Benghazi hearing?

[Conserative Morality]

Apparently, according to the way the votes went, they did not want " money that would have saved American lives" or else they would not have outvoted the Republicans in the bill to cut funding. How can you explain that more Dems voted for cuts if they so wholeheartedly were behind the funding?

Probably because the looming government shutdown would have been more disastrous, while the Tea Partiers in Congress were crying "Starve the beast! Kill Americans! All we care about is low taxes for the poor, oppressed rich =''''("

[Koevoet]

FYI, here is a list of all members of the US Foreign Service fallen in the line of duty. Have a look for yourself.

http://www.afsa.org/afsa_memorial_plaque_list.aspx

Yeap, the world is strange.

[Blackhelm Confederacy]

Apparently, according to the way the votes went, they did not want " money that would have saved American lives" or else they would not have outvoted the Republicans in the bill to cut funding. How can you explain that more Dems voted for cuts if they so wholeheartedly were behind the funding?

Probably because the looming government shutdown would have been more disastrous, while the Tea Partiers in Congress were crying "Starve the beast! Kill Americans! All we care about is low taxes for the poor, oppressed rich =''''("

So then you accept that your previous stance of "Democrats want more funding that would eventually turn out to have been able to save American lives" was wrong then? Because you have now just entirely flip flopped on the issue going from essentially "this was those ebil Republcians cutting funding!!!1!" to "Well of course, the Democrats acting completely rationally in cutting funding, for the good of the country"

If you can not see the hypocrisy here, I dont know what I can do for you.

[Ethel mermania]

recognizing al queda is still a world forxe (sic)

See, this is horseshit.

The Republicans wanted to campaign on a platform of Barack Obama being "soft on terror" because he withdrew American forces from Iraq. You see, in the Republican mythos, American troops in Iraq were a magical talisman that, through the action of the mystical "flypaper strategy", made it impossible for al-Qaeda to launch any terrorist attacks on the United States. Obama had stripped that protection away from the United States, and therefore made us vulnerable to attack, and he'd done nothing constructive to weaken al-Qaeda, either.

(In an alternative [and slightly more rational] version of this narrative, Obama had conflated the death of Osama bin Laden with the destruction of al-Qaeda, and no longer believed al-Qaeda to be a threat.)

Then, too, there was the claim that Obama had spent his four years in office "apologizing for America" (because, as everybody knows, if you're not going around pumping your fist in the air shouting "'MURICA, FUCK YEAH!!!!", you're obviously ashamed of this country). This was what Mitt Romney was trying to get at when he staged his famous late night self-immolation on the evening of September 11, 2012: The press release and Tweets put out by the Cairo Embassy in response to Egyptian unrest outside the embassy grounds that afternoon (without approval from the office of the Secretary of State in Washington) smacked of "apologism", in that they attempted to display sensitivity towards Muslim sensibilities. As every Real American™ knows, Ebil Muzlimz are animals who deserve no respect. Therefore, instead of saying...

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

... We should have said something more like...

We condemn the efforts by misguided individuals to act like children when their precious feelings are hurt.

... And maybe thrown in a, "Oh, and fuck your Prophet and fuck you, too, m'kay?" just for good measure.

<pause>

'Cause that's how Real Americans™ roll.

The result was a flap that was nothing short of utterly ridiculous. There is seriously nothing wrong with the statement released by the Cairo Embassy; whatever mental gyrations one might choose to undertake, it in no way "apologizes for America embracing the doctrine of free speech" or anything remotely like that, especially considering that it proclaims free speech to be a "universal right".

Or, to put it differently for the sake of "misguided individuals [who] act like children" — namely American conservatives — you can deplore, reject, and condemn the bigoted statements of insensitive idiots who deliberately give offense for the sake of being incendiary without abandoning the principle that free speech is a protected right. Remember Evelyn Beatrice Hall's paraphrase of Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?"

(For pissants, the closest actual Voltaire quote — found in a letter to M. le Riche on February 6, 1770 — is: "Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write." Hall may not have exactly captured Voltaire's words, but the sentiment is close enough — and in this context, the philosopher's use of the word "detest" makes it clear that the Cairo Embassy's statement was in no way inconsistent with his seminal view on free speech, either. But, hey, who in the Hell gives a rat about the opinions of some Frenchie wuss-bag, right? 'MURICA, FUCK YEAH!!!!)

