Three Reasons Why Reviving Benghazi is Stupid (For the GOP)

[autigeremt 7,131]

Investigate all you want-- base the 2014 & 2016 elections on it.

The truth is important and it's worth a few votes. Our democracy is pretty much lost anyway.

[AUFAN78 4,130]

Here it is:

I hope the Republicans make Benghazi the centerpiece of their election campaign. Focus on it. Please.

May 2, post #38 in "New Evidence...." thread.

It doesn't matter at this point 65% of american want to see a policy change in their next president. The midterms are a foregone conclusion

http://townhall.com/...licies-n1833735

You said we were "whining" about it. I just set you straight.

You certainly come across like you're whining.

That's because you only hear what you want to hear. Speaking of whining, you need to be aware that regarding posts, quantity doesn't equate to quality.

Yes but hundreds of mindlessly redundant copy and pastes personify quality. amirite?

They do when used to corroborate my claims. You should try it.

(And they don't seem mindless to those with a mind. )

The way you constantly post long copy and pastes, its only symptomatic of a weak and insecure mind. If your mind was fractionally what you sell it as being I seriously doubt you'd waste so much time in this obscure forum accomplishing absolutely nothing

Your probably right in that you are apparently quite immune to reasoned arguments supported with (left leaning) evidence. I probably should just restrict myself to unsupported, biased rants with a goodly amount of poo-flinging.

But then, why should I play to your strength?

Fixed that for you Homey. Mother Jones, NYT, Huff Post, David Corn, etc. Laughable.

[AUFAN78 4,130]

I don't remember much GOP outrage after the following attacks:

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of “Bali Bombings.” No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name “David Foy.” This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what’s considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

Homey, who exactly lied or covered up the truth regarding these events?

[AUFAN78 4,130]

"Isn't that commonly referred to as lying? You went from absolutely sure to maybe in two posts."

Meanwhile 4 american patriots are still dead largely because they were ignored long before the episode even went down, during the event itself, and afterward, the presentation of the facts have been obscured from the american people for political reasons for 20 months

We are all aware of the fact that they are dead. You and the other right wing nuts are the ones who are figuratively "parading" their bodies through the streets. You should be ashamed.

The parents of these dead men want answers! What is your problem? Are you truly a clown? Seriously.

[channonc 466]

Here it is:

I hope the Republicans make Benghazi the centerpiece of their election campaign. Focus on it. Please.

May 2, post #38 in "New Evidence...." thread.

It doesn't matter at this point 65% of american want to see a policy change in their next president. The midterms are a foregone conclusion

http://townhall.com/...licies-n1833735

You said we were "whining" about it. I just set you straight.

You certainly come across like you're whining.

That's because you only hear what you want to hear. Speaking of whining, you need to be aware that regarding posts, quantity doesn't equate to quality.

Yes but hundreds of mindlessly redundant copy and pastes personify quality. amirite?

They do when used to corroborate my claims. You should try it.

(And they don't seem mindless to those with a mind. ;)/> )

The way you constantly post long copy and pastes, its only symptomatic of a weak and insecure mind. If your mind was fractionally what you sell it as being I seriously doubt you'd waste so much time in this obscure forum accomplishing absolutely nothing

Your probably right in that you are apparently quite immune to reasoned arguments supported with evidence. I probably should just restrict myself to unsupported, biased rants with a goodly amount of poo-flinging.

But then, why should I play to your strength? :dunno:/> :laugh:/>

LOL! Facts? Who needs those? Certainly not Blue.

[homersapien 12,172]

Here it is:

I hope the Republicans make Benghazi the centerpiece of their election campaign. Focus on it. Please.

May 2, post #38 in "New Evidence...." thread.

It doesn't matter at this point 65% of american want to see a policy change in their next president. The midterms are a foregone conclusion

http://townhall.com/...licies-n1833735

You said we were "whining" about it. I just set you straight.

You certainly come across like you're whining.

That's because you only hear what you want to hear. Speaking of whining, you need to be aware that regarding posts, quantity doesn't equate to quality.

Yes but hundreds of mindlessly redundant copy and pastes personify quality. amirite?

They do when used to corroborate my claims. You should try it.

(And they don't seem mindless to those with a mind. )

The way you constantly post long copy and pastes, its only symptomatic of a weak and insecure mind. If your mind was fractionally what you sell it as being I seriously doubt you'd waste so much time in this obscure forum accomplishing absolutely nothing

Your probably right in that you are apparently quite immune to reasoned arguments supported with evidence. I probably should just restrict myself to unsupported, biased rants with a goodly amount of poo-flinging.

But then, why should I play to your strength?

nah, JUST growing a pair would be an auspicious beginning for you!

