Benghazi: Most people..just dont care! Give it up already.

[Claudette]

Benghazi. Maybe Im off, but it just seems that most people just DONT CARE!

The far right is trying desperately to push this as the downfall of Obama.

I dont know what really did or didn't happen, or even the latest updates. Why? Because I honestly...like most Americans...just dont give a shit that much about it. We shouldn't be in those shitholes anyway.

I can honestly say I care more about what happens this weekend in college football than what happened in Benghazi. Fox has even termed it "Benghazi-Gate".

Give it up. It aint stickin'.

Oh I think you'd be singing a far different tune if it were your Father, brother, cousin or best friend who was in that consulate in Benghazi.

You'd be screaming like a stuck pig and asking the very same questions that others are asking right now.

 

[bornright]

Benghazi. Maybe Im off, but it just seems that most people just DONT CARE!

The far right is trying desperately to push this as the downfall of Obama.

I dont know what really did or didn't happen, or even the latest updates. Why? Because I honestly...like most Americans...just dont give a shit that much about it. We shouldn't be in those shitholes anyway.

I can honestly say I care more about what happens this weekend in college football than what happened in Benghazi. Fox has even termed it "Benghazi-Gate".

Give it up. It aint stickin'.

You're right!

Benghazi Is A Political Loser For Republicans

After two months of nonstop harping on Benghazi, voters sent Republicans a clear message on Election Day: They don’t care. According to exit polls, only five percent of voters listed foreign policy as the most important issue at stake in the election, and 56 percent of that group voted for President Obama (compared to just 33 percent for Romney). As Daniel W. Drezner points out in Foreign Policy, this marks the first exit poll in at least three decades in which the Democratic candidate for president outperformed the Republican on foreign policy.

In other words, every second that the Republicans spent focusing on Benghazi was wasted effort. Still, the right refuses to drop the issue.

Now Senate Republicans are promising “Watergate-style” hearings of their own to prove, as Senator John McCain put it, that President Obama was “not telling the truth about what happened there and what he knew and when he knew it.”

I don't think it's so much they don't care about what happened in Benghazi as they put it very low on the priority list for issues they want resolved domestically. And I think most realize that some things can't be divulged yet due to national security.

The Benghazi thing is being changed before our very eyes. It has been changed from why did this administration abandon our Americans and allowed them to die when we had the ability to save and protect them to how soon did they know it was a terrorist attack. We should not allow them to change it. If the President or someone else refused to allow the protection for these Americans that person is guilty of murder and should recieve just punishment.

 

[BlindBoo]

Imagine if you were actually right once in a while!

lol....s0n, if a GOP guy were in charge, you'd be writing volumes about him needing to be impeached.

Of they would begin making movies about him getting assassinated and the such.

Oh wait.... They did that.

Were they in England? Oh, it really wasn't a movie about Bush getting assassinated although that did occur during the opening of the movie. No it was mostly a horror flick depicting what would have happened under a President Darth Vador...........I mean Dick Cheney.

 

[BlindBoo]

The Republicans were desperate to find bad things about Obama, everything that happens from stuffed up plumbing to his use of a teleprompter is fair game. Embassys in certain areas are dangerous places, always have been, and the question comes up should we pull the embassy because of the danger, sort of turn tail and show our cowardice, or leave it as another sign? A number of Americans accept some miscues, such as Reagan losing 241 military in Lebannon in 1983, as unfortunate but part of the game. Trying to make Benghazi into a 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, is a typical use of an unfortunate event for political purposes. BOTH PARTIES DO IT.

The cover up and the lies afterwards is the difference (along with the media protection)

The only thing covered up was the classified information. There were no lies.

 

[bornright]

The Republicans were desperate to find bad things about Obama, everything that happens from stuffed up plumbing to his use of a teleprompter is fair game. Embassys in certain areas are dangerous places, always have been, and the question comes up should we pull the embassy because of the danger, sort of turn tail and show our cowardice, or leave it as another sign? A number of Americans accept some miscues, such as Reagan losing 241 military in Lebannon in 1983, as unfortunate but part of the game. Trying to make Benghazi into a 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, is a typical use of an unfortunate event for political purposes. BOTH PARTIES DO IT.