So when Romney showed up in front of television cameras with his ever-plastic hair slightly ruffled late that same night, he didn't yet know that our Ambassador to Libya was dead. No, the "scandal" that he was trying to exploit was Obama's alleged "eagerness" to "apologize for America":

It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.

— Governor Mitt Romney, Press Statement, September 11th, 2012

A sentiment that RNC Sycophant-in-Chief Chairman Reince Priebus echoed in a ridiculous Tweet one minute after midnight that same evening:

Obama sympathizes with attackers in Egypt. Sad and pathetic.

The absurdity of this outrage was evident to anyone with half and ounce of memory. In 2006, during the scandal surrounding the publication of offensive cartoon depictions of Muhammad in a number of European newspapers, a State Department spokesman released an official statement describing the images as "unacceptable":

The State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, reading the government's statement on the controversy, said, "Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images," which are routinely published in the Arab press, "as anti-Christian images, or any other religious belief."

"We vigorously defend the right of individuals to express points of view," Mr. McCormack added.

— "U.S. Says It Also Finds Cartoons of Muhammad Offensive", Joel Brinkley and Ian Fisher, The New York Times, February 4, 2006

Hypocrisy, where is thy sting?

<pause>

Oh, I forgot. Republicans are immune to such difficulties; [url=IOKIYAR]IOKIYAR[/url]

As it turned out, Mittens' big moment blew up in his face. The White House had already disavowed the "apology" (which was not, in fact, an apology at all anyway — but that proved beside the point), Mitt had broken the cardinal rue about politicking on 9/11, and his late-night appearance before the cameras appeared both over-hasty, self-serving, and made before anybody seemed to know all the facts about what was happening, anyway. Rather than score a political coup that might turn around his flagging campaign (remember, at that point Obama was leading in the polls, with the gap widening by the day, and people were beginning to compare Romney '12 with McCain '08 [and with good reason, it turned out]), Romney came off looking like he had catastrophically failed the "3:00 AM phone call" test.

Consequently, over the next few news cycles, Republicans desperately tried to redefine the "point" of "Benghazigate": It suddenly wasn't about Obama's alleged propensity for "apology"; it wasn't about being "ashamed" of America. No, now it was about his refusal to use the word "terrorism" in describing what had happened in Benghazi (a charge which was resurrected after the Boston bombing, BTW). Needless to say, this, too was horseshit. What Obama specifically said in the wake of the Benghazi consulate attack was that it was "an act of terror" (which was, in fact, the same phrase he used after Boston); and try as they might to split hairs and say that calling something "an act of terror" is not the same as calling it "terrorism" (apparently an intensely meaningful distinction for Republicans), their efforts not only failed, but spectacularly blew up in their faces on the night of the Second Presidential Debate.

Yet still the Republicans could not let it go. It is, evidently, a manifestation of their fundamental Barackobamamania™: Something about the guy and his success just drives them fucking insane. There had to be some kind of scandal surrounding "Benghazigate", even though it was obvious to every sane American that "there [was] no there there". Soon it became Susan Rice's talking points on the Sunday morning talk programs, as if that were some kind of smoking gun pointing to great criminality. "At least with Watergate, nobody died!" became the fevered battle cry of the right.

And so the invention continues. "Benghazigate" is supposed to be totemic: It's supposed to reveal how the Obama administration allegedly thinks that the War on Terror is over, that they ran out George W. Bush's pathetic "Mission Accomplished" banner after killing OBL back on May Day in 2011, that they've packed the tent — or are currently packing the tent, or are about to pack the tent — and are going home with the job unfinished having killed Osama (sure... tell that to the people of Pakistan, Yemen, and all the other places that keep getting nailed by drone strikes — I dare you), even though the Obama Administration has never made such an assertion (they've claimed to have "decapitated" al-Qaeda — which is actually true — and they've claimed to have "decimated" its leadership — which is also true [to decimate, as any reader of the classics knows, means "to kill at least one out of every ten" — which they have pretty clearly done] — but they have never said that al-Qaeda is "dead" or even "finished"; on the contrary, they insist that we must keep up the pressure on it, and they have kept up the pressure on it). This is the new spin on "Benghazigate", the new "there there" that Republicans hope will bring the President down: "He thinks we've won the War on Terror! He thinks al-Qaeda has been wiped out!"'