Awww, now you have really frightened me! Fighting words on the internet!!!

Is there a more pathetic admission of "I got nuttin" ?

[AUFAN78 4,130]

Here it is:

I hope the Republicans make Benghazi the centerpiece of their election campaign. Focus on it. Please.

May 2, post #38 in "New Evidence...." thread.

It doesn't matter at this point 65% of american want to see a policy change in their next president. The midterms are a foregone conclusion

http://townhall.com/...licies-n1833735

You said we were "whining" about it. I just set you straight.

You certainly come across like you're whining.

That's because you only hear what you want to hear. Speaking of whining, you need to be aware that regarding posts, quantity doesn't equate to quality.

Yes but hundreds of mindlessly redundant copy and pastes personify quality. amirite?

They do when used to corroborate my claims. You should try it.

(And they don't seem mindless to those with a mind. ;)/> )

The way you constantly post long copy and pastes, its only symptomatic of a weak and insecure mind. If your mind was fractionally what you sell it as being I seriously doubt you'd waste so much time in this obscure forum accomplishing absolutely nothing

Your probably right in that you are apparently quite immune to reasoned arguments supported with evidence. I probably should just restrict myself to unsupported, biased rants with a goodly amount of poo-flinging.

But then, why should I play to your strength? :dunno:/> :laugh:/>

LOL! Facts? Who needs those? Certainly not Blue.

Might I suggest you differentiate facts vs. lies and supposition?

[homersapien 12,172]

Here it is:

I hope the Republicans make Benghazi the centerpiece of their election campaign. Focus on it. Please.

May 2, post #38 in "New Evidence...." thread.

It doesn't matter at this point 65% of american want to see a policy change in their next president. The midterms are a foregone conclusion

http://townhall.com/...licies-n1833735

You said we were "whining" about it. I just set you straight.

You certainly come across like you're whining.

That's because you only hear what you want to hear. Speaking of whining, you need to be aware that regarding posts, quantity doesn't equate to quality.

Yes but hundreds of mindlessly redundant copy and pastes personify quality. amirite?

They do when used to corroborate my claims. You should try it.

(And they don't seem mindless to those with a mind. )

The way you constantly post long copy and pastes, its only symptomatic of a weak and insecure mind. If your mind was fractionally what you sell it as being I seriously doubt you'd waste so much time in this obscure forum accomplishing absolutely nothing

Your probably right in that you are apparently quite immune to reasoned arguments supported with (left leaning) evidence. I probably should just restrict myself to unsupported, biased rants with a goodly amount of poo-flinging.

But then, why should I play to your strength?

Fixed that for you Homey. Mother Jones, NYT, Huff Post, David Corn, etc. Laughable.

In the future, I would respectfully request that you not edit my posts, in whatever circumstances.

[AUFAN78 4,130]

Here it is:

I hope the Republicans make Benghazi the centerpiece of their election campaign. Focus on it. Please.

May 2, post #38 in "New Evidence...." thread.

It doesn't matter at this point 65% of american want to see a policy change in their next president. The midterms are a foregone conclusion

http://townhall.com/...licies-n1833735

You said we were "whining" about it. I just set you straight.

You certainly come across like you're whining.

That's because you only hear what you want to hear. Speaking of whining, you need to be aware that regarding posts, quantity doesn't equate to quality.

Yes but hundreds of mindlessly redundant copy and pastes personify quality. amirite?

They do when used to corroborate my claims. You should try it.

(And they don't seem mindless to those with a mind. )

The way you constantly post long copy and pastes, its only symptomatic of a weak and insecure mind. If your mind was fractionally what you sell it as being I seriously doubt you'd waste so much time in this obscure forum accomplishing absolutely nothing

Your probably right in that you are apparently quite immune to reasoned arguments supported with (left leaning) evidence. I probably should just restrict myself to unsupported, biased rants with a goodly amount of poo-flinging.

But then, why should I play to your strength?

Fixed that for you Homey. Mother Jones, NYT, Huff Post, David Corn, etc. Laughable.

In the future, I would respectfully request that you not edit my posts, in whatever circumstances.

I can respect that request. I respectfully request you cite facts and not some left leaning garbage investigative piece full of lies and deflection. Deal?

[homersapien 12,172]

I don't remember much GOP outrage after the following attacks:

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of “Bali Bombings.” No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name “David Foy.” This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what’s considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

Homey, who exactly lied or covered up the truth regarding these events?

1) Who knows? It's not like they were subjected to the attention Fox and the right wing has brought to Benghazi.

2) Who exactly lied or covered up the truth of the events regarding Benghazi?

