even political foes with poor motives have a right to know what is going on in our government. The problem is that the WH produced one set of documents to Congress, a different set to a federal court. That's a problem. No it's not. Were the document requests identical? If not, the documents sets would not be exactly the same.
• The NSA is involved with writing political talking points to fit political goals. No, that should not be happening; that's different from providing intelligence analysis that political advisers then use to write political speeches and appearances. Oh BS.
• Why the hell is the leader of the Joint Chiefs calling a private citizen about his personal religious views and free speech? Did the president order this? Please provide a link from a responsible journalism source suggestion that Obama personally ordered the JC to call the dude about the video. Are you just making this up?
• Why did the SOS make a statement about jailing someone who made a personal movie, and then why later why was that person actually jailed for free speech? Perhaps your only non-ridiculous question. Think about it for a minute - why would Clinton whisper that to the victim's family if this was all just a political smokescreen?
• What was the president doing? Don't we have a right to know this? Has anyone, can anyone, detail one news story or snipped about what our commander in chief did when the sht was hitting the fan? Was he in the Situation Room? No. Was he in personal touch with military and diplomatic personnel? No. Here's something about the issue of air support not being called in - the President should make that call, he has to, it was an attack on a foreign country. The SOS could not make it, the Joint Chiefs of Staff cannot make that call. What was our president doing? Simple question, nobody, not you or the most ardent liberal claims we don't have a right to know. Again with the geo-tracking the president's whereabouts in the White House? This is beyond stupid. Do you want to know when Obama takes a #### as well?
• We need to ask why was the president still talking about the stupid video 2 weeks after the fact. This is constantly ignored by his supporters, even sometimes by his critics. This is one reason the GOP is doing a disservice to everyone. To me the incompetence and the complete disconnect from real, hard on the ground intelligence is a far big bigger problem than what is a very unlikely conspiracy scenario. How often has this been going on and where else? It wasn't this cut and dry two weeks after the fact. You can keep pretending it was, but there was a lot of conflicting intelligence, and lots of reasons to believe the uprisings in other areas played a role. Sorry that doesn't fit your worldview.

I'll be kind and just say this is one of the worst posts I've ever seen on this board. Literally every point is FoxNews boogey man talking point. My responses are in red, and in Comic Sans font, due to the absolute joke I'm responding to.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Just for the record: I am NOT blaming Reagan for all of the errors, misrepresentations and false statements that he gave the public at that time. Nor do I blame FDR for doing the same thing after Pearl Harbor. Nor do I blame George W. Bush for making misstatements after 9/11. These situations are hard to deal with, they happen suddenly, and lots of people working for the government are out to cover their asses.

But what all of these events have in common with Benghazi, besides the mistakes, is this: every time we are surprise attacked in such a manner, certain members of the opposition to the President assume conspiracy. They think the President is hiding something, that he knew what was going to happen, or that he wanted it to happen, or that he deliberately covered up what actually happened. And it's always bull####. Always.

Tim, leave the conspiracy thing out of it.

There is plenty factual basis for incompetence and negligence, not to mention supporting even political opponents' right to know and discover facts.

Of course there was negligence and a certain amount of incompetence. But I just don't see how it's on the executive level.And anyhow, didn't we just have months of Senate hearings on this? They debunked all of the theories and determined there was nothing there. Why are we doing the whole thing again.

They are doing it again because it's very obvious based on the information last week that the WH knew the attack wasn't due to a video yet they lied about that. Not to mention the email that surfaced last week was not turned over when it was subpoenaed early. Oh, and testimony that came about last week more could have been done that night to help them.