A paragraph out of Politico's piece titled "The Benghazi-Industrial Complex/Will the pseudo-scandal be enough to stop Hillary from running?"
You know, Hillary should be very afraid to expose herself to the beating that every presidential candidate richly deserves. That's how we do democracy. I'm not accepting any pushback. And I'm not going to be massaged into thinking that Hillary is some bold impressive fighter if she steps forward even after friendly journalists have warned her that it's going to be rough.
And perhaps, in the end, the prospect of facing down accusations over Benghazi alone won’t matter much to her. Between the bloody chaos in Syria, Iraq and the larger Arab world, violence in Afghanistan and the standoff with Russia over Ukraine—despite her effort at a “reset” of relations—Clinton will have a lot else to defend in her record if she runs. Real issues, in other words. With Benghazi or not, any presidential campaign is going to be ugly. But the Benghazi-Industrial Complex is going to be as toxic as anything Hillary has faced since … Vince Foster. Is she ready?See how that's designed to position us to root for her?
पोस्ट्स
१०७ टिप्पण्या:
"There is as little evidence that Clinton or anyone else in the administration engaged in a cover-up of Benghazi as there is that Hillary ordered the whacking of her old friend Vince Foster. It is a fantastical notion that continues not just to survive but thrive, in defiance of any application of fact, among the “vast right-wing conspiracy” Hillary decried so long ago."
Why I quit reading Politico a long time ago. Just another DNC PA system.
pseudo scandal?
but then, it's Politico, which, I think in Russian is Izvestia.
"But these are issues of competence, not corruption."
That's comforting.
Has anyone ever advanced the hypothesis that the Clintons are involved in so many scandals because they do so many scandalous things?
Looks like Politico got the memo.
Boy, they're working as hard to mainstream the Vince Fosterists as they did the birthers.
How can any fair-minded person call what happened in Benghazi (and the political after-math) a "pseudo-scandal"? Were four Americans not killed? Were the American people not misled about the origins of the attack? Did Hillary not help frame the false narrative that the attack was the result of a video? Has the Obama Administration continued to lie about Benghazi ever since ("100% of the documents have been released", Susan Rice's talking points were based on the best intelligence available, the White House did not edit the talking points, etc.)? How is this NOT a scandal?
Hillary told her self-serving fibs over the flag-draped coffins of her dear friend and three other murdered Americans.
Lying over his dead body.
How is that a "pseudo" scandal?
The talking points have gone out: Smear anyone who thinks Benghaz is a scandal.
If there is no issue, why are all of the people with nothing to hide, acting like they are hiding something? Why are the loyalist media trying to sweep this under the rug?
There is as little evidence that Clinton or anyone else in the administration engaged in a cover-up of Benghazi as there is that Hillary ordered the whacking of her old friend Vince Foster.
Good lord, these idiots are shameless. Someone in the administration completely invented a story, a narrative from whole cloth, a "cover-up". They did it for purely political reasons. That happened. At this point the only question is who specifically did it?
Of course so far the various apparatchiks seem to be pleading incompetence rather than actual intentional wrongdoing, even though that would imply an astonishing and frighting level of incompetence.
The Rhodes Memo is about as clear cut as cover-up coordination gets.
It's not the evil that bothers me so much; it's the twin slaps that (a) the political establishment thinks the American public is that stupid and (b) so much of it -- particularly within the set that thinks itself better than flyover folks -- really is.
And I'm not going to be massaged into thinking
You'll vote for her.
Every time some hack types "pseudo scandal," an angel gets its wings, and also thinks maybe there really is a cover-up after all...
Benghazi-Industrial Complex
This is the best you can do, Politico? How about the Benghazi-Book Depository? The Benghazi-and-Vanzetti? The Benghazi Telegram? The Et Tu Benghazi? Must you be tedious as well as tendentious?
If it's a pseudo-scandal?
What do they consider a real scandal? One that involves Republicans?
If she runs, there are going to be questions about every dollar the Clintons have made.
Okay, pretend there wasn't a cover-up of Benghazi. Isn't the episode evidence of epic incompetence?
Obviously, this stuff is just put out for the benefit of people who automatically believe whatever they're told by the DNC and its media sycophants. What's scary is how many of these sort of people there are.