[AUFAN78 4,130]

I don't remember much GOP outrage after the following attacks:

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of “Bali Bombings.” No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name “David Foy.” This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what’s considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

Homey, who exactly lied or covered up the truth regarding these events?

1) Who knows? It's not like they were subjected to the attention Fox and the right wing has brought to Benghazi.

2) Who exactly lied or covered up the truth of the events regarding Benghazi?

Really Homey? You are better than that.

[homersapien 12,172]

Here it is:

I hope the Republicans make Benghazi the centerpiece of their election campaign. Focus on it. Please.

May 2, post #38 in "New Evidence...." thread.

It doesn't matter at this point 65% of american want to see a policy change in their next president. The midterms are a foregone conclusion

http://townhall.com/...licies-n1833735

You said we were "whining" about it. I just set you straight.

You certainly come across like you're whining.

That's because you only hear what you want to hear. Speaking of whining, you need to be aware that regarding posts, quantity doesn't equate to quality.

Yes but hundreds of mindlessly redundant copy and pastes personify quality. amirite?

They do when used to corroborate my claims. You should try it.

(And they don't seem mindless to those with a mind. )

The way you constantly post long copy and pastes, its only symptomatic of a weak and insecure mind. If your mind was fractionally what you sell it as being I seriously doubt you'd waste so much time in this obscure forum accomplishing absolutely nothing

Your probably right in that you are apparently quite immune to reasoned arguments supported with (left leaning) evidence. I probably should just restrict myself to unsupported, biased rants with a goodly amount of poo-flinging.

But then, why should I play to your strength?

Fixed that for you Homey. Mother Jones, NYT, Huff Post, David Corn, etc. Laughable.

In the future, I would respectfully request that you not edit my posts, in whatever circumstances.

I can respect that request. I respectfully request you cite facts and not some left leaning garbage investigative piece full of lies and deflection. Deal?

No, of course not. You have no right to modify my posts nor to determine the worth of my sources.

Furthermore, you don't merit my attention or recognition. Good bye.

[AUFAN78 4,130]

Here it is:

I hope the Republicans make Benghazi the centerpiece of their election campaign. Focus on it. Please.

May 2, post #38 in "New Evidence...." thread.

It doesn't matter at this point 65% of american want to see a policy change in their next president. The midterms are a foregone conclusion

http://townhall.com/...licies-n1833735

You said we were "whining" about it. I just set you straight.

You certainly come across like you're whining.

That's because you only hear what you want to hear. Speaking of whining, you need to be aware that regarding posts, quantity doesn't equate to quality.

Yes but hundreds of mindlessly redundant copy and pastes personify quality. amirite?

They do when used to corroborate my claims. You should try it.

(And they don't seem mindless to those with a mind. )

The way you constantly post long copy and pastes, its only symptomatic of a weak and insecure mind. If your mind was fractionally what you sell it as being I seriously doubt you'd waste so much time in this obscure forum accomplishing absolutely nothing

Your probably right in that you are apparently quite immune to reasoned arguments supported with (left leaning) evidence. I probably should just restrict myself to unsupported, biased rants with a goodly amount of poo-flinging.

But then, why should I play to your strength?

Fixed that for you Homey. Mother Jones, NYT, Huff Post, David Corn, etc. Laughable.

In the future, I would respectfully request that you not edit my posts, in whatever circumstances.

I can respect that request. I respectfully request you cite facts and not some left leaning garbage investigative piece full of lies and deflection. Deal?

No, of course not. You have no right to modify my posts nor to determine the worth of my sources.

Furthermore, you don't merit my attention or recognition. Good bye.

Sorry Homey, you are wrong. I have every right to determine if a source is BS. Nighty nite.

[japantiger 4,104]

This sums the politics of Benghazi up nicely:

http://www.huffingto...hp_ref=politics

Three Reasons Why Reviving Benghazi is Stupid (For the GOP)

House Speaker John Boehner has made what appears to be the remarkably stupid decision to set up a "select" committee of the House to once again "investigate" the 2012 Benghazi incident in which U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stephens was killed.

He apparently believes that another "investigation" of this tragedy will be politically advantageous to Republicans in the mid-term elections -- and somehow tarnish the reputation of the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as she prepares a potential run for the White House in 2016.

Already the GOP has bet heavily that its obsession with Obamacare will bolster its political position -- a bet that increasingly looks like a loser. Now, in its never-ending attempts to mollify the tea party fringe, the GOP leadership has turned down another political blind alley.

There are at least three reasons why their renewed obsession with "Benghazi" is politically stupid for the GOP.

Reason #1: There is no "there," there. The Benghazi attack has been investigated over and over and there is simply no evidence that there is any scandal to be had at all.