Neither President Obama or anybody in his White House think anything of the sort, and neither President Obama or anybody in his White House have tried to sell this story to the American people. The right-wing entertainment complex in this country has claimed that they've done this, but that claim is one they cannot substantiate; they can only quote each other making the claim, and then take it as God's Own Truth™ that they're all right in saying it. Nobody who voted for Obama last November did it because they thought that the War on Terror is over and that Obama won it; at most, some people voted for Obama because they thought he was going in the right direction when it comes to curb-stomping the Bad Guys™, and they wanted him to keep it up — and frankly speaking, that's not the same thing.

But facts are neither important nor even necessary to today's Republican Party: Bereft of facts and evidence, these jackasses will just make shit up and proceed full speed ahead anyway.

And thus, the morons will yet make a prophet of me. Ever since 2010, I've been saying that the Republicans will no rest until they impeach Barack Obama. They've got the votes, and they're going to do it, and there's no way that they will be persuaded not to; it's as inevitable as the sun, the moon, the wind, and the tides. It's a maniacal compulsion, and these idiots are going to go through with it come Hell or high water. It may take them a couple more years to get around to it, but it's going to happen. "Benghazigate" isn't "Watergate with fatalities"; it's "Whitewater" and "Travelgate" and "Vince Foster" and "Monicagate", with even less substance than last time around.

And it's all because Republicans are fucking nuts and can't believe they're capable of losing elections.

RIP Vile Rat

<doffs hat, lowers head in honor>

Indeed.

1. obama and the administration have repeatedly said al-queda is on the run and has diminshed capabilities, at this point that should be obviously false. so i will stand by what you call bullshit.

fwiw i believe obama and bush shared the same view that if we only cut the head off, democracy peace and love will take over and the world will be a better safer and happier place

2. i am willing to eat my own words, no one elses thank you. the way the party went after clinton was wrong. i never supported it.

[Choronzon]

Thought you answered your own question honestly.

Very well, then I will answer the one Choronzon asked:

Because the incompetence of the Obama administration led to the murder of 4 members of the US foreign service, and somebody must be held accountable.

Why do conservatives insist on making the failure of Republicans in congress to provide the funds for increased embassy security about Obama?

There was no "incompetence" on the part of the Obama administration. It was the failure of congress. Republicans just cannot accept responsibility.

[Neo Art]

which does not mean yolu are wrong about / bush cheney. they clearly went in with the last two letters missing out of the word "plan".

but that does not excuse the requirement for an investigation into what happened in bengazhi, how can we better recognize it, and plan for the future.

Here's the problem. Talk's real cheap, especially in retrospect. Saying "Yeah, we TOTALLY should have looked into these sorts of things during the Bush/Cheney administration, before they served out their terms completely unfettered by any interference from us. Yeah we TOTALLY should have done something about that before they retired from politics completely, untouchable by us anymore. OUR BAD!" is kinda meaningless. And it's rendered especially more meaningless when you consider that the same fucking people who were lifting every corner of every rug in the white house from january 1993 through january 2001 are the same fucking people who are instigating this now, are the same fucking people who did absolutely nothing to even QUESTION whether Bush/Cheney were acting correctly.

So I just don't fucking believe it. And going "yeah, that was wrong of us. We're vewy vewy sowwy, but we're going to fix it right now, WHEN IT JUST SO HAPPENS the black democrat is in office" is a little too cute by half.

as i pointed out earlier, with the reference to the nyt's editorial board, the media has decided to cover this as a political investigation not a substanitive one. i think that bodes ill for the nation as a whole.

Because when the same fucking people who went after Clinton were the same fucking people who are going after Obama, and were the same fucking people who sat on their hands while Bush committed more malfeisance than the two of them put together, how can I POSSIBLY belive that this is anything BUT political?

[Blackhelm Confederacy]

Very well, then I will answer the one Choronzon asked:

Because the incompetence of the Obama administration led to the murder of 4 members of the US foreign service, and somebody must be held accountable.

Why do conservatives insist on making the failure of Republicans in congress to provide the funds for increased embassy security about Obama?

There was no "incompetence" on the part of the Obama administration. It was the failure of congress. Republicans just cannot accept responsibility.

Read last page. I have already shown Republicans were outvoted in Congress by Dems concerning the funding cuts.

[Conserative Morality]

So then you accept that your previous stance of "Democrats want more funding that would eventually turn out to have been able to save American lives" was wrong then? Because you have now just entirely flip flopped on the issue going from essentially "this was those ebil Republcians cutting funding!!!1!" to "Well of course, the Democrats acting completely rationally in cutting funding, for the good of the country"

If you can not see the hypocrisy here, I dont know what I can do for you.

Where are seeing that?

I'm saying Democrats cut funding because the Republicans were calling for cuts, and the alternative was a government shutdown. You see, that's how things work in a representative democracy - those who call for less funding have to fucking own up to the effects of their bullshit when it comes around. If two people are trying to figure out how many people they want to help, one says "Ten" and the other says "Zero", and the other refuses to let the first get anything done until they both agree, then the first saying "Fine, five" and having five people die because of it is not equally the fault of both. It's the fault of the one saying "Zero".

[Blackhelm Confederacy]

So then you accept that your previous stance of "Democrats want more funding that would eventually turn out to have been able to save American lives" was wrong then? Because you have now just entirely flip flopped on the issue going from essentially "this was those ebil Republcians cutting funding!!!1!" to "Well of course, the Democrats acting completely rationally in cutting funding, for the good of the country"

If you can not see the hypocrisy here, I dont know what I can do for you.

Where are seeing that?

I'm saying Democrats cut funding because the Republicans were calling for cuts, and the alternative was a government shutdown. You see, that's how things work in a representative democracy - those who call for less funding have to fucking own up to the effects of their bullshit when it comes around. If two people are trying to figure out how many people they want to help, one says "Ten" and the other says "Zero", and the other refuses to let the first get anything done until they both agree, then the first saying "Fine, five" and having five people die because of it is not equally the fault of both. It's the fault of the one saying "Zero".

If the Republicans were so heavily behind the cuts, in a Republican majority Congress, why did they not have the majority vote on the matter?

[Conserative Morality]

If the Republicans were so heavily behind the cuts, in a Republican majority Congress, why did they not have the majority vote on the matter?

Were not paying attention all throughout 2011-2012? Many Republicans, particularly the newly elected Tea Partiers, wanted significantly greater cuts than the compromise gave.

[Wikkiwallana]

1. obama and the administration have repeatedly said al-queda is on the run and has diminshed capabilities, at this point that should be obviously false

12 years ago, on September 11th, Al-Queda killed somewhere in the neighborhood of 3000 people, and injured over 6000 more, using only 19 operatives. Last year, on September 11, they killed 4 people and injured 10 more, using over 100 people. One of those is an act of supervillany, the other an act of desperation. I'll let you work out which one is which.

[Blackhelm Confederacy]

If the Republicans were so heavily behind the cuts, in a Republican majority Congress, why did they not have the majority vote on the matter?

Were not paying attention all throughout 2011-2012? Many Republicans, particularly the newly elected Tea Partiers, wanted significantly greater cuts than the compromise gave.

How many times can you back pedal in one argument?

Provide a bill cutting funding that had more Republicans than Democrats agreeing for funding cuts to security and I will cede my argument to you.

[Gauthier]

Because the Democrats' economic policies suck (PS, You cannot base the economic policies of the Republicans off of what Bush did.)

yeah who cares what bush did. CURRENT republican economic policies are bad news. worse is when they run on creating jobs then don't create any jobs when they get into office.

To quote Rachel Maddow, "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs... Jobortion."

[Conserative Morality]

How many times can you back pedal in one argument?

Provide a bill cutting funding that had more Republicans than Democrats agreeing for funding cuts to security and I will cede my argument to you.

...

Did you just not read my past four posts?

Never mind. I already know the answer.

[Blackhelm Confederacy]

1. obama and the administration have repeatedly said al-queda is on the run and has diminshed capabilities, at this point that should be obviously false

12 years ago, on September 11th, Al-Queda killed somewhere in the neighborhood of 3000 people, and injured over 6000 more, using only 19 operatives. Last year, on September 11, they killed 4 people and injured 10 more, using over 100 people. One of those is an act of supervillany, the other an act of desperation. I'll let you work out which one is which.

In 2011-13, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb killed thousands of Malians and nearly took over that country if it was not for French intervention. Desperate? No, just a change of direction.

Or are we ignoring the whole Mali thing?

[Blackhelm Confederacy]

How many times can you back pedal in one argument?

Provide a bill cutting funding that had more Republicans than Democrats agreeing for funding cuts to security and I will cede my argument to you.

...

