White House Defends New Benghazi Email

[ishii]

Do they really need to? Here’s Nancy Pelosi today:

washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/4/pelosi-says-she-couldnt-care-less-about-benghazi-c/

So who do you think will earn more votes? The Party going “let’s talk about the budget, let’s talk about jobs,” or the Party going “Benghazi!!!1111!!1!”? Come on. Republicans used to be moderate, but they’ve gone way off the deep end recently. We need to go back to Republicans who are socially conservative but willing to compromise on economics and willing to cut military funding and raise taxes. Not to mention Republicans who don’t lose their mind whenever they think they can pounce.

Are you saying that the Republicans should stop doing what they think is right and instead act based on polls? We need to “go back” to Republicans who were socially conservative but fiscally liberal? When was that??? I don’t recall an era when Republicans cut military funding, raised taxes, and were somehow socially conservative at the same time. Perhaps you could refresh my memory - when did this happen?

Hopefully Americans will indeed care that the president deliberately fabricated a falsehood in order to get re-elected. What a shame that some would ignore the need for justice because the bad guys have a “D” next to their name. The Democrats do have their own problems. But who knows, maybe they will turn things around before the midterms: maybe economic growth will increase from .1% to .2%.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

I would say the Party who imposed Obamacare on the nation is the one in trouble

Yes, and don’t forget Obamacare was rammed through on a party line vote. Yet you don’t hear about that from those complaining about the “partisan” nature of the Benghazi investigation.

Ishii

 

[SMGS127]

I would say the Party who imposed Obamacare on the nation is the one in trouble

ObamaCare is actually going pretty well. In many of the states where the Senate race will be won or lost, it’s actually succeeding the most (KY, AR being the big two). It’s part of the reason Republicans are having a hard time sinking Pryor. And with McConnell’s intense effort to do everything he possibly can to torpedo his own campaign, it’s getting harder and harder for Republicans to win the Senate, even if they’ll almost certainly have a net gain of seats with a worst-case scenario (likely being gaining MT/SD/WV and losing KY/GA).

I could see ObamaCare ads working in the House, where the most far-right in our country have an outsized influence in the voting process due to gerrymandering, but when it comes to the political center, it’s lost its charm as an attack ad. I suppose you could use the HHS mandate as an example of an immoral addition to the law after-the-fact, but considering:

a) None of the Democratic Senators voted for the HHS mandate;

b) Republican Senators were the ones who blocked the Stupak Amendment from becoming law in a failed attempt to torpedo the whole bill;

and c) practicing Catholics are such a minority in this country that most people could care less what we’re forced to do against our faith,

the political science doesn’t really bode well for that attack ad either. Which leaves…more Benghazi? I mean, I don’t really know what the Republicans’ plans are. Attack a working health care law and a non-scandal that has been exploded to mythical proportions, and then offer literally nothing of substance? How is that supposed to win the Senate or the Presidency in 2016?

Because the House can be tailor-made to a constituency via gerrymandering, pandering to the base works in the chamber. But Republicans won’t ever win the Senate or Presidency doing that nonsense, since they have to rely on moderate votes.

 

[SMGS127]

Are you saying that the Republicans should stop doing what they think is right and instead act based on polls? We need to “go back” to Republicans who were socially conservative but fiscally liberal? When was that??? I don’t recall an era when Republicans cut military funding, raised taxes, and were somehow socially conservative at the same time. Perhaps you could refresh my memory - when did this happen?

Richard Nixon comes to mind immediately? Even George H.W. Bush was fairly sane on economic matters. Reagan and Bush obviously don’t count: Reagan was disastrous with his ultra-right-wing economics and one of the worst Presidents ever from a fiscal standpoint, and George W. Bush took the worst of all worlds by cutting taxes and increasing spending in a good economy (pretty much the opposite of every single economic philosophy ever created, from Smith capitalism to Keynesian capitalism to communism).

But yes, Nixon and H.W. were both fairly decent Republicans. And H.W. got chased out of office by the same Republicans that now make up the Tea Party. Bob Dole had fairly moderate views on economics and got hounded all day and night by these same Republicans as well.

Obviously there was never an era where every single Republican was fiscally moderate/liberal, but there have certainly been Republican leaders who were.

