patrick.net

anonymous says

Tip O’Neill, the Democratic Speaker of the House, was no pushover. He, like today’s opposition leaders in the House, demanded an investigation—but a real one, and only one. Instead of playing it for political points, a House committee undertook a serious investigation into what went wrong at the barracks in Beirut. Two months later, it issued a report finding “very serious errors in judgment” by officers on the ground, as well as responsibility up through the military chain of command, and called for better security measures against terrorism in U.S. government installations throughout the world.

Yeah, Tip Oneil was NOT a low life evil scumbag.

IF todays congress had any integrity at all, their investigation would lead to the conclusion that their own (repubilican's) unwillingness to increase security funding for embassies is probably the biggest single cause of Benghazi.

But finding out the reason why and avoiding it in the future, isn't even the goal of todays republicans in congress No, no no, that would reflect the actions of decent human beings.

Their entire goal is to portray Obama as wildly unethical for the words that the CIA and others chose to describe the possible reasons for the attack a couple days after it happened. Or maybe if they're lucky, find a way to blame Hilary.

THe amazing thing is that apparently republicans don't care how this looks to anyone that doesn't have severe emotional or intellectual challenges, or both. They do it, I guess, because it appeals to those in their base who are too stupid or have too much hate for democrats to even be able to think straight.

Good thing that happened under a Republican President. Otherwise it would have shown America to be weak, and destroyed our respect around the world. Because Congress investigated Reagan, I say they are guilty of criminalizing politics. Blame game.

Since you have mentioned this incident which does not reflect well on Reagan, I will now impugn your patriotism: "Have you no shame? Are you suggesting that all those loyal Marines died in vain?"

That should do it. Now I must head to work on the Ronald Reagan freeway, which flows past the Ronald Reagan Rest Area and Interpretative Center, near Reagan High School.

No.

They do it because Obama et al sent out Susan Rice to lie to 320 million people during an election so that the incident would not hurt their chances of winning.
This has been proven beyond a doubt over the past week. But you probably don't know about it because Maddow didn't report it.

It was/is all about lying to 320,000,000 people, directly in their face, to ensure another presidential term for the left.
This doesn't bother you, because your choice won and this action helped to secure the victory.

However, the reasoning on the right is to make sure everyone knows, that during an election cycle, the democrats will lie to your face in order to get elected. This factoid is positioned to do irreparable harm to the left in the 2016 presidential debates.
Just imagine Hillary up there, trying to defend herself over the lack of protection for bengazi, then the fat jersey fuck brings up the the sentence in bold above.....at that point the sincerity about everything Hillary says about every topic comes into question.

So, for the right, this issue needs to be kept alive as a valuable debate weapon.

If your rose colored glasses were highly reflective, you would cringe at the horror radiating from each pupil at the position you have chosen to support.
As an aside, this would be a good time for you to go get an eye examination. Your pupils would not have to be dilated.

marcus says

They do it, I guess, because it appeals to those in their base who are too stupid or have too much hate for democrats to even be able to think straight.

Typical left wing deflection. Rather than discuss the actual facts at hand that are readily available, distort an incident that occurred in the distant past so that it seems similiar to a current incident and compare the current incident to the make believe fairy tale version of the past incident that has now been constructed.

I believe that is what is known as a straw man argument.

SoftShell says

However, the reasoning on the right is to make sure everyone knows, that during an election cycle, the democrats will lie to your face in order to get elected. This factoid is positioned to do irreparable harm to the left in the 2016 presidential debates.

Everyone lies to your face to get elected. Is your next big discovery that the sun rises in the east.

marcus says

Their entire goal is to portray Obama as wildly unethical

Bottom line - he IS!!!!

mmmarvel says

marcus says

Their entire goal is to portray Obama as wildly unethical

Bottom line - he IS!!!!

Funny. IF you asked me what's more unethical ?

1) Not funding embassy security

or
2) Worrying about the political impact of the wording of early speculation about why our embassy was tragically attacked (Not that I even agree that we know they did worry about the wording for political reasons - or ass covering)

I would have a different opinion about which if these is more unethical.

But then, I'm rational and detatched, not some idiot with so much hate for Obama that I can't even process the real world any more.

Here's a good synopsis of what happened in Benghazi:

http://www.corbettreport.com/interview-876-james-corbett-blows-the-lid-off-of-benghazigate/

Essentially, the CIA was organizing weapons transfers to jihaddists/Al Qaeda in Syria. Stevens got hold of this and was eliminated to prevent him from leaking the story.

dodgerfanjohn says

I believe that is what is known as a straw man argument.

No.

It may be unfair, or a distortion, but it's not a straw man argument.

A good example of a straw man argument is claiming that local Republican legislators who voted against legislation to increase penalties for hit and run, on the grounds of higher enforcement costs, did so because they love drunk drivers or are soft on crime.

They did so because they are extreme anti-spending hawks. To denounce them as being soft on crime is to create a straw version of them and wag your finger at it.