Did you just not read my past four posts?

Never mind. I already know the answer.

Post a bill with a Republican majority vote against security spending, that is all I ask. It should be easy right? I mean a Republican majority Congress so heavily entrenched to cut security should certainly have some kicking about right?

[Blackhelm Confederacy]

Your opinion of "The Democrats had to to prevent government collapse!!" does not negate the fact that the democrats voted on the cuts

[Wikkiwallana]

12 years ago, on September 11th, Al-Queda killed somewhere in the neighborhood of 3000 people, and injured over 6000 more, using only 19 operatives. Last year, on September 11, they killed 4 people and injured 10 more, using over 100 people. One of those is an act of supervillany, the other an act of desperation. I'll let you work out which one is which.

In 2011-13, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb killed thousands of Malians and nearly took over that country if it was not for French intervention. Desperate? No, just a change of direction.

Or are we ignoring the whole Mali thing?

With the help of other groups, against what Wikipedia refers to as a "fledgeling government". While deplorable, it is nowhere near on the same level as breaching US domestic security.

[Ethel mermania]

which does not mean yolu are wrong about / bush cheney. they clearly went in with the last two letters missing out of the word "plan".

but that does not excuse the requirement for an investigation into what happened in bengazhi, how can we better recognize it, and plan for the future.

Here's the problem. Talk's real cheap, especially in retrospect. Saying "Yeah, we TOTALLY should have looked into these sorts of things during the Bush/Cheney administration, before they served out their terms completely unfettered by any interference from us. Yeah we TOTALLY should have done something about that before they retired from politics completely, untouchable by us anymore. OUR BAD!" is kinda meaningless. And it's rendered especially more meaningless when you consider that the same fucking people who were lifting every corner of every rug in the white house from january 1993 through january 2001 are the same fucking people who are instigating this now, are the same fucking people who did absolutely nothing to even QUESTION whether Bush/Cheney were acting correctly.

So I just don't fucking believe it. And going "yeah, that was wrong of us. We're vewy vewy sowwy, but we're going to fix it right now, WHEN IT JUST SO HAPPENS the black democrat is in office" is a little too cute by half.

as i pointed out earlier, with the reference to the nyt's editorial board, the media has decided to cover this as a political investigation not a substanitive one. i think that bodes ill for the nation as a whole.

Because when the same fucking people who went after Clinton were the same fucking people who are going after Obama, and were the same fucking people who sat on their hands while Bush committed more malfeisance than the two of them put together, how can I POSSIBLY belive that this is anything BUT political?

i am pleased to see you are feeling better.

[Conserative Morality]

Post a bill with a Republican majority vote against security spending, that is all I ask. It should be easy right? I mean a Republican majority Congress so heavily entrenched to cut security should certainly have some kicking about right?

Eat your words.

[Conserative Morality]

With the help of other groups, against what Wikipedia refers to as a "fledgeling government". While deplorable, it is nowhere near on the same level as breaching US domestic security.

Don't forget about Al-Dine and the Tuaregs.

[Wikkiwallana]

With the help of other groups, against what Wikipedia refers to as a "fledgeling government". While deplorable, it is nowhere near on the same level as breaching US domestic security.

Don't forget about Al-Dine and the Tuaregs.

That's impossible, seeing as I've not heard about their involvement until now. 5 minutes or so ago was literally the first I'd heard about the Mali thing.

[Conserative Morality]

Your opinion of "The Democrats had to to prevent government collapse!!" does not negate the fact that the democrats voted on the cuts

You cannot be serious here.

[Blackhelm Confederacy]

Post a bill with a Republican majority vote against security spending, that is all I ask. It should be easy right? I mean a Republican majority Congress so heavily entrenched to cut security should certainly have some kicking about right?

Eat your words.

Did you read what you posted?

The first was the text of a bill, not the results.

Second was proposed cuts

and the last was clearly labeled domestic cuts, so throw that out.

I asked for the actual results of a bill cutting security to our foreign services. You have instead opted to provide me with a news article detailing domestic cuts, another talking about Hillary Clintons opinion in proposed cuts, and a third that was merely the text with no results. I don't see what you are getting at here.

[Blackhelm Confederacy]

See how when I provided a bill, it very clearly listed the Democrat and Republican results? Yet when you were asked to, you retorted with news coverage of things that are not pertinent to the matter we are discussing? I am asking you to merely do the same as I have,