This is number two in a long string of comments like RecChief's:
pseudo scandals?
in defiance of any application of fact, among the “vast right-wing conspiracy” Hillary decried so long ago
Paula Jones
Filegate
Travelgate
Monica Lewinski
Does it ever dawn on these knuckleheads that The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy were proven absolutely correct?
If there's no "coverup" then why don't we know the simple answers to these questions?
- Where was Obama when the attacks were going on and what was he doing?
- Where was Hilary! while her ambassador was being raped and killed and what was she doing?
- What was Stevens doing in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11 anyway? Why was he there and what were the meetings about?
Sure, there's lots more we don't know, but you'd think with a free press and a "transparent" administration we would at least have plain answers to the above questions. But we have a strangely incurious press that is more Politico than Woodward & Bernstein.
What a sorry bunch of wanna-know-nothings to inhabit the fourth estate!
I don't want to see Clinton run, but if she wasn't afraid to deal with questions in 2008 about Whitewater I doubt she'll be afraid to deal with Benghazi in 2016. Besides, it looks like the House Republicans intend to get it all out of our system in 2014.
Every time I hear more about Benghazi, it takes me back to the 2008 campaign when Clinton ran the ad about the 3:00am phone call.
Since we know that Obama was not in the situation room, and she was the go-to person regarding the security of the embassies, she metaphorically got her 3:00am phone call.
Trouble is, she answered the toaster.
The ONLY thing notable about HRClinton's stint as Secretary of State was Benghazi. She ought to hope that nobody thinks to ask her whether she accomplished anything else.
you want a conspiracy theory, these Vince Foster/Benghazi comparisons are orchestrated.
pseudo-scandal. Just a little unexplained death. It's not like she had an argument with a park ranger over a boat registration.
Not possible to have any pity on her, and certainly not should she choose to run. Those who long to vote for her, for whatever reason, and are in position to speak out now are very busy framing the stories to make her the innocent victim. Many of these will be those who job is to seek out and report the truth. But why start now?
it's an effort to shore up her eroding credibility or allow her to exit - by making us feel sorry for her.
I haven't seen one good idea come from her that could be considered positive. Great negative, destructive ideas, though.
No I don't Ann. Please explain.
Even if Foster were murdered, and he wasn't, the two deaths are completely distinguishable. Unlike Foster, Benghazi directly implicates both her professionalism as secretary of state and the failed US policies in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, including the arming Syrian rebels with the help of the Turks. Her mismanagement beforehand left the consulate unprotected, despite clear indications that conditions in Benghazi were deteriorating.
The attempt to link Foster to Benghazi is sickening.
Over at NRO, something to print out and keep for reference: The Complete Chronology of the Benghazi Deception
Much there, but to me the most important is the reminder that the State Dept. rejected Ambassador Steven's requests for more security twice, on April 19, 2012 and July 9, 2012. And then actually reduced the number of security personnel on August 8, 2012. Also that State was told on August 16, 2012 by U.S. Site Security in Benghazi that conditions were perilous.
And to all appearances, all that seems to have been politically motivated.
If the Republicans hit that hard, Politico et al.'s valiant effort to establish the Benghazi-Crazies meme should be a bit tougher than they think it will be.
You called it earlier. The repeated reference to Vince Foster is designed to link ANY criticism of Hillary Clinton with the conspiracy theorists who fantasized that Bill or Hillary had Vince Foster killed.
Eisenhower warned us of the military-industrial complex. Far more dangerous to our democracy today is the media/political staffer/lobbyist/political consultant complex that creates a revolving door of like-minded folks who focus exclusively on gaming elections. We see the same tricks over and over. The left is more effective at them, but the right has the same problem. No candidate can win without hiring the right consultants, the right direct-mail firms, the right spin-mastetrs, and all of those folks think alike, think only of the spin. They're very good at it, and that makes it hard for ordinary people, and candidates who really have no desire to enter into that toxic environment, to fight them.
I think Hillary has worse skeletons in her closet, though maybe not at titillating. One of my favorites: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&
I believe we are seeing a lot of this kind of absurd rhetoric about Hillary's candidacy for a very simple reason: If not her, then who? (Pelosi? Reid? It is to laugh (or flee the country, I suppose)). The Democrats have at least as weak a bench as the Republicans.