SoftShell says

that during an election cycle, the democrats will lie to your face in order to get elected

The funny thing here is that I have no doubt they will do so, but (a) it's not an occasion for national revulsion, as it's quite common, and (b) it probably didn't happen in this case: Rice read aloud from talking points copied from CIA and State Department memos (with few to no edits from within the administration), and many observers claim that the initial riot was indeed inspired by that stupid film. Then a local slimy warlord or two capitalized on the riot to get truly nasty.

So it was probably the CIA covering its ass - hardly unprecedented either - because they failed to adequately protect an ambassador who had firmly refused extra security.

Then only good thing about Reagan and the Beirut attack is that Reagan did not use the attack as an excuse for starting a war. Otherwise the whole thing was a big blunder.

That would be quite a discovery if the sun actually rose anywhere.
The Sun does not rise, the earth rotates exposing a good percentage of its' crust to the photon output of our nearest star.

Is your next big discovery that the administration really did lie to 320,000,000 or so americans about bengazi to assure themselves victory in the election?

bob2356 says

Everyone lies to your face to get elected. Is your next big discovery that the sun rises in the east.

But nobody did.
We asked you why you are not foaming at the mouth that obama lied directly to your face to get elected.

marcus says

Funny. IF you asked me what's more unethical ?

1) Not funding emassy security

or

2) Worrying about the political impact

Our politics is starting to resemble those of roman empire but thankfully there are no arbitrary executions, exile, public beatings yet....

True dat.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

because they failed to adequately protect an ambassador who had firmly refused extra security

SoftShell says

That would be quite a discovery if the sun actually rose anywhere.

The Sun does not rise, the earth rotates exposing a good percentage of its' crust to the photon output of our nearest star.

Thank you carl sagan. Any other tidbits of total irrelevancy you would like to share?

SoftShell says

Is your next big discovery that the administration really did lie to 320,000,000 or so americans about bengazi to assure themselves victory in the election?

I already discovered it, which you would have realized if you had better reading comprehension. I just think it doesn't matter. More political theatre.on both sides of the isle is all it amounts to. But if you actually believe you've discovered the secrets of the ark of the convenent as foretold by rush then good for you, enjoy.

So why is what Donald Sterling said causing a national revulsion since the views he orated are quite common?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/06/us/msnbc-apology/

"This is simply the worst example I have seen of a discriminatory stereotypical portrayal of any community by any media. The fact that this was done by a news organization is abominable. This wasn't a chance occurrence. This was a planned segment where many decision-makers at MSNBC's 'Way Too Early' program agreed on the content and execution which concluded on what was seen nationwide."

Your rationale does not hold water.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

SoftShell says

that during an election cycle, the democrats will lie to your face in order to get elected

The funny thing here is that I have no doubt they will do so, but (a) it's not an occasion for national revulsion, as it's quite common,

Clinton had to be impeached because Nixon.

Obama must be completely incompetent because Bush.

Right-wing shame must be cleansed. Both sides do it; both must be shown to be equally evil and incompetent.

There were congressional hearings on Donald Sterling?

Oh...well then....how 'bout a fresca??

bob2356 says

SoftShell says

Is your next big discovery that the administration really did lie to 320,000,000 or so americans about bengazi to assure themselves victory in the election?

I already discovered it,

The congress of NBA owners?....YES!

But my point is just because something is 'common' does not exclude it from causing 'national revulsion'.

A minor point, but a point nonetheless.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

There were congressional hearings on Donald Sterling?

That's 'Neil Tyson'....lets try to keep it current.

bob2356 says

SoftShell says

That would be quite a discovery if the sun actually rose anywhere.


The Sun does not rise, the earth rotates exposing a good percentage of its' crust to the photon output of our nearest star.

Thank you carl sagan.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

I saw the videos!

Michelle Obama was laying down ground fire with a hand-held M134 when, out of the dust and smoke. . .

Hillary appeared lifted her leg and a battalion of terrorists leaped from her hoo-hah guns ablazing and shouting ALLAH AKUBAR!

F-U for putting the picture of Hillary's hoo hah in my head.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

Hillary appeared lifted her leg and a battalion of terrorists leaped from her hoo-hah guns ablazing and shouting ALLAH AKUBAR!

This is not helpful - the pronunciation is Allahu Akbar.

(The rest of what you say is, however, a totally accurate description of how it happened.)

SoftShell says

It will bring into question anything Hillary says about everything.

The trust component of the democratic candidate will be shredded like Kraft non-fat cheddar cheese.

That must be some refreshing, flavorsome Kool Aid!

Given the sheer volume and magnitude of Hillary's lies in the past, and on subjects far more weighty than this - I don't see how this can make any difference. The public already knows who she is - they'll either ignore the existing stench, or bend over and puke on the floor.

Benghazi is like a tiny extra microbe on a bloated, maggot-laced corpse.

Such brainwashing. How does Fox News do it?

it's not faux news....this.
http://www.amazon.com/TrollMaster-Throttle-Accurate-Possible-TM212DPRO2/dp/B001PR2JZ6

Iosef V HydroCabron says

Such brainwashing. How does Fox News do it?

Iosef V HydroCabron says

Such brainwashing. How does Fox News do it?

SoftShell says

Irrelevant.

A major, provable, in your face lie will be front and center come 2016....

