Democrats now critical of Rice's Benghazi explanation, amid more damaging evidence

[ishii]

The Benghazi scandal is too damaging for Hillary Clinton to come out unscathed.

I can imagine very emotional Ads being used in 2016 against Hillary Clinton being used to show the implications of Hillary Clinton’s role as secretary of state and national security if she were president.

Any ad should feature images of the Benghazi attack aftermath with Hillary’s voice over: “what does it matter!!” That would be effective.

Ishii

 

[_Abyssinia]

Any ad should feature images of the Benghazi attack aftermath with Hillary’s voice over: “what does it matter!!” That would be effective.

Ishii

Not sure if any of the families impacted by four deaths in Benghazi would do it, but an Ad featuring any of them talking about Benghazi would be emotional. Pat Smith who lost her son Sean Smith, has said some very strong things against Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton had this campaign Ad in 2008:

youtube.com/watch?v=7yr7odFUARg

Fox’s Eric Bolling added to the Ad:

youtube.com/watch?v=stn8a4tRRfY

 

[BroomWagon]

** I’ll admit it: Obama was protecting his re-election chances. But Johnson’s misstatements about our success in the Vietnam War: **what a terrible tragedy that was, all for a noble cause, of course, just like the Bush escapade in Iraq. Give me a break! And Reagan’s Iran Contra scandal: patriotism, freedom fighters, as another poster suggested? I’m quite doubtful. Nixon and Watergate “simply” undermined the whole democratic process and confirmed for the public their already mounting distrust and disgust for politicians and government, which LBJ had initiated. Not a big deal? Au contraire. I lived through it all.

Actually, I don’t know if one would want to admit this.

McCain versus what the other statement said about “frothing”, McCain said nothing about impeachment, so that statement is rather unfair to Senator McCain, I’m no McCain supporter either.

But if covering up, hey, is about saving one’s election chances, that would be extremely serious, it would need to be discussed.

 

[BroomWagon]

Rand Paul upset some about his drone views but we’ve got to hear him out.

If youth is with the Democrats, there leading contenders are probably Hillary and Biden for a run for the Presidency, not exactly what I would take it to mean “spring chickens.”

 

[BroomWagon]

“Mo”,momentum was with Romney in the Presidential run until Hurricane Sandy came into play, honestly, if one says the White House was covering up the Benghazi incident because it might hurt Obama’s chances at reelection , now that would be very serious.

 

[LisaA]

Actually, I don’t know if one would want to admit this.

McCain versus what the other statement said about “frothing”, McCain said nothing about impeachment, so that statement is rather unfair to Senator McCain, I’m no McCain supporter either.

But if covering up, hey, is about saving one’s election chances, that would be extremely serious, it would need to be discussed.

Particularly since the narrative that helped Obama maintain the White House was that he’d killed Osama, vanquished AlQaeda and helped to take down another evil dictator in Libya thus creating friendship between the US and a formerly hostile country.

His domestic policy was a disaster, Obamacare was getting more and more unpopular, some of the interest groups he’d pandered to in 08 (gays, immigrants) were getting restless about their pay day.

What did he have OTHER than the image of a strong leader, respected in the world, feared by our enemies?

Benghazi would have put a big dent in that armor. Suddenly a foreign policy blunder resulted in the first death of an Ambassador since 1979, a consultate was destroyed, AlQueda was ascdending not declining and he couldn’t really blame Bush…what to do!?

Lie.

Lisa

 

[meltzerboy]

Particularly since the narrative that helped Obama maintain the White House was that he’d killed Osama, vanquished AlQaeda and helped to take down another evil dictator in Libya thus creating friendship between the US and a formerly hostile country.

His domestic policy was a disaster, Obamacare was getting more and more unpopular, some of the interest groups he’d pandered to in 08 (gays, immigrants) were getting restless about their pay day.

What did he have OTHER than the image of a strong leader, respected in the world, feared by our enemies?

Benghazi would have put a big dent in that armor. Suddenly a foreign policy blunder resulted in the first death of an Ambassador since 1979, a consultate was destroyed, AlQueda was ascdending not declining and he couldn’t really blame Bush…what to do!?

Lie.

Lisa

Please, Lisa! Presidents NEVER lie (LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, Papa Bush, Clinton, W, Obama). As I stated before, they misspeak, over and over again.