That said, I think the Go Hillary effort is doomed, and I'm prepared to bet actual money right now that she won't get the nomination.
In the aftermath of the complete and final trahison des journalistes in the Obama era, the idea that any Democratic politician has any reason to fear harsh treatment from the media is utterly, utterly laughable.
One simple question. What part of the world is better off today than before Hillary Clinton became our Secretary of State? Maybe Iran?
If there's no "coverup" then why don't we know the simple answers to these questions?
Republican have held 13 hearings in 5 different committees on Benghazi. Are they just that incompetent in fact finding?
Just imagine if Obama were president and 241 Marines were bombed/killed in their barracks. Whoa!
How many hearings did we have over Beirut?
Where was Reagan during the bombings? What was he wearing? Who did he call? WHY CAN'T SOMEBODY ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS!
"One simple question. What part of the world is better off today than before Hillary Clinton became our Secretary of State? Maybe Iran?"
What part of the world is better off after George Bush's presidency - Iraq?
garage,
Do you think that the State department and the WHite House have an obligation to help in the investigation, or do you think it's appropriate that they play hide-and-seek with the related information?
It's not the evil that bothers me so much; it's … that (a) the political establishment thinks the American public is that stupid …
I don't think so. We must remember that many intelligent people voted for Obama, inventing tortuous rationalizations for doing so, and continue to do so after it is fairly evident that Obama is only competent in, not leading or governing, but getting elected. The more intelligent the voter the more exquisite and convoluted the rationale.
If she runs, there are going to be questions about every dollar the Clintons have made.
Not from those who matter, otherwise known as the MSM.
The repeated reference to Vince Foster is designed to link ANY criticism of Hillary Clinton with the conspiracy theorists who fantasized that Bill or Hillary had Vince Foster killed.
Bingo!
I think she should be encouraged by Benghazi Dementia. It means the other side's got nothing or, more accurately, has just as much as they had with Vince Foster. The American people don't give a toss and this will drive the wingers so crazy that they start shooting own goals. At this point things couldn't look any better for her - partisan hacks like Krauthammer are already falling over there own feet, undecided whether it the biggest thing since Watergate or just another opportunity blown by Issa.
Garage: "How many hearings did we have over Beirut?"
Had everybody else pulled out of Beirut? Had the barracks commandant called and asked for more security because he feared an attack? Did the Reagan administration blame the attack on a videotape and have some doofus with a video camera thousands of miles away arrested?
Was the Middle East the same then has now?
The Republicans have done a poor job of marshaling the facts and the media has done a poor job of publicizing the facts.
Do you feel some compulsion to see the Administration whitewashed over this? As you know from past experience, the fact that they are crooks and liars need not deter you and other Dems from voting for them.
LOL.
Garage on his own again.
It's adorable how he keeps trying so hard.
Just like the "cool kids" at media matters.
Just imagine if Obama were president and 241 Marines were bombed/killed in their barracks.
The commentor forgets that THAT President's employees were never allowed to invent a false narrative as the cause of the bombing. Also, there were no calls beforehand for enhanced security, which were refused, as happened with Benghazi.
Are they just that incompetent in fact finding?
Dems have been better at stonewalling than the Nixon White House was.
Just imagine if Obama were president and 241 Marines were bombed/killed in their barracks. Whoa!
Difference being that Ronald Reagan learned from Beirut. Has Obama demonstrated that he learned anything from Benghazi? The answer appears to be that he doesn't even recognize that mistakes were made.
Reagan didn't have some guy blamed, jailed and arrested.
Republican have held 13 hearings in 5 different committees on Benghazi. Are they just that incompetent in fact finding?
No. The White House is just good at withholding information.
How many hearings did we have over Beirut?
None..because President Reagan took responsibility immediately.
Let's go out on a major limb and assume for arguments sake that Hillary actually had nothing to do with any of these scandals and the Republican charges against her are baseless.