The latest "revelation" is that Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote an email aimed at helping former ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice frame her description of what happened in Benghazi before she went on various talk shows. Problem is that his suggestions were entirely in line with the talking points produced by the intelligence community -- which believed early on that the attack was mainly the result of reaction to an anti-Muslim videotape and demonstrations that had erupted in Cairo in protest.

Of course, it turned out later that there was more to the story -- though both The New York Times and the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation of the event did in fact confirm that the response to the video tape did play a role -- and Al Qaeda did not.

David Corn of Mother Jones pointed out that The New York Times, after a comprehensive investigation, reached this conclusion:

Months of investigation...centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO's extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.

The Times continued:

Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs...

The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses as well as many American officials who have viewed the footage from security cameras.

The Senate intelligence committee report released in January concluded that the attack was, "not a highly coordinated plot, but was opportunistic."

It went on to say:

It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day's violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video.

And is anyone really surprised that the actual circumstances surrounding the attack were unclear at the outset? The same was true of the circumstances surrounding the Boston bombing and the Newtown shootings that took place right here in the United States -- events involving our own law enforcement. That is the nature of chaotic violent events.

The right wing has done everything in its power to turn "Benghazi" into a politically salient scandal without success. CBS'

Sixty Minutes

even bought into the right wing narrative when correspondent Lara Logan based an entire story on a tale about Benghazi that turned out to be entirely fictional. The story was fabricated by contractor Dylan Davies in order to sell his book. Ultimately CBS suspended Logan as a result.

On its face, the loss of life at Benghazi demonstrated a breakdown in diplomatic security. That's why the independent State Department Inspector General did a study of what went wrong and how to prevent a future loss of life. Procedures needed to be changed. But there was never a shred of evidence that any U.S. official did anything intentionally -- or because of some political motivation -- that caused this event.

And what did the Republicans who are so fixated on embassy security do in response? They actually cut the budget for State Department security.

If you were in the position of making it harder to prevent future attacks like the one at Benghazi would you really want to focus attention on the subject?

Reason #2: The "Benghazi scandal" does not resonate with most voters -- except, of course, the extreme right wing.

Republicans counter that polls show a plurality of Americans disapprove of the way the Benghazi attack was handled. In fact, a Huffington Post/You.gov poll show showed 42 percent disapprove and 27 percent approve of the way "Benghazi" was handled by the administration. But of course people are dissatisfied with the way the event was handled -- four people were killed.

The real question is whether "Benghazi" is an issue ordinary people care about. The fact is that the Benghazi issue has no political saliency. It never appears on the list of major concerns the voters express might affect their choices in the 2014 mid-terms. That is partially because there is no real "Benghazi scandal." It is also because ordinary people have much more important questions on their minds like the need to increase their wages and standards of living.

The fact is that "Benghazi" does not have the elements that have made "scandals" of the past -- like Watergate or the Monica Lewinski affair -- relevant to the voters.

To be politically salient, a "scandal" must include two key elements that are not present in "Benghazi":

• Real "scandals" do not involve flawed procedures. They must involve actions taken -- or not taken -- for improper or immoral reasons. There is no indication whatsoever that the American ambassador or anyone in the administration short-changed security in Benghazi to advance their political fortunes or to make money. Instead you have a brave American Ambassador who was willing to risk harm to himself to accomplish his mission but with inadequate security procedures. The ambassador was President Obama's personal emissary -- the last thing he wanted to do was risk his death.
  

• To have staying power, real "scandals" generally involve a cover-up. The Republicans argue that the administration's taking points after the event somehow constituted a "cover-up." But instead they reflected the best information from the intelligence community at the time. Instead of a "cover-up," what followed was an independent State Department Inspector General report that was very critical of procedures and proposed changes -- but found no "scandal" whatsoever.
  

By reaching out for "Benghazi" the GOP looks desperate for something to talk about. And that's for good reason. On virtually every other major issue that is really of concern to ordinary Americans, the Democrats have the high political ground -- e.g. the minimum wage, unemployment benefits, the power of big money in government, immigration reform, equal pay for equal work, voting rights, reproductive choice, contraception, gay and lesbian rights, and increasingly even Obamacare -- which by Election Day could actually help Democrats (especially with turnout).

Reason #3: Do the Republicans really want to turn the conversation to foreign policy?

The GOP launched the Iraq War -- the most disastrous foreign policy catastrophe in the last half-century -- and they want to talk about competency and honesty in foreign policy?

In fact, some of the same people who regularly go on Fox News to rail on about the "Benghazi conspiracy" helped promote the notion that we were invading Iraq because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction -- the most pernicious lie ever used in recent American politics.

The War in Iraq was an unmitigated disaster -- killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, costing thousands of American lives, costing our economy trillions of dollars, and spoiling America's reputation throughout the world.

Frankly, no self-respecting media outlet should allow any of the people who intentionally lied to the American people about Iraq on the air ever again.

If you were the political party that presided over such a horrific foreign policy disaster would you really want to turn the political conversation to the question of who is best equipped to conduct America's foreign policy?

Apparently so. It appears possible that the Republican leaders are just as inept at formulating their own political strategy as they were at conducting America's foreign policy.

Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author of the book Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on Amazon.com. He is a partner in Democracy Partners and a Senior Strategist for Americans United for Change. Follow him on Twitter @rbcreamer.

I get all my foreign policy recommendations via the Huffpo. I mean, why shouldn't the Republicans take advice from Obama's mouthpiece.

[homersapien 12,172]

Here it is:

I hope the Republicans make Benghazi the centerpiece of their election campaign. Focus on it. Please.

May 2, post #38 in "New Evidence...." thread.

It doesn't matter at this point 65% of american want to see a policy change in their next president. The midterms are a foregone conclusion

http://townhall.com/...licies-n1833735

You said we were "whining" about it. I just set you straight.

You certainly come across like you're whining.

That's because you only hear what you want to hear. Speaking of whining, you need to be aware that regarding posts, quantity doesn't equate to quality.

Yes but hundreds of mindlessly redundant copy and pastes personify quality. amirite?

They do when used to corroborate my claims. You should try it.

(And they don't seem mindless to those with a mind. )

The way you constantly post long copy and pastes, its only symptomatic of a weak and insecure mind. If your mind was fractionally what you sell it as being I seriously doubt you'd waste so much time in this obscure forum accomplishing absolutely nothing

Your probably right in that you are apparently quite immune to reasoned arguments supported with (left leaning) evidence. I probably should just restrict myself to unsupported, biased rants with a goodly amount of poo-flinging.

But then, why should I play to your strength?

Fixed that for you Homey. Mother Jones, NYT, Huff Post, David Corn, etc. Laughable.

In the future, I would respectfully request that you not edit my posts, in whatever circumstances.

I can respect that request. I respectfully request you cite facts and not some left leaning garbage investigative piece full of lies and deflection. Deal?

No, of course not. You have no right to modify my posts nor to determine the worth of my sources.

Furthermore, you don't merit my attention or recognition. Good bye.

Sorry Homey, you are wrong. I have every right to determine if a source is BS. Nighty nite.

Just to clarify, this is about your editing my posts, period. You don't get to assign conditions about what sources I cite.

I asked you this respectfully, so I will take the above as a refusal. So welcome to my ignore list.

[homersapien 12,172]

This sums the politics of Benghazi up nicely:

http://www.huffingto...hp_ref=politics

Three Reasons Why Reviving Benghazi is Stupid (For the GOP)

House Speaker John Boehner has made what appears to be the remarkably stupid decision to set up a "select" committee of the House to once again "investigate" the 2012 Benghazi incident in which U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stephens was killed.

He apparently believes that another "investigation" of this tragedy will be politically advantageous to Republicans in the mid-term elections -- and somehow tarnish the reputation of the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as she prepares a potential run for the White House in 2016.

Already the GOP has bet heavily that its obsession with Obamacare will bolster its political position -- a bet that increasingly looks like a loser. Now, in its never-ending attempts to mollify the tea party fringe, the GOP leadership has turned down another political blind alley.

There are at least three reasons why their renewed obsession with "Benghazi" is politically stupid for the GOP.

Reason #1: There is no "there," there. The Benghazi attack has been investigated over and over and there is simply no evidence that there is any scandal to be had at all.

The latest "revelation" is that Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote an email aimed at helping former ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice frame her description of what happened in Benghazi before she went on various talk shows. Problem is that his suggestions were entirely in line with the talking points produced by the intelligence community -- which believed early on that the attack was mainly the result of reaction to an anti-Muslim videotape and demonstrations that had erupted in Cairo in protest.

Of course, it turned out later that there was more to the story -- though both The New York Times and the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation of the event did in fact confirm that the response to the video tape did play a role -- and Al Qaeda did not.

David Corn of Mother Jones pointed out that The New York Times, after a comprehensive investigation, reached this conclusion:

Months of investigation...centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO's extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.

The Times continued:

Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs...

The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses as well as many American officials who have viewed the footage from security cameras.

The Senate intelligence committee report released in January concluded that the attack was, "not a highly coordinated plot, but was opportunistic."

It went on to say:

It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day's violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video.

And is anyone really surprised that the actual circumstances surrounding the attack were unclear at the outset? The same was true of the circumstances surrounding the Boston bombing and the Newtown shootings that took place right here in the United States -- events involving our own law enforcement. That is the nature of chaotic violent events.

The right wing has done everything in its power to turn "Benghazi" into a politically salient scandal without success. CBS'

Sixty Minutes

even bought into the right wing narrative when correspondent Lara Logan based an entire story on a tale about Benghazi that turned out to be entirely fictional. The story was fabricated by contractor Dylan Davies in order to sell his book. Ultimately CBS suspended Logan as a result.

On its face, the loss of life at Benghazi demonstrated a breakdown in diplomatic security. That's why the independent State Department Inspector General did a study of what went wrong and how to prevent a future loss of life. Procedures needed to be changed. But there was never a shred of evidence that any U.S. official did anything intentionally -- or because of some political motivation -- that caused this event.

And what did the Republicans who are so fixated on embassy security do in response? They actually cut the budget for State Department security.

If you were in the position of making it harder to prevent future attacks like the one at Benghazi would you really want to focus attention on the subject?

Reason #2: The "Benghazi scandal" does not resonate with most voters -- except, of course, the extreme right wing.

Republicans counter that polls show a plurality of Americans disapprove of the way the Benghazi attack was handled. In fact, a Huffington Post/You.gov poll show showed 42 percent disapprove and 27 percent approve of the way "Benghazi" was handled by the administration. But of course people are dissatisfied with the way the event was handled -- four people were killed.

The real question is whether "Benghazi" is an issue ordinary people care about. The fact is that the Benghazi issue has no political saliency. It never appears on the list of major concerns the voters express might affect their choices in the 2014 mid-terms. That is partially because there is no real "Benghazi scandal." It is also because ordinary people have much more important questions on their minds like the need to increase their wages and standards of living.

The fact is that "Benghazi" does not have the elements that have made "scandals" of the past -- like Watergate or the Monica Lewinski affair -- relevant to the voters.

To be politically salient, a "scandal" must include two key elements that are not present in "Benghazi":

• Real "scandals" do not involve flawed procedures. They must involve actions taken -- or not taken -- for improper or immoral reasons. There is no indication whatsoever that the American ambassador or anyone in the administration short-changed security in Benghazi to advance their political fortunes or to make money. Instead you have a brave American Ambassador who was willing to risk harm to himself to accomplish his mission but with inadequate security procedures. The ambassador was President Obama's personal emissary -- the last thing he wanted to do was risk his death.
  

• To have staying power, real "scandals" generally involve a cover-up. The Republicans argue that the administration's taking points after the event somehow constituted a "cover-up." But instead they reflected the best information from the intelligence community at the time. Instead of a "cover-up," what followed was an independent State Department Inspector General report that was very critical of procedures and proposed changes -- but found no "scandal" whatsoever.
  

By reaching out for "Benghazi" the GOP looks desperate for something to talk about. And that's for good reason. On virtually every other major issue that is really of concern to ordinary Americans, the Democrats have the high political ground -- e.g. the minimum wage, unemployment benefits, the power of big money in government, immigration reform, equal pay for equal work, voting rights, reproductive choice, contraception, gay and lesbian rights, and increasingly even Obamacare -- which by Election Day could actually help Democrats (especially with turnout).

Reason #3: Do the Republicans really want to turn the conversation to foreign policy?

The GOP launched the Iraq War -- the most disastrous foreign policy catastrophe in the last half-century -- and they want to talk about competency and honesty in foreign policy?

In fact, some of the same people who regularly go on Fox News to rail on about the "Benghazi conspiracy" helped promote the notion that we were invading Iraq because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction -- the most pernicious lie ever used in recent American politics.

The War in Iraq was an unmitigated disaster -- killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, costing thousands of American lives, costing our economy trillions of dollars, and spoiling America's reputation throughout the world.

Frankly, no self-respecting media outlet should allow any of the people who intentionally lied to the American people about Iraq on the air ever again.

If you were the political party that presided over such a horrific foreign policy disaster would you really want to turn the political conversation to the question of who is best equipped to conduct America's foreign policy?

Apparently so. It appears possible that the Republican leaders are just as inept at formulating their own political strategy as they were at conducting America's foreign policy.

Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author of the book Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on Amazon.com. He is a partner in Democracy Partners and a Senior Strategist for Americans United for Change. Follow him on Twitter @rbcreamer.

I get all my foreign policy recommendations via the Huffpo. I mean, why shouldn't the Republicans take advice from Obama's mouthpiece.

Anything in particular you take issue with?

[AUFAN78 4,130]

Just to clarify Homey, I told you I would respect your request. Read first, then repond. :-\

Secondly, I am not attempting to assign any condition to your sources. I am simply calling them BS. My choice, not yours.

Finally, thank you for paying attention to me.

[AUisAll 2]

This sums the politics of Benghazi up nicely:

http://www.huffingto...hp_ref=politics

Three Reasons Why Reviving Benghazi is Stupid (For the GOP)

House Speaker John Boehner has made what appears to be the remarkably stupid decision to set up a "select" committee of the House to once again "investigate" the 2012 Benghazi incident in which U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stephens was killed.

He apparently believes that another "investigation" of this tragedy will be politically advantageous to Republicans in the mid-term elections -- and somehow tarnish the reputation of the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as she prepares a potential run for the White House in 2016.

Already the GOP has bet heavily that its obsession with Obamacare will bolster its political position -- a bet that increasingly looks like a loser. Now, in its never-ending attempts to mollify the tea party fringe, the GOP leadership has turned down another political blind alley.

There are at least three reasons why their renewed obsession with "Benghazi" is politically stupid for the GOP.

Reason #1: There is no "there," there. The Benghazi attack has been investigated over and over and there is simply no evidence that there is any scandal to be had at all.

The latest "revelation" is that Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote an email aimed at helping former ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice frame her description of what happened in Benghazi before she went on various talk shows. Problem is that his suggestions were entirely in line with the talking points produced by the intelligence community -- which believed early on that the attack was mainly the result of reaction to an anti-Muslim videotape and demonstrations that had erupted in Cairo in protest.

Of course, it turned out later that there was more to the story -- though both The New York Times and the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation of the event did in fact confirm that the response to the video tape did play a role -- and Al Qaeda did not.

David Corn of Mother Jones pointed out that The New York Times, after a comprehensive investigation, reached this conclusion:

Months of investigation...centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO's extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.

The Times continued:

Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs...

The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses as well as many American officials who have viewed the footage from security cameras.

The Senate intelligence committee report released in January concluded that the attack was, "not a highly coordinated plot, but was opportunistic."

It went on to say:

It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day's violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video.

And is anyone really surprised that the actual circumstances surrounding the attack were unclear at the outset? The same was true of the circumstances surrounding the Boston bombing and the Newtown shootings that took place right here in the United States -- events involving our own law enforcement. That is the nature of chaotic violent events.

The right wing has done everything in its power to turn "Benghazi" into a politically salient scandal without success. CBS'

Sixty Minutes

even bought into the right wing narrative when correspondent Lara Logan based an entire story on a tale about Benghazi that turned out to be entirely fictional. The story was fabricated by contractor Dylan Davies in order to sell his book. Ultimately CBS suspended Logan as a result.

On its face, the loss of life at Benghazi demonstrated a breakdown in diplomatic security. That's why the independent State Department Inspector General did a study of what went wrong and how to prevent a future loss of life. Procedures needed to be changed. But there was never a shred of evidence that any U.S. official did anything intentionally -- or because of some political motivation -- that caused this event.

And what did the Republicans who are so fixated on embassy security do in response? They actually cut the budget for State Department security.

If you were in the position of making it harder to prevent future attacks like the one at Benghazi would you really want to focus attention on the subject?

Reason #2: The "Benghazi scandal" does not resonate with most voters -- except, of course, the extreme right wing.

Republicans counter that polls show a plurality of Americans disapprove of the way the Benghazi attack was handled. In fact, a Huffington Post/You.gov poll show showed 42 percent disapprove and 27 percent approve of the way "Benghazi" was handled by the administration. But of course people are dissatisfied with the way the event was handled -- four people were killed.

The real question is whether "Benghazi" is an issue ordinary people care about. The fact is that the Benghazi issue has no political saliency. It never appears on the list of major concerns the voters express might affect their choices in the 2014 mid-terms. That is partially because there is no real "Benghazi scandal." It is also because ordinary people have much more important questions on their minds like the need to increase their wages and standards of living.

The fact is that "Benghazi" does not have the elements that have made "scandals" of the past -- like Watergate or the Monica Lewinski affair -- relevant to the voters.

To be politically salient, a "scandal" must include two key elements that are not present in "Benghazi":

• Real "scandals" do not involve flawed procedures. They must involve actions taken -- or not taken -- for improper or immoral reasons. There is no indication whatsoever that the American ambassador or anyone in the administration short-changed security in Benghazi to advance their political fortunes or to make money. Instead you have a brave American Ambassador who was willing to risk harm to himself to accomplish his mission but with inadequate security procedures. The ambassador was President Obama's personal emissary -- the last thing he wanted to do was risk his death.
  