 

[ishii]

Originally Posted by slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2012/10/the_benghazi_attack_and_the_anti_muslim_ video_how_the_gop_misread_intelligence.h tml

In Benghazi, witnesses saw attackers and onlookers. The problem was figuring out the relationship between them. The CIA’s initial assessments suggested a hybrid scenario: a demonstration “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo" that “evolved into a direct assault” by extremists.
If you look back at the administration’s early statements, you’ll see signs of this uncertainty. Spokesmen talked about the video in the context of the Muslim riots generally.

On Sept. 14, ABC’s Jake Tapper asked White House Press Secretary Jay Carney whether this was true in Benghazi. “We certainly don’t know,” said Carney. In her now-infamous tour of the Sunday talk shows on Sept. 16, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice parroted CIA assessments, asserting that a protest at the consulate “seems to have been hijacked” by “extremists who came with heavier weapons.” On Sept. 18, Carney repeated that the video had “caused the unrest in Cairo” and “precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi.” But he added, “What other factors were involved is a matter of investigation." On Sept. 20, Obama said protests over the video “were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests."

rex

When the White House was asked for all the documents related to the Benghazi event, they did not make available the email/talking points from Ben Rhodes. Only when they were required to make them available by the freedom of information act did they finally make them available. So, of course the administration thought them to be damaging to their official account of the Benghazi incident. No coverup? Among the goals of the Ben Rhodes email:

• “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy”
• "To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.”

In short, it was all about protecting Obama’s re-election chances. All about preserving power.

And the information contained in the email/talking points were not based on assessments from the intelligence community:

• In testimony last month, Michael Morell, the former deputy director of the CIA, distanced his agency from Rice’s video-focused narrative on Benghazi. He acknowledged that the CIA had, incorrectly, provided an assessment that included a discussion of protests outside the diplomatic post in Benghazi.** But, when it came to the video, he made clear that Rice was on her own. “When she talked about the video, my reaction was, that’s not something the analysts have attributed this attack to**.” The comments were notable not only because Morell has been a reliable water-carrier for the Obama administration on Benghazi, but because they further illuminated a split between the White House and the CIA that has been evident for some time* (my bold underline).

" Six weeks before the 2012 presidential election, those officials—at the direction of White House communications and political strategists desperate to maintain the fiction that al Qaeda was “on the run”—lied to the public about how four Americans were killed in a sophisticated attack carried out, on the anniversary of 9/11, by terrorists affiliated with al Qaeda."

weeklystandard.com/articles/benghazi-lies_788985.html?page=1

I think we have a moral obligation to get the truth out on this issue. I am sorry that some of our more partisan people here don’t seem to be concerned about a president who patently lies about a foreign policy blunder to get re-elected, and do not want to hold him accountable for those lies. Partisanship that turns a blind eye to this is really unconscionable.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Richard Nixon comes to mind immediately? Even George H.W. Bush was fairly sane on economic matters. Reagan and Bush obviously don’t count: Reagan was disastrous with his ultra-right-wing economics and one of the worst Presidents ever from a fiscal standpoint, and George W. Bush took the worst of all worlds by cutting taxes and increasing spending in a good economy (pretty much the opposite of every single economic philosophy ever created, from Smith capitalism to Keynesian capitalism to communism).

But yes, Nixon and H.W. were both fairly decent Republicans. And H.W. got chased out of office by the same Republicans that now make up the Tea Party. Bob Dole had fairly moderate views on economics and got hounded all day and night by these same Republicans as well.

Obviously there was never an era where every single Republican was fiscally moderate/liberal, but there have certainly been Republican leaders who were.

But you said,

"We need to go back to Republicans who are socially conservative but willing to compromise on economics and willing to cut military funding and raise taxes."

I was merely asking you when we had Republicans like that. Again, please tell me when we had Republicans like that and who they were?

(btw, I am perfectly willing to engage you on your mischaracterization of the Reagan era, but it would be pretty off topic, don’t you think?)

Ishii

 

[SMGS127]

But you said,

"We need to go back to Republicans who are socially conservative but willing to compromise on economics and willing to cut military funding and raise taxes."

I was merely asking you when we had Republicans like that. Again, please tell me when we had Republicans like that and who they were?

(btw, I am perfectly willing to engage you on your mischaracterization of the Reagan era, but it would be pretty off topic, don’t you think?)

Ishii

I just gave you 3 names: Richard Nixon (except without his corruption baggage…), George H.W. Bush, and Bob Dole, to say the least. All 3 were Presidential nominees, and none would be accepted by today’s Republican party.

 

[ishii]

I just gave you 3 names: Richard Nixon (except without his corruption baggage…), George H.W. Bush, and Bob Dole, to say the least. All 3 were Presidential nominees, and none would be accepted by today’s Republican party.

Yes, I saw those names, but I’m still trying to figure out how Nixon, Bush and Dole were “socially conservative but willing to compromise on economics and willing to cut military funding and raise taxes” ?

Ishii

 

[7_Sorrows]

I am shocked SMGS127 that you would describe Benghazi as a “petty” scandal. Do the lives of the 4 men killed seem petty to you? These 4 men are missed by their families. Their lives were valuable. I don’t know the real story of what Ambassador Stevens was involved in over there. I know the Obama administration supported the Arab spring.
If they thought important enough to have Ambassador Steven in place there they should have been ready to protect them in that volatile region. None of the scandals - the IRS scandal or Fast and Furious or Benghazi should be seen as petty. These are serious scandals that the Obama administration does not want to be held accountable for.
They are serious. If any of these had happened in a republican administration you can be sure CNN and MSNBC would not be ignoring the stories.

 

[SMGS127]

I am shocked SMGS127 that you would describe Benghazi as a “petty” scandal. Do the lives of the 4 men killed seem petty to you? These 4 men are missed by their families. Their lives were valuable. I don’t know the real story of what Ambassador Stevens was involved in over there. I know the Obama administration supported the Arab spring.
If they thought important enough to have Ambassador Steven in place there they should have been ready to protect them in that volatile region. None of the scandals - the IRS scandal or Fast and Furious or Benghazi should be seen as petty. These are serious scandals that the Obama administration does not want to be held accountable for.
They are serious. If any of these had happened in a republican administration you can be sure CNN and MSNBC would not be ignoring the stories.

Someone posted a list today on the Washington Post story describing around 10 similar terrorist attacks that happened on US Embassies during the time Bush was in office. All of them had casualties at or above the amount of people who died in Benghazi. I am not saying those lives were not important; I am saying that it is clear Republicans are exploiting the deaths of four Americans for political purposes, which I personally find reprehensible. The only reason this is even a scandal is because Obama is a Democrat and the right-wing media outlets are on anything remotely connected to him like wildfire.

I also don’t see how the IRS’s systematic targeting of both liberal and conservative groups abusing their tax-exempt status to issue political ads is a scandal either. It was a pretty bipartisan plan that has become just as mythical as Benghazi to the GOP base.

Fast & Furious was a pretty dumb plan; I’ll admit. But it’s pretty minor on the “political scandal” front. Reagan shipped arms into Iran to buy an election. Nixon attempted to steal an election. Bush manipulated evidence into a war, then his top aides outed an active CIA operative in retaliation for opposition to said war. He then commuted the sentence of the only person to be convicted over said retaliation. And somehow Fast & Furious is on that level? It’s not even apparent that Obama had any involvement in it!

The fact that these scandals are the best Republicans can come up with either indicates an incredibly poor opposition research team or that Pres. Obama is a fairly scandal-free President. It also demonstrates how rabid the right-wing media is, where, again, it acts like a feral dog that bites anything it sees, no matter how small. The conservative insulation bubble will continue to keep it far enough away from main society so as to be politically irrelevant.

Unfortunately, gerrymandering has made it impossible for elected Republicans to actually see the errors of their political idiocy, as they will always win the House, no matter how many Americans hate their ideas and especially their behavior. They’d have to lose the House by 7 million votes just to lose it by one seat. Democrats actually won the House by over a million votes in 2012, but they have less seats than Republicans due to gerrymandering. And most Republicans are in safe GOP districts that don’t care about anything but far-right politics. It’s a lose-lose scenario for both the Republican Party and Americans.

 

[7_Sorrows]

You can’t pick and choose the facts. I do not agree that the repubicans are exploiting the deaths of these men. The families want answers and the rest of us wonder why the administration was so quick to blame it on a video. You want to distort the information abour this administration. I have never seen so many lies put forth as this president and his friends try to feed the american people. Where is the transparency Obama bragged would be a symbol of his presidency?

 

[TaurusRex]

slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2012/10/the_benghazi_attack_and_the_anti_muslim_video_how_the_gop_misread_intelligence.html

"http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...m_video_how_the_gop_misread_intelligence.html:

In Benghazi, witnesses saw attackers and onlookers. The problem was figuring out the relationship between them. The CIA’s initial assessments suggested a hybrid scenario: a demonstration “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo" that “evolved into a direct assault” by extremists.
If you look back at the administration’s early statements, you’ll see signs of this uncertainty. Spokesmen talked about the video in the context of the Muslim riots generally. On Sept. 14, ABC’s Jake Tapper asked White House Press Secretary Jay Carney whether this was true in Benghazi. “We certainly don’t know,” said Carney. In her now-infamous tour of the Sunday talk shows on Sept. 16, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice parroted CIA assessments, asserting that a protest at the consulate “seems to have been hijacked” by “extremists who came with heavier weapons.” On Sept. 18, Carney repeated that the video had “caused the unrest in Cairo” and “precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi.” But he added, “What other factors were involved is a matter of investigation." On Sept. 20, Obama said protests over the video “were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests."

When the White House was asked for all the documents related to the Benghazi event, they did not make available the email/talking points from Ben Rhodes. Only when they were required to make them available by the freedom of information act did they finally make them available. So, of course the administration thought them to be damaging to their official account of the Benghazi incident. No coverup? Among the goals of the Ben Rhodes email:

• “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy”
• "To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.”

In short, it was all about protecting Obama’s re-election chances. All about preserving power.

And the information contained in the email/talking points were not based on assessments from the intelligence community:

• In testimony last month, Michael Morell, the former deputy director of the CIA, distanced his agency from Rice’s video-focused narrative on Benghazi. He acknowledged that the CIA had, incorrectly, provided an assessment that included a discussion of protests outside the diplomatic post in Benghazi.** But, when it came to the video, he made clear that Rice was on her own. “When she talked about the video, my reaction was, that’s not something the analysts have attributed this attack to***.” The comments were notable not only because Morell has been a reliable water-carrier for the Obama administration on Benghazi, but because they further illuminated a split between the White House and the CIA that has been evident for some time (my bold underline).

" Six weeks before the 2012 presidential election, those officials—at the direction of White House communications and political strategists desperate to maintain the fiction that al Qaeda was “on the run”—lied to the public about how four Americans were killed in a sophisticated attack carried out, on the anniversary of 9/11, by terrorists affiliated with al Qaeda."

weeklystandard.com/articles/benghazi-lies_788985.html?page=1

I think we have a moral obligation to get the truth out on this issue. I am sorry that some of our more partisan people here don’t seem to be concerned about a president who patently lies about a foreign policy blunder to get re-elected, and do not want to hold him accountable for those lies. Partisanship that turns a blind eye to this is really unconscionable.

Ishii

Thankfully, I’ve had some quite intelligent support in this thread;
But I’m tired and the skill of our opposition at twisting, distorting and even flipping information provided may be too much for me/us to untangle at this time.
There is one question I’d like to ask though for now about the following:

“When she talked about the video, my reaction was, that’s not something the analysts have attributed this attack to

.”

Does the word “analysts” refer to the CIA or to Ben Rhodes?
The reason I ask is because I provided a source that stated that Rice “parroted” the CIA info on Benghazi
And I provided info that supports Jay Carney’s statements that Rhodes emails do not pertain to Benghazi and are instead pertaining to the world-wide Muslim reaction to the Muslim video;
Yet somehow ishii, you’ve managed it seems to flip the info I provided to support your opinionated political viewpoint … :ehh:
Wish one of us could untangle the web that’s been weaved, but I’ve got too many real life things to do today.

Someone posted a list today on the Washington Post story describing around 10 similar terrorist attacks that happened on US Embassies during the time Bush was in office. All of them had casualties at or above the amount of people who died in Benghazi. I am not saying those lives were not important; I am saying that it is clear Republicans are exploiting the deaths of four Americans for political purposes, which I personally find reprehensible. The only reason this is even a scandal is because Obama is a Democrat and the right-wing media outlets are on anything remotely connected to him like wildfire.

Exactly SMGS127,
Couldn’t have said it better.

rex

 

[mary_bobo]

Thankfully, I’ve had some quite intelligent support in this thread;
But I’m tired and the skill of our opposition at twisting, distorting and even flipping information provided may be too much for me/us to untangle at this time.
There is one question I’d like to ask though for now about the following:

Does the word “analysts” refer to the CIA or to Ben Rhodes?
The reason I ask is because I provided a source that stated that Rice “parroted” the CIA info on Benghazi
And I provided info that supports Jay Carney’s statements that Rhodes emails do not pertain to Benghazi and are instead pertaining to the world-wide Muslim reaction to the Muslim video;
Yet somehow ishii, you’ve managed it seems to flip the info I provided to support your opinionated political viewpoint … :ehh:
Wish one of us could untangle the web that’s been weaved, but I’ve got too many real life things to do today.

Exactly SMGS127,
Couldn’t have said it better.

rex

We have been frequently and blatantly lied to and played the fool by the minions of this administration, so why on earth should we believe anything they say about Benghazi or anything else for that matter. What are the Dems and their ilk so afraid of? We need to get to the bottom of what happened that resulted in the deaths of four Americans. You can deflect and bring up things that happened in other administrations as to compare, but no other administration is in power at this moment. Only little kids sayd “well Johnny did it”.

If there is a select committee and the GOP is found at fault for continuing to investigate this, so be it. Again, what are the Dems afraid of?

 

[zz912]

Someone posted a list today on the Washington Post story describing around 10 similar terrorist attacks that happened on US Embassies during the time Bush was in office. All of them had casualties at or above the amount of people who died in Benghazi. I am not saying those lives were not important; I am saying that it is clear Republicans are exploiting the deaths of four Americans for political purposes, which I personally find reprehensible. The only reason this is even a scandal is because Obama is a Democrat and the right-wing media outlets are on anything remotely connected to him like wildfire.

Those 10 incidents didn’t involve the administration running guns to rebels. They didn’t involve the administration trying to keep secret what they were doing. They didn’t involve the administration refusing any type of military assistance or help to Americans under attack. They didn’t involve the administration trying to bury the story and the investigation. They didn’t involve the administration avoiding going after those responsible (remember the NY Times having coffee with the attackers who the Administration claimed it couldn’t find?) Those incidents didn’t involve the administration putting out a deliberate lie for political reasons. They didn’t involve the administration attacking those who questioned such a silly and stupid lie.

Shall we go on? (I would think the refusal, for political reasons, to assist Americans in harms way, that alone would be enough to demand impeachment.)

I also don’t see how the IRS’s systematic targeting of both liberal and conservative groups abusing their tax-exempt status to issue political ads is a scandal either. It was a pretty bipartisan plan that has become just as mythical as Benghazi to the GOP base.

Because it wasn’t bipartisan, and it wasn’t both liberal and conservative. Get better sources of information. It was ALL targeted at conservatives to punish the Administration’s enemies. The few leftist groups who were examined were glossed over and quickly approved. The conservative ones were not.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Someone posted a list today on the Washington Post story describing around 10 similar terrorist attacks that happened on US Embassies during the time Bush was in office. All of them had casualties at or above the amount of people who died in Benghazi. I am not saying those lives were not important; I am saying that it is clear Republicans are exploiting the deaths of four Americans for political purposes, which I personally find reprehensible. The only reason this is even a scandal is because Obama is a Democrat and the right-wing media outlets are on anything remotely connected to him like wildfire.

Did Bush put out a lie that it was an internet video that was responsible? Did Bush go to Las Vegas for a fundraiser? Did Bush send his SOS to the parents to repeat the lie. Did Bush send his ambassador to the Sunday morning talk shows to repeat the lie? Did Bush go to the UN and continue the lie about the video? Did Bush suppress all investigations into what happened?

We really still don’t know what happened. The story is dribbling out because we are FORCING our “transparent” administration to give us the information.

• We don’t know why Stevens was in Benghazi
• We don’t know what the meeting with the Turkish official was about
• Conveniently the Turkish official left before the attack began
• We were told it was a spontaneous demonostration, when in fact, the weapson used tell us differently
• We don’t know who gave the stand down order

In the end, SMG, if it’s so petty, why all the lies and obfuscations? Just tell the truth and move on. The silence by the administration who promised to be open and transparent is deafening. Nixon’s lies were a lot more petty, he stepped down.

Unfortunately, gerrymandering has made it impossible for elected Republicans to actually see the errors of their** political idiocy**, as they will always win the House, no matter how many Americans hate their ideas and especially their behavior. They’d have to lose the House by 7 million votes just to lose it by one seat. Democrats actually won the House by over a million votes in 2012, but they have less seats than Republicans due to gerrymandering. And most Republicans are in safe GOP districts that don’t care about anything but far-right politics. It’s a lose-lose scenario for both the Republican Party and Americans.

Typical. No gerrymandering by Dems. They are as pure as the driven snow.

Just answer my bullet points. Can you do that?

 

[gnjsdad]

Someone posted a list today on the Washington Post story describing around 10 similar terrorist attacks that happened on US Embassies during the time Bush was in office. All of them had casualties at or above the amount of people who died in Benghazi. I am not saying those lives were not important; I am saying that it is clear Republicans are exploiting the deaths of four Americans for political purposes, which I personally find reprehensible. The only reason this is even a scandal is because Obama is a Democrat and the right-wing media outlets are on anything remotely connected to him like wildfire.

I don’t think any other conclusion is possible. I have asked in this thread what the administration is attempting to “cover up”, and all we have gotten for an answer is that, well, the administration put out a “false” narrative about what really happened. It wasn’t an anti-Muslim video; it was a terrorist attack.

I don’t buy that it was all as clear cut as the administration opponents suggest. First, an administration would dare put out “talking points”? Stop the presses. Must be the first time that has happened.

Second, the irrelevance of the video given what was transpiring in the entire region has not been proved. I believe the video was very much a factor.

Third, the utter confusion surrounding what was transpiring in Libya at the time is certainly a factor. Nobody really had a handle as to what was going on. What was the state of the Libyan “government” at the time? Who were our friends? Enemies? How much could security be relied on? All very much open questions.

We can certainly debate the efficacy, or lack thereof, of Obama’s foreign policy regarding fighting terrorism. But it seems to me what’s going on here is an effort to discredit Obama by people who gave full-throated support to the previous administration’s disastrous War on Terror policies, the aftermath of which is plain to see: a wrecked military; a weakened international consensus on when the use of force is legitimate; a destroyed Iraq that is a virtual satellite of Iran; a morally weakened US human rights record.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I don’t think any other conclusion is possible. I have asked in this thread what the administration is attempting to “cover up”, and all we have gotten for an answer is that, well, the administration put out a “false” narrative about what really happened. It wasn’t an anti-Muslim video; it was a terrorist attack.

I don’t buy that it was all as clear cut as the administration opponents suggest. First, an administration would dare put out “talking points”? Stop the presses. Must be the first time that has happened.

Second, the irrelevance of the video given what was transpiring in the entire region has not been proved.** I believe the video was very much a factor.**

Third, the utter confusion surrounding what was transpiring in Libya at the time is certainly a factor. Nobody really had a handle as to what was going on. What was the state of the Libyan “government” at the time? Who were our friends? Enemies? How much could security be relied on? All very much open questions.

We can certainly debate the efficacy, or lack thereof, of Obama’s foreign policy regarding fighting terrorism. But it seems to me what’s going on here is an effort to discredit Obama by people who gave full-throated support to the previous administration’s disastrous War on Terror policies, the aftermath of which is plain to see: a wrecked military; a weakened international consensus on when the use of force is legitimate; a destroyed Iraq that is a virtual satellite of Iran; a morally weakened US human rights record.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. It’s Bush’s fault.

You do know many of us don’t agree with a lot of Bush’s policies either. Just retire that tired line and address the issues.

I’ll match your speculation that the video was very much a factor. How about Hillary and Barack searched the internet looking for some anti Muslin video to blame?

 

[zz912]

I don’t think any other conclusion is possible. I have asked in this thread what the administration is attempting to “cover up”,

Pay closer attention. They were running guns to the rebels. Have you even bothered to ask what our Ambassador was doing in Benghazi? Especially on the anniversary of 9/11?

Second, the irrelevance of the video given what was transpiring in the entire region has not been proved. I believe the video was very much a factor.

A video that had less than 50 views total before the attacks was a factor? (considering that was worldwide, how many of that 50 were even in Benghazi?) You truly believe that?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Pay closer attention. They were running guns to the rebels. Have you even bothered to ask what our Ambassador was doing in Benghazi? Especially on the anniversary of 9/11?

A video that had less than 50 views total before the attacks was a factor? (considering that was worldwide, how many of that 50 were even in Benghazi?) You truly believe that?

I was looking for that information, Thanks!

View #51, Hillary and Barack googling for a “disgusting” (her words) anti-muslim video.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Do they really need to? Here’s Nancy Pelosi today:

washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/4/pelosi-says-she-couldnt-care-less-about-benghazi-c/

So who do you think will earn more votes? The Party going “let’s talk about the budget, let’s talk about jobs,” or the Party going “Benghazi!!!1111!!1!”? Come on. Republicans used to be moderate, but they’ve gone way off the deep end recently. We need to go back to Republicans who are socially conservative but willing to compromise on economics and willing to cut military funding and raise taxes. Not to mention Republicans who don’t lose their mind whenever they think they can pounce.

When was the last time Congress passed a budget?