This is still a Pearson with decades of public life, topped by eight years in the Senate and four as SoS. And her legacy at this point--not scandals and accusations mind you, but an objective reading of her record--consists of:
1) a failed attempt to pass health care reform at a time when her party controlled both houses of Congress and the White House
2) a Senate career where her only significant vote was a cynical vote to endorse the invasion of Iraq so she would avoid the wimp label so many Democrats got hit with when they didn't support the first Gulf War
3) a foreign policy that consists of a comically failed "reset" (complete with toy button!) with Russia, the failure of the Arab Spring revolutions, the embassy attack on Benghazi that killed our ambassador, and a slow bleed in Afghanistan.
Why exactly do Democrats think they owe her to such an extent that they'll take all the oxygen from any other candidate? What sort of so-called party of the people would grant a coronation?
As a relative newcomer to this blog, I note the way some people can't resist leaping at the troll bait vomited out by Garage. There's no point in responding to or even acknowledging him.
Like a child who craves attention, it's the reaction he's after.
"I think she should be encouraged by Benghazi Dementia. It means the other side's got nothing or, more accurately, has just as much as they had with Vince Foster. "
Speaking of dementia.
The left has no interest in those who defend the country. All you care about is your own little soup bowl. Keep filling it and they can do anything else that occurs to them. Lie, steal, abuse young female interns, male interns, run a gay whorehouse out of your home, destroy the economy, destroy Europe, kidnap 200 children and sell them into slavery.
It is all "pseudo scandals"
She walked into everything with her eyes wide open and her mouth shut tight until she had to make excuses or lie her way out. Not that I'm cynical or anything...
Hey Garage! At least have the balls to credit Rachel Maddow and MSNBC for your talking points.
Boy the Hillary support complex is getting all wee wee'd up isn't it now.
Personally I think that Hillary is corrupt, but that's an issue where reasonable folks can differ.
I do think that she is incompetent, which is beyond dispute.
George Burton jibed...What part of the world is better off after George Bush's presidency - Iraq?
Q: Which Hussein did you admire most: Saddam or his heir apparent, Uday?
All these articles, interviews, etc. trickling out. The Democratic left want her out of the way. They assume they have a lock on the White House due to the demographics, and they want her to step aside for Elizabeth Warren or another reliable progressive. No Clinton triangulation.
Let us stipulate that the easily riled but well armed citizens of Benghazi rose up in fury at the video which defamed the Prophet (PBUH), pulled out their anti-tank and hand held rocket launches and spontaneously attacked our Embassy. All better now? No? Because from the run up to that puzzlingly coincidental date of the spontaneous attack in response to an insulting video the State Department, the CIA and the Executive branch were caught iff guard, did not respond and then collaborated in a circus of stupidity.
A debacle regardless of the absence of "coverup" or "conspiracy."
@George, Iraq in January 2009 was a better place than Iraq in May 2014. Ditto Libya and Syria.
Vince Foster was shot to death in a staged suicide. But that doesn't prove that either Clinton had anything to do with his murder.
I do recall that at a speech/press announcement of FOSTER'S dead body dead body being found, Bill Clinton managed to repeat the phrase , " ...no one will ever know why this happened" five times in two minutes.
ARM.
They were pissed at that video weren't they? You often appear smarter than most progressives but being lied to your face doesn't appear to bother you in the least. To know that the Secretary of State lied to the face of one of the dead doesn't appear to bother you either.
Are you just that political or just cynical in general or used to being lied to?
As a relative newcomer to this blog, I note the way some people can't resist leaping at the troll bait vomited out by Garage. There's no point in responding to or even acknowledging him.
I obviously disagree, albeit selectively so. Sometimes the comments merit response, sometimes not. There are many more who read this blog than add comment to it. For that reason progressive/liberal talking points need to be countered before the uninformed have a chance to drink ALL the Koolaide.
Part of my usual method is to respond to comments – never respond to the person if I can help it. Many times I am not even aware who the commentor is.
Who knows about what her role was in the Bengazi coverup. Someone does, but the rest of us are unlikely to see enough evidence to reach a conclusion.
However, her past lies and violations of the law are clear. Number one in my mind has always been the missing tax file regarding Whitewater which was found in the living quarters of the White House. This was a file from Hillary's law firm that had been in the possession of Vince Foster at one point. After Vince died, Hillary's chief of staff went into his office, took many of his files and held them for (at least) five days. This was all completely illegal, and Hillary had to know. Then years later the file turns up on a table in the personal quarters.