 

[estesbob]

Please, Lisa! Presidents NEVER lie (LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, Papa Bush, Clinton, W, Obama). As I stated before, they misspeak, over and over again.

Misspeak??. Four people are dead.There is strong possibility two were allowed to die out of either gross incompetence or political expediency

 

[LisaA]

Please, Lisa! Presidents NEVER lie (LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, Papa Bush, Clinton, W, Obama). As I stated before, they misspeak, over and over again.

Sometimes they lie. Sometimes they are simply mistaken. Sometimes what is given to them as fact, turns out in hindsight to be incorrect. I don’t think LBJ originally lied to get us into Vietnam. He was given erroneous information by Robert McNamara as I recall. I also think President Bush’s decision on Iraq was based on what we knew at the time.

Nixon undoubtedly lied as did Clinton…or maybe it depends on what the definition of is, is right?

I think the difference in these various responses relates to whether or not they had anything to GAIN by lying. I truly do not think LBJ or Bush were trying to gain something or protect themselves.

Clinton’s and Nixons lies as I believe Obama’s and Hillary’s were to protect themselves and their political careers. They had something to gain by lying provided they got away with it. But they didn’t or won’t in the case of Benghazi.

Lisa

 

[ishii]

Misspeak??. Four people are dead.There is strong possibility two were allowed to die out of either gross incompetence or political expediency

Exactly. This whole idea of “presidents will be presidents and lie so they’re all the same” does not recognize the severity of the what team Obama has done. And, as I said earlier, the difference between then and now is that the media is largely ignoring the scandal, whereas the media held LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Bush accountable as much as possible (and even Clinton, somewhat). Far from doing their job at getting to the truth, they are protecting Obama - who they regard as “one of their own.”

Ishii

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Mulligan, you have no evidence that Bush knew that intelligence was bad and that he willingly lyed about it.

Oh yes we do and there’s plenty of it, but it has nothing to do with this thread.

WMDs were found in Iraq…

No they weren’t and even Bush himself has admitted that there were no WMD.

I actually hope Hilary runs. I think she is quite beatable and Benghazi will prove to be a millstone around her neck. Maybe the Dems will decide to run Biden! That would be good news indeed!

Oh, I don’t think so. I think it was oldcelt who predicted that the other shoe would drop and the GOP has turned out to be quite a good cobbler. Expect to see a counter punch highlighting GOP profiteering on Benghazi. You might be able to maime Hillary but this will haunt ANY nominee the GOP picks.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

I actually hope Hilary runs. I think she is quite beatable and Benghazi will prove to be a millstone around her neck. Maybe the Dems will decide to run Biden! That would be good news indeed!

Oh, I don’t think so. I think it was oldcelt who predicted that the other shoe would drop and the GOP has turned out to be quite a good cobbler. Expect to see a counter punch highlighting GOP profiteering on Benghazi. You might be able to maime Hillary but this will haunt ANY nominee the GOP picks.

 

[LisaA]

Oh yes we do and there’s plenty of it, but it has nothing to do with this thread.

No they weren’t and even Bush himself has admitted that there were no WMD.

Oh, I don’t think so. I think it was oldcelt who predicted that the other shoe would drop and the GOP has turned out to be quite a good cobbler. Expect to see a counter punch highlighting GOP profiteering on Benghazi. You might be able to maime Hillary but this will haunt ANY nominee the GOP picks.

Sad you have nothing to say to defend your party or your leader or the former SoS so you make claims about President Bush who’s been out of office for years. It’s a well known tactic but not very effective…elicits a big yawn from most of us.

You might not be old enough to remember but after Chairman Mao died, his wife and some of her supporters were blamed for everything from a bad rice harvest to trains derailing. The term “Gang of Four” soon became a joke, even within China. We have the equivalent in “But Bush…” which is also becoming a joke.

Ishii said nice try but I don’t think your argument warrents that much praise.

Try again.

Lisa

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Sad you have nothing to say to defend your party or your leader or the former SoS so you make claims about President Bush who’s been out of office for years. It’s a well known tactic but not very effective…elicits a big yawn from most of us.

I’m not the one who has been going on for pages about Bush, Reagan, Nixon, Bill Clinton, etc. I presented two facts in response to claims made.