It will bring into question anything Hillary says about everything.

The trust component of the democratic candidate will be shredded like Kraft non-fat cheddar cheese.

Yea right. The attention span of the average voter is about as long as it takes light to cross the street. Roughly 99% will say "what's that" if you say bengazi next year. Hope springs eternal though.

Unless it's kept in their face non-stop 24-7 for the next two years until they can recited it shot by shot.
bob2356 says

Roughly 99% will say "what's that" if you say bengazi next year.

Facebooksux says

Essentially, the CIA was organizing weapons transfers to jihaddists/Al Qaeda in Syria. Stevens got hold of this and was eliminated to prevent him from leaking the story.

Whether it was this or some other combination of things that most of us don't have security clearance to know about, the right wing wants to blame the administration and the state department for not being transparent enough in days right after the attacks.

The idea that they would speculate that the terrorist attack had something to do with that anti Islam movie, when in fact it was terrorism motivated by other specific reasons (perhaps the usual) is so off the charts scandalous. My god, what is this country coming to ? It was so obvious to everyone a couple days after it happened that the real reason terrorists did it was because Obama is an ineffective President.

There's no way that benghazi would have affected the election. Administration already had sufficient national security card equity from elimination of bin laden to squander it via benghazi so the rep idea to make it look like dems were weak on national security would not have worked. Additionally if reps were to take it too far they would expose themselves from counterattacks about iraq campaign pretenses. Also, 538 forecast showed Barack in command since at least june and romney's 47% comments that were leaked in september did not help whatsoever to narrow the lead.

Saint Reagan can do no wrong. And anything he said or did, we can interpret it and remember the parts we like, and forget the rest.

Vicente says

Saint Reagan can do no wrong. And anything he said or did, we can interpret it and remember the parts we like, and forget the rest.

There's a quite a bit of revisionist history on both sides regarding Reagan but the people at the time of his presidency loved him, that cannot be denied. The fact that he grabbed 49 of 50 states in his reelection, plus a record number of the opposition party's voting base can only be looked upon with envy by Clinton, Bush and Obama.

Possibly the greatest man who ever lived, and just maybe the Second Incarnation of the Christ Jesus.

Only in 100,000 years will the true extent of Reagan's contributions to mankind be understood.

Vicente says

Saint Reagan can do no wrong. And anything he said or did, we can interpret it and remember the parts we like, and forget the rest.

More left wing deflection 101.

My new question is does Cabronsito get his version of the news by attaching a hose to Rachel maddows rectum and sucking like he's syphoning gas?

lakermania says

There's a quite a bit of revisionist history on both sides regarding Reagan

Fact: Reagan had numerous terrorist incidents occur on his watch
non-GOP: Reagan had numerous terrorist incidents occur on his watch
GOP: Saint Reagan uhh... BENGHAZI!

It is clear who is the revisionist and who isn't. Pointing out facts is not revisionism.

At least GW Bush had no attacks on American soil during his presidency.

You are quite correct.
The 'attack' phase of 911 occurred while the terrorists were airborne.
In US airspace, but not on US soil.
And boarding the planes was not the "attack" phase.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

At least GW Bush had no attacks on American soil during his presidency.

SoftShell says

You are quite correct.

The 'attack' phase of 911 occurred while the terrorists were airborne.

In US airspace, but not on US soil.

And boarding the planes was not the "attack" phase.

AND the Pentagon and the WTC float on a cushion of air!

Checkmate, dirty li(e)berals!

Irrelevant.
The attack took place in the air, with the pilots/copilots attacked by the saudis.
Flying into the twin towers never occurred. The buildings were detonated below ground by the Yinons.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

AND the Pentagon and the WTC float on a cushion of air!

Checkmate, dirty li(e)berals!

Some dont recall well how Regan went after Terrorist even bombing Libya a base of world terror network..not to mention going after the terrorist while in flight...

http://articles.latimes.com/1985-10-11/news/mn-17022_1_italian-troops

U.S. Jets Intercept Plane With Ship Hijackers; All 4 Seized : Italy Holds Terrorists at Base in Sicily
October 11, 1985|JACK NELSON | Times Washington Bureau Chief
Email
Share

WASHINGTON — In a stunning turn of events in the night skies over the Mediterranean late Thursday, U.S. Navy F-14 fighters intercepted an Egyptian airliner carrying the four Palestinian terrorists who hijacked an Italian cruise liner and murdered an elderly American tourist, then forced the plane to fly to a U.S. naval base in Sicily, the White House announced.

There, the terrorists were surrounded by a combined force of U.S. and Italian troops and taken into custody by Italian authorities for trial in Italy or possible extradition to the United States.

"This action affirms our determination to see that terrorists are apprehended, prosecuted and punished," White House spokesman Larry Speakes declared in releasing details of the dramatic episode.

"This operation was conducted without firing a shot," he noted, adding that President Reagan--who had approved the bold maneuver step by step throughout the day Thursday--was "extremely pleased with the successful mission."

"We have been assured by the government of Italy that the terrorists will be subject to full due process of law," Speakes said. "For our part, we intend to pursue prompt extradition to the United States of those involved in the crime.