So, in this case, Hillary through her agents illegally purloined the files. She and Bill then said that this particular (and important) file had been lost. Then it showed up in their personal home.
This is enough, but without doubt other files were sanitized and withheld. She has never been confronted with this, and never has explained it.
Then there is travelgate, a Hillary operation through and through, violations of law in working on the health care plan and the plainly corrupt profits she made trading commodities when she was first lady of Arkansas.
This is who she is. She will lie if she needs to, break the law if she has to and try to destroy those who oppose her. There are other matters, some of which are known but have been effectively covered up, and probably others we do not know about.
I do not believe that the Clintons had Vince Foster killed. I do think he was under terrible pressure and it may have had to do with covering for the Clintons. But it is sure that the specific matters above were illegal, corrupt and should disqualify her from being President.
She should fear this. What else is she afraid of?
I blogged the Politico piece as well: 'The #Benghazi-Industrial Complex? Politico's Michael Hirsh Pushes Back Desperately Against Ben Rhodes Bombshell'.
See how that's designed to position us to root for her?
Boy, you righties can't win for losing.
ReasonableMan said...
I think she should be encouraged by Benghazi Dementia. It means the other side's got nothing or, more accurately, has just as much as they had with Vince Foster. The American people don't give a toss and this will drive the wingers so crazy that they start shooting own goals. At this point things couldn't look any better for her - partisan hacks like Krauthammer are already falling over there own feet, undecided whether it the biggest thing since Watergate or just another opportunity blown by
So you're comfortable with being lied to?
Given that the same sort of people, and in some cases, the exact same people, who were raising conspiracy theories about Vince Foster are now doing so about Benghazi, it's good to see Politico make some connections. The questions Politico raises are legitimate ones, unlike those raised by the Foster/Benghazi/Birther set.
Hillary will do fine. Once again, she is fortunate in her choice of opponents.
Hillery has so many skeletons in her past that she had to build an addition onto her house just to have enough closets to keep 'em in..
Correction: The so called "missing" and subpoenaed records of Hillary Clinton at the Rose Law Firm were her billing records, not her tax records.
According to Col. Timothy J. Geraghty, the commander of the Marines in Beirut: “It didn’t take a military expert to realize that our troops had been placed in an indefensible situation. Anyone following the situation in Lebanon in ordinary news reports could realize a tragedy was in the making. Link
What did Ronnie Raygun do the day after a truck bomb killed 24 people?
On September 20, 1984, there was a truck-bomb explosion at the U.S. embassy annex in Aukar, Lebanon, just outside Beirut. Twenty-four people were killed. It was third terrorist bombing aimed at U.S. interests in Lebanon in a year and a half.
What did Ronald Reagan do on September 21, 1984? He made three campaign appearances in Iowa -- at an airport rally, a farm, and a church picnic -- despite the fact that a Des Moines Register poll showed him leading Walter Mondale in the state by 23 points. He then returned to Washington and made a well-publicized visit to the home of seven-year-old Rudolph Lee-Hines, who lived in the predominantly black Congress Heights section of Washington. Reagan had dinner at the home of Lee-Hines, who was described in news reports as Reagan's "pen pal"; they'd exchanged several letters after a Reagan visit to the boy's school the previous March.
Link
Looks like pretty much what wingers are accusing Obama of.
George Burton said (6:01 pm) "What part of the world is better off after George Bush's presidency - Iraq?"
Yes, certainly Iraq. And Afghanistan. Also, almost all of sub-Saharan Africa (where GWB is today more highly regarded than BHO), Poland, the Czech Republic, Israel, South Korea, Mexico . . . I could list others, but it's late. You get the idea, George.
Hillary's entire adult life has been nothing but scandals. Not just the last twenty years. There isn't a Republican alive with the equivelant scandal baggage that Hillary has that would be considered a serious candidate for dog catcher nevermind president.
This is Garage Mahal when he gets the news about this tonight":
Federal judge halts John Doe probe into Walker recall
But but but SECRET ROUTERS!
Suck it, fat boy.