We have the equivalent in “But Bush…” which is also becoming a joke.Ishii said nice try but I don’t think your argument warrents that much praise.

It makes no difference to me what you find funny. What is quite obvious in the course of this thread is that it has become all about what harm the GOP can do to Hillary’s potential, but unlikely, presidential campaign in 2016 and the GOP itself made that quite obvious, not only in its zealous search for anything that might indicate even the tiniest of mistakes on her part and turning every one of these hearings into a “fact” finding quest which always centers around her, but by its attempt to use Benghazi as a fundraising opportunity. You may think President Obama and Hillary Clinton did something wrong in allegedly “covering up” some things about Benghazi for political reasons, but at least they never tried to profit financially from it.

 

[ishii]

Oh, I don’t think so. I think it was oldcelt who predicted that the other shoe would drop and the GOP has turned out to be quite a good cobbler. Expect to see a counter punch highlighting GOP profiteering on Benghazi. You might be able to maime Hillary but this will haunt ANY nominee the GOP picks.

I checked the link. I would hope that the Republicans would use Democrat/Obama lies & coverup of Benghazi scandal to raise funds to beat them in 2014 & 2016. I mean, we don’t want the same lying group in power for ever, do we? If Obama is corrupt (and he is) then of course it makes sense that the Republicans would point out that corruption to gain support for their campaigns. You have to remember that the GOP needs funds to offset the smear campaigns they will inevitably receive from the Democrat media machine. Fox news and a few talk radio shows aren’t enough - they need money for ads. I truly hope they use the $$$ they raise to pruduce ads that expose Democrats for what they are.

Ishii

 

[George_Stegmeir]

Talk about flip-flopping. Didn’t Obama say something like “how dare you criticize her?!” to Republicans? It’s very convenient how the mainstream media waited until the elections were over before they started really digging into this. They bend-over backwards to protect their own.

By the way, mainstream media is what you would get for free with just a TV antenna, and that would be things like ABC, NBC, CBS, and PBS.

The reason for all of this is that the Dems got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. This whole pattern of deception started with Obamas first State of the Union Speech, when he excoriated the Supreme Court for their decision regarding Free Speech for Organizations and Corporations. He said that this would allow foreign corporations to interfere in domestic elections, which was not the truth. The decision declared the legal restrictions on organizations and domestic corporations supporting candidates in domestic elections to be unconstitutional.
Obama was angry because it allowed the NRA and other organizations to publicly support candidates opposed to his policies.

 

[ishii]

It makes no difference to me what you find funny. What is quite obvious in the course of this thread is that it has become all about what harm the GOP can do to Hillary’s potential, but unlikely, presidential campaign in 2016 and the GOP itself made that quite obvious, not only in its zealous search for anything that might indicate even the tiniest of mistakes on her part and turning every one of these hearings into a “fact” finding quest which always centers around her, but by its attempt to use Benghazi as a fundraising opportunity. You may think President Obama and Hillary Clinton did something wrong in allegedly “covering up” some things about Benghazi for political reasons, but at least they never tried to profit financially from it.

Clearly from your point of view you see the current attention put on Benghazi scandal as an effort to inflict harm on Hillary’s prospects. So Obama/Hillary covered up Benghazi not to “profit financially” but to maintain their power. Is lying to maintain power mitigating in some way? Is doing something for profit worse than doing something for power? Especially when often, power means profit?

So the GOP used the Benghazi scandal/ Obama lies to raise funds. Obama uses victims of Sandy Hook to pursue his passion for undermining the 2nd amendment. Yet, you call the GOP to task, but not Obama. In other words, you’re doing what a partisan liberal Democrat would do naturally. But it doesn’t add much to the debate.

Is ABC news also part of this “zealous search for anything that might hurt Hillary” ? Your response is laughable. If Benghazi happened during a Republican administration I think a lot of Democrats would be crying “what did he know and what did he know it” .

Ishii

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Clearly from your point of view you see the current attention put on Benghazi scandal as an effort to inflict harm on Hillary’s prospects.

Of course I do. Why else would the Republicans redirect the topic of conversation to Hillary Clinton 32 times in a single hearing? If they were really interested in finding out “the truth” then why not allow the discussion to cover everything instead of singling out one person? It is very clear that they are not interested in the whole truth.

