May 9, 2013

"I said that death is a part of life, but so often we have to find a way to make life a part of death."

Yesterday at the Benghazi hearings, Elijah Cummings saw fit to quote something he'd said recently at a family funeral. Why was this member of Congress, sitting through a committing hearing going into what happened before, during, and after the Benghazi attacks, reminiscing about remarks he himself made the other day to help grieving people come to terms with a death in the family?

Is it that he admired his own words? That would take some strange self-regard, because the words  are no special wisdom, but the generic stuff of funerals. In the midst of life we are in death....

It must be that he equated the witnesses at the hearing to the mourners at a funeral, who experience the abrupt upheaval of a death in the family and need a way to pull themselves together and continue with their lives. A funeral is decidedly not the time to ask questions about why the death occurred. Leaders at a funeral set about tending to the emotional and spiritual lives of those who must keep living and who are at risk of becoming despondent or obsessed with questions about how it could have happened.

Cummings was on message with the Democratic Party talking point on Benghazi: It happened. Move on. Hillary Clinton chose an indignant, accusatory "What difference, at this point, does it make?" Cummings assumed the pose of the family elder, comforting the suffering, as if the witnesses emotionally were weak mourners who don't know how to let go of the painful memories and go forward to live productive lives.

The analogy is telling and quite outrageous.

IN THE COMMENTS ddh said: "Can someone explain to me how we can make life a part of death?" Ah, yes. My post is about the first part of Cummings's quote, a standard sentiment at funerals. The second part of his quote "life a part of death" is puzzling. Maybe at the funeral he talked about the afterlife. Maybe he talked about the fact that living people are spending some of their alive time in the company of a corpse. What that has to do with a congressional hearing... who knows? Maybe he's thinking: I'm alive and yet I must spend some of my precious time with this corpse of a political issue.

118 comments:

rhhardin said...

Another reason to avoid funerals.

ddh said...

Can someone explain to me how we can make life a part of death?

pm317 said...

Was he saying "what difference does it make, they are all dead anyway"?

AllenS said...

"I said that death is a part of life, but so often we have to find a way to make life a part of death."

Translation:

"What difference does it make, they are all dead anyway"

AllenS said...

Short version: "They're dead. So, let's live."

Jimmy said...

Well he is the same guy who said "you can't legislate people not being stupid" and he certainly sets a good example of that.

rhhardin said...

It's God's latest revision to his plan.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Really short version: "So it goes."

Mitchell the Bat said...

Point of order: Some Republican should have moved to stop all the clocks, cut off the telephone.

Jay said...

Clinton was briefed at 2 am night of the attack, was told movie had nothing to do with it by those on the ground, yet blamed the movie anyway.

Why isn't there a single Democrat interested in where the Youtube video talking point came from and why?

I mean, not intellectually curious, at all?

Jay said...

Cummings was on message with the Democratic Party talking point on Benghazi: It happened. Move on.

The 9-11 attacks happened. Move on.

OIF happened. Move on.

Hurricane Katrina happened. Move on.

Butterfly ballots in Palm Beach County happened. Move on.

This is a fun game, isn't it?

gerry said...

Elijah Cummings was an embarrassment. But recall, liberal Democrats believe that global warming will force women into prostitution!

Progs are stupefyingly amazing.

And scary. They hate liberty.

gerry said...

Oh, and libs also believe that Guam may tip over.

EnigmatiCore said...

"The analogy is telling and quite outrageous."

But that Democrats nearly uniformly will defend the indefensible must not be held against them for any length of time, lest one forfeit one's cruel neutrality.

pm317 said...

Even Drudge does not have a single link on Benghazi.. nothing to see here, move on, it was a long time ago, people die.

Jeff Teal said...

Elijah thinks that the only reason for these hearings is because people are talking up because their friends and boss died.He doesn't understand that some people are actually pissed off that the basics were not done to keep them alive or avenge them.Just a theory

Pogo said...

It means Blah blah blah. Next!

Biden would have told a joke about sports.

Well, Benghazi is nowhere near as bad as when Romney killed that guy's wife, when he got laid off and then a few years later she got cancer and died.

Straight line connection.

Benghazi?
Obama and Clinton weren't involved in that decision like Willard was. Man, he killed her just like a murderer.

Jeff Teal said...

The other Dems like Maloney are just covering for Hil.Duckworth is disappointing though.I guess since she took off her tree suit she forgot what it means to leave noone behind.

Astro said...

I keep thinking of Chappaquiddick and how Teddy Kennedy abandoned Mary Jo Kopechne - just let her die. That's what Hillary did here.

And like after Chappaquiddick, the same sweep-it-under-the-rug attitude prevails.
Shit happens. People die. Couldn't be helped. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Also like after Chappaquiddick, we found out there was a period of time when something could have been done. Mary Jo didn't just die immediately.
The 4 people who died at the embassy might have been saved if we sent in an immediate response team.

traditionalguy said...

They Dems are all defending the glories of Obama's perfect new leadership style which is valiantly to lead us from surrender to surrender. Of course that is going to mean death to many Pax Americana's best soldiers who had been keeping world peace since 1945.

Wake up and surrender!

Henry said...

ddh said: Can someone explain to me how we can make life a part of death?

Another way to put it is "The king is dead. Long live the king."

The idea is to privilege continuity over all other considerations. This is, of course, what the White House wants most: the privileging of their regime over anyone else's demand for change. Or even reflection. We've always been at war with Eastasia.

AReasonableMan said...

Beating a dead horse guys

Even Drudge has dropped it.

edutcher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
edutcher said...

Cummings is like Xavier Becerra or Chuckie Schumer - he can be counted upon to bloviate as much as necessary in defense of the indefensible.

I like Jay's use of the phrase "intellectually curious". Remember how the Lefties were all in high dudgeon over Dubya's supposed lack of it?

Now it is what Troll is.

AnUnreasonableTroll said...

Beating a dead horse guys

Even Drudge has dropped it.


Wanna bet?

But that's what the Lefties keep hoping. It will just go away.

But it doesn't.

His Awesomeness has some moth holes in it.

ricpic said...

MSM are simply not reporting on the Benghazi hearings. That's how the beautiful ones handle whatever doesn't fit the narrative. They disappear it. Please tell me in what way the United States is now different than the former Soviet Union.

Pogo said...

Very much like Chappaquiddick, Astro.

Theodore Dalrymple
"This truly is not so much the banality as the frivolity of evil: the elevation of passing pleasure for oneself over the long-term misery of others to whom one owes a duty."

Obama slept through it and then went to party with Beyonce, and Clinton had other things to do.

What better phrase than the 'frivolity of evil' describes them?

ReasonableMan thinks talking about dead citizens is beating a dead horse.

It's evil, as I have been saying. Frivolous evil, conniving only to get what they want, but without some long term evil plan like in the movies. Frivolous evil like small time crooks.

pm317 said...

I just can't believe that Obama got away with Benghazi. I see in Hillary someone who tried hard to please the boss -- you know like a teacher's pet wannabe, "I am in this administration and I should do everything to save it and save the Democrats". Her loyalty and devotion to "duty" to the party and this administration are repulsive. It is definitely at odds with which she was "allowed" to do her thing in the State department. Obama minions put her on a short leash and yet, she saved them.

Pogo said...

Stalin famously said that "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.

Now we know that as few as four deaths are a statistic.
Obama's working on it.

wyo sis said...

"make life a part of death"

It's one of those things people say to children. Like "What difference, at this point, does it make." It's meaningless. It's a sort of exasperated "Just leave me alone."

TML said...

I watched about 2:30 of that hearing on C-Span 3. As far as I'm concerned, it was devastating. Hicks, Thompson and Nordstrom we're intelligent, well spoken and focused on the details of the outrage they endured. I was appalled at the partisan breakdown of the questions. The democrats truly looked and sounded like idiots with their budget talk and insinuations. That dude from TN, Jim Jordan, though he spoke quickly, really hammered the admin. So, here's what I want to know. Were they all under oath? What weight does a House Committee hearing have (is that, in fact, what it was?) What happens next? Unless those three are shown to be huge liars, what any sane, fair person yesterday heard absolutely leads to grave consequences for Patrick Kennedy, Hillary and Obama. Did they ever reveal who gave Gibson the stand down order? Wouldn't that literally be the work of 3 minutes to know? How many people could give an order like that? I want Cheryl Mills' ass in a prison somewhere.

David Hampton said...

Whether Cummings and his ilk believe that those who risk their lives to protect liberty or that the deaths of citizens is the price we pay for elitist's comfort, they have a sick philosophy of life...and death. Cummings is the latest example of the moral vacuum the progressives and liberals operate in. A pox on them and those who continue voting for them.

cubanbob said...

After the democrats finally turn this country in to a Banana Republic and the Army finally has had enough and puts every elected democrat and democrat appointed official in DC in front of a firing squad "what difference does it make" be the meme of the day?

Will Cummings last thoughts be "death is a part of life " as he stares at the firing squad? Somehow I think not.

cubanbob said...

Beating a dead horse guys

Even Drudge has dropped it.


Yes like the shovel ready jobs and the summer of recovery. And the Boston bombing. All dead horses as you say.

X said...

perhaps Elijah Cummings just isn't very bright and there's no point in polishing his turds of wisdom.

Jay said...

AReasonableMan said...
Beating a dead horse guys

Even Drudge has dropped it.


Hilarious.

Why isn't there a single Democrat interested in where the Youtube video talking point came from and why?

I mean, not intellectually curious, at all?

I see you got this morning's talking points, you big thinker you.

Jay said...

Even Drudge has dropped it.

You realize that if Drudge had a bunch of pictures and links you would be absurdly claiming the hearings amounted to nothing, right?

damikesc said...

So, in addition to being impeached, he's a terrible speaker and hires terrible speech writers.

Does he do anything well?

drozz said...

tinfoil hat question: What if Hillary took it upon herself to act as President that night?

Then panic set in, someone said "Youtube", and the President went to Vegas.

Given the government's explanation of events on 9/12, i find my ludicrous theory entirely plausible...

creeley23 said...

This is the goon squad party and the goon squad presidency.

You might as well as expect wisdom from Paulie "Walnuts" of The Sopranos as you would from Elijah Cummings.

Chappaquiddick is entirely appropriate to bring up.

But did you know that Bush kept reading from a book about goats when he heard about 9-11?

LilyBart said...


Cummings' comments made me so angry.

The 'circle of life' comments may be appropriate when someone dies of disease or in an accident.

But these four were murdered while in a foreign country doing our country's work.

And Obama, Hillary, Cummings, etc just want it all to go away.

They deserve better. And all the citizens going abroad in now and in the future deserve better.

David said...

Part of this is explained by the fact that Cummings is one of the more stupid Congresscritters.

Marshal said...

AReasonableMan said...
Beating a dead horse guys


Here we see the perfect example of the leftist activist. When something outrageous happens we have to wait to gather the facts. But suddenly when the facts are coming in it's "beating a dead horse".

I especially like the aura of condescension, as if supporting covering up the circumstances surrounding 4 deaths is the reasonable position.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Simpler explanation: He's a fucking idiot. A typical Liberal Affirmative Action hire who believes his own press clippings.

kcom said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
kcom said...

Two points:

Point 1: Here's a link from Drudge found moments ago - White House struggles to respond to new Benghazi revelations.

Point 2: Unlike those on the left who get their marching orders from on high, we actually have the independence and ability to decide for ourselves what we think is important. We don't have pre-fab opinions. We come up with our own. So even if Drudge doesn't link anything, it's irrelevant. We know a story, and a scandal, when we see one.

creeley23 said...

AReasonableMan might as well call himself SexyTeen.

AReasonableMan said...

kcom said...
Unlike those on the left who get their marching orders from on high, we actually have the independence and ability to decide for ourselves what we think is important. We don't have pre-fab opinions. We come up with our own. We know a story, and a scandal, when we see one.


Iraq: Removed a dictator. Cost: several trillion. US Lives lost: several thousand. Rationale: Presence of WMD.

Libya: Removed an even worse dictator. Cost: almost nothing. US Lives lost: 4. Rationale: Most hated dictator in region and known sponsor of terrorism.

Oh great free thinker, which of these was the bigger scandal?

Jay said...

AReasonableMan said...


Iraq: Removed a dictator. Cost: several trillion


Complete and utter bullshit.

Jay said...


Oh great free thinker, which of these was the bigger scandal?


There is no "scandal" regarding OIF.

Hey, why do you think you're here trying to change the subject from Benghazi?

Oh, and by the way, here is the list of links on Drudge:

Hillary Clinton Accepts Public Service Award In Beverly Hills On Day of Benghazi Hearings...

Susan Rice Honored With 'Great American' Award...

White House struggles to respond to new revelations...

Marco Rips Hillary...

MORRIS: Beginning Of End...

KRAUTHAMMER: 'Where Was Commander in Chief?'

REPORT: CBSNEWS BOSSES IRKED BY CORRESPONDENT'S REPORTING; 'DANGEROUSLY CLOSE TO ADVOCACY'...


What is your dumbass response now?

creeley23 said...

SexyTeen is unable to distinguish between a policy that the nation agreed upon after a long discussion and a jihad event on the anniversary of 9-11 fostered by criminal negligence followed by dereliction and Watergate-style coverup for purely political reasons.

I Callahan said...

Beating a dead horse guys. Even Drudge has dropped it.

Can at least one person on the left side of the aisle please make just one comment in good faith?

Jay said...

SexyTeen also uses fake math to pretend we spent "trillions" in Iraq.

They really need to send better trolls.

furious_a said...

Beating a dead horse guys

Like what the mob did to the ambassador's corpse -- GREAT analogy!

kcom said...

"Oh great free thinker, which of these was the bigger scandal?"

Funny, I didn't realize there was a contest going on. I thought we were talking about something in the news, today, May 9, 2013. But, hey, it was worth a shot at changing the subject, wasn't it. It just didn't work. This a scandal and will remain one. The President of the United States sent a high-level official to five networks to make bald-faced lies about an important national event. That needs explaining.

furious_a said...

from Drudge, just now:

AMERICAN STABBED OUTSIDE US EMBASSY IN CAIRO...

Hillary Clinton Accepts Public Service Award In Beverly Hills On Day of Benghazi Hearings...

Susan Rice Honored With 'Great American' Award...

White House struggles to respond to new revelations...

Marco Rips Hillary...

MORRIS: Beginning Of End...

KRAUTHAMMER: 'Where Was Commander in Chief?'

REPORT: CBSNEWS BOSSES IRKED BY CORRESPONDENT'S REPORTING; 'DANGEROUSLY CLOSE TO ADVOCACY'...

Navy SEAL Team 6 families 'to reveal government's culpability' in sons' deaths...


ARM: Even Drudge has dropped it.

Are you that phucking stoopid?

I Callahan said...

Iraq: Removed a dictator. Cost: several trillion. US Lives lost: several thousand. Rationale: Presence of WMD.

ARM - this is NOT arguing in good faith. This is comparing apples and oranges.

Try again.

Matt said...

Let me channel ARM here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NNOrp_83RU

cubanbob said...

ARM the duck of death was a nasty piece of work but unlike Saddam he was not responsible for the deaths of one million people. Also the duck said he saw what Bush did to Saddam and he was afraid thus got rid of his nuclear arms program. Iraq and the Middle East are definitely better of with Saddam dead and gone. Although its too early to say it appears the same cant be said for Libya.

Matt said...

What ARM is doing here and Ritmo was doing yesterday is revealing. They are desperately trying to redirect because they KNOW what Obama and his team did here was very, very bad and indefensible. How bad do they think it is? They keep trying to compare it to Iraq, which they think was an act of evil by Bush. That is how bad they think it is.

The only choice they see left is to obfuscate. Now, how they do so and not feel like trash is beyond me. I could not do what they do. It is disgusting.

ARM, who do you believe started the talking point that it was due to a Youtube video? Who do you think gave the "stand down" order? Do you think it is unreasonable to want these questions answered?

Krumhorn said...



(Photo courtesy: FBI)
Copyright 2013 Scripps Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Regular Photo Size
SHARETHIS


Posted: 04/29/2013

HUNTSVILLE, Texas - A Texas inmate was executed Thursday evening for fatally shooting one of three people he and a partner abducted during a convenience store robbery nearly 11 years ago.

Richard Cobb, 29, didn't deny using a 20-gauge shotgun to kill Kenneth Vandever in an East Texas field where two women also were shot and one was raped. He was convicted of capital murder.

"Life is death, death is life. I hope that someday this absurdity that humanity has come to will come to an end," Cobb said when asked if he had any last words. "Life is too short. I hope anyone that has negative energy towards me will resolve that.

"Life is too short to harbor feelings of hatred and anger. That's it, warden."

But that wasn't it.

Just before the lethal drug took effect and at the conclusion of his statement, Cobb twisted his head back, raised it off a pillow placed on the gurney and then toward the warden standing behind him.

"Wow!" the inmate exclaimed in a loud voice. "That is great. That is awesome! Thank you, warden! Thank you (expletive) warden!"

mariner said...

Cummings didn't say anything like that when one of his nephews was killed.

mariner said...

Cummings didn't say anything like that when one of his nephews was killed.

AReasonableMan said...

Jay said...

Iraq: Removed a dictator. Cost: several trillion

Complete and utter bullshit.


Because of the dramatic advances in field medicine the number of casualties in Iraq was unusually low relative to the intensity of the conflict. But, the number of disabled veterans is very high. Add the lifetime cost of medical care and diability payments to the cost of the conflict and it becomes a very expensive enterprise, in the trillions. And then there are all the anciliary costs such as interest payments on the debt because the war was not funded by tax increases or a reduction in domestic spending.

The cost of war is always much higher than the dogs of war like McCain and Chaney would have us believe.

Matt said...

ARM, when you are done deflecting, care to answer the three simple questions I directed at you above?

n.n said...

Cummings is probably thinking of a volcano's eruption, where the lava incinerates everything in its path, and the soot covers and suffocates everything else. While all manner of fora, fauna, and human are destroyed, there comes a time when this destruction provides a foundation for a renewal. Some people call this creative destruction, while others regard it as an opportunity.

What he is actually saying is that life goes on, but not for those who suffer an elective abortion at any age or stage of development. It's a sad tale that is too often repeated. Someone, somewhere, made the wrong choice.

AReasonableMan said...

cubanbob said...
Iraq and the Middle East are definitely better of with Saddam dead and gone. Although its too early to say it appears the same cant be said for Libya.


This is complete BS. Iraq is nightmarish hell-hole, now and for the foreseeable future, with a constant level of high casualties and no apparent end to ethnic strife. By comparison, in a much shorter time frame, Libya is relatively calm.

AReasonableMan said...

Matt said...
ARM, who do you believe started the talking point that it was due to a Youtube video?


If you got out of your right wing bubble for a few minutes you would know that the video was in fact a trigger for the riots in Egypt. Some in the administration, in the absence of better information, thought something similar occurred in Libya. They were wrong but at the time there was much more information coming out of Egypt.

In contrast, we knew for a fact that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD from multiple independent sources before we attacked Iraq.

AReasonableMan said...

Matt, to demonstrate that you are something other than a Republican party hack your outrage needs to be a bit more bipartisan.

Matt said...

ARM, in testimony yesterday, Mr. Hicks testified that he told Hillary of the nature of the attack at 2 AM the night it happened. What you just stated is not a fact. It is your hopeful projection. Additionally, the attribution of the attack to the Youtube video went on for an extended period of time, not just in the immediate aftermath. Try again.

Matt said...

With regards to Benghazi, there is nothing to be set at the Republicans doorstep. Benghazi was 100% of the Obama Administration's making. Iraq was bipartisan but you know this. Try showing you are reasonable and acknowledge the truth instead of constantly deflecting, dodging, spinning and lying.

gutless said...

Obama, Cummings, Jackson-Lee, Waters, Jackson, the list goes on. If we could determine a commonality between these folks we could avoid electing any such politicians in the future.

Matt said...

Here ya go ARM:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/05/08/hillary-clintons-big-benghazi-lie-n1591097?utm_source=feedly

AReasonableMan said...

Matt, by the way there was no stand down order. This is from the LA Times and is priceless.

"There were military assets, there was military personnel, they were told to stand down," Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said Monday on the Fox program "Fox and Friends." Chaffetz acknowledged in an interview published Monday with the Washington Post that they would have arrived after the attack on the CIA annex was over. He said they could have provided first aid.

The death of the four Americans was a tragedy like all deaths in war time but to argue that it was because of direct actions of the President is insane partisan hackery.

Unknowable said...

In "fundamentally transformed America", our ruling elite, the PC ones anyway, most especially Hillary and Obama, can never be 'above the law' as the law automatically expands to accommodate their every word and deed.

Actions taken and not taken by Hillary and Obama in the Benghazi matter were then "legal", and will certainly become "moral" by the 2016 election season.

"Tyranny is when what is legal for the government is illegal for the citizens." -- Thomas Jefferson

Jay said...

AReasonableMan said...

If you got out of your right wing bubble for a few minutes you would know that the video was in fact a trigger for the riots in Egypt. Some in the administration, in the absence of better information, thought something similar occurred in Libya. They were wrong but at the time there was much more information coming out of Egypt


Complete and utter bullshit.

Hillary Clinton was told at 2am, the night of the attack, that this was a terrorist attack.

You seem to think your silly lies aren't easily refuted or something.

Jay said...

The cost of war is always much higher than the dogs of war like McCain and Chaney would have us believe

In other words, you don't have any actual data to back up your claim.

You'll just keep making the claim.

Jay said...

AReasonableMan said...

If you got out of your right wing bubble for a few minutes you would know that the video was in fact a trigger for the riots in Egypt. Some in the administration, in the absence of better information, thought something similar occurred in Libya. They were wrong but at the time there was much more information coming out of Egypt


Susan Rice was on TV 3 days after the attack saying it was a video.

You're a pathetic hack.

Jay said...

AReasonableMan said...
Matt, by the way there was no stand down order. This is from the LA Times and is priceless.


Note the sheer & utter dishonesty here.

All of a sudden a Congressman, one whom in any other circumstance you would call a liar, is now the voice of authority on stand down orders.

You're pathetic

Trashhauler said...

A ReasonableMan wrote: "In contrast, we knew for a fact that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD from multiple independent sources before we attacked Iraq."

This statement is ahistorical and quite wrong. We "knew" nothing of the sort. But if it helps your narrative, have at it.

AReasonableMan said...

Trashhauler said...
This statement is ahistorical and quite wrong. We "knew" nothing of the sort. But if it helps your narrative, have at it.


Let's think about this another way.

Were there WMD? No.

Did multiple independent sources say there were no WMD? Yes.

Matt said...

ARM, read what you pasted.

"Matt, by the way there was no stand down order. This is from the LA Times and is priceless.

"'There were military assets, there was military personnel, they were told to stand down,' Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said Monday on the Fox program 'Fox and Friends'."

The next sentence said they would not have arrived in time. That, if it is even true, is HINDSIGHT. They did not know how long the attack would last and the military personnel were told to stand down per your own quoted material. Did they know whether or not they would arrive late at the time? Hell no.

Stop lying.

Pastafarian said...

Althouse: "Why was this member of Congress...reminiscing about remarks..."

Did you not notice that the Democrats were filibustering the entire proceeding? I'm surprised they didn't get Maxine Waters to recite her recipe for poppyseed muffins.

AReasonableMan said...

Matt said...
The next sentence said they would not have arrived in time. That, if it is even true, is HINDSIGHT.


So now you are arguing that the military are so incompetent that they do not know how long it takes to load and fly a plane somewhere?

Matt said...

ARM,

I am not sure what you are reading but your response is incoherent.

Are you claiming that when terrorists attack an embassy those in charge know how long the attack will last?

Cedarford said...

It happened. Move on. Hillary Clinton chose an indignant, accusatory "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

================
Pity Nixon and Teddy couldn't take the same tack as the liberals and progressive jews pulling the puppet strings in media have done with Hillary and their Black Messiah.

Teddy leaving a woman to die just didn't sit well with the 2 million Jewish and 1 million liberals who were regular subscribers of the NY Times who apparantly had different beliefs tham the "whatever it takes to win power" progressives of today..So Chappaquiddick dogged Teddy the rest of his life.

As for Nixon, older people would have shut him out of power even faster if he gave a speech:

"Look, I lied, I ordered my inner circle to lie. It worked! I was reelected in 1972. Its over. My critics just need to shut up...because at this point..what difference does Watergate really make?? Just shut up,, and let me get on with the business of running the country!"

Jay said...

Oh look at this?


Gowdy provided one of the few surprises in the hearing, reading what he described as an email from the day after the attacks in which Acting Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs Beth Jones said she had told the Libyan governor that “the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists.” That raised fresh questions about why top Obama aides emphasized the role of spontaneous demonstrations against the video in public remarks for days afterwards.


-ARM is a liar

Jay said...

AReasonableMan said...

Did multiple independent sources say there were no WMD? Yes.


Complete & utter bullshit.

You're just making stuff up.

Jay said...

AReasonableMan said...

In contrast, we knew for a fact that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD from multiple independent sources before we attacked Iraq.


Total fabrication.

Jay said...

Notice the progression of AReasonableMan here.

First, allegedly there was "nothing on Drudge" therefore (bizarrely) this is a non-story.

Now: Iraq!!!

How sad

Bruce Hayden said...

Simpler explanation: He's a fucking idiot. A typical Liberal Affirmative Action hire who believes his own press clippings.

There is something to this. He most likely has a majority minority district, which means that any Dem is going to win, and these districts seem to give the Dems their most radical, and, yes, corrupt, members of Congress. They could probably be convicted child molesters, and as long as they are a Black Dem, they are going to win, if they can keep the nomination.

Bruce Hayden said...

Re: Iraq - those of you who respond to posts about Bush and Iraq really shouldn't be doing so. They are obvious attempts to change the subject from Benghazi, Cummings, etc. to somewhere where the leftists here believe (despite all the evidence to the contrary) that they still have some sort of moral legitimacy. Of course, we are a decade down the road, with three Presidential elections in the interim.

The reality is that Benghazi is entirely the Dems. They have full ownership of the scandal, from causing it (by reducing security despite significant intelligence of a worsening security situation), failing to send any help that night, to actively covering up their malfeasance and misfeasance, with Cummings being just one of the latest to do so. For me, even bringing up the subject of Iraq is a pretty strong admission by those who do so that the actions of the Dems in power in D.C. are and were unsupportable by any right thinking people in this country.

Jay said...

AReasonableMan said...

In contrast, we knew for a fact that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD from multiple independent sources before we attacked Iraq.


Notice the silly, absurd leap of logic here.

Even if there were " multiple independent sources " saying Saddam didn't have WMD (no such thing happened), President Bush is supposed to reverse the offical policy of the US government in place since the 1980's.

Further, just because these alleged " multiple independent sources " said something means Bush or the CIA or somebody "knew" Saddam had no WMD's

Where the fuck do you dummies come from?

I'm serious, do you retards ever even think about the stupid shit you write?

Cedarford said...

Bruce Hayden said...
Re: Iraq - those of you who respond to posts about Bush and Iraq really shouldn't be doing so. They are obvious attempts to change the subject from Benghazi,

=======================
Not really.
The present problem is Republicans are sort of fixated on waiving the "Bloody Shirt" and screaming "4 DEAD HEROES!!!! thanks to Hillary and Obama's blunders." and not focusing on the coverup. The lies under oath, the lies voters and victim families were told in the runup to a major election that will seat 2-3 new liberals at SCOTUS. The witnesses that were intimidated or demoted.

Waiving the bloody shirt makes it easy. All democrats have to do if that is the only Rep complaint " 4 DEAD HEROES thanks to Hillary and Obama!!" is bring up 4400 DEAD HEROES, 3800 Amputations or blindings/serious brain injury, and a couple trillion pissed away due to fundamental Bush and the Neocon Cabal.

Fight it on the "bloody Shirt" ground, and Republicans lose in a landslide.

Remember what people said at the time of Watergate - it wasn't the 2nd rate burglary that did Nixon in - it was the lies and the coverup.

creeley23 said...

Re: Iraq - those of you who respond to posts about Bush and Iraq really shouldn't be doing so. They are obvious attempts to change the subject from Benghazi, Cummings, etc. to somewhere where the leftists here believe (despite all the evidence to the contrary) that they still have some sort of moral legitimacy...

For me, even bringing up the subject of Iraq is a pretty strong admission by those who do so that the actions of the Dems in power in D.C. are and were unsupportable by any right thinking people in this country.


Bruce Hayden: Quite right.

If ARM wants to continue his Iraq argument, he can explain what it has to do with Benghazi.

It's like a Nixon supporter complaining about LBJ's expansion of the Vietnam War to excuse Watergate.

cubanbob said...

"Because of the dramatic advances in field medicine the number of casualties in Iraq was unusually low relative to the intensity of the conflict. But, the number of disabled veterans is very high. Add the lifetime cost of medical care and diability payments to the cost of the conflict and it becomes a very expensive enterprise, in the trillions. And then there are all the anciliary costs such as interest payments on the debt because the war was not funded by tax increases or a reduction in domestic spending. "

You make a great case for abolishing 'entitlements' and 'needs' based social spending for the able bodied. Didn't know you had it in you.

cubanbob said...

AReasonableMan said...

"In contrast, we knew for a fact that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD from multiple independent sources before we attacked Iraq."


Bush listed numerous reasons. WMD's were one of them but not the only one. Speaking of which it appear Saddam's nephew in Arab National Socialism in Syria used some of the WMD's that the Russians removed from Iraq just prior to the invasion.
Speaking of knowing for a fact got got his information from such reliable sources as Bill Clinton's CIA director George Tennant among others. Just goes to show you should never accept anything as true coming from a democrat without full verification. Bad Bush.

Chef Mojo said...

Cederford's "Four Dead Heroes" is the new "Enjoy the decline, assholes!"

Tedious.

Cedarford said...

Chef Mojo -

Tedious but true.

The "bloody shirt" strategy to make Benghazi all about "4Dead Heroes due to Democrat blundering" is easily dealt with by Democrats that can wave a far bigger "bloody shirt".

Dumb call.
Sort of like the extreme right trying to make Benghazi all about one "persecuted hero", Nakoula, who admitted he made a video that would hopefully cause mass Muslim anger, result in several embassies under seige with hopefully dead and injured Americans with it - Making that scumbag into a Republican Right's version of a 1st Amendment martyr.

The real issue is not Iraq vs. Benghazi bodycount or the "Hero Rescuers" being stopped long after the Ambassador was already dead..

It is the Team Hillary blundering on security before the attack, and the coverup and lies after the attack.
Those were factors entirely in Team Hillary and Team Obama's control and they fucked it up.
The actual attacks in Benghazi are not in "control"...the enemy has the initiative and sometimes has success.
Zero tolerance of any death or injury at enemy hands is laughably ridiculous.

The matter is post-attack determining if leadership was competent and was then honest with both the players within government and the public in addressing the attack and lessons learned. Especially with a major election coming, and things very close. Did they accept accountability, or lie and obfusticate to avoid it??


Trashhauler said...

"Did multiple independent sources say there were no WMD? Yes."

With respect, please name some.

Amartel said...

Ah, the Boooosh card has been played.

Time for the Nixon card.

creeley23 said...

Cedarford: In these precincts the commenters who are playing the numbers card hard are mostly Benghazi apologists so they can trump it with the dead soldiers in Iraq.

ed said...

Shorter Democrat:

It sucks to be those dead white guys.

Shortest Democrat:

Squirrel!

AReasonableMan said...

creeley23 said...
Cedarford: In these precincts the commenters who are playing the numbers card hard are mostly Benghazi apologists


I am not an apologist. I am a realist. We removed a very hard edged dictator by means of war in a country where life is cheap. To imagine that there would be no casualties or other blow-back from this act is naive.

You can legitimately ask why the Ambassador was taking such a security risk given these circumstances.

AReasonableMan said...

Trashhauler said...
"Did multiple independent sources say there were no WMD? Yes."

With respect, please name some.


This is kind of old news. Officially, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) found no evidence of WMD before the war. The "Downing Street memo" indicated that the British were unconvinced of this rational. In addition, the French, the Israelis and the Saudis all said through diplomatic channels that Hussein was bluffing.

In addition our own State Department was very skeptical and subsequently Colin Powell stated that some of the intelligence he relied on for his UN speech was "deliberately misleading." And Bill Clinton and Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen, who would have seen recent intelligence reports expressed doubt about the WMDs.

Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe later that the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam's foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD.

Yossi Sarid, a member of the Israeli foreign affairs and defence committee said,
"It was known in Israel that the story that weapons of mass destruction could be activated in 45 minutes was an old wives' tale".

Kirk Parker said...

Cedarford,

Go away. You're something far, far worse than just wrong, or offensive (though you are those, indeed, in spades.)

You're boring. Mind-numbingly, crashingly boring.

Go away.

Cedarford said...

The seasoned people in the Obama opposition are coming to a rough consensus that the bloody shirt 4 DEAD HEROES!! who could have been rescued!! narrative is readily rebutted by counterwaving the bloody shirt of the thousands of Americans done in by blunders on Iraq, and rebutted by real doubts about if a Hollywood rescue mission would have saved anyone. And that the real areas that need focus are the competency of State in security matters before the attack, and the elaborate coverup.

One Republican strategist:
Most voters likely will accept the judgment of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who has said there was no way to provide military reinforcements in time.

Where the administration is most vulnerable is on questions of trust – an issue that, once exposed, can impact how votes consider the president’s words and deeds on all matters. This should be the White House's greatest concern after Wednesday’s hearing on the events leading to the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and two security officers.


Looks like Boehner is listening. He just announced that he will ask Congress to demand the White House and State release all unclassified emails regarding the sanitizing of the talking points and be allowed to see the classified emails behind closed doors.
To help identify who made the decision at each stage to deceive voters on the true nature of the attack.
Even some Democrats are ready to join in wanting this investigated, disposed of - and try and get this "trust" issue behind them. Because if more people get to a "you can't trust Democrats belief " - it isn't Obama that suffers or out of power Hillary - but Congressmen running in 2014.

Cedarford said...

Kirk Parker said...
Cedarford,

Go away. You're something far, far worse than just wrong, or offensive (though you are those, indeed, in spades.)

You're boring. Mind-numbingly, crashingly boring.

Go away.

=================
Am I surprised you are too stupid not to get the main issues are not about the dubious rescue mission to save "the 4 Heroes", two of which were already dead??

No, no surprise. You really are stupid.

And rationalize your lack of comprehension as "boredom". Claiming boredom is a common defense by stupid people too dumb or lazy to grasp facts.

hombre said...

Here's the bottom line from an old Democrat: The New Democrat Party, from top to bottom, doesn't care what happened in Benghazi; doesn't care if the Administration, and by implication, Obama, was incompetent; doesn't care if there was a coverup; doesn't care if Obama and Hillary lied. It doesn't even care about effective governance. All it cares about is holding off the Republicans and retaining power.

Move on.

AReasonableMan said...

hombre said...
The New Democrat Party doesn't care if the Administration, and by implication, Obama, was incompetent. It doesn't even care about effective governance.


This is a little rich coming from supporters of Bush and Cheney. There has never been an administration that more completely failed in both economic and foreign performance. While Hoover may have been worse on the economy and LBJ/Nixon worse on war, no one matches Bush/Cheney in the broad swathe of their incompetence.

Lydia said...

Good point by Cedarford:
Even some Democrats are ready to join in wanting this investigated, disposed of - and try and get this "trust" issue behind them. Because if more people get to a "you can't trust Democrats belief " - it isn't Obama that suffers or out of power Hillary - but Congressmen running in 2014.

And trust is especially important since the Boston bombing, which has made terror a real thing again for many who had been lulled into thinking it was all because of Bush and that Obama had kept us safe.

Jay said...

AReasonableMan said...
The "Downing Street memo" indicated that the British were unconvinced of this rational.


You are completely full of shit.

You've typed at least 5 outright fabrications here.

You have no interest in facts or the truth.

Jay said...

In addition our own State Department was very skeptical

Bullshit.

And "being skeptical" is not we knew for a fact that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD from multiple independent sources

Again, where do you fucking dummies come from?

Do you even read the bullshit you're typing?

Jay said...

AReasonableMan said...
In addition, the French, the Israelis and the Saudis all said through diplomatic channels that Hussein was bluffing.


Really?

You have a link for that verifying that bullshit?

Please explain how "think Saddam is bluffing" is independent verification?

AReasonableMan said...

Jay said...
Again, where do you fucking dummies come from?


For me, a fucking dummy is someone who believes something that clearly isn't true. You clearly believed that there were WMD in Iraq.

Jay said...

AReasonableMan said...

For me, a fucking dummy is someone who believes something that clearly isn't true. You clearly believed that there were WMD in Iraq.


Nice goal post moving.

Really, you're now reduced to talking about what I believe rather than whether or not your silly bullshit statements have any validity.

Nobody could have seen this coming.

hombre said...

A.R.M. wrote irrelevantly: "This is a little rich coming from supporters of Bush and Cheney. There has never been an administration that more completely failed in both economic and foreign performance."

I have never written in support of Bush's and Cheney's policies and I don't support them when Obama follows and expands them either.

Here we are talking about insensitivity, incompetence and a coverup related to the death of our Ambassador and three others in Benghazi. I don' t see Bush and Cheney as complicit in that, do you, Obamatroll?

AReasonableMan said...

Jay said...
Nice goal post moving.

Really, you're now reduced to talking about what I believe rather than whether or not your silly bullshit statements have any validity.


If you had any knowledge of what people generally understand rather than be restricted to the fervid talking points of the right wing swamp you would realize that nothing I said is generally disputed.

Mike Biggle said...

"death is a part of life"
A weak way of saying those lives weren't worth the trouble to protect. The congressman used the same phrase after the border agent was killed.
Fort Bragg, Aurora, Newtown, etc- I would like Elijah Cummings say the same thing to the families of the victims.
Why try to protect anyone, you're going to die anyway-WEAK!!