Pseudo-Scandal. Four deaths doesn't qualify as a real scandal. For that, you need four thousand deaths, like Obama's bodycount in AfghREDACTED
"But these are issues of competence, not corruption."
For corruption you have to go back to when Hillary got fired from the Watergate investigation.
Garage, you are fortunate to have the anonymity of the internet, because the temptation to beat you senseless would be too much to control if a person were to hear such talk in person. Ronald Reagan is dead and buried. It is unlikely that he will be on the ballot in 2016, though were he a Democrat, he might still be voting. It was an outrage that the Marines in Lebanon were not deployed with live ammunition. Here in 2014, two wrongs still don't make a right. This mistake by Reagan does not justify leaving Americans who are under fire, outnumbered, and calling for help to die in 2012. If you think it does, there is really no hope of personal redemption for you.
Michael said...
Are you ... used to being lied to?
Yes I have become used to be lied to. For two years I have been hearing about the 'stand down' order from Hillary or Obama. Effectively our political leaders were accused of cowardice resulting in the deaths of the four US citizens.
Now, this is what Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif. the chairman of the Armed Services panel, has to say:
"We have no evidence that Department of State officials delayed the decision to deploy what few resources the Defense Department had available to respond,"
I cannot begin to describe the contempt I feel for the people who advanced and propagated the "stand down" lie. They are traitors in the truest sense of the word.
As I said in the other thread.
Hillary is Brett Favre in his final year in football.
Or as Will Smith might say, she's old and busted. She isn't the new hotness.
Does garage mahal thinks we'll be more likely to believe his criticisms if he calls their target 'Ronnie Raygun'? The nickname was already tedious and moronic before he was even inaugurated 33+ years ago. Only a loser who doesn't even want to convince people would think (perhaps not quite the right word) of using it today.
I think liberals, or maybe Democrats (Do I repeat myself?) have a glitch. It's called cognitive dissonance.
They see their team is in trouble. They know what happened was wrong. But, hell, it's their TEAM! And they can't abandon their team.
So what to do?
Look for an example in history (Anything will do really) where a Republican was involved in something, anything, that they can point to. And then they feel better. They can relax. Take deep breathes. Feel better about their team again.
It happens endlessly and it started with Bill Clinton. He really destroyed this country in more ways than one. But the absolute worst damage he did was to make it seem as though all Presidents did what he did. If you watched the news like I did during that time, they couldn't stop talking about Thomas Jefferson (!!!!!!) and Kennedy and the affairs they had while in office.
All Presidents do it, Clinton just got caught.
Oh, and Benghazi? Hell, they've blamed bush too much, so now they have to blame Reagan.
It's pathetic and they need mental help. I can see smoke coming out of their ears when you don't follow them down that rabbit hole and keep insisting they answer questions about present day.
But what about Bush!
But what about Reagan!
Sorry pal, old and busted, just like Hillary.
"See how that's designed to position us to root for her?"
Just like how the MSM was a lapdog for Obama and got fools like Althouse to vote for him.
An unintended consequence of the Bengazi spin is the reminder of how the Clinton's operated in the 90s.
"What law firm billing records? Can't find them"
"Depends on what your definition of 'is' is"
etc ad naus
Its all so very tiring. Do we really want to go through all that again?
oh, don't forget Sandy Burglar stealing Clinton notes from the National Archives to cover his boss.
Like we need 4 more years of that?
You don't say Politico, Ann. I cannot believe the gall they have to even remotely publish this trash. 'Pseudo-scandal'? God help us all. Her entire political career is a scandal, indeed.
http://freebeacon.com/politics/jonathan-soros-left-a-confidential-document-at-his-donor-conference/
Justa as counterpoint.
Garage @ 9:32
No it's not.
Think real hard and try again.
"She ought to hope that nobody thinks to ask her whether she accomplished anything else."
Didn't we answer that question back in 2008 and 2012? Democrats do not *care* about real accomplishments, and neither (apparently) do tens of millions of Americans. It's all about narrative ...
What actually surprises me is how very old leading Democrats are these days -- like the Whigs after 1848 they simply don't have any rising, experienced leaders. In January '17 Hillary will essentially be 69. Her main "competition" for the nomination will be 74 (Biden) or 67 (Warren).