The cover up and the lies afterwards is the difference (along with the media protection)

The only thing covered up was the classified information. There were no lies.

You don't even believe that. For the most part anything that is damaging to this administration is going to be labeled Classified.

 

[BlindBoo]

It is a risk putting embassies in some countries. Some countries are unable or unwilling to defend the embassy and we usually cannot put enough troops there for an adequate defense. Embassies are largely dependent on the host nation for their well being, our marines are primarily for show sort of like the flag. The State Department must make a judgement call when putting an embassy in some risky nations and many factors go into that decision. Look at what happened with Carter and our embassy in Iran.

The first time the students took over the US Embassy in Tehran, Khomeni sent government troops to stop them. The second time, their govenment endorsed the takeover.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"Benghazi: Most people..just dont care!"

That's only true of very sick individuals who are a total waste of oxygen.

 

[Oldstyle]

The Republicans were desperate to find bad things about Obama, everything that happens from stuffed up plumbing to his use of a teleprompter is fair game. Embassys in certain areas are dangerous places, always have been, and the question comes up should we pull the embassy because of the danger, sort of turn tail and show our cowardice, or leave it as another sign? A number of Americans accept some miscues, such as Reagan losing 241 military in Lebannon in 1983, as unfortunate but part of the game. Trying to make Benghazi into a 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, is a typical use of an unfortunate event for political purposes. BOTH PARTIES DO IT.

The cover up and the lies afterwards is the difference (along with the media protection)

The only thing covered up was the classified information. There were no lies.

The lie was that it was a spontaneous attack by people protesting the YouTube video...the Obama Administration knew within hours of the attack that was not the case yet they kept trying to push that narrative for days because it fit their campaign message about Al Queda being on the ropes.

Pretending that lie was necessary for national security is farce of the highest order. There is only one reason that lie was told and only one reason that Susan Rice was sent out a week after the attacks to tell it again REPEATEDLY and that reason has ZERO to do with information being classified.

As for no cover-up? It's two months later and we're having to subpoena people to tell us the truth under oath. Who changed the original CIA assessment, Boo? If it "was" done for national security reasons then why is the person or persons who did so not coming forward? Why are they still hiding?

 

[BlindBoo]

The cover up and the lies afterwards is the difference (along with the media protection)

The only thing covered up was the classified information. There were no lies.

The lie was that it was a spontaneous attack by people protesting the YouTube video...the Obama Administration knew within hours of the attack that was not the case yet they kept trying to push that narrative for days because it fit their campaign message about Al Queda being on the ropes.

Pretending that lie was necessary for national security is farce of the highest order. There is only one reason that lie was told and only one reason that Susan Rice was sent out a week after the attacks to tell it again REPEATEDLY and that reason has ZERO to do with information being classified.

As for no cover-up? It's two months later and we're having to subpoena people to tell us the truth under oath. Who changed the original CIA assessment, Boo? If it "was" done for national security reasons then why is the person or persons who did so not coming forward? Why are they still hiding?

Apparently the answer came out in the Classified hearings. But this is what Ms. Rice prefaced her every interview with. So where is the lie?

Bob, let me tell you what we understand to be the assessment at present. First of all, very importantly, as you discussed with the President, there is an investigation that the United States government will launch led by the FBI, that has begun and--


BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): But they are not there.


SUSAN RICE: They are not on the ground yet, but they have already begun looking at all sorts of evidence of-- of various sorts already available to them and to us. And they will get on the ground and continue the investigation. So we'll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date....................

"Face the Nation" transcripts, September 16, 2012: Libyan Pres. Magariaf, Amb. Rice and Sen. McCain - CBS News

 

[Bigfoot]

The Republicans were desperate to find bad things about Obama, everything that happens from stuffed up plumbing to his use of a teleprompter is fair game. Embassys in certain areas are dangerous places, always have been, and the question comes up should we pull the embassy because of the danger, sort of turn tail and show our cowardice, or leave it as another sign? A number of Americans accept some miscues, such as Reagan losing 241 military in Lebannon in 1983, as unfortunate but part of the game. Trying to make Benghazi into a 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, is a typical use of an unfortunate event for political purposes. BOTH PARTIES DO IT.

The cover up and the lies afterwards is the difference (along with the media protection)

The only thing covered up was the classified information. There were no lies.

LOL, you are such a faithful blind dog.

 

[courseofhistory]

Benghazi. Maybe Im off, but it just seems that most people just DONT CARE!

The far right is trying desperately to push this as the downfall of Obama.

I dont know what really did or didn't happen, or even the latest updates. Why? Because I honestly...like most Americans...just dont give a shit that much about it. We shouldn't be in those shitholes anyway.

I can honestly say I care more about what happens this weekend in college football than what happened in Benghazi. Fox has even termed it "Benghazi-Gate".

Give it up. It aint stickin'.

You're right!

Benghazi Is A Political Loser For Republicans

After two months of nonstop harping on Benghazi, voters sent Republicans a clear message on Election Day: They don’t care. According to exit polls, only five percent of voters listed foreign policy as the most important issue at stake in the election, and 56 percent of that group voted for President Obama (compared to just 33 percent for Romney). As Daniel W. Drezner points out in Foreign Policy, this marks the first exit poll in at least three decades in which the Democratic candidate for president outperformed the Republican on foreign policy.

In other words, every second that the Republicans spent focusing on Benghazi was wasted effort. Still, the right refuses to drop the issue.

Now Senate Republicans are promising “Watergate-style” hearings of their own to prove, as Senator John McCain put it, that President Obama was “not telling the truth about what happened there and what he knew and when he knew it.”

I don't think it's so much they don't care about what happened in Benghazi as they put it very low on the priority list for issues they want resolved domestically. And I think most realize that some things can't be divulged yet due to national security.

The Benghazi thing is being changed before our very eyes. It has been changed from why did this administration abandon our Americans and allowed them to die when we had the ability to save and protect them to how soon did they know it was a terrorist attack. We should not allow them to change it. If the President or someone else refused to allow the protection for these Americans that person is guilty of murder and should recieve just punishment.

Well then, why did the US abandon it's personnel in all those other attacks that happened pror to Benghazi? Answers were not forthcoming there either and have never been completely resolved. But, hyper partisan politics didn't rule the day before Benghazi and people accepted them as terrible tragedies but also realized that there is only so much the US can do to protect citizens abroad.

 

[Oldstyle]

The only thing covered up was the classified information. There were no lies.

The lie was that it was a spontaneous attack by people protesting the YouTube video...the Obama Administration knew within hours of the attack that was not the case yet they kept trying to push that narrative for days because it fit their campaign message about Al Queda being on the ropes.

Pretending that lie was necessary for national security is farce of the highest order. There is only one reason that lie was told and only one reason that Susan Rice was sent out a week after the attacks to tell it again REPEATEDLY and that reason has ZERO to do with information being classified.

As for no cover-up? It's two months later and we're having to subpoena people to tell us the truth under oath. Who changed the original CIA assessment, Boo? If it "was" done for national security reasons then why is the person or persons who did so not coming forward? Why are they still hiding?

Apparently the answer came out in the Classified hearings. But this is what Ms. Rice prefaced her every interview with. So where is the lie?

Bob, let me tell you what we understand to be the assessment at present. First of all, very importantly, as you discussed with the President, there is an investigation that the United States government will launch led by the FBI, that has begun and--


BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): But they are not there.


SUSAN RICE: They are not on the ground yet, but they have already begun looking at all sorts of evidence of-- of various sorts already available to them and to us. And they will get on the ground and continue the investigation. So we'll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date....................

"Face the Nation" transcripts, September 16, 2012: Libyan Pres. Magariaf, Amb. Rice and Sen. McCain - CBS News

I'm amused by the Administration's "back-pedaling" when their claim that it was a "spontaneous" attack became untenable because the truth was slowly being revealed. Only then did they call for more time (with the election looming) before anyone draws any conclusions...even though THEY immediately came to the conclusion that it was a spontaneous attack due to the YouTube videos despite the CIA report to the contrary.

When Rice says that their conclusion is "based on the best information we have to date" she's telling an absolute lie. They've chosen to ignore the CIA's information that the attack was carried out by an Al Queda affiliate because it was politically inconvenient. It's obvious that their conclusion is based on what's best for Barack Obama's reelection hopes.

 

[Claudette]

The cover up and the lies afterwards is the difference (along with the media protection)

The only thing covered up was the classified information. There were no lies.

LOL, you are such a faithful blind dog.

Yes he is.

I'm waiting for him to start with Iraq and Bush as he does everytime something comes up negatively about that **** in the WH. He deflects like a MF.

Wait for it.

 

[Oldstyle]

You're right!

Benghazi Is A Political Loser For Republicans



I don't think it's so much they don't care about what happened in Benghazi as they put it very low on the priority list for issues they want resolved domestically. And I think most realize that some things can't be divulged yet due to national security.

The Benghazi thing is being changed before our very eyes. It has been changed from why did this administration abandon our Americans and allowed them to die when we had the ability to save and protect them to how soon did they know it was a terrorist attack. We should not allow them to change it. If the President or someone else refused to allow the protection for these Americans that person is guilty of murder and should recieve just punishment.

Well then, why did the US abandon it's personnel in all those other attacks that happened pror to Benghazi? Answers were not forthcoming there either and have never been completely resolved. But, hyper partisan politics didn't rule the day before Benghazi and people accepted them as terrible tragedies but also realized that there is only so much the US can do to protect citizens abroad.

We abandoned our personnel in other attacks? Where and when did that take place? The truth is the majority of the attacks you cite were suicide bombings that didn't even harm our personnel. We certainly didn't abandon them...nor did we leave them to their own devices for hours as happened in Benghazi. In none of those attacks did we lose an Ambassador.

Someone driving a truck bomb up to the outside of one of our embassies and exploding it is FAR different that a six hour plus assault with little response like happened in Libya. There is only so much the US can do to protect citizens abroad? Are you serious? The State Department didn't do ANYTHING to protect our people in Benghazi despite repeated requests for more security before the attacks and repeated requests for aid during the attacks.

 

[BlindBoo]

The cover up and the lies afterwards is the difference (along with the media protection)

The only thing covered up was the classified information. There were no lies.

LOL, you are such a faithful blind dog.

Still waiting on the quote of her alleged lie. Been waitin for a while now too.

My dog may have been blind and deaf but she could sure sniff out the truth (of where I threw her pull toy).

 

[BlindBoo]

The lie was that it was a spontaneous attack by people protesting the YouTube video...the Obama Administration knew within hours of the attack that was not the case yet they kept trying to push that narrative for days because it fit their campaign message about Al Queda being on the ropes.

Pretending that lie was necessary for national security is farce of the highest order. There is only one reason that lie was told and only one reason that Susan Rice was sent out a week after the attacks to tell it again REPEATEDLY and that reason has ZERO to do with information being classified.

As for no cover-up? It's two months later and we're having to subpoena people to tell us the truth under oath. Who changed the original CIA assessment, Boo? If it "was" done for national security reasons then why is the person or persons who did so not coming forward? Why are they still hiding?

Apparently the answer came out in the Classified hearings. But this is what Ms. Rice prefaced her every interview with. So where is the lie?

Bob, let me tell you what we understand to be the assessment at present. First of all, very importantly, as you discussed with the President, there is an investigation that the United States government will launch led by the FBI, that has begun and--


BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): But they are not there.


SUSAN RICE: They are not on the ground yet, but they have already begun looking at all sorts of evidence of-- of various sorts already available to them and to us. And they will get on the ground and continue the investigation. So we'll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date....................

"Face the Nation" transcripts, September 16, 2012: Libyan Pres. Magariaf, Amb. Rice and Sen. McCain - CBS News

I'm amused by the Administration's "back-pedaling" when their claim that it was a "spontaneous" attack became untenable because the truth was slowly being revealed. Only then did they call for more time (with the election looming) before anyone draws any conclusions...even though THEY immediately came to the conclusion that it was a spontaneous attack due to the YouTube videos despite the CIA report to the contrary.

When Rice says that their conclusion is "based on the best information we have to date" she's telling an absolute lie. They've chosen to ignore the CIA's information that the attack was carried out by an Al Queda affiliate because it was politically inconvenient. It's obvious that their conclusion is based on what's best for Barack Obama's reelection hopes.

There was no backpeddle and no conclusion. Just the approved talking points. SOP.

So we'll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions.

 

[Oldstyle]

Apparently the answer came out in the Classified hearings. But this is what Ms. Rice prefaced her every interview with. So where is the lie?

Bob, let me tell you what we understand to be the assessment at present. First of all, very importantly, as you discussed with the President, there is an investigation that the United States government will launch led by the FBI, that has begun and--


BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): But they are not there.


SUSAN RICE: They are not on the ground yet, but they have already begun looking at all sorts of evidence of-- of various sorts already available to them and to us. And they will get on the ground and continue the investigation. So we'll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date....................

"Face the Nation" transcripts, September 16, 2012: Libyan Pres. Magariaf, Amb. Rice and Sen. McCain - CBS News

I'm amused by the Administration's "back-pedaling" when their claim that it was a "spontaneous" attack became untenable because the truth was slowly being revealed. Only then did they call for more time (with the election looming) before anyone draws any conclusions...even though THEY immediately came to the conclusion that it was a spontaneous attack due to the YouTube videos despite the CIA report to the contrary.

When Rice says that their conclusion is "based on the best information we have to date" she's telling an absolute lie. They've chosen to ignore the CIA's information that the attack was carried out by an Al Queda affiliate because it was politically inconvenient. It's obvious that their conclusion is based on what's best for Barack Obama's reelection hopes.

There was no backpeddle and no conclusion. Just the approved talking points. SOP.

So we'll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions.

When you say the "approved talking points", Boo? Approved by who? Obama appointees? It certainly wasn't what was approved by the CIA. The report they sent to Washington had Al Queda as the culprit. Someone in the Obama camp changed that. Someone in the Obama camp removed any reference to Al Queda. Why isn't anyone stepping forward to claim responsibility for that?

 

[BlindBoo]

The only thing covered up was the classified information. There were no lies.

LOL, you are such a faithful blind dog.

Yes he is.

I'm waiting for him to start with Iraq and Bush as he does everytime something comes up negatively about that **** in the WH. He deflects like a MF.

Wait for it.

If I were to bring up something about President Bushes terms to show the obvious hypocracy of you Rabid Righties it would have to be Condi and the way she excelled at hammering talking points home regardless of the truth. But why would I do that. You can't even quote a single lie from Susan Rice or President Obama.

 

[Oldstyle]

As for no back pedal? Come on! The Obama Administration has gone from declaring this to be a result of a spontaneous attack as a result of the YouTube video to saying that we need to wait before drawing conclusions. THAT in and of itself is a serious back pedal.

 

[BlindBoo]

I'm amused by the Administration's "back-pedaling" when their claim that it was a "spontaneous" attack became untenable because the truth was slowly being revealed. Only then did they call for more time (with the election looming) before anyone draws any conclusions...even though THEY immediately came to the conclusion that it was a spontaneous attack due to the YouTube videos despite the CIA report to the contrary.

When Rice says that their conclusion is "based on the best information we have to date" she's telling an absolute lie. They've chosen to ignore the CIA's information that the attack was carried out by an Al Queda affiliate because it was politically inconvenient. It's obvious that their conclusion is based on what's best for Barack Obama's reelection hopes.

There was no backpeddle and no conclusion. Just the approved talking points. SOP.

So we'll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions.

When you say the "approved talking points", Boo? Approved by who? Obama appointees? It certainly wasn't what was approved by the CIA. The report they sent to Washington had Al Queda as the culprit. Someone in the Obama camp changed that. Someone in the Obama camp removed any reference to Al Queda. Why isn't anyone stepping forward to claim responsibility for that?

I think you'd have to be a member of the Select Committe to know that.

It's a mole hill, quit pretending it's a mountain.