So Obama/Hillary covered up Benghazi not to “profit financially” but to maintain their power.

I haven’t seen any evidence that President Obama or Hillary covered up anything and I challenge anyone to provide one iota of testimony that either of them did. There’s lots of stuff out there about so-and-so in the State Department or so-and-so in the White House or so-and-so in the CIA, but I have yet to see anything with President Obama or Hillary’s name on it.

Is doing something for profit worse than doing something for power?

That is a question you should be asking now that the Republicans are trying to profit from it.

If Benghazi happened during a Republican administration I think a lot of Democrats would be crying “what did he know and what did he know it”

Funny you should say that because such an inquisition never happened under Bush despite numerous embassy attacks and a dead diplomat. There was a Benghazi during a Republican administration called Karachi and it seems that your assessment of Democrats is flawed.

 

[LisaA]

I’m not the one who has been going on for pages about Bush, Reagan, Nixon, Bill Clinton, etc. I presented two facts in response to claims made.
.

Actually you presented a couple of bumper sticker slogans and some DNC talking points but your statements were not factual. It simply looked like a way to divert attention from the subject of the thread.

Do you have any defense of what was done behind the scenes to turn a CIA report into fiction, a fiction that continued for several weeks on the part of Rice, Obama and Hillary Clinton?

Do you think they were justified in lying to the American people?

Do you think there might have been a teensy weensy bit of political motive behind hiding the truth so close to Election Day?

I
It makes no difference to me what you find funny. What is quite obvious in the course of this thread is that it has become all about what harm the GOP can do to Hillary’s potential, but unlikely, presidential campaign in 2016 and the GOP itself made that quite obvious, not only in its zealous search for anything that might indicate even the tiniest of mistakes on her part and turning every one of these hearings into a “fact” finding quest which always centers around her, but by its attempt to use Benghazi as a fundraising opportunity. You may think President Obama and Hillary Clinton did something wrong in allegedly “covering up” some things about Benghazi for political reasons, but at least they never tried to profit financially from it.

Heavens I admit to political motive. I never believed the story Rice spread like stink on poo and was livid that the MSM helped Obama hide a relevant issue from the public so close to the election, particularly as this was a national security issue, not that some low level operative snuck into the DNC headquarters.

But your last statement is truly laughable. Never tried to profit “financially” from the death of four American heroes? I’d hope not. However they did profit in maintaining power and that is not just valuable but priceless. The whole Benghazi debacle just goes to show to what depths Obama and his supporters will sink to maintain control:

Ignoring pleas for security because it didn’t comport with the Obama Foreign policy narrative

Ignoring pleas for help when under attack

Not calling back when Hillary DID get that 3am phone call she used to try to win in 08

Lying about the incident with the help of the MSM

Lying to the families when the coffins were an arms length away

Jailing some poor schmuck to deflect interest in investigating the reason for the attack

Not trying to bring the perpetrators to justice because such reaction would surely point to Islamic terror

Threatening those who tried to report the incident accurately

You know the list is long and distinguished. There is no surprise here. Obama is a political operative of the highest skill. After all he fooled tens of millions of people who voted for him, not once but twice. PT Barnum was right.

Lisa

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Actually you presented a couple of bumper sticker slogans and some DNC talking points but your statements were not factual.

Of course they were factual, if you think otherwise then you’re welcome to start a new thread.

It simply looked like a way to divert attention from the subject of the thread.

Oh right, because the last several pages have been all about Benghazi. I didn’t pull those quotes out of thin air.

Do you have any defense of what was done behind the scenes to turn a CIA report into fiction, a fiction that continued for several weeks on the part of Rice, Obama and Hillary Clinton? Do you think they were justified in lying to the American people? Do you think there might have been a teensy weensy bit of political motive behind hiding the truth so close to Election Day?

I don’t think there is enough information to make those kinds of judgements yet you still claim that the President and Hillary lied without any proof or testimony saying as much. Nothing with President Obama or Hillary’s name on it. Not an e-mail or a tape recorded phone call. Not one word of testimony. Nothing. Maybe, someday, these hearings will turn up something of substance against the President or Hillary, but they haven’t yet and it isn’t for lack of trying. The wheels are still spinning in the mud.

Never tried to profit “financially” from the death of four American heroes? I’d hope not.

Shall I take that as a rebuke of the GOP?