They have absolutely no 'bench' and that rookie minor leaguer they brought up back in '08 has consistently struck out looking, even though he's never even seen a Major League fastball.
In both the House and the Senate Republicans are consistently far younger and dynamic than Democrats. In biology, you'd call Democrats a "moribund" population.
garage mahal said...What did Ronnie Raygun do the day after a truck bomb killed 24 people?
Shorter Garage: It's ok that we do it because they do it too. But they suck for doing it.
Never mind that Garage's example is 30 years old, when terrorism was regarded very differently. Reagan dealt with terrorism in much the same way as Jimmy Carter, an approach that we have had decades to regret.
Leave it to Garage to put a whole new spin on "pre-9/11 thinking." Obama is forgiven his 20/2000 hindsight while Reagan is blasted for not knowing something he couldn't have known (and Carter gets a pass).
Hillary would make a wonderful President.
Few people in the public eye have had to endure what she has had to, and yet she is still in there, fighting for what is right.
There have been some bumps in the road, sure, but she no more than for anyone else in politics who has had as long of an in-the-line-of fire career. And, truth be told, it was her staff that occasionally let her down. Yet, she always accepted responsibility and threw no one under the bus - unlike some others we know.
So thank you Mrs. Clinton, for your service so far, and please
run, Hillary, run.
P.S. Having Bill back in White House as a close supporter and adviser is a huge bonus.
Do Republicans fear being tarred as part of the "Benghazi-Industrial Complex"? As they say, "at this point, what difference does it make?"
No, this Politico article is a shot across the bow of any potential Democrat challenger, particularly one who sees opportunity assailing Hillary's competence.
Hillary will anoint the successor to her throne at the optimum moment for her to drop out, and it won't be at the expense of her hagiography, thank you very much.
"P.S. Having Bill back in White House as a close supporter and adviser is a huge bonus."
-- Maybe Hillary could let him take a press conference like Obama did. For old time's sake.
Someone, I would have voted for Hillary in 2008. In fact, rejecting her in favor of some nobody out of the Chicago Machine is something I will probably never forgive the Democratic Party for.
But in 2016? No, she carries too much of Obama's stink.
So, according to the media, allowing 4 Americans to die when we could've tried to save them is a pseudo-scandal.
Good to know.
ARM
I see. You believe that the spontaneous protest was the result of the video and that Secretary Clinton also so believed when she averred to the father of one of the dead that the government would arrest the maker of the video.
And that lie is absolutely nothing compared with "stand down" meme that was refuted. Same to you.
You are challenged ethically, my friend.
I don't think this country is ready for another minority it has to give a pass to on the job. We have some real work to do and the person to do it may not necessarily fill an abstract quota. If someone can convince me she has been competent or effective in any role other than Bill Clinton's wife, let me in on the secret.
The American people don't give a toss … [about Benghazi]
This comment, which mirrors the current Lefty talking points, is dead wrong. Below is a link to one of the polls that prove it. The Left has been doing a lot of whistling past the graveyard lately but the zombies are emerging anyway.
http://tinyurl.com/dxknzvm
Prediction: Despite threats to the contrary, the Dems will not boycott the select committee on Benghazi – although I fervently wish they would.
In 2008 I thought Hillary would have made a better President than Obama not to mention the amusement factor of Bill as first husband and all the shenanigans he would have gotten up to. However, it seems the Clinton's can't help but bring scandal to everything they're involved in. Do we really need that kind of distraction? Her time has past.
Blogger Michael said...
And that lie is absolutely nothing compared with "stand down" meme
So you concede that the 'stand down' lie was a traitorous libel directed against not just the civilian leadership but also the military chain of command?
And, you are fine with that? The same people are also lying about the motivations of the CIA in advancing the video hypothesis.
gk1 said: If someone can convince me she has been competent or effective in any role other than Bill Clinton's wife, let me in on the secret.
According to Hillary herself revealed the Diane Blair papers, she was not particularly effective in her wifely duties either.
ARM: "The same people are also lying about the motivations of the CIA in advancing the video hypothesis."
Hmmm.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/29/benghazi-emails-suggest-white-house-aide-involved-in-prepping-rice-for-video/
snip: "The email is also significant because in congressional testimony in early April, former deputy CIA director Michael Morell told lawmakers it was Rice, in her Sunday show appearances, who linked the video to the Benghazi attack. Morell said the video was not part of the CIA analysis.