• To have staying power, real "scandals" generally involve a cover-up. The Republicans argue that the administration's taking points after the event somehow constituted a "cover-up." But instead they reflected the best information from the intelligence community at the time. Instead of a "cover-up," what followed was an independent State Department Inspector General report that was very critical of procedures and proposed changes -- but found no "scandal" whatsoever.
  

By reaching out for "Benghazi" the GOP looks desperate for something to talk about. And that's for good reason. On virtually every other major issue that is really of concern to ordinary Americans, the Democrats have the high political ground -- e.g. the minimum wage, unemployment benefits, the power of big money in government, immigration reform, equal pay for equal work, voting rights, reproductive choice, contraception, gay and lesbian rights, and increasingly even Obamacare -- which by Election Day could actually help Democrats (especially with turnout).

Reason #3: Do the Republicans really want to turn the conversation to foreign policy?

The GOP launched the Iraq War -- the most disastrous foreign policy catastrophe in the last half-century -- and they want to talk about competency and honesty in foreign policy?

In fact, some of the same people who regularly go on Fox News to rail on about the "Benghazi conspiracy" helped promote the notion that we were invading Iraq because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction -- the most pernicious lie ever used in recent American politics.

The War in Iraq was an unmitigated disaster -- killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, costing thousands of American lives, costing our economy trillions of dollars, and spoiling America's reputation throughout the world.

Frankly, no self-respecting media outlet should allow any of the people who intentionally lied to the American people about Iraq on the air ever again.

If you were the political party that presided over such a horrific foreign policy disaster would you really want to turn the political conversation to the question of who is best equipped to conduct America's foreign policy?

Apparently so. It appears possible that the Republican leaders are just as inept at formulating their own political strategy as they were at conducting America's foreign policy.

Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author of the book Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on Amazon.com. He is a partner in Democracy Partners and a Senior Strategist for Americans United for Change. Follow him on Twitter @rbcreamer.

I get all my foreign policy recommendations via the Huffpo. I mean, why shouldn't the Republicans take advice from Obama's mouthpiece.

Anything in particular you take issue with?

#2 is BS and that alone discredits the rest of the leftist garbage. Several polls show over 60% or 70% of Americans want further investigation. Good try by Huffy (and you) to attempt to make it appear as 'nothing to see here' applies. Tick Tock!

[autigeremt 7,131]

72% in some of the more recent polls.

[homersapien 12,172]

I thought all the polls were saying Obamacare was the hot issue. What happened?

Wait a few weeks. The Republicans always overplay their hand.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Here's homey. Notice his attachment to the progressive spin

[homersapien 12,172]

Voters trust Clinton over GOP on Benghazi

PPP's newest national poll finds that Republicans aren't getting much traction with their focus on Benghazi over the last week. Voters trust Hillary Clinton over Congressional Republicans on the issue of Benghazi by a 49/39 margin and Clinton's +8 net favorability rating at 52/44 is identical to what it was on our last national poll in late March. Meanwhile Congressional Republicans remain very unpopular with a 36/57 favorability rating.

Voters think Congress should be more focused on other major issues right now rather than Benghazi. By a 56/38 margin they say passing a comprehensive immigration reform bill is more important than continuing to focus on Benghazi, and by a 52/43 spread they think passing a bill requiring background checks for all gun sales should be a higher priority.

While voters overall may think Congress' focus should be elsewhere there's no doubt about how mad Republicans are about Benghazi. 41% say they consider this to be the biggest political scandal in American history to only 43% who disagree with that sentiment. Only 10% of Democrats and 20% of independents share that feeling. Republicans think by a 74/19 margin than Benghazi is a worse political scandal than Watergate, by a 74/12 margin that it's worse than Teapot Dome, and by a 70/20 margin that it's worse than Iran Contra.

One interesting thing about the voters who think Benghazi is the biggest political scandal in American history is that 39% of them don't actually know where it is. 10% think it's in Egypt, 9% in Iran, 6% in Cuba, 5% in Syria, 4% in Iraq, and 1% each in North Korea and Liberia with 4% not willing to venture a guess. :laugh:

At any rate what we're finding about last week's Benghazi focus so far is that Republicans couldn't be much madder about it, voters overall think Congress should be focused on other key issues, and Hillary Clinton's poll numbers aren't declining on account of it.

http://www.publicpol...n-benghazi.html

[homersapien 12,172]

[TheBlueVue 177]

The more those on the left protest the investigation of Benghazi the more the American people want to see it.

[autigeremt 7,131]

The more Democrats declare the unjustified death of four Americans as nothing to worry about, the more I to know why they think so. It's very telling as to the true allegiance of the left.