"My reaction was two-fold," Morell told members of the House Intelligence Committee, regarding her appearances. "One was that what she said about the attacks evolving spontaneously from a protest was exactly what the talking points said, and it was exactly what the intelligence community analysts believed. When she talked about the video, my reaction was, that's not something that the analysts have attributed this attack to."
End snip.
So, to reiterate: "Morell said the video was not part of the CIA analysis."
So the deputy director says the video was not part of the CIA analysis.
What say you ARM?
Is the deputy director of the CIA lying about the CIA analyzed and produced?
Or do we have another of those "Hillary had to dodge gunfire while landing!!eleventy!1!!" scenarios?
So Drago did Republicans including Issa lie about the 'stand down' smear? If you refuse to acknowledge this now well established truth you will retain no credibility.
The Republicans and their hacks have shredded their own credibility in a desperate partisan effort to smear their political opponents. They might want to rebuild that credibility before attacking anyone else's credibility.
And, you concede yet another lie, that the WH made up the spontaneous demonstration theory. Each lie is revealed to be more of the same partisan hackery piled one upon another.
Yes I have become used to be lied to. For two years I have been hearing about the 'stand down' order from Hillary or Obama
Seems it came from somebody.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12/18/unsettling-report-closed-door-testimony-appears-to-bolster-claims-of-benghazi-stand-down-orders-inadequate-response/
You are such a tool.
Remember, a real scandal is the non-outing of a non-covert socialite CIA employee by a non-Bush administration person. Because "BUSH EVIL!!!!@@!" or something.
As usual your facts are wrong, Garage. The bombing happened
almost a year before the date
you listed. Try again loser!
Maybe come up with an analogy that is, you know, analogous to the issue at hand: i.e. is Benghazi an example of corrupt political cover creation (with 1st Amendment violations and murder thrown in for good measure) or simply the best example yet of how incompetent Team Obama is?
ARM: I cannot begin to describe the contempt I feel for the people who advanced and propagated the "stand down" lie.
Then it must really gall you to hear Obama lie when he said he told the military to "give any and all assistance they could" yet no order to that effect has ever been found to exist. And yet no one in the military COC was fired for disobeying his order either. But General Ham was relieved of his duty the same night5 as Benghazi. Why was AfriCOM so chaotic that night? Reasonable people may wonder...
Rusty and Mike are you calling the Republican chairman of the Armed Services panel a liar?
Reasonable people don't wonder, they want facts, which were provided by the chairman of the Armed Services panel. That you cannot acknowledge this says a lot about you and nothing about reality. Your own representatives think you are lying.
AReasonableMan said...
Rusty and Mike are you calling the Republican chairman of the Armed Services panel a liar?
No. The CIA is.
Reasonable people don't wonder, they want facts,
Sorta leaves you out of the loop. You deal in talking points.
which were provided by the chairman of the Armed Services panel. That you cannot acknowledge this says a lot about you and nothing about reality.
If irony was the standing 1/4 mile, you'd win every race.
Your own representatives think you are lying.
They're your representatives too. Unless , of course, you take for granted the other side of the aisle isn't legitimate. Which you just did.
ARM
You appear much more offended by the "smear" than by the stupid transparent lie told with a straight face. By the way, I believe I read somewhere that the murderous video maker has been released. I am not sure if the former Sec. Of State has commented on this to the father of the dead CIA guy. Maybe she isnt aware of it. Maybe she is too pouty about the "smear" to have noted that the cause of all her problems, the very guy she vowed to bring to justice is now a free man.
I will grant you this, the govt. is not going to let us know what was going on over there in that compound. And perhaps we shouldnt know. But the govt. would do well to concoct better lies than the one you apparently chewed, swallowed and savored. You and Inga best I can tell.
ARM: "If you refuse to acknowledge this now well established truth you will retain no credibility."
Where is your acknowledgement that the video was not part of the CIA analysis?
And you have long ago lost all credibility.
It's hilarious that you attempt to position yourself as the arbiter of credibility.
Just another leftist for whom history begins anew each day.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा