13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush’s Watch Without a Peep from Fox News

benghazi_gate_bush_eraThe Republican inquisition over the attacks against Americans in Benghazi has never really gone away, but it appears as though in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing and the House Oversight Committee’s Benghazi hearings this week there’s renewed psycho-histrionics over Benghazi.

Lindsey Graham and Fox News Channel in particular are each crapping their cages over new allegations from an alleged whistleblower, while they continue to deal in previously debunked falsehoods about the sequence of events during and following the attacks. Fox News is predictably helming the biggest raft of hooey on the situation — turning its attention to Hillary Clinton in an abundantly obvious early move to stymie her presidential run before it even begins.

So I thought I’d revisit some territory I covered back in October as a bit of a refresher — especially since it appears as if no one, including and especially the traditional press, intends to ask any of these obnoxious, opportunistic liars about why they’re so obsessed by this one attack yet they entirely ignored the dozen-plus consulate/embassy attacks that occurred when George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were allegedly “keeping us safe.”

The Benghazi attacks (the consulate and the CIA compound) are absolutely not unprecedented even though they’re being treated that way by Republicans who are deliberately ignoring anything that happened prior to Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009.

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-Qaida 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-Qaida 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-Qaida 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-Qaida-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.

A few observations about this timeline. My initial list was quoted from an article on the Daily Kos which actually contained several errors and only 11 attacks (the above timeline contains all 13 attacks). Also, my list above doesn’t include the numerous and fatal attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad during the Iraq war — a war that was vocally supported by Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Fox News Channel.

Speaking of Graham, I ran a search on each attack along with the name “Lindsey Graham” in the hopes of discovering that Graham had perhaps commented about the attacks or raised some questions about why the administration didn’t prevent the attacks or respond accordingly to prevent additional embassy attacks. No results. Of course. Now, this could mean the search wasn’t exhaustive enough. But one thing’s for sure: neither Graham nor any of his cohorts launched a crusade against the Bush administration and the State Department in any of those cases — no one did, including the congressional Democrats, by the way.

This leads us to the ultimate point here. Not only have numerous sources previously debunked the Benghazi information being peddled by the Republicans and Fox News (for example, contrary to what the Republicans are saying, yes, reinforcements did in fact arrive before the attack on the CIA compound), but none of these people raised a single word of protest when, for example, American embassies in Yemen and Pakistan were attacked numerous times. Why didn’t the Bush administration do something to secure the compounds after the first attacks? Why didn’t he provide additional security?

Where was your inquest after the Karachi attacks, Mr. Graham? Where were you after the Sana’a attacks, Mr. Hannity? What about all of the embassy attacks in Iraq that I didn’t even list here, Mr. McCain? Do you realize how many people died in attacks on U.S. embassies and consulates when Bush was supposedly keeping us safe, Mr. Ailes? Just once I’d like to hear David Gregory or George Stephanopoulos or Wolf Blitzer ask a Republican member of Congress about the above timeline and why they said nothing at the time of each attack. Just once.

Nearly every accusation being issued about Benghazi could’ve been raised about the Bush era attacks, and yet these self-proclaimed truth-seekers refused to, in their words, undermine the commander-in-chief while troops were in harm’s way (a line they repeated over and over again during those years).

So we’re only left to conclude the obvious. The investigations and accusations and conspiracy theories are entirely motivated by politics and a strategy to escalate this to an impeachment trial. In doing so, the Republicans have the opportunity not only to crush the president’s second term, but also to sabotage the potential for a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Even if they never arrive at that goal, they have in their possession a cudgel formed of horseshit — a means of flogging the current administration with the singularly effective Republican marketing/noise machine, including the conservative entertainment complex. Very seldom does this machine fail to revise history and distort the truth. Ultimately, they don’t even need a full-blown impeachment proceeding when they have a population of way too many truthers and automatons who take all of these lies at face value — not to mention dubiously sourced chunks of “truth” proffered by radio and cable news conspiracy theorists who, if nothing else, are masters at telling angry conservatives precisely what they want to hear: that the probably-Muslim president is weak on terrorism. And so they’ll keep repeating “Benghazi-Gate, Benghazi-Gate, Benghazi-Gate!” without any regard for history or reality. Like always.

 

Make sure you follow The Daily Banter on Facebook and Twitter!

  • Michiganmitch

    The Benghazi attacks are supposed evidence of the weakness of Obama. Does this mean Bush was 13 times weaker or should we use the death toll ratios to provide for an appropriate statistic. 122/4= 30 Bush was 30 times weaker? Makes sense in that 21 or so guys hijacked planes and attacked targets in the U.S. showing ultimate disrespect for a punk leader. And what about St. Ronnie whose weakness cost well over 200 marines in Beirut all followed by a withdrawl.

  • Monomachos

    What an overwrought piece trying to defend Obama and Clinton’s handling of Benghazi. Were13 US ambassadors killed under Bush after their requests for additional security were denied by the State Department? No. Did Bush and Condi Rice go ahead telling a false story about the cause of the attacks? No, but Obama and Clinton did, knowing from Day 1 that there had been no protest, just an attack. Yes there have been other attacks on US embassies and consulates, but there is only one Benghazi.

    • typeviic1 .

      Projection much?

  • John Williams

    Also what’s different is that Bush didn’t ever ignore pleas for more security and certainly never told troops to stand down when confronted with the possibility of American deaths. In that regard, this article is a waste of space trying to create a false equivalency.

    • typeviic1 .

      Projection much??

      • John Williams

        Typical lefty–doesn’t even know what projection is and spams his ignorance.

  • Libertarian Soldier

    What’s really very different in these 12 incidences is that few Americans were killed and none in most of them. In those that Americans were killed, about 3 of these incidents, they were Car Bombs. In those that the US had advance notice, there were travel alerts issued and security increases. In all of them, the assailants were killed in the attack, arrested and/or executed with issues of extradition.

    What’s different from obama’s real Benghazi is that this was on the anniversary of the attack on our homeland soil, in America; there was prior intelligence that there would be an attack; there was an incidence already recorded against Great Britain’s Embassy and they vacated; the besieged begged for increased security and were rebuffed, refused, denied; our Secretary of State lied about it and assigned blame other than where it lay, herself; the pResident lied about it and assigned blame other than where it lay; the state department sent someone out to 5 different Sunday news shows to lie about it and assign blame other than where it lay; the government, at all levels closed ranks and threatened all witnesses not speak with investigators; the three witnesses that did talk to investigators were punished while those responsible were promoted and allowed to retire unscathed; life saving intervention was ordered to stand down; no investigation was commenced for weeks, until October….

    I’m getting tired of writing, showing the difference between the “13″ Benghazis under Bush.

    It’s been more than 19 months and nobody has done a thing to bring these mooks to justice!

    Oh, and the attackers haven’t been caught, either!

    • typeviic1 .

      Projection much???

      • Libertarian Soldier

        En Inglés Por Favor?

  • Layla

    This is crap.

  • Mike Fleres

    FOX News did report on these attacks, you dumbass blogger. Do your homework. Look it up.

  • Cordstreet

    How many American diplomats died in these attacks? More importantly did Bush or his State Dept trot out some make-believe story just prior to an election so not to look bad? Hmmm?

  • parated2k

    Typical Obamabot BS. Not that I’m defending Bush in any of these, Obama’s
    treason over Benghazi isn’t that there was an attack on a consulate!
    It’s that Obama, Hillary and Panetta REFUSED to allow for a defense of
    the consulate as it was going on. They aided the enemy in the attack
    when they had the ability to defend the consulate!

    They
    betrayed the Americans there, as it was going on!! So please quit
    passing stupidity on that has nothing to do with the facts of the
    charges!

    Then
    they tried to cover up their treason with lies about a stupid video.
    That in and of itself isn’t treason, but it is criminal, and grounds for
    impeachment and conspiracy against the United States charges.

    Of course, none of you give a crap about facts. Obama could have bragged about his treason on national TV, and his mindless minions would still defend him.

    Anyone who can still support Obama or Hillary after this deserves to have been in the consulate when it was attacked!

  • Sam Houston

    So, I take it that The Daily Banter is just another Libtard whore house. “Oh! It’s Bush’s fault!” Give it a rest already. Can’t your boy Obama stand on his own two left feet? Geesh! Going to have to start calling you Whinetards instead.

  • richard_e
    • Sam Houston

      What is it? Sorry, I am not gullible enough to use Farcebook.

  • Ignacio J. Couce

    Nice try, but in NONE of these incidents were agencies of the U.S. government and the Secretary of State aware of an ongoing attack, which they then misattributed and ignored for hours!

    Therefore, only three explanations are possible for writing this nonsense exist. Either one, you’re shill, or two you’re a disingenuous shill, or three a stupid shill. Take your pick.

    • jezebel

      Since when do US consulates & embassies not count as US properties? And how does your bullshit lie justify the deaths of all the people involved?

      Do the nation a solid:

      STFU & DON’T BREED.

      • Sam Houston

        I only thumbed up the fact that those are US Sovereign soil as per UN agreement.

  • Mikey

    I’m still confused by the bruhaha. Vote for a republican, get into one war with the wrong country and one that is 8 years too long. Vote for a democrat, get dragged into a war which has no purpose or chance to succeed. Yet, here you all are, sniping at each other. All these political bastards are the same and they have deceived you.

    • jezebel

      False equivalence is false.

      If you don’t understand the differences btwn the war-mongering right wing Republicans & democrats then you’re not smart enough to be making blig comments of any kind.

      • Mikey

        Jez, I think I understand this game pretty well. Establish your (repuklican/dumocrat) base of voters. Feed them the rhetoric that they like to hear. Legislate to keep the cash flowing to industry, unions and your buddies. Buy mansion with high fence and hire private security team. Send kids to 30k/year private school. Screw everyone who makes less money than you. Rinse, repeat.

        • jezebel

          You’re either a moron incapable of intelligent thought… Or a trash-talking #GOPTroll.

          It matters not which because either way, you’re spewing GOPLies & Propaganda to portray “Dems” as the bad guys when it’s Republicans who are ALWAYS tanking our economy & trying to micro-manage people’s personal lives.

          Republicans want to force women to have their rapists babies & if that wasn’t totally bat-shit insane enough, they then want to give rapists the right to sue for custody!!

          Thus any internet DBag who tries to paint D’s & R’s w/the same broad brush is either lying or an idiot.

          Either way, Con artist or fool, you don’t deserve anyone’s time or attention. So kindly fu@k off.

          • Mikey

            Have another big swig of that cool aid. I don’t need to insult you- your comments speak to your intelligence and character. I’m waiting for someone to explain why republican fat cats are devils, but al gores mansions and John Edwards millions are a ok. I believe that you have all been deceived. This country desperately needs better educated, enlightened voters. But all I see are ranting demagogues and their blind, ignorant, self annointed know it all supporters- on left and right.

          • Mikey

            You have a lot of hate brewing lady, but your keyboard courage is awe inspiring. I appreciate that you know better than everyone else and have appointed yourself as judge, jury, moderator and all around queen of the internet. All hail the all knowing jezebel! We quake in fear of your intellect and beauty, and fear the public wrath of your naughty dagger-like tongue!

          • Sam Houston

            OK jezebel. Look who just fell off the Libtard turnip truck. How dare you tarnish that name. Girl, you must being hitting that menopause cause you one screwy lefthand nutjob.
            The verdict is still out on that whole date rape cause. Just like the sexual harassment lawsuits of the 90′s, you can thank your fellow sisters for proving it false. In fact, if you want to be so honest, it was two White girls that falsely accused the “Scottsboro Boys”. As for rape babies, just how many abortions are performed for actual rape cases? I will be generous and say 3% but probably is <1%. Let's just go with that 3%. Absolutely none of those women are being denied or will be denied an early on abortion. If they do not report the rape then decide 3-4 months later to have an abortion, well, that is just too late. So out of those 3%. I can imagine that you will state that there are many, many cases of unreported rape and the later term abortions or just women who are having cold feet about raising a rapist's baby and too ashamed to admit that they have been raped. OK, so what percentage out of the non raped claimed other abortions; 10%? According to you, 100% of all abortions are rape related. That does not seem to jive with the data; 1.21 million abortions in 2008 with only 90,000 rapes. That's a large disparity. Maybe they were mostly Octo-Mom? BTW, those rape figures includes those of unlawful carnal knowledge of a minor. You know the ones between a 17 year old and a 19 year old that have been dating for several years.
            Do us all a favor there J-BeeZy and take your own advice.

  • Todd Parsons

    What a stupid article. First you claim that the Benghazi attack was like 13 other attacks on US assets. Then you condemn Fox News for not covering these incidents the same way that it has covered Benghazi. NO NEWS OUTLETS condemned the Bush Administration for its handling of the attacks on our embassies because the Bush Administration didn’t lie and cover up what happened when our embassies were attacked. So asserting that Fox should have condemned the Bush Administration for these events is ridiculous. In case you hadn’t noticed yet, Bush is no longer in office. Can we just deal with Obama for a change. At what point does this man become responsible for anything his administration does? To assert that the Benghazi attack was handled well by the Obama Administration begs credulity. Why can’t you people just admit the truth, the Obama Administration is completely and utterly incompetent. Benghazi makes that abundantly clear and all the finger pointing at Fox News won’t change that. If Obama had been captain of the Titanic it would have sank long before it struck the iceberg.

    • jezebel

      The Obama administration never lied

      Darryl Issa did when HIS OFFICE doctored internal emails & this RWNJ Conspiracy Theory was propagated by RWNJ Jon Karl.

      Honestly, you fu@ktards could be hit in the face with a “reality” brick and you STILL wouldn’t know WTF was going on.

      • Todd Parsons

        The Obama Administration never lied? I’m sorry to have to tell you this but all the Obama Administration ever does is lie. They lie all day, all night, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Every week there is a new scandal to distract from the current one. They can’t even admit that they lied about Obamacare. “if you like your health-care plan, you will be able to keep your health-care plan, period.” MORE LIES. Check out http://frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/obamas-tour-of-lies/ for a just a brief overview. The bottom line is Obama is lying to you. You are very passionate about what you believe and I admire you for that. But I truly believe this President has betrayed you and a lot of other people as well.

        • Sam Houston

          If truth were a non-venomous rat snake, she would be dead from the shear multitude of bites.

  • scp2

    So, in any of these attacks you listed did the Bush Administration attempt to promote a false narrative about what happened and why?

    If not, guess what? They’re not “Benghazis” and your attempt to shield Obama is lame.

    • jezebel

      Dear fu@ktard #2,

      See my above comment.
      Now feel free to hit yourself in the face w/a brick.

      Thank you & good night.

  • Chris Hopson

    The difference between these and Benghazi is that the US public wan’t deceived as to whether or not these were terrorist attacks. Requests for extra security weren’t denied. What you’re leaving out of this report is the details of the 13 attacks. Not once were any of the attacks touted as anything OTHER than terrorist attacks.

    • jezebel

      Dear fu@ktard #3,

      There wasn’t time to send boots on the ground security back-up as the Time-Line of intel/events was NOT what your RWNJ media outlets led you to believe.

      Mainstream media isn’t lying to you dummies; Your Republican party is. Wake up & stop being manipulated, it’s beyond embarrassing at this juncture.

  • Steve Paupst

    its not like the Military was insanely occupied during bushes tour or that his reason for not responding to any of these attacks was because he was SLEEPING, or the fact that more likely than caring about if Hilary Clinton runs for president shes disliked for saying on air that we should forget about the recent attack or that it wasnt a big deal……Im not saying Bush was a champion president but look at what we have now. Then again blame bush or play the race card isnt that the sad but true mantra?

    • jezebel

      Dear fu@ktard #4,

      Thus far, you are winning for “dumbest comment” of the night. (Psst! Ms. Clinton’s testimony was aired live, recorded AND transcribed. What you’re claiming she said is absolute bullsh!t…

      As with all the #GOPLies that come out of your RWNJ media outlets.

      Feel free to become friends w/a brick. Thank you & good night.

  • Brenda Knapp

    ALL of the above attacks were STOPPED before breaching the Embassy or Consulate walls. Why do liberals omit the important facts. Under BUSH the security in place prevented any breaches of the Embassy or Consulate. We lost NO Ambassadors under BUSH either. At least tell the truth.

    • jezebel

      Dear fu@ktard #5,

      If the embassy/consulate attacks were stopped before reaching the compounds, no one would’ve died.

      Not only are you too stupid to be discussing politics above your intellectual paygrade, but you’re too stupid to waste oxygen on.

      Good day dingbat. ;)

  • http://www.facebook.com/PJSolarz Phil Solarz

    If Bush would have left these people to die, the Democraps would have been all over it. These attacks were carried out in secret. Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi was tipped off to the attack, he begged for additional security 3 times and was denied. His death could have been avoided, he was led to the slaughter for political gain by Obama and Hillary.

    • jezebel

      Dear fu@ktard #6,

      I’m so sick of reading your rwnj bullsh!t That I’m going to take a diff approach w/you & say, okay – I’ll believe you…

      As soon as you cite your sources of Incontrovertible facts & definitive proof.

      I’ll wait.

      Until then, you’re just another RWNJ sheeple.

  • Grass Hopper

    None of these instances lasted for hours with our diplomats and guards constantly screaming for assistance on deaf ears. This was like the Obama administration murdered them. They said Hillary was to blame. I don’t see her apologizing and stepping down out of respect for the lives that she could have saved. Obama just went to bed. I’m sure if it was Jeremiah Wright in the embassy or Chelsea Clinton half
    the armed forces would have been there when a crowd formed.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dusty.koellhoffer Dusty Koellhoffer

    And in not a single event was President Bush responsible for reducing the protection of those places, nor did he refuse to send them help when needed. Comparing apples to oranges doesn’t begin to cover the flaw in your logic. Your article is just stupidity talking.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/benghazi-irs-scandals-no-comparison-to-iran-contra-watergate

  • fiftyoddkickback

    Not at any point did Bush try to deny the attacks were made by terrorists. That is the point. Geez. The desperation here is palpable.

  • michael45

    This is the typical Republican witch hunt, grasping at straws to dig up any meaningless dirt they can to try and convince their dumb voter base of what isn`t true. Yeah, bush can start TWO wars that caused the deaths of over 100,000 civilians and 4,500 American soldiers, not to mention 9/11. You don`t hear a peep from the right about these. This is why I will NEVER , ever vote for a Republican as long as I live. I used to vote for the person, not the party. Not anymore. Instead of running government, they are obstructionists, whiney losers. And they will keep losing elections, then scratching their heads wondering what they did wrong. I`m not saying dems are perfect, but they are way better than Repubs.

    • Grass Hopper

      You’re ignorant.

      • jezebel

        You’re a mentally rightarded moron.

        cwutididthere? ;)

  • terry seale

    The head of state of Libya said it was a terrorist attack before Amb. Rice went out and contradicted him to his great embarrassment You saw that hearing where the State Dept woman would not use the word “Al Queda” no matter how many times the question was put to her. They (Obama/Clinton) had made a decision that Al Queda is not to be mentioned or alluded to because they asserted it died with Bin Laden. Why are they so dumb that they don’t even care how dumb they look.

    Fort Hood: “workplace violence!” They will say ANYTHING.

    • LaughingLiberal

      ” They (Obama/Clinton) had made a decision that Al Queda is not to be
      mentioned or alluded to because they asserted it died with Bin Laden.”

      That is not a fact. That’s your opinion (or Rush’s). In fact, the administration *has* stated that “Al Queda is on the run…” and that “Al Queda has been decimated” but has never said that it was dead or defeated. “Decimated” is a term from history (Romans) that means that one of every 10 soldiers has been removed (usually killed) which is probably a pretty fair assessment, but it does NOT mean that they are gone.

  • Masmani

    Remind me, which one of these got blamed on an unrelated video by the Bush administration?

  • HoosierLady

    The attack, in and of itself, is not at issue here so you’re arguing against a point no one is making. What is at issue is the cover up, the lies told to the American people by everyone in this administration for weeks after the attack. Also at issue is the fact that no help was sent to those under attack. Those who were in a position to provide aid were told not to go. This president and his underlings are incompetent.

  • McHale72

    It’s too bad the author of this crap doesn’t have a firm grasp of what’s going on. I guess if you write a LOT OF WORDS in bold with dates it’s supposed to look official and at a minimum, relevant?

  • http://www.zombielogic.org/ Thomas L. Vaultonburg

    Nice work.

  • http://occasion-to-be.com Walker

    Except none of these attacks were covered up by blaming them on a “Movie” .

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Susan-Daniels/100002412034189 Susan Daniels

    Are you actually trying to compare these with Benghazi? Benghazi is where the government knew an attack was going on (in a staged kidnapping that went awry), refused to send help when they knew people were going to die and then lied to everyone in the world about why it took place? You have got to be kidding or crazy!

    • villemar

      Impeach or STFU.

  • http://connect.freedomworks.org/node/45216 BruceMajors4DC

    But Bush didn’t refuse to send help and then lie about it to be elected.

    By not attending to that distinction this is another media complicity lie to manipulate low information dupes.

    Besides which “Bush did it too” is not a defense.

    It mainly raises the question of whether you Obama zombies were also lazy in exposing Bush perfidy when it would have mattered.

  • http://www.facebook.com/shelley.farrell.5 Shelley Farrell

    Someone comment here please PLEASE!!! If Fox news and the repubs want to criticize the President for going to a fund raiser the day after the Benghazi attacks… WHERE WAS BUSH EACH DAY AFTER THESE ATTACKS THAT OCCURED DURING HIS ADMIN? I am sure he went on his way and did his scheduled appointments as well… but, I can’t find anything about it online.

    • raykinsella

      Good use of your time…while your at it, please tell me how may of the attacks cited in the article above were claimed by president Bush or Condaleza Rice to have been instigated by a poorly made and incomplete YouTube video? It would be good to know if Bush administration officials also gave a “stand down” order to potential rescue forces during the 7-8 hr siege. In fact, did any of the 13 attacks during Bush’s presidency even last more than just 1 hour? How about more than just a few minutes? And while all deaths are tragic, just how many American or American Ambassadors were killed in the 13 attacks listed in this article?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Frank-McAvoy/728410562 Frank McAvoy

    This article and the talking point it attempts to promote are nothing more that misdirection from mindless Obama sycophants.

    The outrage from the right is not about the tragedy that resulted from the attacks, as the false narrative tries to claim, but rather from the misdirection and outright lies told by the administration in regards to the attack.

    The administration has been caught lying about their refusal to provide extra security to the consulate when it was requested, and they lied about the cause for the attack and the culprits behind the attack.

    Embassies and consulates get attacked. It’s tragic but it happens. What is atypical is to have the administration lie and cover up the facts related to an attack.

    This is the case here. The CIA memo that was edited 12 times and the congressional report proving Hillary Clinton signed off on denying the request for extra security are incontrovertible evidence that the administration deliberately misled people in order to avoid perceived political fallout.

    If Hillary Clinton admitted that she denied the extra security and gave her reasons for it, and the administration hadn’t spent the month following the attack lying to our faces and telling us it was all about a video, then reaction from the right would have been much less significant. Surely, Obama and his office would still have taken some amount of flack, but it would be nowhere near the level it has reached.

    Again, all of us, right and left, are saddened by the tragedy of those deaths. But the outrage comes from being lied to about it.

    Stop trying to derail the real argument by pretending otherwise.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dianne-Crandall/1227086026 Dianne Crandall

    First off, Fox did report the attacks when the occurred. The difference is Bush didn’t blame a short video and throw the maker of it into jail, (who’s still there) and then spent $70,000 making a video apologizing to Muslims in the Middle East for the blamed video, which in the end wasn’t the reason for the attacks in the first place. Nor did he learn about it and then NEVER made a phone call after 6 pm our time to see what the hell was going on, (that Vegas trip ya know with Jay-Z and Beyonce the next day.) Oh and then lied about what happened. Bush hasn’t been President for over 5 years and when Bush did screw up, tell me, did they point back to Clinton and talk about when he screwed up too? I don’t think so. You voted for him, you got him, you’re going to have to learn to suck it up!! By the way, with the Presidents of ABC and CBS having siblings working at the White House, do you think that might have swayed coverage of Obama?

    • Lady Willpower

      “…did they point back to Clinton and talk about when he screwed up too?”

      Considering how many times I’ve seen conservatives blame Clinton for 9/11, I’d say that’s a resounding YES.

  • http://www.facebook.com/aaronscottdempsey Aaron Scott Dempsey

    Listen, something stinks here. But guess what? It’s been stinking for the past 30+ years, no matter which party is in charge. Stop trying to score points for your party by pointing out the fuck-ups of the other party. If you support either party, you are part of the problem. Grow up and cut out the partisan bullshit.

  • d1stewart

    Answer to your questions: They were reinforced. Security was beefed up at embassies by Bush.

    Now, as to your characterizations of these as “Benghazis”: You’re a liar.

    None of these attacks was anything like the attack at Benghazi. The Benghazi attack was a sustained attack over hours by an estimated 150 people. The attacks listed above were car-bomb attacks, a few gunmen storming and being fought off and killed in a short span of time (in other words, responded to immediately), attempts to invade the consulates that were fought off successfully, and an attack on an information center that you falsely say was an attack on a consulate.

    These falsehoods are not accidental–you are not interested in the truth. The extents and natures of the attacks you cite here were not comparable to Benghazi; the handling of each of the attacks as they occurred was not comparable to Benghazi; the threat to personnel and the personnel casualties were not comparable to Benghazi; the security lead-ups and responses were nothing like in the case of Benghazi; the administration responses during and after the fact were not at all comparable to Benghazi. These attacks did not lead to deaths of US consulate personnel, and did not lead to campaigns of lying to the public and ass-covering as Benghazi did.

    Not one of the accusations–not one of the realities–about the Obama handling of Benghazi–before, during, and after–could have been said about the Bush-era attacks, which is why you cannot make such accusations except as a general claim that they could be made. Unfortunately, the facts about these attacks are entirely different from those of the Benghazi attacks, leaving you with nothing but a baseless, mendacious rhetorical claim.

    Your claim that McCain, Hannity, Graham said nothing after any of these attacks is ridiculous, as those attacks did not involve anyone’s security failures enabling the attacks, dereliction during the attacks, or campaigns of lies and coverups after the attacks. As such, they would not have led to anything to say.

    What a dishonest piece of shit this article is–an explosion of flak for hate-addled and desperate hacks like Bob Cesca.

  • Rob Thomas

    Anyone who thinks this Benghazi disaster wasn’t controlled by political motives coordinated from within the WH is a GD fool.

  • Rob Thomas

    What an worthless article from someone who obviously masturbates to the tune “But what about Bush…”

    You damn fool.

  • bruce.6

    Can you site the cover ups?

  • B Manz

    The more comments I read by Leftists, the more I am convinced Leftism is a mental disease with no cure. So enamored by their Messiah they refuse to see the truth as it beats them over the head. You condemned Bush for his lies, and rightly so. But you did that because someone told you to. Being “enlightened” is simply a euphemism for ‘too stupid to think for yourself’ so you have to have Rachel Maddow and his ilk tell you what to think. You folks are so brainwashed you can’t see that Barry is Bush on steroids. You fools are everything that is wrong with America.

  • Al

    You missed the whole point. The Obama administration lied about this whole attack from the beginning. Then made up 12 revisions to cover their lies to the American people. Bush never tried to lie about any attack on any embassy. All these attacks and deaths that you speak of in this article they have one thing in common and that is that it was covered by all the main stream media. Unlike the Benghazi attack it was basically a non-event to you guys, or as the Jedi-Press secretary Jay said,
    Benghazi was a long time ago as he waves his hand at us. But guess what Jay those old Jedi mind tricks only work in the movies!

    • Lady Willpower

      “Bush never tried to lie about any attack on any embassy.”

      One could argue it was far worse to lie us into attacking Iraq over nonexistent WMDs, couldn’t one?

      • raykinsella

        No…because while the WMD’s were never found, intelligence services from several countries all said they were there. Even democratic senators and house members who had security clearance agreed with the intelligence reports and then voted for the war! Were you alive then? how did. You miss hose widely reported details? Hence, there was NO LIE or cover up regarding the WMD’s in Iraq!

        • Lady Willpower

          According to your analysis the Bush administration was merely wrong, not lying. OK, I’ll bite. As I’ve said before, being wrong is not the same as lying. Obama is guilty of being wrong about Benghazi, not lying.
          You should give him the same amount of consideration you gave the Bush admin.

          • d1stewart

            No, Obama knew when he said over the ambassador’s and the security personnel’s dead bodies that none of this began in a protest against a video, and knew that he had not done all he could have to come to their aid. He knew those things–and said the opposite. That’s lying. The Bush administration said what many intel agencies around the world, what Hussein wanted believed by Iraq’s neighboring countries’ governments, what previous US administrations, what the leadership of the Democrat party in both houses, also said–said publicly, said repeatedly, said without any knowledge of its falsehood. Since they did not believe what they said was false but believed it to be true, it was not lying.

            Obama knew what he said, what Clinton said, what Rice said, what Panetta said, what Carney said, was false–but he said it anyway. That is lying.

            Giving both administrations the same consideration, Bush didn’t lie, and Obama did. This is not subtle, ambiguous, uncharitable, or inconsiderate. It’s just a fact: Obama lied and continues to lie.

          • Kwa85

            Of course Bush lied, even after it was found that there were no wmds.

            And repeating redumblican talking points and presenting them as facts does not a “fact” make. There is no factual basis of a lie or a cover up by Obama, Clinton, Petraeus, Pickering, Mullen, Panetta etc, just allegations and hot air.

            You need to get out of your partisan bubble and see what the independent fact checkers are saying about this. You’ll find that it isn’t the crap you’re spouting on about. Wake up buddy!

          • d1stewart

            Name-calling, denial, and of course… “Wake up!” The desperation call of the lying liberal defeated.

          • Kwa85

            Stop whining. It’s embarrassing.

      • Gib74

        Tell the Kurds that there were not WMD in Iraq…

        I’m sure they would LOVE to hear that.

      • d1stewart

        Only a liar who was willing to say Bush lied about WMDs. Like you. It would be a lousy, invalid argument. That doesn’t matter to you?

        • Lady Willpower

          Do you have any substantive argument other than name-calling?

          • d1stewart

            Yes: Pointing out facts that you lie about, pointing out the invalidity of your logic, and refuting your distortions. I wouldn’t engage in baseless name-calling; and calling someone who lies a liar is not name-calling, it’s identification.

          • jezebel

            “calling someone who lies a liar is not name-calling, it’s identification”…

            I like this logic. With it in mind…

            You’re a stuck-on-stupid, dishonest, dumb-fu@k

            Reality check:

            Valerie Plame’s undercover CIA cover was blown by vindictive Bush administration because her husband refuted the manufactured intel as false.

            Ie, your boy bush lied us into war & tens of thousands of deaths. Either educate yourself or stfu. One.or the other please.

  • http://twitter.com/JenHag408 Jen Haggerty

    Please list the number of Americans killed, how many ambassadors were murdered, the length of the attacks, how the attacks ended, what happened in the aftermath of the attacks (I.e. was there a cover up), and how many requests for more security there had been for each embassy.

    • DrowningKittens

      This article asserts a qualitative comparison between embassy attacks and murdered US ambassadors. The missing quantitative comparison is that only 6 US ambassadors (presidential appointed representatives of the US) have been murdered total. Or to convert this to another qualitative comparison, almost 17% of all murdered US ambassadors have occurred on Obama’s watch.

  • http://www.facebook.com/douglas.taylor.372 Douglas Taylor

    Which one of these was covered up? which one had 12 revisions? which one WAS REFUSED HELP WHEN ASKED? Which one did Bush and his people sit and watch “real time”. Which one had a fabricated story blaming and jailing a US citizen for a so called video? I could go on… Fast and Furious, IRS on the TEA PARTY etc. By the way when Nixon did it you were all over his ass, so QUID PRO QUO, deal with it, So much for “The most transparent administration ever”

    • Lady Willpower

      OMG they revised the talking points before making a statement.

      • d1stewart

        No. OMG, they changed facts to falsehoods, intentionally, in order to conceal the truth for political cover. Why don’t you just go a little more general and say, “OMG! They used word processing software!” How many lies will you spread to protect their lies?

        • Lady Willpower

          You literally don’t know any of that. You merely wish that were true.

          • d1stewart

            Literally, we know all of that. You only wish we didn’t know it–not that it weren’t true, as that is no concern to you–only that we didn’t know it. But literally (perhaps you think, like Joe Biden, that “literally” means “not really, but figuratively”; it doesn’t), we know that they changed facts to falsehoods (claimed that the attack began with a protest against a video on YouTube, when they were originally told, and knew, that it did not and that there was no protest at all, and altered that very factual statement from the intelligence), intentionally (the State Department’s emails make clear that it wasn’t an editing slip, but edits crafted in 12 iterations), to conceal the truth for political cover (to meet the desire to propagate the above falsehood as well as to remove statements of the role played by an Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group, because the administration was campaigning on its putative elimination of Al Qaeda). See, that’s what “literally” means, and what literally knowing all of that means. Making now literally and obviously false denials of that because it condemns those who you favor regardless of their actions, is wishing it were not true.

          • Kwa85

            What you describe has little resemblance to “literally”, it is partisan spin based on refuted “evidence”. Be a good fellow and stop presenting your opinions as facts. It’s tiresome, tedious and embarrassing. Go to any fact check site to help yourself properly understand the issue.

          • d1stewart

            I know that, being factually wrong and having no rebuttal but to say “no, it’s spin,” you have nothing at your disposal but tawdry condescension, but be a good fellow and shove that. It’s worthless. Why bother commenting on anything if all you have to offer is cheesy denial?

          • Kwa85

            Stop being an ignorant crybaby. You can’t just make unsubstantiated remarks and present your “analysis” as “literally” facts. They’re allegations and opinions based on your personal perception, which is fair enough.

          • d1stewart

            Denying substantiated facts doesn’t turn them into “remarks,” and I didn’t present analysis but facts. They’re not based on a personal perception, but are readily perceptible by anyone who turns his attention toward the facts, rather than engaging in desperate self-directed attempts to deny facts. They’re not allegations; they’re now known facts. Your “which is fair enough” is just how you begin to crumble since you know you’re engaged in a dishonest enterprise of defending the indefensible. Good luck with the rest of your journey. Maybe it won’t take long.

          • Kwa85

            You presented OPINION.

            “…to conceal the truth for political cover (to meet the desire to propagate the above falsehood as well as to remove statements of the role played by an Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group, because the administration was campaigning on its putative elimination of Al Qaeda).”

            Speculation, allegation and personal perception NOT fact. How come you don’t know the basic difference between fact and opinion?

      • http://www.facebook.com/douglas.taylor.372 Douglas Taylor

        No… they fabricated a story (lie) to divert attention from the terrorist act that actually occurred and THEY KNEW ABOUT! Bet you would feel a whole lot different if you made the video that had absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ATTACK. This was done because of Obama’s election montra “Osama’s dead and GM’s alive” which gives the inference that terrorism had been defeated defeated. GEEZZZZ

        • Lady Willpower

          Lay off the CAPSLOCK, ese.

  • raykinsella

    Maybe I missed it Mr. Cesca(is it okay in the liberal world to use gender prefixes?), but in anyone of these attacks that you cite…had there been credible intelligence reports that suggested the possibility that on the anniversary of 9/11 an Islamic Terrorist group just might launch an attack? Also, had there been previous requests for additional security – that was denied, at any of these locations? Furthermore, how many Americans and American Ambassadors were murdered in these attacks? Lastly, how many of these attacks lasted as much as 7-8 hours?

    I don’t know if you’re a victim or a participant in the liberal indoctrination and enslavement of Americans, but you do nothing in this article but perpetuate ignorance and provide your followers with a long winded but useless retort. Please provide a substantive argument or allow the truth to be exposed!

  • raykinsella

    These are the terrorist attacks that occurred during Clinton 2 terms. How many congressional investigation were launched to look into these?
    Manila Bombing, December 30, 2000:
    A bomb exploded in a plaza across the street from the U.S. Embassy in Manila, injuring nine persons. The Moro Islamic Liberation Front was likely responsible.

    Helicopter Hijacking, October 12, 2000:
    In Sucumbios Province, Ecuador, a group of armed kidnappers led by former members of defunct Colombian terrorist organization the Popular Liberation Army (EPL), took hostage 10 employees of Spanish energy consortium REPSOL. Those kidnapped included five U.S. citizens, one Argentine, one Chilean, one New Zealander, and two French pilots who escaped four days later. On January 30, 2001, the kidnappers murdered American hostage Ronald Sander. The remaining hostages were released on February 23 following the payment of $13 million in ransom by the oil companies.

    Attack on U.S.S. Cole, October 12, 2000:
    In Aden, Yemen, a small dingy carrying explosives rammed the destroyer U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39 others. Supporters of Usama Bin Laden were suspected.

    Church Bombing in Tajikistan, October 1, 2000:
    Unidentified militants detonated two bombs in a Christian church in Dushanbe, killing seven persons and injuring 70 others. The church was founded by a Korean-born U.S. citizen, and most of those killed and wounded were Korean. No one claimed responsibility.

    Kidnappings in Kyrgyzstan, August 12, 2000:
    In the Kara-Su Valley, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan took four U.S. citizens hostage. The Americans escaped on August 12.

    ELN Kidnapping, June 27, 2000:
    In Bogota, Colombia, ELN militants kidnapped a 5-year-old U.S. citizen and his Colombian mother, demanding an undisclosed ransom.
    RUF Attacks on U.N. Mission Personnel, May 1, 2000:
    On 1 May in Makeni, Sierra Leone, Revolutionary United Front (RUF) militants kidnapped at least 20 members of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) and surrounded and opened fire on a UNAMSIL facility, according to press reports. The militants killed five UN soldiers in the attack. RUF militants kidnapped 300 UNAMSIL peacekeepers throughout the country, according to press reports. On 15 May in Foya, Liberia, the kidnappers released 139 hostages. On 28 May, on the Liberia and Sierra Leone border, armed militants released unharmed the last of the UN peacekeepers.

    In Freetown, according to press reports, armed militants ambushed two military vehicles carrying four journalists. A Spaniard and one U.S. citizen were killed in a May 25 car bombing in Freetown for which the RUF was probably responsible. Suspected RUF rebels also kidnapped 21 Indian UN peacekeepers in Freetown on June 6. Additional attacks by RUF on foreign personnel followed.
    PLA Kidnapping, December 23, 1999:
    Colombian People’s Liberation Army (PLA) forces kidnapped a U.S. citizen in an unsuccessful ransoming effort.

    Burmese Embassy Seizure, October 1, 1999:
    Burmese dissidents seized the Burmese Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand, taking 89 persons hostage, including one U.S. citizen.

    AFRC Kidnappings, August 4, 1999:
    An Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) faction kidnapped 33 UN representatives near Occra Hills, Sierra Leone. The hostages included one U.S. citizen, five British soldiers, one Canadian citizen, one representative from Ghana, one military officer from Russia, one officer from Kyrgystan, one officer from Zambia, one officer from Malaysia, a local Bishop, two UN officials, two local journalists, and 16 Sierra Leonean nationals.

    Shell Platform Bombing, June 27, 1999:
    In Port Harcourt, Nigeria, armed youths stormed a Shell oil platform, kidnapping one U.S. citizen, one Nigerian national, and one Australian citizen, and causing undetermined damage. A group calling itself “Enough is Enough in the Niger River” claimed responsibility. Further seizures of oil facilities followed.
    ELN Hostage-taking, May 30, 1999:
    In Cali, Colombia, armed ELN militants attacked a church in the neighborhood of Ciudad Jardin, kidnapping 160 persons, including six U.S. citizens and one French national. The rebels released approximately 80 persons, including three U.S. citizens, later that day.

    ELN Hostage-taking, March 23, 1999:
    Armed guerrillas kidnapped a U.S. citizen in Boyaca, Colombia. The National Liberation Army (ELN) claimed responsibility and demanded $400,000 ransom. On 20 July, ELN rebels released the hostage unharmed following a ransom payment of $48,000.

    Hutu Abductions, March 1, 1999:
    150 armed Hutu rebels attacked three tourist camps in Uganda, killed four Ugandans, and abducted three U.S. citizens, six Britons, three New Zealanders, two Danish citizens, one Australian, and one Canadian national. Two of the U.S. citizens and six of the other hostages were subsequently killed by their abductors.

    FARC Kidnappings, February 25, 1999:
    FARC kidnapped three U.S. citizens working for the Hawaii-based Pacific Cultural Conservancy International. On March 4, the bodies of the three victims were found in Venezuela.

    Ugandan Rebel Attack, February 14, 1999:
    A pipe bomb exploded inside a bar, killing five persons and injuring 35 others. One Ethiopian and four Ugandan nationals died in the blast, and one U.S. citizen working for USAID, two Swiss nationals, one Pakistani, one Ethiopian, and 27 Ugandans were injured. Ugandan authorities blamed the attack on the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF).

    Angolan Aircraft Downing, January 2, 1999:
    A UN plane carrying one U.S. citizen, four Angolans, two Philippine nationals and one Namibian was shot down, according to a UN official. No deaths or injuries were reported. Angolan authorities blamed the attack on National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) rebels. UNITA officials denied shooting down the plane.

    Armed Kidnapping in Colombia, November 15, 1998:
    Armed assailants followed a U.S. businessman and his family home in Cundinamarca Department and kidnapped his 11-year-old son after stealing money, jewelry, one automobile, and two cell phones. The kidnappers demanded $1 million in ransom. On January 21, 1999, the kidnappers released the boy.

    Colombian Pipeline Bombing, October 18, 1998:
    A National Liberation Army (ELN) planted bomb exploded on the Ocensa pipeline in Antioquia Department, killing approximately 71 persons and injuring at least 100 others. The pipeline is jointly owned by the Colombia State Oil Company Ecopetrol and a consortium including U.S., French, British, and Canadian companies.

    U.S. Embassy Bombings in East Africa, August 7, 1998:
    A bomb exploded at the rear entrance of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, killing 12 U.S. citizens, 32 Foreign Service Nationals (FSNs), and 247 Kenyan citizens. Approximately 5,000 Kenyans, 6 U.S. citizens, and 13 FSNs were injured. The U.S. Embassy building sustained extensive structural damage. Almost simultaneously, a bomb detonated outside the U.S. Embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 7 FSNs and 3 Tanzanian citizens, and injuring 1 U.S. citizen and 76 Tanzanians. The explosion caused major structural damage to the U.S. Embassy facility. The U.S. Government held Usama Bin Laden responsible.

    Somali Hostage-takings, April 15, 1998:
    Somali militiamen abducted nine Red Cross and Red Crescent workers at an airstrip north of Mogadishu. The hostages included a U.S. citizen, a German, a Belgian, a French, a Norwegian, two Swiss, and one Somali. The gunmen were members of a sub-clan loyal to Ali Mahdi Mohammed, who controlled the northern section of the capital.

    FARC Abduction, March 21-23, 1998:
    FARC rebels kidnapped a US citizen in Sabaneta, Colombia. FARC members also killed three persons, wounded 14, and kidnapped at least 27 others at a roadblock near Bogota. Four U.S. citizens and one Italian were among those kidnapped, as well as the acting president of the National Electoral Council (CNE) and his wife.

    Murder of U.S. Businessmen in Pakistan, November 12, 1997:
    Two unidentified gunmen shot to death four U.S. auditors from Union Texas Petroleum Corporation and their Pakistani driver after they drove away from the Sheraton Hotel in Karachi. The Islami Inqilabi Council, or Islamic Revolutionary Council, claimed responsibility in a call to the U.S. Consulate in Karachi. In a letter to Pakistani newspapers, the Aimal Khufia Action Committee also claimed responsibility.

    Yemeni Kidnappings, October 30, 1997:
    Al-Sha’if tribesmen kidnapped a U.S. businessman near Sanaa. The tribesmen sought the release of two fellow tribesmen who were arrested on smuggling charges and several public works projects they claim the government promised them. They released the hostage on November 27.<

    Israeli Shopping Mall Bombing, September 4, 1997:
    Three suicide bombers of HAMAS detonated bombs in the Ben Yehuda shopping mall in Jerusalem, killing eight persons, including the bombers, and wounding nearly 200 others. A dual U.S./Israeli citizen was among the dead, and 7 U.S. citizens were wounded.

    Hotel Nacional Bombing, July 12, 1997:
    A bomb exploded at the Hotel Nacional in Havana, injuring three persons and causing minor damage. A previously unknown group calling itself the Military Liberation Union claimed responsibility.

    FARC Kidnapping, March 7, 1997:
    FARC guerrillas kidnapped a U.S. mining employee and his Colombian colleague who were searching for gold in Colombia. On November 16, the rebels released the two hostages after receiving a $50,000 ransom.

    ELN Kidnapping, February 24, 1997:
    National Liberation Army (ELN) guerrillas kidnapped a U.S. citizen employed by a Las Vegas gold corporation who was scouting a gold mining operation in Colombia. The ELN demanded a ransom of $2.5 million.

    Empire State Building Sniper Attack, February 23, 1997:
    A Palestinian gunman opened fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland, and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claimed this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine."

    Venezuelan Abduction, February 14, 1997:
    Six armed Colombian guerrillas kidnapped a US oil engineer and his Venezuelan pilot in Apure, Venezuela. The kidnappers released the Venezuelan pilot on 22 February. According to authorities, the FARC is responsible for the kidnapping.

    Egyptian Letter Bombs, January 2-13, 1997:
    A series of letter bombs with Alexandria, Egypt, postmarks were discovered at Al-Hayat newspaper bureaus in Washington, New York City, London, and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Three similar devices, also postmarked in Egypt, were found at a prison facility in Leavenworth, Kansas. Bomb disposal experts defused all the devices, but one detonated at the Al-Hayat office in London, injuring two security guards and causing minor damage.

    Tupac Amaru Seizure of Diplomats, December 17, 1996:
    Twenty-three members of the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (MRTA) took several hundred people hostage at a party given at the Japanese Ambassador's residence in Lima, Peru. Among the hostages were several US officials, foreign ambassadors and other diplomats, Peruvian Government officials, and Japanese businessmen. The group demanded the release of all MRTA members in prison and safe passage for them and the hostage takers. The terrorists released most of the hostages in December but held 81 Peruvians and Japanese citizens for several months.

    Abduction of US. Citizen by FARC, December 11, 1996:
    Five armed men claiming to be members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) kidnapped and later killed a U.S. geologist at a methane gas exploration site in La Guajira Department.

    Paris Subway Explosion, December 3, 1996:
    A bomb exploded aboard a Paris subway train as it arrived at the Port Royal station, killing two French nationals, a Moroccan, and a Canadian, and injuring 86 persons. Among those injured were one U.S. citizen and a Canadian. No one claimed responsibility for the attack, but Algerian extremists are suspected.

    Red Cross Worker Kidnappings, November 1, 1996:
    In Sudan a breakaway group from the Sudanese People's Liberation Army (SPLA) kidnapped three International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) workers, including a U.S. citizen, an Australian, and a Kenyan. On 9 December the rebels released the hostages in exchange for ICRC supplies and a health survey for their camp.

    PUK Kidnapping, September 13, 1996:
    In Iraq, Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) militants kidnapped four French workers for Pharmaciens Sans Frontieres, a Canadian United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) official, and two Iraqis.

    Sudanese Rebel Kidnapping, August 17, 1996:
    Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) rebels kidnapped six missionaries in Mapourdit, including a U.S. citizen, an Italian, three Australians, and a Sudanese. The SPLA released the hostages 11 days later.

    Khobar Towers Bombing, June 25, 1996:
    A fuel truck carrying a bomb exploded outside the US military's Khobar Towers housing facility in Dhahran, killing 19 U.S. military personnel and wounding 515 persons, including 240 U.S. personnel. Several groups claimed responsibility for the attack.

    Zekharya Attack, June 9, 1996:
    Unidentified gunmen opened fire on a car near Zekharya, killing a dual U.S./Israeli citizen and an Israeli. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) was suspected.

    AID Worker Abduction, May 31, 1996:
    A gang of former Contra guerrillas kidnapped a U.S. employee of the Agency for International Development (AID) who was assisting with election preparations in rural northern Nicaragua. She was released unharmed the next day after members of the international commission overseeing the preparations intervened.

    West Bank Attack, May 13, 1996:
    Arab gunmen opened fire on a bus and a group of Yeshiva students near the Bet El settlement, killing a dual U.S./Israeli citizen and wounding three Israelis. No one claimed responsibility for the attack, but HAMAS was suspected.

    Dizengoff Center Bombing, March 4, 1996:
    HAMAS and the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) both claimed responsibility for a bombing outside of Tel Aviv's largest shopping mall that killed 20 persons and injured 75 others, including 2 U.S. citizens.

    HAMAS Bus Attack, February 26, 1996:
    In Jerusalem, a suicide bomber blew up a bus, killing 26 persons, including three U.S. citizens, and injuring some 80 persons, including three other US citizens.

    ELN Kidnapping, February 16, 1996:
    Six alleged National Liberation Army (ELN) guerrillas kidnapped a U.S. citizen in Colombia. After 9 months, the hostage was released.

    Athens Embassy Attack, February 15, 1996:
    Unidentified assailants fired a rocket at the U.S. Embassy compound in Athens, causing minor damage to three diplomatic vehicles and some surrounding buildings. Circumstances of the attack suggested it was an operation carried out by the 17 November group.

    IRA Bombing, February 9, 1996:
    An Irish Republican Army (IRA) bomb detonated in London, killing 2 persons and wounding more than 100 others, including 2 U.S. citizens.

    Tamil Tigers Attack, January 31, 1996:
    Members of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) rammed an explosives-laden truck into the Central Bank in the heart of downtown Colombo, Sri Lanka, killing 90 civilians and injuring more than 1,400 others, including 2 US citizens.

    Kidnapping in Colombia, January 19, 1996:
    Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) guerrillas kidnapped a US citizen and demanded a $1 million ransom. The hostage was released on May 22.

    Saudi Military Installation Attack, November 13, 1995:
    The Islamic Movement of Change planted a bomb in a Riyadh military compound that killed one U.S. citizen, several foreign national employees of the U.S. government, and over 40 others.

    Attack on U.S. Embassy in Moscow, September 13, 1995:
    A rocket-propelled grenade was fired through the window of the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, ostensibly in retaliation for U.S. strikes on Serb positions in Bosnia.

    Jerusalem Bus Attack, August 21, 1995:
    HAMAS claimed responsibility for the detonation of a bomb that killed 6 and injured over 100 persons, including several U.S. citizens.

    Kashmiri Hostage-taking, July 4, 1995:
    In India six foreigners, including two U.S. citizens, were taken hostage by Al-Faran, a Kashmiri separatist group. One non-U.S. hostage was later found beheaded.

    Bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, April 19, 1995:
    Right-wing extremists Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols destroyed the Federal Building in Oklahoma City with a massive truck bomb that killed 166 and injured hundreds more in what was up to then the largest terrorist attack on American soil.

    Attack on U.S. Diplomats in Pakistan, March 8, 1995:
    Two unidentified gunmen killed two U.S. diplomats and wounded a third in Karachi, Pakistan.

    FARC Hostage-taking, September 23, 1994:
    FARC rebels kidnapped U.S. citizen Thomas Hargrove in Colombia.

    Hebron Massacre, February 25, 1994:
    Jewish right-wing extremist and U.S. citizen Baruch Goldstein machine-gunned Moslem worshippers at a mosque in West Bank town of Hebron, killing 29 and wounding about 150.

    Attempted Assassination of President Bush by Iraqi Agents, April 14, 1993:
    The Iraqi intelligence service attempted to assassinate former U.S. President George Bush during a visit to Kuwait. In retaliation, the U.S. launched a cruise missile attack 2 months later on the Iraqi capital Baghdad.

    World Trade Center Bombing, February 26, 1993:
    The World Trade Center in New York City was badly damaged when a car bomb planted by Islamic terrorists exploded in an underground garage. The bomb left 6 people dead and 1,000 injured. The men carrying out the attack were followers of Umar Abd al-Rahman, an Egyptian cleric who preached in the New York City area.

    Kidnappings of U.S. Citizens in Colombia, January 31, 1993:
    Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) terrorists kidnapped three U.S. missionaries.

    • Kwa85

      So what?

      • d1stewart

        I think you mean, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

        • Kwa85

          Do I?

  • http://www.facebook.com/richard.meyer.564 Richard Meyer

    Bush never blamed any attacks on Youtube videos. He didn’t make up fake reasons or deny rescue forces that were willing and able to go and help.

    • http://www.facebook.com/jess.manuel.5 Jess Manuel

      Bush accused Saddam Hussein in cahoots with Al Qaeda (FALSE)

      Bush said there were WMDs in Iraq (FALSE)

      Bush refused to send troops to Tora Bora in Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden.

      Six months after 9/11, Bush said he doesn’t care much about the whereabouts of Bin Laden.

      • raykinsella

        Wrong…Bush along with Bill & Hilary Clinton among other very prominent libs had access to CIA intelligence that said WMD’s existed in Iraq, and they all agreed. Not to mention, several other foreign intelligence services had the same info. All agreed that this threat must be confronted, and being the leader and liberator of the free world, the US led the charge.

        Regarding Bin Laden, Clinton had him cornered and let him go…perhaps 9/11 would never had happened if he had acted on the opportunity!

        • Lady Willpower

          So Republicans wanted war in Iraq because Bill and Hillary thought it was a good idea? Yeah, that makes perfect sense. They’ve always taken the Clintons’ lead before.

          • d1stewart

            You’re a sloppy reader. Give it another go. He did not use the word “because,” or refer to taking the Clintons’ lead. Distorting what someone said in order to score a cheap rhetorical point doesn’t score the point and isn’t honest.

        • Kwa85

          You sorely need a lesson in history my friend. Consult any fact check site to reveal that no, Bill Clinton did not let Bin Laden go. It’s a redumblicam myth that has long been dispelled. Read Richard A. Clarke’s book “Against all enemies …” which makes this clear.

      • d1stewart

        Jess, you might want to actually approach responses to people with some clue as to what the facts are.

        Bush didn’t say Hussein was working with Al Qaeda.

        Bush said there were WMD in Iraq, and there were–though not in the profusion that previous inspections had found them, that the previous president (Clinton) said there were, that the CIA said there were, that German, French, British, and Israeli intel said there were, that the Democratic congressional leadership said there were.

        The Battle of Tora Bora

        “The Battle of Tora Bora was a military engagement that took place in Afghanistan from December 12, 2001 to December 17, 2001, during the opening stages of the War in Afghanistan launched by the United States following the September 11 attacks. The U.S. and its allies believed that Osama bin Laden, the founder of al-Qaeda, was hiding in the mountains at Tora Bora. The allied forces overran Taliban and al-Qaeda positions and heard bin Laden’s voice in intercepted radio transmissions several times, but they failed to kill or capture him. Bin Laden escaped to the Federated Tribal Areas of Pakistan.” That’s easy to find–it’s from Wikipedia. You do know you can’t have a Battle of Tora Bora without troops at Tora Bora, right? Meaning Bush didn’t refuse to send troops to Tora Bora. You have to stop once in a while before stating something you believe only because you think you heard something like it.

        Bush never said he didn’t care much about the whereabouts of Bin Laden. He cared enough to engage in the intel operation to find Bin Laden that Obama was able to capitalize on once he was in office. You should thank Bush, not make up things you wish he said but which he did not say.

        • Ron Bradley

          d1stewart sorry but you’re dead wrong on this one and I’m call you out on it Bush did really say that, how do I know? because I sat and watch his speech, when he was asked if he knew the whereabouts of Bin Laden he said (I don’t know where he is and I’m not concerned) direct qoute from him and this is a fact

          • d1stewart

            “Deep in my heart I know that he’s on the run if he’s alive at all. And, ah, who knows if he’s hiding in some cave or not? We haven’t heard from him in some time. And the idea of focusing on one person is, ah, really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than one person. And he’s a person who’s now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. Um, he’s the ultimate parasite who found a weakness, and exploited it. He is — as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide — if, in fact, he’s hiding at all. I don’t know where he is. Nor do I, you know, I just don’t spend that much time on it. Kelly, to be honest with you, I’m, I’m more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well supplied, that the strategy is clear, that the coalition is strong, that when we that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did. Well, as I say, we haven’t heard much from him. And I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don’t know where he is. I — I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.”

            Now, that’s a direct quotation. It gives quite a different meaning than paraphrasing him falsely and misquoting him out of context.

  • http://www.facebook.com/rmeyners Rusty Meyners

    So, because I have a few accidents on my record, the headline here would read “Four Chappaquiddicks”.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mr.tapeguy Craig Berlin

    Hank, I know there are those desperate to draw an equivalency but they really aren’t the same.

    Why? Perhaps because there is a difference.

    Don’t get me wrong – almost all criticism of one side or the other is partisan. NEITHER party likes to call out its own. The key is differentiating between what is legit and what is not. Which is “more” partisan – Fox covering the story and asking legitimate questions or MSNBC ignoring it altogether, followed by claims that there is nothing to see?

    Let’s look at the facts in a nonpartisan manner, that’s what I always try to do and remember, I’ve never voted for a prominent Republican.

    Let’s give “credit” where credit is due:

    There have actually been 44 attacks in the last 52 years with the majority of the casualties being local, not American and not an Ambassador in several decades. Few embassy attacks resulting in American loss of life and most were car and or suicide bombings.

    But most importantly, NONE of the attacks came after Embassies begging for more security, or in the case of Benghazi, did not meet the lawful requirements of an Embassy outpost. NONE of the attacks resulting in 10 hours of fight by American security forces waiting on support only to have the support told to stand down right before they boarded the plan. NONE of the attacks resulted in an aftermath of mass fraud, lying and coverup beginning with removing all intelligence naming those responsible and replacing with a politically driven absurd narrative about something which had nothing to do with it.

    Out of 44 attacks only ONE.

    We have attacks on missions overseas all the time – almost yearly. DUH – people attack us. Lone gunman, car bombs, suicide attacks and sometimes even planned terrorist attacks as in Benghazi. It is not President Obama or Hilary Clinton’s fault that we were attacked. In this case it is apparently the disregard for requested security before and coverup after that is relevant. The truth matters and the motive for lying matters.

    And Gregory Hicks was an on the ground eye witness but after he was critical of the false narrative the Admin was promoting he was demoted to a desk job. The Accountability Review Board didn’t talk to anyone directly involved and didn’t talk to Hilary Clinton AT ALL. What kind of investigation is that??

    The outrage is because they were told that they needed more security…the crime is that they then attempted to cover it up with the election looming. The hypocrisy is most of the major news outlets ignored the hearing about four Americans dying unlike when some bumbling burglars break into the Watergate hotel. Hell, during the last Benghazi hearings MSNBC gave more coverage to the anniversary of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

    There is not ONE credible source of intel that told the state dept. or the administration that these attacks were incited by a video. Not ONE.

    Do you think it’s OK that they mislead the American people?

    • http://www.facebook.com/richard.meyer.564 Richard Meyer

      Excellent post.

    • i_a_c

      Not a single one of your all-caps NONEs has a basis in reality, because nobody cared enough about any other attack to hold endless hearings on it and find out. We have no idea if any of them asked for more security or were understaffed (and, granted, the Benghazi compound was).

      And if there was a cover-up, could someone give me a political motive? I mean, the facts came out in a week, and the president was reelected anyway, so it must not have been so important to the election after all. As far as I have read, there were also legitimate issues with need-to-know and ongoing investigations/operations taking place.

      And yes, I know about the inter-departmental debate over the talking points and what happened at the State Department. I’m not terribly stunned by their territorial behavior, either.

      • raykinsella

        In fortunately for you, Obama was still trumpeting the video a full 2 weeks after the attack when he addressed the United Nations. Did he really think anyone believed that? I guess you did! It’s not even a question as to whether there was a cover up. It now time to discover the who, what, when and why.

        Here’s a thought….perhaps the attack highlighted Obama’s foreign policy failures. Egypt was under the radical Muslim Brotherhood, a vacuum in Libya was allowing further proliferation of Muslim radicals. And the attack contradicted Obama’s message that Al Qaeda was “on th run”. If all that was illuminated less than 2 months before the election?? Who knows? Maybe we would be arguing about President Romney!

        • Kwa85

          Thank you for your opinion, misguided and misdirected as it is my friend. And pray tell me, in your opinion what was actually “covered up” again and what would have been different if what you allege was “covered up” was in fact “covered up”?

        • i_a_c

          The video did cause protests and violence, particularly in Cairo where protesters tried to scale the walls of the embassy. Nowhere in that speech to the UN did the president attribute the attack on Benghazi to the video. And, may I remind you, the Benghazi compound was not an embassy.

          There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

          All of those facts did come out. And the president was reelected. Too bad for you.

          • http://www.facebook.com/angel.brom Angel Cagle

            Too bad for us all.

  • http://www.facebook.com/brianfkirk Brian Kirk

    The difference is the Bush administration didn’t blame an unrelated YouTube video. They weren’t afraid to call a man-made catastrophe terrorism. The criticism about Benghazi isn’t so much that it happened. It was that a.) the admin didn’t send help b.) the admin denied it was terror

    • Lady Willpower

      “They weren’t afraid to call a man-made catastrophe terrorism.”

      So calling it an “act of terror” the next day doesn’t count? Or are you guys still pretending that didn’t happen?

      • Kwa85

        And O repeated this again on 9/13 at a speech in Colorado and again in Nevada on 9/14;

        “As for the ones we lost last night: I want to assure you, we will bring their killers to justice,” Obama said at a campaign event in Nevada. “And we want to send a message all around the world — anybody who would do us harm: No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.”

        • raykinsella

          I hate to be lazy and repost my previous comment, but sometimes people just needed it repeated before it sinks in…so here goes;

          Sorry…you might think its the same, but semantics matter, especially I politics. Speaking broadly of “acts of terror” is not the same as saying “4 Americans including an Ambassador, were murdered in an Al Qaeda related attack”. That, my friend, is how you state the facts! To say otherwise, is purposefully ambiguous and deceitful

          • Kwa85

            Unfortunately for you and your misguided superiority complex my friend, your opinion is not a fact. However please feel free to consult the fact checker site Politifact under the heading “Romney said it took Obama 14 days to call Benghazi an act of terror” for the real facts. This will adjudicate the political spin which is both yours and mine my friend.

      • Overwhelmingryan

        Conservatives have never been very concerned with reality.

        • raykinsella

          We are not concerned with it because we live in it! What we’re concerned about is preserving the freedoms and opportunies for the future!

          • Overwhelmingryan

            I’m fatally allergic to empty rhetoric.

          • Lady Willpower

            FREEDOM!

          • d1stewart

            Autoimmune problem, eh?

          • raykinsella

            If that’s all it takes to wash our shores clean of the self serving, feel good liberal policies and their brainwashed supporters….I’ll happily sacrifice myself for all the freedom loving capitalists and spew patriotic rhetoric at you till you’re peacefully at rest!

          • Kwa85

            Yes. Please. Sacrifice yourself.

      • http://www.facebook.com/richard.meyer.564 Richard Meyer

        They did not call it an act of terror the next day. Obama referred ellipitically to “acts of terror” in the same speech as mentioning Benghazi.

        • Lady Willpower

          “So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished.”

          So he talks about Benghazi and says how we won’t be cowed by acts of terror, but he wasn’t referring to Benghazi? How can you even stand saying something so ridiculous?

          Whatever gets you through the night, dude.

          • raykinsella

            Sorry…you might think its the same, but semantics matter, especially I politics. Speaking broadly of “acts of terror” is not the same as saying “4 Americans including an Ambassador, were murdered in an Al Qaeda related attack”. That, my friend, is how you state the facts! To say otherwise, is purposefully ambiguous and deceitful.

          • Kwa85

            Your opinion of how to state facts is is not a fact my friend. Especially so in the art of politics.

      • http://www.facebook.com/angel.brom Angel Cagle

        He made a reference to terror, but not once did he call it an act of terror. Big difference. Liberals are the ones who don’t concern themselves with reality.

        • Lady Willpower

          I bet you’re the kind of whiner who made fun of Bill Clinton parsing the meaning of the word “is” aren’t you?
          And yet here you are, parsing the absolute fuck out of a very clear statement from the president.
          Spinning bullshit into gold for your own political purposes. Yawn.

  • FifthGenHoustonian

    Mr. Cesca, for a party that preaches tolerance, your language and absolute disgust at people with ‘other’ views is shameful and hypocritical. To choose journalism as a profession and result to being just another angry blogger is the worst condemnation you could have done. Prayers to your family.

    • jewelbomb

      What’s wrong with showing a little disgust towards people with disgusting views? Seems pretty logical.

    • Lady Willpower

      Go pray with your own family, and get off the internet if you can’t handle it.

  • Chris Cornelius

    Dear right wingers just because you can’t win an election with votes. You have to resort to other ways of eliminating your competitors. Where was you’re outrage when 13 times the embassies were attacked and a lot of Americans were killed. Nice try but if you have nothing positive to contribute don’t bother.

  • PeteRFNY

    This is ‘how to write an article like an idiot’ 101. If you want to compare apples to oranges to play a moronic game of “gotcha” go ahead. Every one of the attacks listed above happened without warning or any time for a help request to be sent. There were hours between the initial attack and the eventual mortar attack that ended with lives being lost. There was enough time for some form of help to be sent – except orders were sent to stand down (from the tooth fairy, I guess) – then people tripped over themselves to cover up what happened and why.

    So you can keep trying to deflect this mess by connecting un-connectable dots or calling it a witch hunt, but at the very least stop being disingenuous: if something like THIS had happened under Bush’s watch (not the surprise attacks listed in the article) dogmatic wonks like Bob Cesca would have been screaming bloody murder.

    • villemar

      Impeach or STFU.

      • raykinsella

        No…that’s too easy. We’re gonna make you suffer by slowly exposing the lies and incompetence of Obama, Hilary and their charges. This purification may free you from the enslavement and ignorance perpetrated onto you by the “well meaning”, but self serving liberal agenda.

    • Lady Willpower

      “…if something like THIS had happened under Bush’s watch”

      Something like, oh I don’t know, 9/11 maybe? I know Dick Cheney likes to pretend that one didn’t happen, but I can assure you it did.

      • raykinsella

        There was a rather lengthy investigation into the 9/11 attacks…you can even buy the book! Did you somehow not hear about it…most everyone else on he world did. Perhaps you’re waiting for it to be delivered with your welfare check, food stamps, disability check and DNC membership card.

        • Lady Willpower

          Go fuck yourself, racist.

          • raykinsella

            Finally…the last liberal refuge, I’m a racist…it would be almost funny if it wasn’t so sad. Like racism, and the accusation of, is only more evidence of your ignorance. For this, I’m sad for you. But please know…help and enlightenment is readily available!

          • Lady Willpower

            I never called you a name until you accused me of being on welfare and food stamps. Don’t pretend you’re all decent and respectful.

          • raykinsella

            I apologize…it was a break from proper decorum.

          • Kwa85

            No, it just shows the facade is indeed a facade.

          • Gib74

            Yup, ‘tolerance’….

          • Lady Willpower

            Oh please with your concern trolling shit. This creep accused me of being on welfare and food stamps, only because I’m black. I don’t have to be tolerant of bigots.

        • http://www.facebook.com/jess.manuel.5 Jess Manuel

          Indeed, there was an investigation into the 9/11 attacks. And they found out that the Bush Administration ignore all the warnings that Osama Bin Laden is going to attack the U.S.

          • Lady Willpower

            Shhh, they’re still trying to blame Bill Clinton for it.

        • Kwa85

          Lol you just shot yourself in the foot. Go read Richard A Clarke’s book “Against all enemies …” which eviscerated Bush and his mate Cheney.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Douglas-Jones/1039564193 Douglas Jones

      This line of attacking the Administration makes me furious. It is despicable and anti-American. What could the dark motivation possibly be for the Administration or its Agencies to not send military help to Bengazi if it was possible to do so in a timely manner and if doing so did not endanger other personnel?

      Oh, that’s right, I forgot, Obama secretly worships Islam and hates America. What other reason could there be? Right, bigot?

      Do you have proof that the many dozens of attempted and successful killings of Americans in recent decades were all complete “surprise attacks” with zero intelligence suggesting the possibility of an attack? No, you absolutely don’t, so that’s a lie.

      When 241 (!!!) Marines were killed in the barracks bombing in Lebanon under Reagan’s watch, did the Democrats rake the President and his agencies over the coals for nearly a year? Not as I recall. See, back then, Americans saw incidents like these as ones where we shared the responsibility and the grief. We didn’t see the need to turn the tragedy into a prolonged, craven, explicitly divisive political attack.

      • d1stewart

        Oddly, the only person to make the claim that there could be no other reason but that Obama worships Islam and hates America is you. Everyone you’re responding to has given substantive reasons that are not the only reasons you can imagine, and for which you call someone who said nothing bigoted, “bigot.”

        Unless you’re aware of Reagan intentionally failing to do what could be done immediately during the Lebanon barracks bombing and its aftermath, fabricating a cause for the bombing, lying to the public about it, and politically attacking those who disputed and refuted the president’s lies–and you’re not aware of those things, because they didn’t happen and Reagan didn’t do it–you’ve failed utterly in your comparison. But then your point is only to indulge in your hate and to justify the unjustifiable. That is craven and explicitly divisive.

      • PeteRFNY

        Funny – I don’t recall there being hours between the truck driving up to the Marine barracks and the bomb going off where the Marines had time to scramble into action first (they would not have needed to call for backup). If you guys want to keep making loose comparisons, connecting dots that do not connect and playing race baiting games to deflect the utter incompetence and malfeasance of this administration, go ahead. But you can’t make the sky green just because you say it is. That’s not how reality works.

  • XLancer

    (DIABOLICAL JOURNALISM)

  • http://twitter.com/JTShroyer JT Shroyer

    The main reason Republicans are politicizing Benghazi is because that is the only thing they can use against Hillary Clinton. But let us remember:
    1. More people died from Embassy attacks during Bush’s Administration
    2. The non-partisan Accountability Review Board did *NOT* find Hillary responsible for what happened in Benghazi
    3. We have had a total of 20 Accountability Review Boards throughout our history because security overseas is never 100%
    4. Hillary implemented all of the recommendations the Accountability Review Board set forth
    5. The biggest security failure, 9/11, happened under a Republican Administration
    6.Republicans cut millions in funding for “EMBASSY SECURITY”
    The bottom line is: those who decide to pursue careers in diplomatic work know the risks. Obviously we try to do everything we can to make sure our Embassies are secure, but Embassy security is NEVER 100%.
    Hillary Clinton was not found responsible for the Benghazi attacks according to the non-partasian Accountability Review Board, and she implemented all of their recommendations. This is not the first, nor the last, Embassy attack that will result in the death of American lives. Remember — we had more people die in Embassy attacks during Bush’s Administration.
    It’s truly sickening that Republicans are playing politics with a tragedy like this. They must really be scared of Hillary in 2016.

    • raykinsella

      The Accountability Review Board didn’t even interview Hilary or any survivors of the attack! Of course they didn’t need to, their report was basically written for them by the administration. Now that’s some streamlined government in action! Who cares if its not exactly truthful??

      • Kwa85

        That is good Republican spin but unfortunately for you it is not true. You need to update yourself on what Pickering and Mullen (both good Republicans, one a retired ambassador and the other a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) are currently saying refuting the latest spin from Issa’s waste of time efforts to uncover a “cover up” that doesn’t exist.

      • Kwa85

        Also, did you actually read the report? It is harshly critical of the State Department (but then again, you would have noticed this if you had in fact read it).

  • oldfox

    The “alleged whistleblower” was the DCM, Deputy Chief of Mission, the highest professional, non-politically appointed Foreign Service Officer. I seem to remember Mr. Chalabi and “CurveBall” bamboozling the Bush Admin. pretty badly, so bad that you lot called Bush/Cheney/Rice/Powell liars for months, but our guys owned up to it. They didn’t send out an out-of-the-loop woman on a fool’s errand to repeat a totally fabricated story five times to cover up that they were bamboozled by a tiny cell of flea-bitten camel jockeys without so much as a GED diploma!

    • jewelbomb

      ” flea-bitten camel jockeys”…really, you old fuck? Is that how you think? The world will be a much better place once bigots like you die off once and for all.

  • Rujax

    All this is is the “OMG We’ve Got To Stop Hillary Somehow Dog and Pony Show” led by the car thief Darrell Issa. Couldn’t you guys get a more credible “sleuth”??? HEY!!! Maybe Sanford will do it!!! That’ll be better. Yes, it will.

  • http://twitter.com/JTShroyer JT Shroyer

    The reason Republicans are politicizing Benghazi is because that is the only thing they can use against Hillary Clinton. But let us remember:
    1. More Americans died from Embassy attacks during Bush’s Administration
    2. The non-partisan Accountability Review Board did NOT find Hillary responsible for what happened in Benghazi
    3. We have had numerous Accountability Review Boards throughout our history because security overseas is never 100%
    4. Hillary implemented all of the recommendations the Accountability Review Board set forth
    5. The biggest security failure, 9/11, happened under a Republican Administration
    6. Republicans cut millions in funding for “EMBASSY SECURITY”
    The bottom line is: those who decide to pursue careers in diplomatic work know the risks. Obviously we try to do everything we can to make sure our Embassy’s are secure, but Embassy security is NEVER 100%.
    Hillary Clinton was not found responsible for the Benghazi attacks according to the non-partasian Accountability Review Board, and she implemented all of their recommendations. This is not the first, nor the last, Embassy attack that will result in the death of American lives. Remember — we had more Americans die in Embassy attacks during Bush’s Administration.
    It’s truly sickening that Republicans are playing politics with a tragedy like this. They must really be scared of Hillary in 2016.

  • http://www.facebook.com/funkyfinga Finga AllDay

    The difference is lying about the REAL reasons for the attacks and denying help when it was requested several times and readily available, but thanks for playing anyway.

    • David Morales

      Just like when Bush was warned about Osama? We don’t need reasons about why we were attack. Why was the help denied? Play with yourself.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1102699074 Gregory Pennington

      Another clown who didn’t read the article or understand what he read.

      • Lady Willpower

        Finga’s a dedicated racist, so don’t bother engaging.

  • lburkefiles

    I do not fault either administration for the attacks. The attacks have and will continue to occur no matter who is in power. What troubles me is the spin that both parties thought necessary. The democrats trying a bad dance to minimize administration blame and only succeeding in making it worse or the republicans whipping this up to a fever pitch. Too many lessons that could be learned will be lost with this continued level of bi-partisan BS.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Noelle-Westenberger/1751450948 Noelle Westenberger

    Of all these how many of them asked for help beforehand, and how many if any did Bush get a call he ignored, most important how many did he lie about saying they were caused because of something like a video on YouTube?

    • Lady Willpower

      I see. Unless somebody mentions a (possible) YouTube connection it doesn’t count.

    • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

      Honey, Bush ignored the warnings prior to 9/11. Obama has ignored exactly nothing.

      THAT is the “call” that BUSH received, and ignored.

  • Tell the Whole Story

    You are missing the whole point. There are several different layers that the USA went off the rails over Benghazi. 1.Special ops in Tripoli were on there way out the door to backup those in Benghazi and were told to “stand down”. WHY?? 2. From the night of the attack it was a known terrorist attack yet they changed or deleted the terrorist fact in the talking points given to Susan Rice. They knew it wasn’t a stupid YouTube video yet they kept saying it was for weeks!! WHY?? 3. The security forces were reduced from 19 to 4 in Aug. after the English Ambassador was attacked while in traffic and our guys rescued him! England pulled their people out of Libya as did the Red Cross due to it being too dangerous. WHY? Why was our security reduced against the Security Chief in Libya’s advisement!! WHY?? We have been attacked by al-Qaida and their ilk over and over in the past as in the 13 events you mention. They hate us, but in those cases it was not a NINE HOUR gun and mortar fight. Do you want the truth or what??

    • villemar

      Impeach or STFU.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1102699074 Gregory Pennington

      So you want to send 4 SPEC OPS who were not ready for combat into a situation were we had no accurate intel? Yea and what would you and the clowns be saying today when it end like Black Hawk Down? And it was not known to be a terror attack. All over the Middle East they were protesting the video.

  • Lady Willpower

    Wow, somebody really lit the Wingnut Bat-Signal yesterday, didn’t they?

    And still, not a one of these fools can answer the simple question:
    Why didn’t FOX NEWS care about any of these other attacks?

    • http://www.facebook.com/funkyfinga Finga AllDay

      The difference is lying about the REAL reasons for the attacks and
      denying help when it was requested several times and readily available,
      but thanks for being an uninformed voter anyway.

      • jewelbomb

        It was a developing situation. The facts of the story came out a week later and you knowing “the real” cause at the moment it was happening would have changed nothing. There is no credible evidence that anyone was denied help during the attack despite what Shawn Hannity may be telling you. At most the Obama administration is guilty of bad messaging immediately after the events. BIG. FUCKING.DEAL.

      • Lady Willpower

        Being wrong about something is not the same as lying.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brett-Greshko/1678181441 Brett Greshko

    The problem with this article is that simply stating attacks on embassies or consulates does not constitute it being on the same level with the Benghazi attacks. The problem with Benghazi was not that the consulate was attacked. The problem was the administrations reaction to the attacks (or lack thereof), and the subsequent attempt to portray it as a protest in reaction to a you-tube video rather than a coordinated attack of terrorism, as well as misleading about it during the presidential debates.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brett-Greshko/1678181441 Brett Greshko

      And lets not just blame FOX for not covering these stories. The truth is that neither MSNBC or any other media outlet covered them with blame pointing on the Bush administration. As someone who was very anti-Bush, I know full well that the media would never have missed a chance to lambast him if the opportunity was there. These attacks were simply not relevant to how an administration handles them.

  • rob black

    Holy crap! Smells like somebody left the link door open at Huffpo and herd? surfeit? of commenting skunks invaded this place…..
    Shew skunks! Back to World Net Daily..or Drudge with you….

    • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

      Bob posted this piece on Huffpo today.

  • http://www.facebook.com/rebeccaraydooley Rebecca Ray Dooley

    Just an interesting observation: The liberal voices here can’t seem to form a comment without some sort of expletive and temper tantrum-esk rant in their posts.

    • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

      “interesting”? Are the lies and expletives, and temper “tantrum-esk rant” coming from the wingnuts on this thread also “interesting”?

      I thought not.

      Checked out your FB page. An anti-choicer is what you are. And you, Rebecca-Dooley-the-concern-troll, are not at all interesting.

    • jewelbomb

      Fuck. Just fuck.

    • http://twitter.com/MrsSheaWong shea wong

      Concern troll is concerned.

  • Anonymous

    You’re an idiot. None of these attacks followed repeated warnings from within the intelligence community, not one at an embassy that had begged for more security and been told to eat cake, almost none of them involved US citizen casualties, and not a single one was immediately followed by a disgusting election-year cover-up as the president and his administration knowingly and repeatedly lied about the events. It’s sadly unsurprising that these glaring differences would be lost on another Obamazombie.

    • i_a_c

      We don’t know whether there were repeated warnings or requests for security during any of the other attacks because nobody cared enough to ask. The only reason we know anything about security at the Benghazi compound was because it received so much scrutiny in the first place.

      And your “cover-up” lasted all of a week. It must not have been so vital to the election after all.

    • Lady Willpower

      “None of these attacks followed repeated warnings from within the intelligence community…”

      This comment was written by someone from an alternate universe, one where 9/11 never happened.

  • missingleader

    Bush was not a braniac, but Obama is a court jester at best.

    • Lady Willpower

      Yeah, they’ll let just about anyone become a professor at Harvard these days.

      • http://www.facebook.com/funkyfinga Finga AllDay

        Same way they’ll give just about anybody a Nobel Peace Prize these days.

        • Lady Willpower

          Weak.

  • Driver996

    I believe you are posting propaganda.

    Only ONE of the actions represented in the article took place inside a US Embassy or Consulate. That would be May 12, 2003. Every other instance took place outside the compound. No security breach. None, save the Riyadh attack, and then, immediate hostage rescue too place.

    • i_a_c

      What’s the point of this distinction?

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1173480024 Rob Michael

        The difference between Benghazi and these attacks are threefold. This issue hasn’t gained traction because the attack happened but for other reasons.

        1) The repeated requests for increased security from the Ambassador to the DoS that were turned down.

        2) The fact that this was not a quick drive by attack with gunmen or truck bomb which is very hard to prevent in a foreign country that is not overtly friendly with the US. The Benghazi attack lasted throughout the night and the questions are:
        Were there adequate quick response forces for a situation like this, and were said teams called to react or not and why or why not?
        Who was in overall command, is the command structure working, was it a personnel failure and who was it?
        Is response protocol adequate and if not, whose fault is that?

        Point I am trying to make here is that the other attacks were similar to that you are gardening in your front lawn and someone drives by real fast and unloads for 20 seconds and then drives away. The Benghazi attack was more of a case you were in the house and the bad guys show and start gunfight. You call for the police and the police don’t show up until two hours later while the gun battle is going on for those two hours.

        3) It appears that the President and his administration either were not sure of the reason for the attack or had substantial evidence that it was a planned terrorist attack and then tried to either mislead or downplay the terrorist element and let people believe it was caused by a random protest in reaction to a poorly made YouTube video.

        Terrorist attacks will happen, especially in foreign countries with elements of the population very hostile to the US. I don’t blame Obama for the attack happening on his watch. I do want to know if it could have been prevented, why increased security requests were turned down, whether a quick action force was in a position to respond and if so, why did it not, and also, even in the scenario that they have no idea if it was a planned terrorist attack or not, and why did his Admin try to make it seem like the Benghazi attack was related to the Egyptian protests based on the YouTube video.

        • i_a_c

          None of the above listed incidents got one-tenth of the scrutiny that Benghazi has gotten. Nobody asked about the security protocols in place, nobody asked about whether the attack was preventable, nobody asked for a minute-by-minute timeline of events, etc. There is no way to tell whether the Benghazi attack was any more or less predictable than any of the attacks listed above because nobody cared enough to ask. The only reason we know four-fifths of the Benghazi story is because it received so much scrutiny in the first place, before anyone knew about the CIA talking points or the tick-tock. Nobody cared about the other four-fifths of the story in any of the other events.

          As I said below, I grant the bad judgment in security prior to the attacks. It seems as if mistakes were made, and hopefully it’s handled more judiciously in the future. I very much doubt the situation was as simple as “send in military right away.” They had practically no idea what they would be getting into, and diving in head first would have been incredibly risky at the very least. I don’t know why the CIA talking points were wrong, and frankly, I don’t care–the story is well known by now. Whatever mistakes or errors or otherwise that led to the story about the video and the Cairo protests lasted all of a week. My guess is that the CIA is not going to tell anybody why they made the determinations they did.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1173480024 Rob Michael

            Honestly, I think this issue wouldn’t have received so much attention if the Admin hadn’t tried to downplay the terrorist element or try to advance the video narrative. I would have preferred Obama go into the Rose Garden and say we do not know whether this was a separate, planned terror attack or if this is related to the protests throughout several Mideast cities in response to a private video.

          • i_a_c

            Could be. It left a lot of egg on Susan Rice’s face. I suspect we’ll never know the reason why the talking points were what they were. Not because of some cover-up, but because a lot of the stuff going on at the Benghazi compound was highly classified, and of course the CIA is not going to go into great detail about intelligence gathering. If I had to make one guess as to why the information about al-Qaeda may have been withheld on purpose (for practical reasons), it would be that there was some kind of ongoing operation or investigation, and they didn’t want to tip anybody off. Don’t know; all we can do is speculate. As far as I’m concerned, the story was straightened out relatively quickly and I don’t much care why it wasn’t straight in the first place.

          • http://www.facebook.com/funkyfinga Finga AllDay

            Using the actual facts could potentially have sunk Obama’s chances in he 2012 election. As it was, pushing the bogus story embarrassed the president of Libya, who publicly related the actual fact that it was pre-planned. Which in turn made him distrustful of the proven untrustworthy Obama administration, and he wouldn’t let investigators in the country for a couple of weeks. Which, in turn, created a lot of space between the people that are responsible for the attack and the investigators.

          • i_a_c

            Using the actual facts could potentially have sunk Obama’s chances in he 2012 election.

            Yeah, because when the facts came out a week later, Romney totally trounced Obama. *eyeroll*

          • http://www.facebook.com/funkyfinga Finga AllDay

            And nobody deliberately tried to cover up the real reason for the attacks. They weren’t “mistakes” or “errors”. It was a willful attempt to mischaracterize the attack as spontaneous and unrelated to Obama’s entirely failed middle east policy for purely political reasons.

            “They had practically no idea what they would be getting into, and diving in head first would have been incredibly risky at the very least.”

            And we wouldn’t want our military to take any risks while trying to save American lives, right?

          • i_a_c

            Bullshit. The story about a video-provoked attack was in the CIA talking points from the very first version. And you’re going to need to provide actual evidence that it was done for political reasons or you’re just dabbling in conspiracy theories.

            And yeah, just send the military into God-knows-what with no plan and risk even more American lives. The hell is wrong with you?

      • Driver996

        Because the article says: “The Benghazi attacks (the consulate and the CIA compound) are absolutely not unprecedented even though they’re being treated that way by Republican…:” in reference to the state department security in place at the embassies when only one of the mentioned actions breached the security perimeter. There is no comparison except that the attackers were ‘extremists’.

        • i_a_c

          The other comparison, of course, is that US diplomatic assets were attacked, and people died. Even under your narrow circumstances, you already said that one of these attacks constituted a security breach. Each event is unique as to the specific series of events, but as far the outcome is concerned (dead people), it’s a distinction without a difference. I fail to understand why distinguishing between whether security was breached or not is relevant to the conversation.

  • jp

    Can you honestly not discern the difference between attacks against American consulates/interests like those discussed in this article which occurred “on Bush’s watch” and the attack in Benghazi in September 2011? I defy you to find one example of an attack on a US consulate or related entity where consulate staff had repeatedly requested additional security resources (which said requests were denied) prior to the attack; where there had been repeated warnings from the host nation, our own intelligence services, and other foreign nations of significant terrorist activity in city of the consulate; where a 12 hour battle occurred during which time military assets in the area were not called upon; where four special operations troops in a city nearby were told to “stand down” and not get on a plane headed to the site of the attack despite the fact that at the time, no one knew how long the battle would continue; where the consulate is literally destroyed; where an ambassador is killed; where post attack the CIA’s talking points (specifically indicating a belief that the attack was the result of coordinated campaign by Islamic fundamentalist sympathizers) were deliberately revised to be completely devoid of any reference to Islamic fundamentalists or a terror attack; where said talking points were than revised to maintain that the motivation of the attack was an event for which there was no (and still is no) corroborating evidence; where the Ambassador to the UN embarks on a deliberate campaign (reiterated by the Secretary of State AND the POTUS himself for weeks) to advise the entire world that the attack was the result of a “spontaneous protest” based on some stupid internet video when all the evidence at that time literally suggested the exact opposite; where said mistruth may have had the effect of disenfranchising the host nation to the extent that they prevent the FBI from entering the country for 18 days while the crime scene remained unsecured; and where the investigation of the handling of the incident failed to interview the number two guy (Mr. Hicks in addition to several other key personnel on the ground that night who consistently voiced a desire to be heard and interviewed) in Libya the night of the attack and the SEC State; and where a presidential election was less than two months away….. This article is so misleading. the issue is not, as you suggest, about security of embassies and consulates in foreign nations, and about whether mccain, graham, or any other republican you loath intiatied an investiation…… i’m sure regardless of party line, that we can all agree that as long as we maintain consultates and embassies in volatile areas, and as long as fundamentalist islamic terrorists don’t like us, fertilzer bombs and suicide bombers will be deployed against us…. what you entirely fail to address in your article, and what exists today as the major objection to this whole situation by those who are not utterly blinded by party line and politics, is the pre-attack warnings, and the post-attack coverup. resources are scarce, mistakes are made – that i think Americans can digest… revising the truth and perpetuating a fraud on the american people in an election season is an unthinkable offense of our government…Anyone who cannot discern the difference between the attacks listed in this article and Benghazi, pre and post attack, is trying not to. and if there are examples of similar frauds pushed on the american people by a republican administration, i’ll do what so many in congress, those in the national media, and apparently you, are seemingly incapable of doing – break with party line and renounce them too. this has nothing to do with politics. it has everything to do with a government substituting its political ambition for the truth – whether they are democrats, republicans, independents, or otherwise.

    • villemar

      Impeach or STFU.

      • jp

        um, what? let me get this straight, “a” writes poorly reasoned article attempting to link previous consulate attacks to abortion that is Benghazi; “b” points out false argument; you tell “b” to either impeach POTUS or shut the f*** up. Brilliant – your idea of informed debate? is “impeach or STFU” your response to anyone who disagrees with your view point? In other words, don’t express my opinion on a website designed to faciliate the discussion of opinions unless i’m prepared to impeach the president? i can see your logic there. very mature and reasoned. Are you the author of the article?

        • villemar

          Nope I don’t have that honor. What I’m saying is, instead of whining on a blog, pressure your Congressperson to begin Impeachment hearings immediately.

          • jp

            how do you deduce “whining” from correcting poor logic in an article and expressing an opinion. do you know what the word “whine” means? and why is impeachment my only recourse? do you drink a lot of kool-aid?

          • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

            Don’t bother. We don’t do asshat games with the intellectually challenged among us, which of course, would have to include all right wing thugs and creeps and, well, ALL of you, in essence.

          • villemar

            Wait, let’s see. OK I came up with some other options for you:
            1) Kill yourself
            2) Move to another country.
            You’re welcome.

          • jp

            it is comical how quickly your logic devolves. i suppose when you lack substance and intellect and cannot offer even one rebuttal/critique to anything substantive i have said, it’s not a far fall. good luck tying your shoes tomorrow. Be sure to tell the laces to kill themself should you encounter any problems.

        • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

          Another concern troll/fucking asshat idiot presuming…….

          FUCK OFF.

          • jp

            Your post is not a sentence. I do not understand the sentiment you are attempting to convey. have you seen Robin Hood: Men in Tights? “King illegal forest to pig wild kill in it a is!” You are an icon for irrationality. How about you try crafting a reasoned response to my original post? …. oh, excuse me, let me put that to you in a format you understand: Try you crafting my post original reasoned how a response original to?

          • jewelbomb

            A clear sign of a brilliant, reasoned thinker is his or her familiarity with the brilliant philosopher Mel Brooks.

          • jp

            I am glad we can agree. cheers.

    • i_a_c

      The only legitimate complaint here is about the security protocol before the attack. It seems that mistakes and errors in judgment were made. Got that. Hopefully we’ll be better prepared next time.

      As far as military forces responding to the attack, surely the chain of command is smart enough not to jump in headfirst into a situation where they have little idea what’s going on, with the possibility of a honeypot trap where US forces arrive and are hit by a second wave of attacks. After the initial attacks, the survivors were evacuated from the building in 90 minutes. By that point, there was little need to risk additional lives.

      The CIA talking points were wrong. For what reason is unknown, but it really doesn’t matter much to me why. The accusations of a coverup during an election season are blown up by the fact that the official story was revised in a week, in the same election season, of course. If it was a coverup, it was a really pathetic coverup. Any hypothetical political motive for a coverup must not have been that great since the facts came to light relatively quickly.

  • Millie Funk

    You all are missing the point…so Bush did it too…that makes it right? Jesus, it’s time we stop identifying ourselves as democratic and republican and start seeing ourselves ALL as Americans and hold ALL our politicians accountable for their lies to us. As an American diplomat this effects my family more than it does most of yours on here so let me tell you something. I don’t give a f**k who is to blame…I just don’t want it to happen again. Currently we are a very hated nation (unjustly so in my book), when people on the ground in these countries ask for more security and some jackass in Washington denies that request, you are putting our lives and our family’s lives at risk. Quit the politicking and start fixing what is wrong here!

  • Jim

    Are you serious read what you wrote all of these incidents are correctly portrayed and were properly characterized at the time which is why they did not raise concern, amazing how well honesty works. Now fast forward, Obama blows it in Libya, Egypt, and Syria then tries to hide a terrorist attack by claiming it was a demonstration for political gain. Its very possible his or his underlings will face criminal charges.

  • http://twitter.com/Doc1958 Doc1958

    post this article all over the internet fight fire …..WITH WATER!!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1350960010 Ryan Schneer

    Translation: Bush got away with it so we should be allowed to get away with it too. No talk of morality and accountability, just politics, i.e. whats wrong with our political system.

    • jewelbomb

      Your lack of reading comprehension is what’s wrong with the political system, you dope.

    • KatieAnnieOakley

      It isn’t about “getting away with it” – it’s about SELECTIVE persecution.

      • http://www.facebook.com/funkyfinga Finga AllDay

        Pfft, did Bush try to blame any attack on something that had nothing to do with it? Because that’s exactly what Obama did.

        • jewelbomb

          Bush didn’t have to blame anything on anyone because no one cared about these attacks when they happened. They were barely a blip on the international news. Apparently attacks on US interests in foreign countries are only noteworthy when the President is a Democrat.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1350960010 Ryan Schneer

        Persecution, i.e. holding the other party accountable when it f-’s up. Sounds like fair game to me. Just cause the dems didn’t do it doesn’t make it wrong

  • http://twitter.com/Doc1958 Doc1958

    I HAVE BEEN SAYING THIS ALL ALOng….hello!!!!

  • http://twitter.com/pjcostello Paul Costello

    Being attacked, and even losing people in those attacks, is not in itself the fault or a President. The COVER-UP is the issue, as it was for both Clinton and Nixon — it’s the LYING and the covering-up that are unforgivable, not the mistakes in either action or judgment. We Americans will forgive nearly any honest screw-ups, but don’t LIE to us to our faces, don’t cover up (and have others cover up) mistakes, and don’t act holier-than-thou when you’re caught. MAN UP and OWN IT, and we can all move on. I know, I know — liberals just don’t do that.

    • jewelbomb

      What cover up?

      • http://twitter.com/pjcostello Paul Costello

        That’s the most intelligent response you can make? Seriously? “Duh, what cover up?” Stay out of the gene pool, OK? Thanks for playing.

        • jewelbomb

          So, erm, what cover up are you referring to?

          • Lady Willpower

            Durrrr, Sean Hannity told him there was one.
            After 9 hearings, we still haven’t heard what it is.

          • http://www.facebook.com/funkyfinga Finga AllDay

            You know, the part where they knew it was a pre-planned terrorist attack and tried to make it out to be a spontaneous protest thing? Yeah, that coverup.

        • SlapFat

          In all honestly I don’t understand the “cover up” you’re referring to. It was an embassy attack that occurred and was acknowledged.

  • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.terry.925 Benjamin Terry

    You forgot to mention that there was no cover-up on these crimes..The president of the united states did not ever tell anyone “to stand down” and allowed all the people mentioned to be killed… And you also forgot to mention that the whole congress and the senate agreed to go to war in Iraq not just george bush, graham, and fox news…what a joke, Dont worry you liberals have pretty much wiped out in 5 years what it has taken great men with great minds to accomplish in over 200 years…

    • Lady Willpower

      Yup, like that awesome economy we inherited.

      • guest

        “Quick, we screwed something up! Surely we shouldn’t be held accountable for things. Blame Bush!”

        • Lady Willpower

          Really. So the economy Obama inherited doesn’t fall under Bush’s purview? It was doing just fine, then suddenly tanked on Jan. 20th, 2009?
          Now who’s not taking accountability?

          Newsflash: It’s OK to blame Bush when he’s the one who fucked EVERYTHING up.

  • GlockG22shoots40s

    How many of these were 7-8 hour fire fights with military less than an hour away?

  • http://twitter.com/Marsh626 Mercutio Lives

    That you care about protecting Hillary Clinton’s possible future presidential run and the current Obama regime than finding out what really happened at that embassy speaks volumes about the ruthless depravity that’s become central to left-wing activism in America.

  • kfreed

    Somebody should check to see what the baggers have got on the back burner. They’re trying awfully hard to distract us from something.

  • stationary transient

    same old game, different faces. Rep vs. Dems? … no, its Oligarchs vs Interests. Now mind you I don’t mind an oligarchy, but we should have a safety net for the poor and dwindling middle class. Unfortunately the rich guy who has 99 pieces of the pizza has told the poor and middle class that “he’s looking at your piece of the pizza” and unfortunately most of us have bought it. Yes thats a generalization. It still true. So we get caught up in fighting about ideology and we forget about running the country, it doesn’t stop when you vote. You have to ride herd on people over and over till they do it right.

    • SteveDK

      Off topic.

  • dumblibisdumb

    Was there even any research done before posting this ignorant piece of garbage misinformation? You compare the death of four Americans, including an Ambassador, to what happened at Karachi(And all of the other incidents listed for that)? You my friend need to take a logic class because you really seem to lack it. First off, Bush is completely irrelevant to this whole incident but you idiotic liberals continue to make fools of yourselves by mentioning him in your argument. This is a common logical fallacy known as “ad hominem” (translated to “to the man” or better known as a personal attack) where instead of being somewhat intellectual and demonstrating a sound argument, you instead decide to attack Bush because of the inability to realize no part of your argument is valid.

    Funny part is, even if your comparison to Bush were at all parallel to the Benghazi incident, it would still not make a difference!
    For example: Theoretically, let’s say years back the Bush administration was in the same situation as the Obama administration during this and decided to be deceitful and unprofessional about the deaths of Americans. But they actually got away with it (like the Obama admin is trying to do). So now you are trying to ague that Obama didn’t do anything wrong because Bush did the same thing, right? BUT when Bush did it you agree it was wrong or else you wouldn’t have mentioned it. Therefore, your argument is as follows: Obama didn’t do any wrong, BUT Bush did the same thing and he was wrong.

    But since Bush never did such a thing, I will leave you with this,

    “On the morning of June 14, 2002, a truck with a fertilizer bomb driven by a suicide bomber was detonated outside the United States Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan. Twelve people were killed and 51 injured, all Pakistanis.”

    The attack in 2006 was directly targeted at U.S. Diplomat David Coy and was a single car bomb which killed him and 2 pakastanis. Something nearly impossible to prevent and completely impossible to combat since it was a suicide bombing Hardly comparable to a full fledged attack accompanied with mortars which began at night and continued into the morning.

    • jewelbomb

      This comment is the single stupidest thing that’s ever been published on the Internet. I began composing a somewhat involved rebuttal, but, seriously, what’s the point? I will simply point out the you grossly misunderstand what is meant by the term “ad hominem attack.” Drawing a parallel to expose logical inconsistencies doesn’t fit that bill, brotha. Try again.

      • dumblibisdumb

        They were not related, hence the break. The example was based off a hypothetical situation in which a parallel would be drawn, since it never existed. Good try though.

        • jewelbomb

          What were not related? Somehow this comment makes even less sense than the one before. Keep digging, smart guy.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1173480024 Rob Michael

        Whether he misuses the term or not, you seem to enjoy engaging in ad hominem attacks yourself. What’s the point of developing a sound rebuttal? Let me guess here. Maybe to show that you have a better argument and reliance on the facts than the other person?

        I have found that most people who engage in ad hominem attacks, such as you, do so because they are incapable of a coherent rebuttal.

        • jewelbomb

          Fuck you. I’ll rebut your dumb ass all day pumpkin head. Why don’t you make an actual argument so that I have something to rebut instead of blathering about the nature of a sound rebutal.

          Oh, and you must realize that your second paragraph was itself an ad hominem attack. Stop your self-righteous posturing, jerk face.

          • Rujax

            Tsk, tsk, tsk…do you eat shit with that mouth?

          • jewelbomb

            No.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1173480024 Rob Michael

            Ha. Nice strong start there. You want my argument again. I’ve already posted it.

            Here you go. Not that it will do much good being read by an internet bully who sits behind a keyboard. No one thinks you are cool or brave because you can use that keyboard to say “Fuck you” repeatedly.

            The difference between Benghazi and these attacks are threefold. This issue hasn’t gained traction because the attack happened but for other reasons.

            1) The repeated requests for increased security from the Ambassador to the DoS that were turned down.

            2) The fact that this was not a quick drive by attack with gunmen or truck bomb which is very hard to prevent in a foreign country that is not overtly friendly with the US. The Benghazi attack lasted throughout the night and the questions are:
            Were there adequate quick response forces for a situation like this, and were said teams called to react or not and why or why not?
            Who was in overall command, is the command structure working, was it a personnel failure and who was it?
            Is response protocol adequate and if not, whose fault is that?

            Point I am trying to make here is that the other attacks were similar to that you are gardening in your front lawn and someone drives by real fast and unloads for 20 seconds and then drives away. The Benghazi attack was more of a case you were in the house and the bad guys show and start gunfight. You call for the police and the police don’t show up until two hours later while the gun battle is going on for those two hours.

            3) It appears that the President and his administration either were not sure of the reason for the attack or had substantial evidence that it was a planned terrorist attack and then tried to either mislead or downplay the terrorist element and let people believe it was caused by a random protest in reaction to a poorly made YouTube video.

            Terrorist attacks will happen, especially in foreign countries with elements of the population very hostile to the US. I don’t blame Obama for the attack happening on his watch. I do want to know if it could have been prevented, why increased security requests were turned down, whether a quick action force was in a position to respond and if so, why did it not, and also, even in the scenario that they have no idea if it was a planned terrorist attack or not, and why did his Admin try to make it seem like the Benghazi attack was related to the Egyptian protests based on the YouTube video.

          • jewelbomb

            I don’t think I’m brave, and I assume that you are using a keyboard to type on as well, no? If you don’t like my choice of language, I don’t really much care.

            Look, if you don’t blame the Obama Administration for the attacks occurring, then your only gripe must be about the information that came out immediately after the attacks, correct? So I will ask you one final time: what difference would it make if *you* knew that it was coordinated attack a week earlier than you did? Oh…it wouldn’t make any difference. Than please shut up and quit pretending that a bunch of bureaucrats attempting to downplay their department’s culpability is anything out of the ordinary. The truth was sorted out within a week, and we now know what happened. Move along to your next fake scandal please. This one is boring, and it’s not getting any traction outside of the wingnut bubble anyway.

          • guest

            If, indeed, it wouldn’t make any difference, then why lie about it? This goes beyond downplaying culpability.

          • jewelbomb

            How so ?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1134325734 Bettyann Matkowski Frederick

    The Republicans are really going out of their way to wear their new moniker “The Stupid Party” very well.

  • GarandFan

    Hey! Numb-nuts! Everyone one of those was reported AS A TERRORIST ATTACK!

    I don’t recall Bush blaming any of them on ‘an out of control protest’.

    Nice try. But don’t expect a paycheck from Barry.

    • Victor_the_Crab

      Hey! Retard! Learn reading comprehension before you drool nonsense.

    • Calvinius

      So was the Benghazi attack you degenerate moron.

  • guest

    Summary of this article in 2 lines….

    “Obama screwed something up! Quick, what should we do?”
    “Blame Bush!”

    • Overwhelmingryan

      Do you always have this much trouble comprehending what you read?

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1173480024 Rob Michael

        I think any American would have a vested interest in the circumstances surrounding the Benghazi incident and how it played out. Simply citing the terror attacks that happened on the previous President’s watch ignores the uniqueness of the events leading up to, during and after the Benghazi attack.

        I don’t think it was the worst cover up in history but I do believe the Administration tried to cover their rears as fast as possible.

      • guest

        Do you always blame someone else when you screw something up? Or just deflect when you want to shirk responsibility?

        • Overwhelmingryan

          Do you always have this much trouble comprehending what you read?

        • Lady Willpower

          That’s rich, considering idiots like you actually have the temerity to blame 9/11 on Bill Clinton.

  • Jim B

    In any of those situations if there was one time when the United States President made a decision to turn his back on American citizens under attack when he could have made an attempt to save them…let me know. That’s really what this Benghazi slaughter was all about.

    • Overwhelmingryan

      Except Obama never did that.

      • Millie Funk

        You’re right…instead he went to sleep after hearing about the attack. Much better. And yes, I’m a democrat AND I voted for him. I’m just damn disappointed.

        • Easy_to_Refute_Wingnuts

          Lies debunked time after time, and you keep bringing them up like the zombies they are.

        • villemar

          Sure you “used to be a Democrat.”
          Impeach or STFU.

    • Lady Willpower

      Except that isn’t what happened in Benghazi.

  • i_a_c

    If there was some Benghazi coverup, it was the most pathetic attempt at a coverup in US history. Yes, they were deliberately hiding the facts for political reasons–which is why the story changed in a week. A whole week! What a coverup! Scandal of the century! My gosh, we were without the full story for several days! What were they hiding until they stopped hiding it?!?!

    • B Manz

      Another brain dead apologist. Liberals react to truth like cockroaches react to light. Of course, a cockroach is farther along the evolutionary scale than a liberal.

    • HoosierLady

      Who gave us the full story from the administration within 1 week’s time? Really, I’m curious. Hint: It was not Obama.

  • Tim

    Did the Bush administration lie about the cause of these attacks? Did they refuse to allow the US military to intervene in order to protect US lives? I think you all miss the point of the outrage regarding Benghazi. It has nothing to do with the attacks themselves, it has to do with the administration’s response to the attacks, both to the military and then to the public.

    • http://www.facebook.com/laura.debauer Laura DeBauer

      Where did anyone lie? They said it was one thing, then a couple days later said, “Oops, we were wrong, it was this other thing.” Since, you know, there’s bound to be confusion when buildings get torched and riots ensue.

      And refusing to allow US military to intervene? DOH. You idiots just keep passing along these sentences like old school chain emails and think that makes them true.

      • raykinsella

        Uh lets see…state department personnel in Libya and Washington were aware that it was a coordinated attack that night(September 11th). Yet Secretary Rice, Secretary Clinton, white house spokesman Jay Carney and even President Obama maintained that is was simply a spontaneous attack brought on by an offensive youtube video. Doesn’t it just sound ridiculous when you read it? This was their story for over a week…incredible!

        • jewelbomb

          What fucking difference does it make if the specifics came out a week earlier? How would anything be different if the public knew it wasn’t related to the video the very next day? The victims would still be dead, and you freaks would have found some other non-controversy to shriek about. We get it…you don’t like the black Democrat who was elected President. Get the fuck over it.

          • villemar

            Elected TWICE with both solid electoral and popular vote majorites…boy that burns them up. Hopefully more than a few will stroke out because of pure self-induced rage. He’ll be in office till JANUARY OF 2017!!! I love rubbing their noses in that fact. Hey, if I can get their BP to rise up a point or two, it’s worth it. I’m just givving a little Darwinian assist.

          • Millie Funk

            To the millions of American families protecting YOUR interests overseas, believe me….it matters.

          • Easy_to_Refute_Wingnuts

            Too bad it didn’t matter to you until it happened during a Democratic administration.

          • Millie Funk

            I’m flattered how obsessed you are with my opinions. I am a democrat and I did vote for Obama. He’s still a politician, he still lies and covers things up. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

          • jewelbomb

            Oh really? Do tell. What difference would it have made?

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1173480024 Rob Michael

            Look at me use the f-word. It makes me look so much smarter.

            However, it is hard for me to believe you are such a cunning wit if you can not predict the difference between the public reaction and opinion on the Administration to a spontaneous attack caused by a video made by a private citizen, and a coordinated, successful terrorist attack sponsored by an organization we have been fighting for over a decade.

            In the first scenario, public opinion is more lenient to the President because if some random guy made a video that pissed off a bunch of average people and caused them to start a riot because the President and his Admin can’t possible prevent every crazy event like that especially in a foreign country with a barely functioning government and people know that.

            The second scenario is something we should have been watching out for, and people start to ask questions about why we didn’t prevent and why weren’t we more prepared this. In this case, the public opinion of the President’s competence tends to sink.

            Now that I have laid out the two scenarios for you, maybe you can see the incentive to push one story over the other.
            So when people see the Admin push the scenario that casts the President and the Admin in a better light, and as independent sources start to contradict this initially pushed scenario, people and especially the President’s and Admin’s opponents, want to know if they were simply going with the best information they had or were they downplaying certain elements to make themselves look better.

            I would rather have the President attacked by the Republicans and have them leave no stone unturned even if they end up finding nothing rather than it simply be verboten to inquiry and also criticize the President’s behavior and policy.

          • jewelbomb

            Wow. A lot of words there. Too bad none of them address how things would be different if the public knew the specific cause of the attack a week earlier. Would those people still be alive if Rob Michael learned that it was a coordinated attack a week sooner than he did? No. Then what difference does it make other than providing you with a fake controversy to cry about?

            Edit: Fuck

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1173480024 Rob Michael

            It isn’t about whether they would be alive or not. It is about the administration misleading about the nature of the attacks that killed Americans to fit a narrative that would help them cover their rears. I mean, I made that pretty clear before but I guess that anger clouds your vision.

          • jewelbomb

            Sorry, but that makes no sense. How does asserting that the attack was about a YouTube video rather than a planned terrorist attack help anyone cover their asses? As though it’s not a tragedy if it involves YouTube but it is if it occurred for other reasons. Yes, perhaps the talking points were a little muddled in the early days after the attack, but the story got straightened out within a week. At worst, the Obama Administration is guilty of poor messaging. As though it’s unprecedented that a bunch of bureaucrats spent a week clashing over various narratives in order to frame the attack in such a way that reduces their department’s culpability. Shocking I tell you! Nothing like this has ever happened in Washington before!

            And yes, I am angry because this is so clearly an effort by Republicans to magnify a non-scandal for political gain. The whole point is that y’all don’t really care about the people who were killed at all. Rather you are exploiting a tragedy in order to score political points. Frankly, it’s nauseating. If you people were agitating about an increased need for security maybe you would have credibility. But since all you want to do is whine about some silly conspiracy that doesn’t exist, you shouldn’t be surprised that no one really cares about your harebrained theories.

        • Kwa85

          Go read the ARB report because you’re talking crap. How can you be so ignorant?

        • Rujax

          So the PDB of August 11, 2001 states…”Bin Laden is poised to strike somewhere in the US with airplanes.” But Bush and the cowards in his administration claimed for YEARS afterwards “no one could have seen that coming.” Where’s the outrage, dude?

    • Jay B.

      The Bush Administration lied about literally everything, so probably.

  • http://twitter.com/gaquitaine Gentil Aquitaine

    There’s no defending any manner of cover-up that took place in the case of the Benghazi attacks, but the hypocrisy of those who would go after the Obama Administration hammer and tongs over the issue—while ignoring the faults of the Bush Administration—is astounding.

    • Kwa85

      Not to mention that there is zero evidence of a cover up in Benghazi and this is a politicized narrative fanned by Republicans based on smoke and mirrors, not facts.

      • raykinsella

        Perhaps because state department lawyers threatened survivors not to testify. Not to mention, investigators were not given access to survivors until just recently. If the administration is so pure, why the secrecy?

        • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

          You have done just as the RW machine wanted; you fell for their lying crap hook, line and sinker. Pretty stupid.

        • Kwa85

          “I think the notion of a quote, cover up, has all the elements of Pulitzer Prize fiction attached to it,” – ARB co-chair Amb Thomas Pickering

          The allegations are false!!!

        • Calvinius

          You’re full of crap. Nobody was “threatened” and no investigators were denied access.

          • Millie Funk

            Really, because I know of at least four guys who were.

          • Easy_to_Refute_Wingnuts

            Yeah, right, and now their sister-in-law’s mother’s uncle’s ex-wife is making thousands of dollars for just a few hours’ work on their computers!

          • Kwa85

            No you don’t.

          • Millie Funk

            Really? That’s funny. Because I do. Have you even ever left America? Do you know what it’s like for us out there? Probably just don’t are. Go back to your suburban couch and it makes me happy to know that I’ll be the one representing you ignorant ass overseas.

          • jewelbomb

            Does your work as a diplomat consist solely of bragging about how informed you are (without noting specific details for any of your spurious claims) and squawking about made up conspiracy theories on the internet? Seriously, no one believes you dude. You’re just some person on the internet claiming to have some super secret information no one else is privy to.

          • Millie Funk

            I don’t give a shit what you believe. And if u ever get your ass off your computer and see the world maybe your eyes will be opened too . TROLL!

          • jewelbomb

            If you don’t give a shit why are you gracing me and everyone else on this forum with your insightful comments?

          • Lady Willpower

            That’s amazing. A couple of comments ago you only knew two of them. Now you know four. Those guys sure aren’t doing a good job of keeping quiet! Barry must not be threatening them enough.

        • kfreed

          Or perhaps nobody threatened anybody just like the Boston bombing and Sandy Hook were NOT perpetrated or covered up by the government. Just like Obama’s birth certificate isn’t fake. Just like “Fast and Furious” turned out to be the bullshit we knew it was. Just like nobody is coming to take your guns. Just like you’re not getting thrown into FEMA camps. Etc., etc., ad infinitum.

          Lord you people are beyond stupid.

        • kfreed

          Or perhaps nobody threatened anybody just like the Boston bombing and Sandy Hook were NOT perpetrated or covered up by the government. Just like Obama’s birth certificate isn’t fake. Just like “Fast and Furious” was exactly the bullshit we knew it was. Just like nobody is coming to take your guns. Just like you’re not getting thrown into FEMA camps. Etc., etc., ad infinitum.

          Lord, you people are beyond farce. Tell ya what, though, if it ever comes up for a vote, I’d be willing to vote AYE on having the whole lot of you committed to FEMA mental institutions.

          Hre’s what DID happen: “GOP Star Witnesses Debunk Right-Wing Benghazi Conspiracy Theories” courtesy Think Progress. Sane people still unaware might like to look this up just for shits and giggles.

        • Millie Funk

          There are four junior officers who have been forced not to testify because it’ll damage their likelihood for promotions in the future.

          • Easy_to_Refute_Wingnuts

            Well, the vast amount of evidence you provided has convinced me that… oh, wait.

          • Millie Funk

            And your overflowing with evidence. I’m a diplomat…so I think I know a little more than you about security overseas.

          • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

            You’re a diplomat????LOLOLOL………find a forum with the astutely stupid—perhaps you can make that fantasy stick, you moron.

          • Kwa85

            Bullshit.

          • Millie Funk

            So you work with these guys? Because I know two of them. So bullshit back.

          • Kwa85

            You’re talking bullshit Milly. We all know it.

        • Kwa85

          You say “perhaps”. Did they threaten them or did they not? I already know the answer is they did not. But please, present your irrefutable evidence. Oh wait. There is none.

          • Mama62

            Why wouldn’t threatened individuals come forward with the truth if that is it? Are they afraid they will be carted away by the CIA? Someones been watching too much TV.

          • Kwa85

            Exactly. Some of these people live in Lalaland.

      • Millie Funk

        You know nothing….Nordstorm has documented evidence asking for more aide on the ground and was denied REPEATEDLY! Not to mention that Hicks (a democrat, like myself) wasn’t even consulted before they started spinning this story.

        • Kwa85

          Where’s the cover up again? Nothing you said is new.

        • villemar

          You’re a Democrat like I’m the King of Siam. Impeach or STFU.

          • Millie Funk

            Check my ballot Box mother fucker

          • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

            Then you’re a fucking STUPID Democrat, a complete asshat.

            It happens.

          • villemar

            “I used to be a Democrat” is the oldest line in the book. But I’ll handicap you thusly:
            96% chance you’re a Republican Concern Troll using that old “I used to be a Democrat” chestnut.
            2% chance you sustained some type of injury that left you paralyzed from the neck up. If that’s the case I feel sorry for your brain injury.
            2% chance you’re just an idiot and an asshole, and for some inexplicable reason you voted Democratic in the past. But make no bones about it, you are a Republican now. That’s fine, we’ll make more. Enjoy your new home, because we don’t want you back. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

        • Mama62

          A lot of embassys were denied additional security after funding was cut. That is your conspiracy cover up theory? A cover up keeping something from secret. I fail to see any secret here or what there is to cover up. People make decisions, some time they don’t work out. As for you being a diplomat, if that us true, you must be really stupid to be posting on here. Think no one is looking? Think again Ms Diplomat soon to be unemployed.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1173480024 Rob Michael

      Most of us are well aware of the faults of the Bush Administration.

  • DrowningKittens

    If there’s a crime, prosecute it. Otherwise, quit your belly aching.

    • raykinsella

      Can’t prosecute a crime if the criminals hide, bribe and threaten the witnesses!

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1134325734 Bettyann Matkowski Frederick

        Let’s talk about criminals. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld…..

        • dumblibisdumb

          Let’s talk about your inability to partake in a logical agruement

          • AuntInAZ

            Why don’t you explain what an ‘agruement’ is, and then maybe you’ll get an answer.

          • kfreed

            What do you know about logical arguments?

          • Rande Johnson

            Let’s talk about your spelling…

        • B Manz

          “That was a long time ago.” “What difference does it make?”

      • kfreed

        Can’t prosecute imaginary crimes, you mean.

      • http://www.facebook.com/Jkirk3279 William Carr

        Accusations of bribery and witness tampering… with NO evidence.

        You get that lying about a lie is still a lie, right?

        You understand that claiming something is true with no proof, and then claiming the evidence has been covered up, with no evidence of THAT either, is simply evidence of insanity?

        • Mama62

          They just make up stupid stuff, pay off the hard right talking heads to feed it to the public and sit back and wait. The GOP propaganda machine at work. Wonder how much this is costing Karl Rove.

          • B Manz

            They just make up stupid stuff, pay off the hard left talking heads to
            feed it to the public and sit back and wait. The Democratic propaganda machine
            at work. Wonder how much this is costing George Soros.

          • julianenglish

            Nothing. He’s dead.

          • Monomachos

            He might want to know that.

        • raykinsella

          This is from testimony of the Benghazi whistle blowers. If they’re lying, I’ll be happy to retract, but how about we allow the truth to be discovered first? And talk about making things up? Isn’t it ironic that you would support the “made up” story put forth by the Obama administration. And your familiar defense of name calling and personal debasement reveals your ignorance. Your political heroes count on this to keep your support…very sad indeed!

          • Lady Willpower

            “your familiar defense of name calling and personal debasement”

            This is coming from the same asshole who accused me of being on welfare and food stamps, based on nothing other than the fact that I’m black.

          • B Manz

            ” the fact that I’m black.”

            Now we known why you voted for Barry O.

          • Lady Willpower

            That’s a nice attitude. Have fun never winning another national election.

          • Libertarian Soldier

            Actually, that could happen. In North Carolina, they’re finding thousands of democrats that were voting in several states. Some are dead and some are alive and claiming to live in different states.

            “One man; one vote”, could make a comeback and sink the democrat ick party cult.

          • Lady Willpower

            “In North Carolina, they’re finding thousands of democrats that were voting in several states.”

            Citation, please.

          • Libertarian Soldier

            ‘Elections Director Kim Strach told state lawmakers at an oversight hearing Wednesday that her staff has identified registered North Carolina voters who appear to have cast ballots in other states during the 2012 presidential election.

            ‘Strach said the first names, last names, birthdates and last four digits of their Social Security numbers appear to match information for voters in another state. Each case will now be investigated to determine whether voter fraud occurred.

            “Could it be voter fraud? Sure, it could be voter fraud,” Strach said.’

            WRAL.com reported that 81 residents who died before election day were recorded as casting a ballot. While about 30 of those voters appear to have legally cast ballots before election day, Strach said “there are between 40 and 50 [voters] who had died at a time that that’s not possible.”

            “We have the ‘Walking Dead,’ and now we’ve got the ‘Voting Dead,’” said state Sen. Bob Rucho, R-Mecklenburg. “I guess the reason there’s no proof of voter fraud is because we weren’t looking for it.”

        • B Manz

          And endlessly defending proven liars is also evidence of insanity. Keep it up.

        • Libertarian Soldier

          Was that a question?

      • terry seale

        You live in Miami, don’t you?

    • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

      They don’t require proof of a crime to prosecute…….they make it up as they go. Hence, we are still talking about Benghazi, and they will ride this to impeachment.

      • Libertarian Soldier

        ???

    • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.terry.925 Benjamin Terry

      I pray they do…oops you probably dont believe in god…So I hope they do!!

      • http://www.facebook.com/Jkirk3279 William Carr

        If the GOP seriously tried to prove Impeachment without any evidence, the fools that put their names on the petition would be wiped out in the next election.

        Too much to hope for. They could have tried that already the fake “Birther” crap, and didn’t.

        It’s more use to them as a trick to rile up fools like you.

      • Anthony Rende

        idiots .. youll learn more as u grow up

  • Christopher Foxx

    Where was your inquest after the Karachi attacks, Mr. Graham? Where were you after the Sana’a attacks, Mr. Hannity? What about all of the embassy attacks in Iraq that I didn’t even list here, Mr. McCain?

    It’s not surprising that none of today’s journalists will ever ask these questions of those folks. It’s what the profession has become.

    And, alas, it’s no longer surprising that the Democrats won’t ever challenge the Republicans on these questions. For from making any serious effort to oppose Republicans, they seem satisfied to let things go as they have been.

  • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

    Let’s take this piece VIRAL, people! Facebook it, etc……….let’s really put it in their smug, lying faces!!

    • Robert Scalzi

      Will do !!!

    • guest

      Awesome idea! I bet a whole bunch of them change their minds because of this!

      • http://www.facebook.com/lynn.weyts Lynn Weyts

        I love sarcasm! ;)

    • missingleader

      Nicole:If you weren’t so uninformed, you would know its been viral for a while. So there back at your smug, lying face. (Jeopardy) Your a single teacher that still lives with your mom, you love to play the victim, instead of being empowered and you love to blame others for your own ineptitude. Um what is a liberal Alex? That’s correct for $1000.00

      • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

        THIS particular article, not the incorrect article on KOS, JUST went viral. You’re welcome, moron.

        That said, your comment was astonishing insofar as it was completely inaccurate. So…..do continue…..make me laugh some more.

        LOL.

      • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

        I wrote that post yesterday, concern troll. When it was at 300 FB likes.

        Why, exactly, do you care about this?

        Furthermore, your assumptions are ……….simply laughable.

  • churchilliscool

    Did Bush lie to the American people about these before an election!!? You #$%@!!-ing liberal hypocrites!!!

    • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

      Idiot.

      Benghazi!!!!

    • Lady Willpower

      That’s the most pathetic defense I’ve ever heard.

    • jewelbomb

      There was nothing for Bush to lie about because no one gave a shit until it happened under a President who happens to be a Democrat (and black).

    • Christopher Foxx

      Did Bush lie to the American people about these before an election!!?

      So lies only count during election years?

      • raykinsella

        No, but squashing the truth of your administrations potential screw-ups and lies just months before the Presidential election is pretty bad!

        • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

          There was NO “squashing” of lies.

      • churchilliscool

        OK, did Bush lie to the American people in any fashion at any time about these 13 attacks!!? Nevertheless, it certainly is worse before an election because it thwarts democracy and cheats citizens out of an informed choice. I guess that is just fine as long as the politician is liberal. The ends justify the means in your Marxist world.

    • villemar

      Convince Congress to Impeach Obama for it then. I dare you. I double dare you. I’m serious. Put your money where your mouth is, bucktooth.

    • Victor_the_Crab

      Yo retard:

      • churchilliscool

        Boy, that sure showed me!!

        • Victor_the_Crab

          Yeah, you’re none to bright to know you’re getting your ass kicked here, being the despicable sociopathic piece of shit that you are.

  • http://twitter.com/ZeddRebel Zedd Rebel

    A few you missed involving deaths of American diplomats:

    October 28, 2002 – 60 year old American diplomat Lawrence Foley is shot to death by Al Qaeda terrorists outside his home in Amman. Foley was supervisory director of the USAID program in Jordan. Foley’s assassination was part of a spate of Al Qaeda attacks in the fall of 2002 also including the Bali bombing (which killed over 200 including seven Americans) and the death of an American Marine in Kuwait.

    October 15, 2003 – Three American State Department personnel are killed when a roadside bombing strikes their armored vehicle in Gaza. A non-jihadist Palestinian terror group, the Popular Resistance Committee, takes reponsibility. No American retaliation takes place.

    January 1, 2008 – American USAID diplomat John Granville, being driven home from a New Year’s Eve party at the British Embassy, is ambushed and killed along with his Sudanese driver by jihadist militants in Khartoum, Sudan. Not until Obama came into office were rewards of up to $5 million offered for capturing those responsible.

    So thats five more American diplomats killed by terrorists on Bush’s watch…none of which were tied with thousands of hours of ensuing wall-to-wall TV coverage on Foxnews or endlessly redundant Congressional hearings.

    • raykinsella

      please go down your list and tell us how many times in each of these cases that any member of the Bush administration, from the white house, state department or united nations ambassador..blamed a youtube video for a spontaneous uprising in each of these attacks. In fact, please share with everyone how, despite the evidence that was known within hours, how the Bush white house redacted the intelligence report to support their lie about a ridiculous video and maintained that stance with even the president citing the video in an address to the united nations! You can’t and they didn’t. If Hilary, Obama and administration are so pure, why the ridiculous lie? Furthermore, isn’t it smart to investigate the failure to protect our foreign state department personnel if for no other reason than to try to prevent future deaths and tragedies? Lastly, why has it taken so long for the surviving victims to be brought forward? Why have they been hidden, even from congressional investigators? Perhaps it will be true that little could have been done to prevent(despite many requests for additional security from Amb. Stevens) this attack or the ensuing deaths. However, it would be instructive to know how we could be better prepared to react to these types of attacks in the future. This is an important function of our elected officials…to properly safeguard our civilian and military assets! Who is really politicizing this…those searching for the truth, or those trying to bury it?

      • TCar

        Cop-out on you! The same mistakes are made because bad people want to do bad things! There was a movement because of the film, just so happened happen at the same time the “terrorists” planned an attack!

        • raykinsella

          Why then didn’t Obama, Hilary and anyone else simply say that? Why then did Hilary and Obama vow to the families of the murdered victims that they would “go after the video maker” that caused this? Why did Obama cite the video once again, a full 2 weeks later in an address to the United Nations? Why where survivors kept hidden from congressional investigators?

          • TCar

            The video still was at issue and still is. However, the video maker didn’t do anything illegal outside of defamation of character against the actors of the film. It turn they did go after the filmmaker but again, no law was broke. Religious people need to remember that not everyone believes what they do and everything is free to be sarcastic about!

          • http://www.facebook.com/angel.brom Angel Cagle

            The guy who made the video is still in jail.

          • Sabyen91

            For being a dirty crook, not for making the video.

      • tired of rednecks

        FYI my oldest son was good friends with 1 of the people killed there sorry i cant remember his name right now .
        and all this BS that the right wing keeps dreaming up keeps up setting him reminding him of the last thing his friend said to him
        (damn its been really quiet here the past few days ill see ya tommrow) but when tommrow came my son found out he was killed

        but do you and all others give a shit people here in america hurt because of this tragedy ?
        no is to try to find something wrong with the pres. thats it .
        PLEASE GET A LIFE

        • Marciarita

          They are trying to lower Hillary Clinton’s favorables. They said her name 71 times in the hearings the other day while only mentioning Obama 5 times. Yes, it is a hit job.

          • McHale72

            Her’s is easier to say because it’s an American name (and she only has one to remember).

        • B Manz

          I call bull on your story. You are lying. Typical Obamabot.

          • tired of rednecks

            YOU SIR. ARE NOTHING MORE THAN A TROLL

            when are you and all others with what was my party republican im smart enough to know a BS lie when i see one.
            you prob think professional wrestling is real too.
            is either of your parents or friends dead ????
            would you like to hear lies told about them and what happened to them everyday ???
            if so you need to leave the republican party because sir you are not a christian you are everything the base of the party stands aginst!!!!!!
            sorry i only vote for the best person for any office not just for party and i dont believe everything i read or hear go back to your bubble troll

      • Jay B.

        You guys are so far into your bubble world, you really have no fucking clue just how stupid you sound. None of what you write is really true and honestly none of the “lies” you seem so concerned about actually matter to anyone but the conservatives and paranoiacs who live in your bubble of willful ignorance. The Administration, almost immediately, called it an act of terror and, in fact, reported that it appeared, as the story became clearer, that it was conducted by a terrorist organization. Stevens, who was a gay liberal supporter of the Administration, surely knew that the GOP actually controls the budget and “additional security” would have to come from non-existent money that the conservative party cuts out of every part of government. That you are literally so fucking stupid that you don’t actually understand what Republicans are actively doing to government right now through budget cuts and austerity pretty much gives away the game. The GOP is nearly as much to blame for the deaths of the Americans in Libya as the people who killed them. A decade of crusading into stupid, endless wars and bragging about Shock and Awe, its no wonder scores State Department employees were victims of Republican bloodlust — not just the four dead ones that you are weeping crocodile tears for now. To say nothing of the 4500 other Americans sent to their deaths for reasons you can’t fucking explain. To say nothing of the 3,000 Americans whose deaths on 9/11 literally give you a hard on. Those deaths and that Administration’s response is literally beyond your concern. That’s a tell. It’s why all the fake concern bullshit about Benghazi is just so transparent. You literally don’t give a shit, or can’t be assed to understand, just how toxic the Bush Administration was to the world. And you certainly don’t have the intellectual honesty to step away from the bubble and see just what it is the war policies you clearly support have wrought.

        • GlockG22shoots40s

          “You guys are so far into your bubble world, you really have no fucking clue just how stupid you sound. “…. you looking in a mirror when you wrote this???

          • villemar

            I’m sorry you’re experiencing microphalli. Please try your post again later.

          • http://www.facebook.com/dave.lanson Dave Lanson

            I had to look up that one. Quite funny and probably true.

          • http://www.facebook.com/shelley.farrell.5 Shelley Farrell

            definitely a republican reply!!! everything boils down to penis size to them. big sigh.

          • Jay B.

            And that’s not a response either. See, I don’t particularly think the Obama Administration is really worthy of defense. I think his drone policy (which was Bush’s drone policy, of course) is an abomination. I think his acceptance of most of the Bush policies are an indictment. But I’m not under any illusion that you care about any of those things. It’s literally beyond your capacity to understand. So you go after Benghazi. A tragic, but hardly world-shattering, event that happened — as shown above — more than a dozen times during the last Administration. If the Administration’s response was inept, any problems it had were rather quickly addressed. There was no cover-up, just conflicting reports which were then sorted and talked about. Only to Republicans, people with literal blood on their hands, would this be an impeachable outrage. You sat still and let the world burn under your guy, but this is beyond the pale? That’s how far up your ass you are.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Susan-Daniels/100002412034189 Susan Daniels

            You really do buy the BS, don’t you?

          • batman dad

            You really are incapable of independent thought, aren’t you?

          • Anna Cowfer

            She’s a sheeple.

          • mutosheep

            She refuses to conform to the propaganda you all believe in religiously. You’re the conformist sheeple and your personal attacks in the face of facts disgust me.

          • powderriver

            You Teatards wouldn’t know a fact if it shat on your empty heads.

          • Walt

            Tea Partiers don’t like the policies of Bush, which is all that gets attacked on this site. Even though they are the policies of Obama…

          • powderriver

            Walt — That is a repeatedly used comeback from those running with the clueless hoarde today. It is a totally disingenuous claim, of course. Just for starters, there’s the fact that the TeaParty, as such, was not even in existence back in the Bush years. And THAT, in and of itself, shines a BRIGHT light on your abject hypocrisy. If, as YOU say, Bush’s and Obama’s policies are the same, and you Teatards supposedly didn’t like Bush’s policies, just WHERE was all the political broohaha from you nascent Teatards back during the Bush years? How come you people did not stand up then and complain as loudly and as stupidly as you do now?
            You semi-morons were AWFULLY quiet back then….not even a peep….”mission accomplished” by the Bush admin…..the mission being to fool every slack-jawed yokel who took-on the FoxNews mantle of “conservative” and to gather the worshipful masses around and have them busy themselves instead with a community game of ‘switch’……that’s where you all sat around, one thumb in your mouth and one up your rear-end, and then you switched every hour or so.

          • Walt

            Well, if you look back at the national sentiment after 9/11, you will see that there weren’t many progressives fighting against his policies until his second term…so what does that say about you?

            The Tea Party didn’t exist as any organized unit until someone took the progressive policies of Bush and expanded them.

            Again, you attack me as if I am a Tea Partier. I am merely attempting to challenge the base rhetoric I see on the site so some of you may start to question your side as much as I question both sides.

          • powderriver

            Son, that was some great DEFLECTION, but do try to stay on topic. Now, the issue at hand wasn’t about me or what “progressives” were doing during the Bush admin.; the issue was what all you nascent Teatards were doing. And so you’ve essentially admitted the HYPOCRISY of keeping quiet until Obama came into office. But, actually it was worse than just being quiet; you neo-morons jumped loudly on the bush bandwagon, until the very end when the abject FAILURE of his admin. could not be denied even by the most delusional. That’s when all you neo-tards switched to calling yourselves “independent”. What a joke. There hasn’t been a regressive [R] or TeaParty politician malignant enough for you deficients not to vote for.
            So you keep on questioning “both sides”, and let me know when you get around to also questioning your Teatard buddys, and then I’ll give you a fair listen. Some of Obama’s policies you screech about have been in response to the effects of the economic, domestic and foreign policy FAILURES of the Bush admin…..so what do you blame the Bush policy failures on….the fact that he was left with a budget surplus, an overall healthy economy, an accurate heads-up of which terrorists to be on the lookout for, and no wars?
            And this made-up Benghazi stuff….what a bunch of stinking hypocritcal, partisan-first crap, left in a steaming pile by the reichwing.

          • Walt

            I’ve already responded to this drivel in another post. Your short memory and lack of understanding of any picture beyond what your progressive heroes paint for you.

            The Tea Party didn’t exist, nor was there the climate after 9/11 for major public dissent. The public got what it wanted, for the most part, or ignored what they saw. Then, as time went on, they disengaged from things they supported at the time. You have decided to forget much.

          • powderriver

            Sorry Walt, but you’ve made NO cogent response to my so-called “drivel”. Absolutely NONE. Apparently you have a similar “lack of understanding” beyond the fairytales your media masters drive, like nails, into your empty head, daily. I buried you in the truth, and your masters have not taught you how to deal with the truth; instead they tell you, when confronted with a truth you cannot DEFLECT, to call it “drivel” and not respond to it.
            You quite incredulously attempt to blame the sad hypoicrisy of the TeaParty on 9/11. Wow, that is quite a creative use of 9/11, one that I’ve never heard before. Creatively pathetic, that is. 9/11 happened in 2001, and you wish our home audience to believe that even 4 years later, even 5, then 6, and even 7!! years later, that one past event kept all the nascent Teatards from roundly criticizing Bush’s war, Bush’s debt, Bush’s economy, Bush’s gov’t growth, Bush’s attack on individual rights. But then BINGO!!…the magic number for the nascent Teatards to “recover” from 9/11 just happened to be 8 years…so, 8 years after 9/11 it was time for the community of brain-dead zombies to finally “disengage” from the things they had just so recently happily supported…..and it was, supposedly, a mere coincidence that a black [D] president happened to start in office at that time. That’s quite some coincidence….and therefore that’s quite some FAIRYTALE.
            Furthermore, your own lame statement that “they disengaged from things” they previously supported merely restates the CORE of the hypocrisy….they gladly supported Bush in some of the SAME things for which they have denounced Obama. That, you sublime idiot, is the very nature of hypocrisy. Blaming it on 9/11, or any other DEFLECTION, does not negate the basic FACT of the hypocrisy itself.

          • Walt

            Neither your wordiness, nor your use of the word nascent makes your opinion any more valid. If you cannot read between the lines, then I will spell it out for you. Are you familiar with the phrase regarding the “lesser of two evils?” Would we undermine someone who is at least doing SOME things we like in favor of someone worse? That would be like saying the progressives should have voted against President Obama because he was not progressive enough.

            I said the PUBLIC disengaged from what they previously supported. Chris Matthews, of all people, was hailing President Bush on how “presidential” he was for the aircraft carrier stunt with the “Mission Accomplished” banner. Public sentiment was different after 9/11. That is the point I made, and instead of reading into it, you could just take it for what it is.

            Your poorly worded, wandering vitriol is the reason why I have little respect for most progressives. It is as ridiculous as the things some ignorant Republicans say on their websites.

          • powderriver

            Walt, you once again did not address any of my main points in a cogent fashion. You merely complain about my use of words that you do not understand, and you continue the tried-and-true [R] defensive manuever of DEFLECTION, i.e. here, to DEFLECT the responsibility of the Teatard response to Bush onto “progressives”. If you would like to start a thread on Mathews’ hypocrisy, be my guest. But Mathews was not a Teatard like you, and he and other progressives, no matter their varying response to Bush then and Obama now, bear absolutely NO responsibility for YOUR Teatard hypocrisy. Your continued and sole use of DEFLECTION as the centerpiece of your argument, even after it has been pointed out to you, merely attests to your failed attempts to bring material agruments to bear on this issue and it highlites your own stubborn, purposeful, and no-doubt partisan-based, ignorance.

            Again, what you have accomplished with your own “drivel” is to admit that YOUR hypocrisy is, in your own mind, based on a “lesser of two evils” philosophy. That might be some sort of a reason or an “excuse” for your hypocrisy, but it in no way negates the hypocrisy as FACT. But I do sense your point: when you refuse to move beyond the intllectual level of a 3rd grader, then in that world a ‘fact’ like 1+1=17 is still possible, and a fact like 1+1=2 can be ignored with impunity when convenient.

            As an anthropological exercise, I would be VERY curious to know just what are those “SOME things” that Bush did that you liked? I would also like to know this: if you Teatards would have stood up like ‘men’ and gave voice to those things that you didn’t like, just how would that have “undermined” Bush in favor of “someone worse”? Were you nascent Teatards, like the Bush administration itself, in campaign-mode 24x7x52x8? So much for those laughably weak claims of “country first”.

            To claim that you have little repsect for progressives merely because you cannot muster the intellectual cogency to properly defend your ideological-based nonsense in their presence, or because they don’t agree with you, or your shallow excuses for the Teatards, or your hypocrital “relativism” when it comes to [R] presidents is all quite puerile.

          • Walt

            You shine your true colors when you look to place blame on a group you believe to be small and radical, yet (according to you) has an absurd amount of power.

            Keep placing blame, but you cannot ignore the fact that besides the ACA, Obama has done little to change the policies of his predecessor, nor positively impact America. As the stories stack up against the progressive mindset, get defensive and try to cling to your big government garbage. At least be loyal to a doomed cause.

            Regardless, odd math problems and big words don’t win arguments, but I refuse to conduct any correspondence (no matter how trivial) with someone who cannot frame their argument coherently. Good evening to you.

          • powderriver

            That’s right, take your ball and go home. Avoid further beatings, further embarrassment. And so with that, you show YOUR own ture colors.
            You neo-turds are preciously predictable. Yet again you do not address the main point, and instead whine about my use of math and words to illustrate your FAILED arguments. And this time your further DEFLECT by putting words in my mouth.
            – I did NOT place blame: my basic message throughout has been to merely call out YOUR obvious and inescapable Teatard hypocrisy. Again, in your own words: if as YOU say “Obama has done little to change the policies of his predecessor”, why all the gnashing of Teatard teeth now and not during the Bush administration? How many times do I have to beat you over the head with your own words?
            – I NOWHERE in my posts claimed the TeaParty to be “small and radical”, yet holding an “absurd(??!!) amount of power”. The only power they hold is over like-minded deficients, most of whom are holed-up in today’s cowardly [R] party.
            – I said NOTHING about big government.

            No, you don’t refuse to conduct further correspondence because of my lack of coherence; it is because of your own intellectual weakness, your own cowardice to face-up to the political fallacies that you and your like-minded bretheren worship like the bible, and your own inability to cogently defend a sad political approach that has been roundly dismissed at the poles twice now. And you claim I’m “loyal to a doomed cause”? Get a grip, and get a dictionary…that word H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y is calling out to you.

          • Walt

            You are proud of yourself. It is good to see my early assessment that you are hopelessly repetitive and delusional proved true. You can deride and proclaim victory all you want, but your revisionist history and your blind faith in the progressive (i.e. big government) cause skews your opinion.

            You claimed the Tea Party could have unseated GW Bush for a better candidate.

            You blamed the Tea Party for not standing up to the policies of GW Bush.

            Just because you use math and words doesn’t mean you make a coherent, or effective, argument. Your entire argument is “Where was the Tea Party under Bush.” My argument is “There was no perceived need for a Tea Party at the time because of the political climate.” You have done nothing to refute my points except babble about your point again and again, using different words or odd mathematics to “prove” your “point.”

            I’m fairly positive, given the plethora of examples here, that I have nothing to fear when it comes to my intellectual capabilities, especially when debating the likes of you.

            Why are you wandering into religion now? Not only is your statement unrelated, but untrue.

            Please, continue. Contrary to my earlier statements, I am still finding this amusing.

          • powderriver

            Oh, look. The spoiled little child who didn’t get his way, who whined and threatened to leave with his ball, is back.

            I’m repetitive? That precious. If so, it is merely because of my attempts to beat the repetitive purposeful ignorance out of you. The fact that you’ve proven such attempts to be a fools errand is the very reason that I can place you squarely in the ranks of the intellectually deficient Teatards who stubbornly bask in their own malleable form of continuously re-written history.

            OK, yes, I’m repetitive, because ONCE AGAIN I must call you out for ONCE AGAIN childishly claiming I said things which I did NOT. The only thing I “claimed” and “blamed” was the utter HYPOCRISY of the Teatard apologists who cannot match their fairytales about the SUPPOSED similarity of the Bush/Obama policies with the ACTUAL dis-similarity of behavior of the Teatards to Bush/Obama. It is as simple as that, and it is irrefutable. But it is you, not I, who plays the BLAME-game; it is YOU who BLAMES your hypocrisy on 9-11, or on the so-called political climate, or etc. as a means to excuse or wiggle out of the basic FACT of the existence of Teatard hypocrisy. And so, being confronted with your infantile repetition of shallow excuses as a means to deny the hypocrisy of you and your Teatard bretheren, I am forced to REPEAT that the FACT of your hypocrisy stands, no matter what excuses and justifications you might conjure up.

            Your weak claim that “There was no perceived need for a Tea Party at the time [of GWB] because of the political climate” is absurd. You also absurdly blamed the political climate thru the end of the GWB admin. on 9-11. The only “political climate” that insulated GWB from criticism was inside the empty heads of his rightwing acolytes, who then conveniently turned into the TeaParty when the clueless [R]s lost the election to a black [D]. Whatever insulating “political climate” GWB had was gone by the end of his 1st term, as his domestic and foreign policy woes accelerated discontent in the LARGER population. There was PLENTY of general discontent being voiced in America by 2004, reaching a crescendo by 2006, but NONE — ZILCH — from the rightwing. And now we have adult idiots, apologists for the TeaParty nonsense, going around claiming Bush’s and Obama’s policies are one in the same, but refuse to see the abject HYPOCRISY involved in their making that claim. It is typical Teatard behavior, and utter partisan nonsense, to excuse the inconsistent behavior of [R] partisans merely because they viewed their political fortunes differently when they were in the white house vs when they were not in the white house. The political fortunes of a narrow gaggle of partisans does NOT a country-wide “political climate” make. What sophomoric tripe.

            Rather than being amused by all of this, like some befarted slack-jawed yokel visiting the circus for the fist time, maybe you should take the education being offered to you, and so take the opportunity to step back from the Teatard abyss which seems to call to you like a magical siren. You are correct that you “have nothing to fear when it comes to [your] intellectual capabilities”; how could you be fearful of something that has all the heft of a small feather pillow? I certainly am not….your soft feathers are ticklish.

          • Walt

            Education? Yikes…is that what you think you are giving me? Entertaining, yes. Educating? Well, I guess to reinforcement of something I already learned, such as how snobbish and absurd progressives typically are, is technically education…I’ll count it.

            Unfortunately, unlike you, I don’t take insults from random people on the internet seriously, so I don’t have to project by spewing vitriol at those who disagree with me.

            Your points are invalid, on the face of them. You bring up race because you cannot bring anything besides “where were you when Bush wasn’t being a conservative,” and, “Teatards are stupid.” For all your vocabulary and wit, albeit adolescent and tedious wit, you really cannot see anything beyond hatred of those who would rather see our founding document preserved, rather than shredded.

            If you truly stood for the ideals I am sure you think you stand for, you might find that personal liberty and personal responsibility are conservative ideals.

            Do I need to explain the difference between Bush policies and conservative policies, or do you understand that? Don’t answer that, I’ll save time waiting for a response and just explain.

            Bush, being a neo-conservative, with big business influences, overaggressive foreign policy, over-conventional military, and big government policies, did little to further the cause of the country. True conservatism attempts to keep the federal government from wandering into areas where it does not belong, such as entitlement programs, economics, healthcare, etc. This allows people the most freedom, while expecting them to act the most responsibly to maintain law and order at a state level. This allows governance to happen at the lowest level possible, thereby giving democracy the best chance to succeed with the maximum amount of civic participation. The smaller the federal government, the more governance falls to the state, county, and local levels, thereby increasing the power of the local people.

            I am confused as to how that could end poorly, seeing as how we have such talented individuals like yourself living wherever you are. Wouldn’t you like a little more say so that your state could be bankrupted by your Keynesian economic policies?

          • powderriver

            Is it really possible that an otherwise sentient being can be in such intellectual pain from getting his political-balls hammered against the pavement twice (in 2008 and 2012) that he would freely subscribe to the sophomoric and baseless fairytale that “the smaller the federal government, the more……the power of the local people” is increased? In your deluded mental state, can you even begin to imagine why your statement is NOT true? If you really believe that, you are every bit the simplistic and naive puppet of others as any strident communist.
            Well, let’s look on the bright side. At least you stopped your futile and childishly embarrasing defense of your Teatard hypocrisy about Bush/Obama.
            And apparently, just as with facts, you wouldn’t know a viable economic policy if it shat on your empty head. Wasn’t that YOU I saw cheering the Bush economic, tax, regulatory and oversight policies back in the day, even as they pushed us into the freefall towards the SECOND [R]-caused economic depression of the last century? And you then have the arrogance to claim that others will bankrupt their states just because they have a difference of opinion with you? Are you at all familiar with the biblical parable concerning “throwing the first stone”; if you need a more secular reference, just go to the dictionary and look-up the word HYPOCRISY.

          • Walt

            Your wanderings show your inability to do anything but regurgitate progressive talking points, but I’ll bite.

            What economic policy have I espoused? The tax system is the issue, with the Fair Tax being the most economically viable option while also being the most equitable. The issue with Bush policies include TARP, but the precursors to that are as much the fault of the banks and individuals as they are policies of Bush. Why did the bubble exist? People borrowed more than they could afford. Were the banks greedy with free Fed money? Yes. Should the Fed enjoy the place it currently does alongside our government? No. Simply implying that Bush is at fault for the recession/depression is simplistic and inaccurate. Did he help? No. But is this an indictment of conservatism? Hardly. Big-business Republicans tend to do things like that. Let’s not forget that your boy (Obama) is doing the same with his buddies. (Warren Buffet train lines instead of Keystone?)

            I, as I have stated before, am not a Tea Partier. It is closest to my opinions, mainly because I don’t need anyone else telling me what is best for me and my family. Still, I vote based on the platform given to me. I’ve voted for Democrats in the past and I’m a registered independent. You can spout off at the mouth and attempt to use your slightly above average vocabulary in an attempt to assert dominance in some way, that is your right. Just know that your close-minded, hateful speech proves your inability to truly present an argument based on fact, using hyperbole and misguided insinuations.

          • powderriver

            Well, unlike your boy Bush, my boy Obama did NOT oversee the freefall towards the 2nd [R]-generated economic depression in the last century. So no, Obama is NOT doing exactly the same thing with his buddies. In fact, quite the opposite, his administration ACTUALLY stopped that freefall and is ACTUALLY digging out of the mess that you obedient Bush followers dug. Is your logic so delusional that it can spout the absurdity that the [R] policies and lack of oversight that got us into this ecomomic mess are now the SAME ones that [D]s are using to help us get out of that mess? Really??!! That is certainly NOT the view of the [R] propaganda ministry, and to hear them speak it is certainly NOT the view held by all those noisy [R] leaders in congress.
            As I like to say, Obama is dragging you neo-morons kicking and screaming into prosperity.
            You keep saying that you are not a Tea Partier, pointing out that you are a registered independent. I am also a registered independent, but have not voted for a [R] in 40 years. [...although I was tempted a couple of times back in the day, before the party took a right turn away from conservativism and towards the abyss of stupidity and anti-intellectualism that it now so happily inhabits.] So, should I now also deny my undeniable electoral bias for [D]s and say that I am not a [D] merely based on how I’m registered?
            Look, here is the REAL bottom line. If you are not a Tea Partier, then please identify specifically which of the Tea Party beliefs/policies differ materially and substantially from your own. Just where do you disagree SO much with these people that you do not wish to be labeled as being part of their cabal of idiots? Well?
            Your denial of being a Tea Partier is much like those Germans in 1945 who partook in the extermination of Jews, Slavs, etc., who fought and killed the allies tooth and nail to the end, and who then afterward denied that they were Nazis, merely because they had not gotten around to signing a list.
            And it is this level of moral and intellectual turpitude that defines today’s SO-CALLED “conservatives”. Pathetic.

          • Walt

            An interesting concept, but as with your usual drivel, you compare Bush and conservatives as one and the same. The system put in place for big banks and big businesses was started in the face of a very rough patch that was due to policies of Jimmy Carter. The response that re-created the American prosperity during the Reagan years evolved because of the success, spanning parties to the point that Clinton embraced it. Do I need to provide actual facts in the face of your hyperbole, or can you use that intellect to research it yourself? Bailing out the big banks spanned Bush-Obama, but there are enormous sponsors of the Democratic Party by big businesses and big banks. This is not to mention the unions, which were absolutely needed even up to the 1970s, but have fabricated issues since then to keep the dues rolling in and the six figure salaries of the administrators flowing. The ability of the Bush administration, as well as the Clinton administration (borrowing from Social Security to pay down the deficit), to hide their actions is exactly why the federal government should be smaller. If you have to look through 10,000 pages of a single piece of legislation to find specific issues with it (or you could just pass it to find out what is in it), it is more difficult to do that than looking though 1,00 pages. This is another argument for less federal government, even if the Bush administration is the focal point of the reasoning behind it.

            I would ask you, where is the money coming from to create this “prosperity” which you speak of? Is prosperity more people on means-tested entitlement programs than full-time workers (Census Bureau)? Is prosperity more debt and no trimming of budgets despite increasing debt? Is prosperity the lowest level of labor participation since 1980 (Bureau of Labor Statistics)? At the end of the day, big money is as much a Democrat thing (Terry McAuliffe, George Soros, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg, Wal-Mart, Google, etc.) as a Republican thing. The government impacts the economy, it does not drive the economy. Your Keynesian mind probably disagrees based on things other than facts, and it probably also wants to complicate the issue with fancy theories and incoherent equations. It doesn’t change the fact that the government should only enable the economy to grow, not become involved in it, as this is a conflict of interests with the tax payers. There should be some restrictions/regulations to avoid the bubbles that have been created in the past by both Democrats and Republicans, but these should be limited to consumer protection, not the creation of a government driven market.

            I am not part of any party because there is no group that specifically represents all of my beliefs. For instance, I believe that foreign policy is important to domestic policy, and conducting ourselves properly in the world is an important part of foreign policy. This is not shared by some of the Tea Party and certainly not by the Libertarian wings. I could give more examples, but would rather not open up other topics to get you distracted.

            Again, your language is inappropriately used, especially in the Nazi reference. Alas, I know it is pulled out when people are too lazy to come up with facts, or even educated opinions, in a discussion.

          • Sam Houston

            “If the Administration’s response was inept, any problems it had were rather quickly addressed”
            Jay, where to start with such an ill informed statement. Do you have any Earthly idea how the State Department works overseas? OPSEC and OPFOR are just a jumble of letters to you. The ineptness was no in the non responsive reaction to the event. It goes back much, much further than that. Security at a US installation abroad does just arbitrarily get strung together. Intelligence data, current events, the mission, political climate, SOFA and such are major factors in planning security needs abroad. This is all planned out in advance. Security needs do ebb and flow but there is always a base force that can handle most contingencies.
            What the State Department FAILED to do was to supply the correct level of base support. They FAILED to recognize the brevity of the situation in Libya and order in an additional Marine Security Detachment which is relatively standard in Embassies in potential harms way. They FAILED to accept the evidence of an impending attack on the Consulate from Intel, the failed attempt on the British Ambassador, the significance of 9/11, the turmoil in the region that just went thru a bloody civil war funded by the US, and the intertwined reach of Al’ Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya. The State Department FAILED at every turn. This not their first shindig. This is their job. It is what they do. There is no conspiracy theory needed as the evidence of their actions before the event is right there. The Congressional Committee is trying to bring to light as to why such gross negligence was committed and why it was furthered by the extremely long period of inaction that cost the lives of 4 American Heroes. I remember not too long ago, the Left was eviscerating a Former President for his Administration’s inaction during a certain powerful storm in the Big Easy. Apparently y’all expected helicopters to be flying in a Hurricane yanking people off of rooftops when they were told to leave beforehand. Such hypocrisy.

          • Sam Houston

            Spoken from someone that has not a clue as to what they speak.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Rich-Kolasa/1392326822 Rich Kolasa

            LOL! Yup, that’s all the cretins of the left have.

          • McHale72

            um… probably not. They hate lights when they are high.

          • michael45

            Wow, did you really think that up ??

        • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.terry.925 Benjamin Terry

          Are you for fucking real? WOW

        • SteveDK

          Well put.

        • http://www.facebook.com/Jkirk3279 William Carr

          I am ASTONISHED. If I had worked for HOURS I couldn’t have come up with a better, or more scathing, repudiation of these “Benghazi Truther” conspiracy idiots.

          When are they going to figure out that time after time, their conspiracy theories are debunked, and that they beliefs are a tissue of lies?

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Susan-Daniels/100002412034189 Susan Daniels

            All scared now aren’t you? Obama’s vacations are about to come to an end.

          • Anna Cowfer

            OMG….. can you possibly be any more blind? Vacations, really? That’s the best you can do? Lobbyists and Corporate interests giving vacations, gifts and money to every member of Congress. Every member of each of the three parts of our governments Legislative, Judicial and Executive get paid an insane salary and pay for Nothing of everyday expenses (insurance, health care, cars, planes, living expenses, entertainment) And your worried about how many vacations President O’bama has been on. You Seriously need to take off the blinders and remove the selective hearing aid device.

          • http://www.facebook.com/txbillmc Bill McDaniel

            He has taken far fewer vacations than the previous Presidents. George W outnumbered the total of President Obama’s total days until now in his first 2 YEARS!!!!
            STFU and quit watching FAKE (FOX) News!!!

          • Sam Houston

            And just where do you glean your informational facts on this? From Libtards Mathews, Madcow, and heir Olbermann I suspect. You are getting your Bush’s mixed up. Both SR. and Obama liked to hit the links. Obama far outstretched his golf outings more than anyone. He was hitting the links on the Federal course in the midst of a shutdown while WWII Vets could not see their Memorial. Bush Jr. took vacations on his own Ranch, much like Ronald Reagan did. This was at a great cost savings to the Public over that of Camp David. He also conducted Presidential affairs directly there in Crawford, Texas by hosting foreign dignitaries for laid back talks. Michelo runs around with her kids on lavish trips abroad while the hubby President is golfing it out with his celebrity buddies on the best links in the World. Then there are all those kick’n A-List parties that they throw.
            Start speaking the truth and drop the Rules for Radicals routine.

          • JoseCuervo

            Wow you are a fool

          • Patrick Matson

            You should ask your ma and padre why they came to America?They will tell you for opportunities to make money away from a dictatorship style of government. Capitalism. Democrats support communism and socialism.

          • julianenglish

            You don’t really believe what you just wrote, do you? The fact is, vacations are largely an illusion for any modern president, Democrat or Republican. Everywhere they go, their “office” goes with them. All vacations are working vacations. But if you insist on making a partisan issue of it, you’re going to argue that Reagan and Bush Jr. were just trying to save us poor tax payers a few bucks by vacationing on their ranches. Really? First of all, bullshit. Second, both Reagan and Bush were multimillionaires before ever elected to the presidency, with huge personal estates/ranches on which to vacation. Obama come from much more humble circumstances. If sure if he owned a ranch, he’d spend some of his vacation time there.

          • Lady Willpower

            Only Republicans pay any attention to that “Rules for Radicals” nonsense.

          • Libertarian Soldier

            Only the low information voters believe that.

          • julianenglish

            Bill, you are absolutely right that Obama hasn’t vacationed excessively, but that isn’t really the point with these people. What really pisses them off is seeing a black guy on his feet playing golf, instead of on his knees pulling weeds.

          • fester0420

            Susan Daniels Obama could spend the rest of his term on vacation, and it still would be less days than Bush spent on vacation.

          • Sam Houston

            Care to back that statement up with verifiable facts? Bush would also conduct State Business while at his ranch. I do recall many foreign leaders met him there. What’s Obama got? Nothing but a list of celebs as golfing partners.

          • LuFisherBody

            oh what President hasn’t entertained “state business” while on a vacation!

          • Sam Houston

            Obama. Name one thing he did while on his vacation. Taking a vacation while on an Official State visit does not count. We are going to compare apples to apples here. What State business did Obama do on his vacation to Hawaii? Did he pay his respects at the USS Arizona Memorial? Did he meet with Da Hui on the Northshore about the ever pending encroachment of tourists and investors to make a Northern Waikiki? Did he meet with Japanese-Americans about the effects on their Families from the Tsunami? Did he speak with the Military Commanders and Community Relations Councils to entertain relational improvements betwixt the two? I would have to say no because none of that was put out. He did probably check the security seal on his actual BC though. Being President is a 24/7 job. Just like in the Military (for which he is the Supreme Commander of), even on Leave or Liberty, you are still on Duty and could be recalled back at a moments notice. Therefore, when he is out on the links with his a-list buds, he does little in the way of State Business.

          • Kermit the Forg

            You’re ignoring the fact that Obama takes far less vacation than Bush (28%) or Reagan (53%), But since you insist:

            In August, Obama was being briefed on Middle East security threats while on vacation.

            During Hurricane Irene, he cut his vacation short to get back to Washington and oversee emergency preparations.

            Obama delayed his 2010 Christmas vacation to be in Washington to sign an extension of the Bush tax cuts.

            And that’s just the first few easily Google-able examples. What are you really trying to prove here?

          • jason stolow

            Awesome. I need you on my facebook page to help argue with these cretins

          • JoseCuervo

            Oh .. look at you with all the facts….. and Sam got owned. Saved me the trouble :)

          • Patrick Matson

            Obama is always on Vacation or golfing.His minions are running the show. He did not even read the Bills he has signed Bush in Africa was on a humanity mission

          • JoseCuervo

            LMAO.. you are deluded…. Obama vacations days up to today less than 100…. Bush vacations days taken 1,020 days.
            Read that slowly i wouldn’t want your lips to get tired.

            http://politic365.com/2012/05/08/obamas-vacations-of-any-president-bush-racked-up-the-most/

          • Patrick Matson

            People like you is why communism keeps coming up and slavery starts all over again. There is 365 days a year so he was on vacation three years of vacation, bull s^(t liberal media would have been on all that and he would never get a second term. Obama is a foreign national bent on destroying the imperial USA. He cuts nukes, he cuts military, he apologizes and bows to the Saudi king. He inserts himself only when a black person may be perceived to have injustice done to them, .e.g. Those cops acted stupidly and my favorite ‘if Travon Martin was my son. code for I’m black and you are too. He comments on issues he does not have info on. If the electorate were fully informed of Obama’s lies and radical past and the company he holds such as Holder and Rev. Wright, IF HE WAS ANYTHING OTHER THAN DEMOCRAT HE WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPEACHED THE FIRST YEAR.Democrats control schools and media. Indoctrination has worked on the young, and the old are dying off, the older generation understands the evils of communism. the young do not have a clue. I am 43 and had ate all dinners with family gathered around the table discussing Jimmy Carter, now after Obama, Carter is looking really good now. After Carter’s one term came Reagan for two terms, he was so popular his VP Bush SR. was brought in for four, however his base left him when he broke only one promise. Republicans have higher morals, and kicked him out. Clinton was neutered after he tried an Obama thats when congress became Republican by voters who hated Clinton’s lies and policies. People who voted for Obama again are out of the loop, hate religion and or are very selfish and want gay rights or immigration and the right to murder babies. Jose is Latino, if u are Catholic my educated guess is you do not attend mass regularly and pray. I hope I’m wrong and I will pray for you to see the truth. God bless

          • JoseCuervo

            Lmao you are insane…

            So you were discussing Carter hu? lots of personal insight you must have on Carter considering you were 7 years old when he was president..

            Hilarious!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Patrick Matson

            Jose did u watch SOTU tonite. I was busy and wanted to clean the toilet. The toilet at least does what I want when I pull the handle. It keeps its promise by removing waste. Obama would make a lousy toilet. Mentally INSANE is usually reserved for people who have serious issues relating to reality, due to the complexity of the brain and the many aspects of it, I do no justice trying to explain it to you in a blog; However, statistically why are more liberal minded people live in California and New York. Could it be the amount of smog, water quality issues, Makes one think. MJ and drugs do illicit brain responses, I just now had a revelation chemicals do cause brain damage and in its own right, probably the culprit to large segments of the population being not able to reason. And need big government to take care of them. Democrats of the 1960′s are todays republicans. The Democrats of today are brain damaged. Thanks for writing there maybe hope. Most Dems usually do not respond. Later

          • JoseCuervo

            “However, statistically why are more liberal minded people live in California and New York.could it be the amount of smog, water quality issues,”

            I will answer your veil two part question..
            Although you are right about California ( even a mentally challenged person like you would know that), according to Web MD New york does not even make the top 20 cities with the worst smog in the country. Also most list in regards of worst drinking water do not have NY in the tp 10 at all……. but what would you know about facts? You still believe Obama was born in Kenya,

            Now…. why would those towns have more liberals? Answer: Education… California , NY as well as Massachusetts have the best colleges in the country and most liberals are just smart educated people.. that is just the facts….. studies back it up.

            http://www.americanscientist.org/science/pub/study-are-liberals-smarter-than—conservatives

            http://www.politicususa.com/2012/01/26/conservatism-stupidity-racism.html

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/intelligence-study-links-prejudice_n_1237796.html

            Also Democrats of the 60′s are the same as today…… the switch in the Ideologies of the two parties actually takes place sometime between, let’s say, 1872 and 1936. Again, I repeat…. what would you know about facts.

            keep typing, you keep showing the class your lack of knowledge and class..

          • Patrick Matson

            Can you explain to me about the weather Underground and Bill Ayers who is a professor at Harvard, with a FBI File for blowing up government and police stations during the sixties and was dismissed of charges due to improper search and seizure conducted by the FBI. YOU mean indoctrinated by professors who have themselves been indoctrinated. These professors never had to put their teachings to the test and actually make money from it in the private sector. They have huge unions and protections. They make their money by extravagant student fees that are piled on to student loans.Here are some popular liberal fads I do not hear any more 1960 all schools must install asbestos in classrooms to save energy, cause mesothelioma. 1970 do not build bigger highways, just take a way a lane and make it a carpool lane,caused many deadly accidents 1980 the ozone hole, no such thing.1990 global warming , Dupont was only company who donated the most money to Clinton, Clinton outlawed all CFCS while attending Montreal Protocol and other world leaders bought the story.Freon 12 was 50 cents a can. Now it is if u can find it in USA is $75 a pound.The new refrigerant 134a just happened to be available right when we needed it, how convenient.The proprietary blend was not shared with other refrigerant makers. This freon 134a is still at $20 a pound.Sounds to me a business squeeze out. Dupont wins and dems get more campaign donations. R12 is used in Mexico and China. Many scientists need research money and many colleges recruit these professors to solicit government money from their research to benefit the colleges.The government doesn’t follow up on the funds and each renewal of more grants is done by political lobbyist. China is making all our stuff and record polluting, the world is still here. China is rich and USA is regulated out of business.Commercial advertisers spend millions a year to convince people to consume or buy something. This is also indoctrination. College students study what some one else s work, not through their own analysis. They are told that it is the truth. 1970 Psychology book has a chapter on homosexuals as a mental disorder. Today it is now inaccurate.why? political policies and gay movement.Education is revised constantly sometimes from breakthroughs and other times through political pressure.The only studies that I believe are constant and accurate is MATH, and chemistry.Every other study is revised, and changed to meet personal political persuasions ,depending on who was appointed the Secretary of education. NOW I KNOW WHY OBAMA ALSO GOT IN TWICE LIBERALS SUCK AT MATH. most of them believe it was the wars, they came to 1.2 trillion total costs for 10 years. Obama all by himself doubled the national debt.Stock market is being pumped with m2 money supply.

          • JoseCuervo

            HAHAHAHA you are really crazy…. I just keep coming back to see what is the next conspiracy belief you going to write next. I just sit here with my popcorn and laugh at ya.

          • Patrick Matson

            I am very happy you are not brain dead and take the time to read my comments.At least you have the interest to discuss politics.Hopefully I planted a seed. I was you when I was 18, I thought big government was the answer.Now I understand the constitution more than ever. It has checks and balances in case Americans put a dictator in by mistake.Big government was all about complete control. Adolf Hitler exploited this.Young people flocked to him with his false intentions.History does repeat it self. When history is forgotten or not passed down to the next generation, Adolf Hitler and other evil dictator types come back. PEACE

          • JoseCuervo

            BWAHAHAHAHAHA… seriously man….. no one is going to take anything you say seriously when you bring words like dictator or Hitler in a conversation about the President of the United States.
            And if you really understood the US Constitution like you claim you do, you would also stop bringing up a Presidents religious beliefs into a political discussion.

          • JoseCuervo

            HAHAHA yeah bush in Africa on humanity mission.. yeah ok… the safari they took was for humane reasons.. uh hu

          • Patrick Matson

            One last comment, If the president of the USA was a real leader he could find common ground and unite people of different backgrounds. We would not even be discussing this and there would be happiness among most citizens. The media gave him a free pass and key to everything, no checks , no vetting no research. He got a free ride, he should be popular, why is he not? and all these arguments every where in most chat rooms, blogs, etc. have polarized the majority of those who at least care enough to talk about it. Obama is not transparent what so ever, how hard is it with today’s computers, still waiting for the Healthcare law in PDF or any format its been 3 years. He also has an official White house photographer, no other presidents ever had that set up.what else is he hiding.

          • Patrick Matson

            Your a great person!

          • EvidenceBasedDecisions

            Dear oh deaar oh dear ….. why dont you google “vacation time by presidents” – then come back and apologise ?

            I am going to hazard that your “information” source was Fox.

          • Sam Houston

            Former President Bush, like Former President Reagan, took their vacations on their own private property. Both men would tend to their ranches like real men and not stately kings. Reagan had horses and Bush had cattle. They even entertained Heads of States at their ranches. Obama, well, he has to have some celeb up his butt at all times and while he is out hitting the links on his non-stop campaign tour of 6+ years, the First Lady Queen Michele has racked up a lot of frequent flyer miles traveling the globe on lavish trips.

          • JoseCuervo

            I love when they use their “working: vacation defense

            Bush’s “working vacations” cost taxpayers a small fortune in travel costs because President Bush and his staff would make day trips on Air Force One all across the country in order to counter the criticism that he was on vacation too often. For eight years, Bush essentially used Air Force One as his personal vacation taxi service.

            During Bush’s two terms, the cost of operating Air Force One ranged from $56,800 to $68,000 an hour. Bush used Air Force One 77 times to go to his ranch in Crawford, TX. Using the low end cost of $56,800, each trip to Crawford cost taxpayers $259,687 each time, and $20 million total for Bush’s ranch flights.

            That doesn’t count his European trips and his 2 Africa trips or Laura’s safari with the twins or their fun trip to Rio. And the list goes on.

            Bush was on vacation for 1,020 days out of eight years, that is 1/3 or 33% of his presidency on vacation.

            Bush has made 77 visits to his ranch in Crawford during his presidency, and spent all or part of 490 days there.

            Bush said he really “wanted to change the tone in Washington.” Maybe he could have changed that tone if he’d spent just a little bit more time there, in the nation’s capital.

            I’ll try this at work, I will tell my boss I want to work from home 9 months out of a year because.. well I have a computer at work so why not.. I will bring up Bush as an example to see if he will bite.

            Save your drivel. No one’s buying it.

          • Patrick Matson

            Michele all by herself racked up 875,000 on one trip back from Hawaii for her BDAY. I check facts before I post. I do not or have taken the time to add all lavish expenses so I will not comment on what I do not know. Michele all by her self is enough

          • Patrick Matson

            BTW I use my real name, not fester0420 or bigdog or Jose Cuervo. People muist be afraid of being tracked down hummm would u feel the same with out Obamas NSA and IRS

          • JoseCuervo

            Actually Jose Cuervo is my real name Dumbazz

          • JoseCuervo

            Please tell the class how much money Bush spent in his 2 African trips. Or Laura’s 5 African trips and he safari with her daughters. We are waiting

          • JoseCuervo

            Please patrick tell us how much Laura spent in her 5 trips to Africa, her safari with he girls.. she always bring the girls… Also her ten-day trip to Paris, Budapest and Prague in 2002 or her trip to Burma with the girls , or panama…. list goes on

          • dannyo66

            Bush only took 879 vacation days during his presidency. A lot of his time was spent at his ranch building fences and tending his cattle, but he also conducted business there too, so not every second at his ranch was vacation time.

          • JoseCuervo

            You say he only took 879 days as if that was a low number. Obama hasn’t even hit 100 yet. But in reality Bush took 1,020 days off this is documented. “Working vacations ” ha

          • dannyo66

            Regardless of how many vacation days a president took, the real issue is how much of the taxpayers money they spent on vacation. In 2011 alone, Obama spent 1.4 billion dollars, that’s $1,400,000,000.00 on vacations. In his first 3 years, he spent more money on vacation than President Bush did his whole 8 years. President Bush , like President Reagan, also spent his weekends at his ranch. How many of those weekend days are counted as his “vacation” time?

          • JoseCuervo

            uhm… hey genius… you can;t say the days they spend on vacation don;t matter and then said what is important is what tax payers money pay…. here is a clue.. tax payers paid for every single one of those 1,020 days bush was on vacation….

            No a problem with your statement… the 1.4 billion you are claiming is not for vacations.. See the official GOP line goes like this

            “Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing,
            housing, flying and entertaining President Obama and his family last
            year, according to the author of a new book on taxpayer-funded
            presidential perks.” that they took from a book titled.. “The 1.4 Billion Dollar Man: Costs of the Obama White House’ written by John F Groom who is also a cartoonist who racial prejudices in his Obama cartoons are rather self evident.

            So lets see, there’s one slight problem with this outrageous FAKE outrage. The total
            cost for the White House under Republican president George W. Bush in
            the year 2008 came to a grand total of $1,592,875,254, or $1.6 billion
            dollars. Using this number we find that the Obama White House spent $0.2
            billion less, or a net savings of $200 million dollars. (These figures don’t include classified expenses

            • Bush White House 2008: $1,592,875,254

            • Obama White House 2011: $1,400,000,000

            • Net Savings Under Obama: $192,875,254

            Nothing to see here..

            Adjusted for inflation Bush’s $1,592,875,254 price tag comes to $1,704,411,959 in 2012 dollars.

          • Patrick Matson

            U must be under twenty

          • JoseCuervo

            and you must be mentally challenged…

          • Patrick Matson

            go to http://www.debtclock.org. math doesn’t lie

          • JoseCuervo

            your link doesn’t work. no wonder you have bogus delusions

            http://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-bush-by-the-numbers/

          • stephen

            JoseCuervo so a liberal station is your proof? So I guess fox news is the only liar huh. I would like to have a non biased source to tell me this stuff then I might believe.

          • Sam Houston

            Same to you. Your use of Fox as a scape goat demonstrates your pretention of Liberal fantasy. Look at my post to Bill.

          • dannyo66

            Bush did take the most vacation days in modern time, but like noted above, he spent the vast majority of his vacation time at his ranch in Crawford Texas. Obama, however, in his first 3 years, had spent more of the United States taxpayer dollars on his vacations than Bush did all 8 years of his presidency.
            In 2011 alone, he spent 1.4 BILLION, that’s $1,400,000,000.00.
            That’s the issue I take. Obama can’t go anywhere without his entourage, all of whom make more money than anyone of us can dream of making, and all at the taxpayers expense.

          • JoseCuervo

            If you do your research. Bush entourage was bigger and costlier

          • Patrick Matson

            My apologies you were named after a drink

          • JoseCuervo

            don’t be , my name is a conversation started with women at bars that and my good looks just gets me laid on the regular……… I’m sure been friendly with a lot of females is a foreign concept to you.

            hello, my name is patrick matson.. oh yeah that’s interesting….. said no one ever

          • Patrick Matson

            Your hate and insecurities doesn’t surprise me, probably had bar fly parents. part of the problem created during the Clinton regime.single mother raised u I suspect. I only commented earlier on the different user names and yours happen to be real, I apologized but thats not good enough. We both learned a lesson too. Never judge any book by its cover. But your latest attacks on me personally is not what this forum is for. And now I have to assume u r in your teens with an EBT Card

          • JoseCuervo

            My hate.. tha’s funny coming from the guy who is insulting everyone here that doesn’t agree with his crazy paranoid view of the world.

            Nope no single mother here..never seen an EBT card…..

            see here is your problem you assume too much….and you live in this fantasy land devoid of facts. but hey I served my country so idiots like you can enjoy their 1st amendment right to be a f mor*n.

          • stephen

            Jose: cough up or shut up serious and not trying to be mean so show us your research. I am more than willing to listen. Some times id like to know either side knows how much vacation was taken.

          • consneverwork

            Awesome!

          • Patrick Matson

            Area 51 was a conspiracy, now government admits a month ago that it does exist.

        • gitcherdawgoffmylawn

          Thanks for ripping him a new one.

        • http://www.facebook.com/lisa.mason.37669 Lisa Mason

          You are right in your assessment of this situation. It’s all political. I hope Hillary considers running for the presidency of this great country. It is about time we have a female president.

          • raykinsella

            How about, just a “great” President and leader? Why do people have to be segmented into demographics? Wouldn’t a woman candidate prefer to considered on the same level as her peers, be they male, female, LGT, white, black, etc…?

          • http://twitter.com/JenHag408 Jen Haggerty

            Yeah, it doesn’t matter that she’s a documented liar…as long as we have a female president, you dumb ditz.

          • McHale72

            +1 Jen. They also said we needed a black president and look what THAT got us. Let’s stop filling quotas and start putting the right person in for the job.

          • consneverwork

            We have the right person; it’s called an election. U cons r just losers.

          • fester0420

            yeah it got us back on track

          • Walt

            I’d like to know how replacing a neoconservative with a community organizer who continued much of the same policies has got us “back on track.” He did fix the unemployment…oh wait…he did restore our status in the world and make friends with every nation…oh wait…he helped create a healthcare system where no one would lose their plan and uninsured would get insured…oh wait…

          • LuFisherBody

            He’s just as Black as he is White.. so is THAT what bothers you McHale.. he a little “too Black” for your taste? Well maybe you can stop crying when the republicans can find a republican that America can feel confident in voting for. Good luck with THAT.. the last one got in without even winning the popular vote.. and had they let Florida finish the recount, he would not have won.

          • Brenda Neikirk

            Can’t you argue intelligently without name calling?

          • http://twitter.com/JenHag408 Jen Haggerty

            Voting for someone based on gender is an intelligent argument?

          • villemar

            Impeach him then. Seriously, please do. Benghazi=Whitewater (minus the unrelated sexual impropriety). And like just the impeachment of Clinton in 1998, the backlash against the GOP for wasting America’s time and resources on Nonsense and Gibberish will net us more seats next year. Seriosly, please impeach him immediately.

          • Anna Cowfer

            It’s a better one than you made.

          • fester0420

            It has nothing to do with gender. She is a stand up person.

          • Sam Houston

            She got 4 people killed by her ineptness or disregard. She is responsible as it is her Department. Why is it that the Obamanation Administration Department Heads are so “detached” from their subordinate commands? Remember the Abu Ghraib torture controversy? Generals that were not even In Theater were sacked as they were responsible for their subordinate commands. Same with Hillary. Like your pal villemar yelled out, go ahead and run that lame horse and let’s see who put’s her out to pasture.

          • JoseCuervo

            you know they are not so smart when they use words like Obamanation

          • Sam Houston

            Well, they voted on race and look at what we got.

          • michael45

            Typical conservative drivel. Bewildered by facts and brainwashed by Fox news. No wonder Romney lost.

          • http://www.facebook.com/txbillmc Bill McDaniel

            Romney lost because he was a FAILED CANDIDATE from the start!!! The man had more lies than ANY candidate in history!!!

          • josepesca

            This liar beat ten candidates in the GOP primaries.

          • JozefAL

            Which merely shows how pathetic the GOP field was. The choices basically boiled down to (1) Liar (Mittens), (2) Religious Zealot (Santorum), and (3) Brain-Dead (Bachmann). (I would’ve included “Hypocrite” but that applied to the whole field.)

          • fester0420

            all GOP liars

          • Sam Houston

            Why, because they don’t drink the Obama-aide? Well, there are some, like McConnell, McCain and Christie that do.

          • Sam Houston

            Say what? I hope Obamacare did not cancel your insurance cause you need sever mental health services immediately. Obama is the KING OF LIARS! Period! What exactly did Romney lie about? Care to put the truth where your mouth is?

          • JoseCuervo

            What exactly Romney lie about? Well here is your pick of 503 Romney lies.. ENJOY!

            http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/08/29/mitt-romney-tells-533-lies-in-30-weeks-steve-benen-documents-them/

          • JoseCuervo

            @jenhaggerty:disqus was going to vote for him

          • Patrick Matson

            he lost because he was a Mormon and that’s it

          • Anna Cowfer

            They’re all documented liars … .or didn’t you read the article you “dumb ditz”

          • fester0420

            It dose not mater to you that the whole GOP are documented liars on a daily basis

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Susan-Daniels/100002412034189 Susan Daniels

            Ask Vince Foster what he thinks about that. Oops. He’s dead. He knew too much about Killary and White Water.

          • villemar

            Lol, really you’re still on that? How did that impeachment work out for you in 1998?

          • oldfox

            And, I think, the Mena cocaine operation that got Barry Seal murdered after he gave just enough testimony to get Ochoa but not Lassiter and Clinton.

          • villemar

            Seriously, kill yourself. By even writing that you have shown yourself to be so insanely idiotic that you are truly an Abomination and a Sin against God, Man and Nature. You are the pure, undistilled Antimatter of Rational Thought.

          • terry seale

            The typical emblem of the Left is that when they are unable to formulate a cogent argument, they turn like ignorant children to personal attacks and schoolyard taunting. Ad hominem ad nauseum.

            Read the testimony of Barry Seal in Miami Federal Court or interview Richard Gregorie, whose witness for the prosecution he was.

          • Lady Willpower

            You fruitcakes never give up your hogwash conspiracy theories, do you?

          • Sam Houston

            Trayvon. Conservatives (White, Black, Asian, Native, Hispanic) are out to lynch Obama because he is Black (Mulatto). The GOP shutdown the entire government. The Tea Party wants to destroy Obamacare to oppress the poor. Obama phones are not entitlements. Texans hate women and own slaves. 100% of all abortions are strictly rape related. Planned Parenthood received no Federal funding. The Wall Street and GM bailout was for the Joe Six Packs (No Golden parachutes for them). Michele Obama led a rough life. Barack Obama grew up on the mean streets of Southside Chicago. Obama’s lies are just misunderstandings. Reid and Pelosi are fine citizens battling the evil GOP empire. Free market societies are evil. Illegal immigrants are just undocumented hard workers doing the jobs that Americans refuse to do. Illegals are fine upstanding members of our communities that regularly follow the Law and pay their fair share. Illegals WANT to become US Citizens. Adding 30 million more job seekers to a struggling economy and failed job market IS a good thing. In order to fix things, you have to spend, spend, print more money and spend again. Only a triple sized Government can make your life better. The US Constitution is just an old, out-of-date paper written by a bunch of old racists that have no relevancy to modern day America. Pot is perfectly fine. No problem here. It cures cancer….and Arthritis, Glaucoma, Intestinal Worms, Denge Fever, Hydrophobia, Mental IIlness, Impotency, Baldness, Flatulence, Anxiety, Headaches, PMS, Weight Gain, Confidence, Unsightly Blemishes, Tooth Decay, Stunted Growth, Armpit Smell. You name it.
            Now who is the conspirator?

          • Lady Willpower

            Since everything you listed is moronic bullshit, all signs point to you.
            “Sam Houston”
            Was “Jefferson Davis” already taken?

          • LuFisherBody

            That’s really stupid to even suggest.. you can’t come up with something intelligent to say, then just be quiet, instead of making up something so disgusting and disrespectful. So sick of this being the republican “THING TO DO”, lies and rumors. Reminds me of the old saying..”If you can’t Dazzle them with Brilliance, Baffle them with Bull shit”. Must be the top of the Republican’s “To DO List.”

          • McHale72

            that leaves her out.

          • Sam Houston

            You really hate America, don’t you. Where were your whereabouts on 9/11?

          • Autumn Jade Young VanEtten

            Iwould say by your actions, that you hate America! You’d rather try to find conspiracy theories and spread lies in attempt to get peopleto hate our president. let’s face dacta: 1)aca is not going to be repealed. 2)obama isnot going to gget impeached. People like you like to rile people up by saying he should be impeached, but you never provide ACTUAL reasons why he should be(and your ideas aren’t realistic or else they would’ve already been argued IN COURT). 3)ALL YOUR WHINING WILL HAVE BEEN FOR NOTHING. In a few years, every hate filled status and lie filled meme will have been for nothing.

          • Sam Houston

            Woman, you are about as twisted as your name. First, words are not actions. My real actions was Serving in the US Navy with Distinction for 12 years till I received a Medical Discharge. During that time, I flew relief missions into New Orleans and Haiti. I have also been in the crosshairs of AK-47s in not so friendly Countries. Where were you? I grew up in the Boy Scouts of America and later served as an Adult Leader till my Military job took me overseas. What have you done for your fellow Human beside lambasting your Liberal rhetoric and shallow causes?
            A pox you say? Pray tell, what illicit slants of the Truth doth slivers past my jaded tongue? What conspiracy theories? Four American Citizens lie dead from ineptness and disregard by the State Department, their rescued denied directly from the White House with the evidence…. I will say that again… the evidence pointing to the command to stand down rescue forces came from the President himself. That evidence has not been very forth coming from the Administration for obvious reasons.
            I don’t ask people to hate President Obama. His actions speak for themselves. I demand that he be held accountable. Name one modern President that has had so many scandals in his Administration. Name one President that has purposefully lied 30+ times about something that he passionately knows so well. He did not misread and we did not misunderstand. The fact that the Liberal Left still comes to his defense over this is so telling that the Left has lost touch with reality. For me to say that is really just Progressive tactic of repetition till it is accepted as the truth would be worthy of a tin foil hat, right? No, it is you and your Liberal brethren that are the conspirators with your misrepresentations of the Truth that beguiles even reality.

          • Sam Houston

            OK, so why not a more qualified person…..I dunno…… wait for it……
            A woman that is much more intelligent and experienced than Hillary and her faux political career. That is also well respected. Well except that race haters in the Black community that call her a “sellout Aunt Jemima (Uncle Tom)”.
            I bet you thought I was going for Sarah Palin. You fail.

          • Patrick Matson

            Obama got in because he was first black, now you want Hillary because first women. Did you buy your car that way too, first new type of car off assembly line and no feedback or investigation into its reliability, resale , gas mileage, or safety.Wow America is going down, because the people like minded like you are selecting people because of race or gender is the same as playing Russian roulette. Maybe the bullet is not in that chamber mentality.You are definitely public schooled

          • Patrick Matson

            Or I forget Martin Luther King wanted in his dream speech, that people of all races will be judged by their merits rather than their skin color.If he had his speech today he would have also included gender.I firmly believe in background checks and full resumes. Hillary was on Walmart board.Her biography doesn’t show this, why its not politically expedient

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Susan-Daniels/100002412034189 Susan Daniels

          What are you smoking?

          • batman dad

            When presented with the truth: Insult the speaker. You idiot.

        • Caroline Barrett Miller

          The truth is like fresh air to some of us..like kryptonite to others…Wait, I can hear somebody sticking their fingers in their ears and going LALALALALA…

        • Walt

          More amazing is how your “scathing” post ONLY attacks neoconservative policies of a few. Additionally, the people who control where the extra security would go are all in the administration. If anyone in the administration wanted a company of Marines at any embassy or consulate in the world, they could have had them. It has happened since the attacks in Benghazi.

          Your assumption is that there are two types of people here. Those who support the current president, or those who are behind everything the last president did. Your close-mindedness shows.

          Your hyperbolic language (“To say nothing of the 3,000 Americans whose deaths on 9/11 literally give you a hard on,” really?) only serves to undermine any legitimate points you made here.

          Not even to touch on the fact that the United States had JUST been attacked and learning to deal with terrorism on a global scale under Bush, thanks to the shortsighted foreign policy of Clinton, Bush I, and Carter.

          • Jay B.

            Close minded my ass. When you can’t actually make a point, you bitch about language. You want to dodge your support of our wars under Bush, you start talking in terms of blaming CLINTON. It’s a tic. It’s fundamentally dishonest. The War on Terror has been a disaster. This isn’t Carter’s fault. This isn’t even Bush 1′s fault — he was at least smart enough to declare limited victory in Iraq and walk away. This does, however, have a lot to do with Reagan’s foreign policy, specifically arming and supporting the Taliban, and W’s of course. Clinton was at least smart enough to know the enemy (bin Laden) and not overextend the military to kill innocent people in Iraq.

            But, since I was actually alive during the Bush years, I’m quite fucking aware of how an overwhelming number of “conservatives” reacted to the worst attack on America’s soil and the subsequent wars. Except for the folks at American Conservative magazine, it was loud and total support. To shift blame now to “neo-cons” while the vast majority of Tea Partiers sat mute or bitched about liberal appeasers is completely and utterly dishonest.

          • Walt

            I’m pretty sure I made several points without using your sort of profanity. I’m really glad you refute my points with, “nut-uh,” and nothing else.

            How did Clinton know the enemy? After there were terrorist attacks? What was his response? Attacked camps with Tomahawk cruise missiles and did not damage, but actually increased the “wasta” of the terrorists there…he did a GREAT job. Ignorance is not bliss in the world of foreign policy.

            Reagan did not arm the Taliban, the Pakistanis did. While I will agree with your assessment of the foreign policy regarding Afghanistan in general, to say that Reagan armed them is incorrect. Some of the actions, and inactions, allowed the Taliban to form, but that wasn’t until after Bush I was voted out.

            The Tea Party-types were silent partially due to a lack of a organized structure they enjoy now. VERY little Bush II did was in line with their views, but the national sentiment at the time (post 9/11) was very different. Ignore the fact that many progressives were silent as well…go ahead, you are good at selective memory.

            Of course, you could be so close-minded as to claim only Democrats did really good things, but you are pretty fair, right?

        • Sam Houston

          Ah, did the little baby Libtard learn a new word; bubble? Your head is so far up Obama’s arse that Michele kisses you good night. Go back to smoking your reefer and let the big boys handle this, OK lil Jay Jay?

        • julianenglish

          If true that Stevens was gay (I don’t personally know or care one way or the other), it must be one heck of a dilemma for tea partiers: how do you convincingly act indignant over the death of someone that you think should, and will, rot in hell for all eternity?

      • kfreed

        Prove that the anti-Muslim youtube video produced by “Christian” Islamophobes for the purpose of inciting violence didn’t provide the attackers with the fuel they needed to enrage participants in the attack.

        See how that works?

        • GlockG22shoots40s

          Prove that the video had anything to do with it at all… talk about a cop out… radical muslims hate the American way of life, a youtube video has nothing to do with that.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Jkirk3279 William Carr

            Hey, dickless…. that video had been out for months, but the demonstrations started the DAY after the Arabic translation was released.

            Want to try again?

            Given the timing, it’s almost as if someone REALLY wanted to cause riots on 9/11/12, before the Election.

          • Victor_the_Crab

            You are correct, sir! That’s why, recently, when Toronto Muslims first heard about one of their own attempting to blow up a bridge connecting the United States and Canada, they automatically did what any blood thirsty radical Muslim who hates America for their liberties and freedom would do in Allah’s name… they immediately reported it to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who in turn had the perpetrators arrested and charged before they could enact their terrorist plan. Thereby drawing attention to Canada’s Conservative government, which acted swiftly in thanking the Muslim community for their efforts in thwarting the attempted attack.

            Your opinion – like the contents of your head – is full of shit, fuckface.

          • churchilliscool

            Except that one can be arrested and charged in Canada for exercising free speech and calling them “blood thirsty radical Muslims”!! Ain’t liberalism great!!!

          • Victor_the_Crab

            And when was the last time you visited Canada and witnessed someone get arrested for calling Muslims blood thirsty radicals? Or did your homeschooled wingnut reading comprehension skills once more fail you. Poor your side for getting your ass kicked with logic yet again.

          • B Manz

            Proven fact: Home schooled children do better on standardized tests. You’re nothing but a government stooge.

          • Victor_the_Crab

            Please provide proof of your assertions, and remember, links to right wing sites will be deemed wrong and prove that you just pull them out of your asshole.

          • kfreed

            Good for Canada. You can’t go around inciting violence against entire groups of people. Also why Fox “News” isn’t allowed to operate there. Go figure.

          • AuntInAZ

            I’m not saying the video had anything to do with it. But what proof can you offer that it did not? It wouldn’t be the first time things perceived as anti-Muslim or anti-Mohammed caused problems and even riots.

          • B Manz

            Intel reports have shown the video had nothing to do with it. That’s why the cover up.

          • dweav

            There is NO American way of life you fool! Radical muslims are just like the Evangelical so called Christians here! Read the Un Patriot Act and the Homeland In Security Act ant then tell us about the American way of life you ASS! Thank the Teapublican traitors for it all.

          • B Manz

            Hey fool. Democrats controlled the Senate at the passage of the Patriot Act and Democrats in both chambers fell over themselves to vote for it. And how could the Tea Party have anything to do with it? You Leftists have told us for years that the Tea Party was the reaction to a black man in the White House. So how are the responsible for something that happened before they existed? Stupid liberal.

        • churchilliscool

          The whistleblowers said the video had nothing at all to do with the attack. My God, you all are incredible ideologues. Obama could be sliding a knife into your gut and twisting and you would still defend him. You are truly pathetic.

        • raykinsella

          Prove that Obama’s taking credit(spiking the football – as it’s been said) for killing OBL didn’t incite the attack! And by the way, how many spontaneous demonstrations against YouTube videos include coordinated attacks with rocket launchers and automatic weapons? If the video did anything…it provided cover for the attackers, but in no way was it simply a demonstration that went violent. Testimony of those that were there have indicated as much. And, they’ve exposed that the CIA, state department & administration officials knew it all along. It’s no longer even up for discussion…they covered it up by trying to lay blame on that stupid video. The question left to discover is why and who made those decisions.

          • powderriver

            Morons must actually grow on trees in red-state America. An increase in genetic defects would show a range of ‘moronism’, but the kind moronism exhibited by the disabled rightwing ‘intellectuals’ that comment on this site is a fully established, consistently extreme kind of ‘moronism’. Somehow natural selection in the red states has now given us a new species of regressed human species. Genetists and anthropologists will have a field day.

      • http://twitter.com/ZeddRebel Zedd Rebel

        The Bush administration fed us line after line that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 (you know, that thing on their watch that killed 3000 Americans, not 4) and Al Qaeda when they knew their intelligence agencies were calling it bullshit. To say nothing of the mountains of BS fed to us about WMDs (aluminum tubes, uranium, “reconstituted nuclear weapons,” mobile Anthrax labs and drones that were going to gas the East Coast…) all leading to a disastrously managed war that killed over 4000 Americans.

        None of these politicians and pundits who’ve made a tragic, but smallscale, terrorist attack in Benghazi their personal crusade ever had much to say about how the government responded to either 9/11 or the Iraq War (or Anthrax or Tora Bora or Katrina)….except maybe to call the people who were asking questions traitors, appeasers, and terrorist sympathizers who hate the troops.

        Spare me the melodrama. Our consulate was attacked, there were casualties, resources were put into place to rescue everyone there, and while there were also casualties to the rescue team (always a risk, even Entebbe had casualties), the dozens of American personnel at the Consulate and Annex were successfully brought home. There was an independent review by Pickering and Mullen, who each have more integrity in their pinky fingers than all of Foxnews, and good recommendations were made. And regardless of whatever their motive, the terrorists responsible must (AND will) be hunted down.

        If you want to get pissed off about something, get pissed off that men like Chaffetz and Issa voted to GUT the diplomatic security budget by hundreds of millions of dollars, and they themselves think that fact has zero correlation with what happened. Hows that for integrity and leadership?

        • Marciarita

          Some of us knew there was no connection, in fact, we knew that Osama Bin Laden was a Wahhabi Muslim, which is like the radical Christians here in America – believe in the Qu’ran word for word. And we knew that Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein HATED each other.

          We also knew the folks like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bolton, and the rest of the NeoCons had a wet dream about invading Iraq and protecting the oil interests there for years… Even wrote a paper about it (but you would have to be aware of the Project for a New American Century folks first).

          • raykinsella

            Why then, did Obama continue to pursue, then execute and celebrate a political victory when Seal Team Six invaded Bin Laden’s home, if he wasn’t guilty of orchestrating terror against Americans(no matter what conservative or progressive new century group they belonged to).

            No one(in the Bush administration) ever proclaimed these 2 individuals were friends or even working together. Rather they were two separate targets for the ongoing threats and crimes.

            Everyone of course now knows that no WMD’s were found in Iraq, but that wasn’t the conclusion formed by many intelligence agencies around the world and shared by none other than Hilary & Bill Clinton among several prominent democrat leaders prior to supporting the war. I’m not saying that Bush cant be somewhat responsible the war, and a poorly managed one at that, as well as for receiving bad intelligence…perhaps that is precisely what has happened in this Benghazi situation. Wouldn’t it be nice to try to diagnose and fix the intelligence communication and gathering, so we can choose to act, or not, on accurate information!

          • http://twitter.com/ZeddRebel Zedd Rebel

            I said Saddam Hussein had no connection to 9/11, not Osama Bin Laden. Bush’s incompetence resulted in Bin Laden’s escape from Tora Bora and by March of 2002 said his death or capture was not a priority…just around the time they started revving up the political engine for the Iraq War.

            And yes, repeatedly and ad nauseam, the Bush administration insisted that Saddam was working with Al Qaeda. Dick Cheney went on the Sunday shows to say Mohammed Atta was working with Iraqi intelligence. They said Al Qaeda was being trained in poison gases by Saddam Hussein. They insisted Zarqawi’s presence in Iraq in 2002 (he was in a Kurdish area where Saddam had no control and was hated more than the Devil) was proof of an Al Qaeda-Saddam relationship. All of it was bullshit, and the intelligence agencies were telling the administration it was bullshit at the time. They repeated the lies to us anyway so they could sell their war to us. Many people supported the war simply because they believed what Bush was saying on the Iraq-Al Qaeda ties.

          • B Manz

            Don’t forget that your precious Democrats voted in favor of all of Bush’s wars. Your hypocrisy is glaring.

          • http://twitter.com/ZeddRebel Zedd Rebel

            I backed Obama, who never voted for the war and said in 2002 he was against it specifically because it would bog us down in the Middle East, ignite Sunni-Shia violence, and distract us from hunting down Osama Bin Laden. Check, Check, Check.

            Meanwhile, all Republicans (Bush, Cheney, McCain, Romney, Hannity, Rove, etc. etc.) bashed Obama in 2008 as wanting to ‘invade Pakistan and bomb our allies’ because he said if he had the chance to kill Bin Laden inside Pakistan he’d take it. So a real hypocrite would be the ones who cheered OBL’s death when it happened in exactly the way Republicans said they were against.

          • raykinsella

            There’s no excuse for covering up the friendly fire killing of Tillman…but that was not a White House coverup. It was with the military and state department officials. Surely the highly liberal media would have pounced on such a Bush white house cover up of the details of an American hero’s death? And not too far behind would be the house democrats launching an investigation. I honestly don’t recall a congressional investigation, but I did see several news shows(60 minutes, others, even foxnews) that reported on the story.

            As for Obama, he spoke broadly of “acts of terror”, but did not specifically label this as a terrorist attack. Semantics count in politics, and his choice of phrasing has very different meanings. Even 2 weeks later, in front of the United Nation General assembly, he spoke of the disgusting video causing violent attacks.

            It’s really no longer up for debate. What’s remaining is to discover who, what and why. Because Obama slept through the attack, he’s likely to be safe from accusations of denying the rescue teams or giving the “stand down” order. Hilary, state department and White House officials however don’t have that excuse.

            Why? There are many possible reasons. Because he state department wasn’t prepared, didn’t provide the necessary security…both in Benghazi and in the region. But on a larger scale…I believe it’s because of the broader implications it had on the overall Middle East and Islamic terrorist policy of the Obama administration. Both Egypt and next Libya were falling into the hands of the most violent Islamic radicals that supported terror on America and “infidels” everywhere. Obama assuaged his base by dumping Iraq, but the vacuum of leadership has allowed the most violent factions take over. The list goes on…oh, and not to mention, it was less than 2 months before the presidential election. Illuminating policy failures at that time could have led to certain defeat.

          • michael45

            And security $$ for our embassies were CUT by Republicans in congress, so what`s your point ? Repubs are beating a dead horse. I have never seen such hypocrisy as I do with you repubs, it sickens me.

          • http://www.facebook.com/angel.brom Angel Cagle

            Those cuts didn’t start until this year. The budget cuts had absolutely nothing to do with what happened in Benghazi.

          • batman dad

            No, sweetie, just because you idolize ‘your team’ and put them on a faultless pedestal, doesn’t mean the rest of us do too.

          • powderriver

            Oh please, raykinsella, your empty apologies for the dismal behavior and performance of the Bush administration has a hollow echo to it. Perhaps this is because it is coming from a foot up your rectal cave.
            And don’t forget, Zedd, that sheeple like raykinsella sat and gleefully drank the rightwing koolaid as Cheney publicly lied to them that his adminstration knew exactly where the Iraqi WMDs were — a recognizable baldfaced lie even at the time, because the UN inspectors still roamed Iraq and could have been directed to any location of the US’s choosing. Liar liar, brian on fire.

      • callmesomething

        Given mr kinsella’s line of reasoning, the issue isn’t about the deaths, it’s about the cover up. Okay, I’ll accept that. Then please refrain from bringing up the “Obama lied, 5 died” mantra we keep hearing. If it’s about the cover up, then the deaths are just collateral damage. You can’t claim the cover up issue and then point to the deaths, at least without showing concern over the deaths that occurred in the 13 instances described in the article. The GOP response to this event just confirms to me that conservatives care little about human life, but care a great deal about the politics of achieving/remaining in power.

        • AuntInAZ

          Thank you. Very well said!

        • raykinsella

          Thanks, but that’s not quite what I’m saying. The loss of life is always tragic. However, there’s nothing we can do to revive the dead and maybe little to assuage the grieving. The fact of the matter is, this is about competence. Somewhere amid the security requests that went unheeded(or unfunded, to satisfy the GOP haters), inability to mobilize rescue forces, the vacuum of leadership after khadafi was removed and the blaming of a poorly made and incomplete YouTube video, there has been a serious deficiencies in a person or persons that should be discovered and corrected or improved. I am no fan of the ruling class and would agree that much of our country’s issues with government is due to the power hungry and greedy politicians on all sides, along with their elitist friends. This is just one of the reasons I would support a smaller, less powerful and less intrusive federal government. But that’s a discussion for another day. Today, we’re discussing the galling capacity of Hilary and Obama citing the YouTube video maker as the villain overtop the caskets of lost loved one to their families, while they knew full well the video had nothing to do with it. Okay, that was just a tweak to the haters, but its true!

          You claim the Dems were not so repugnant as to bring any sort of charges in the many terror attacks cited above. Perhaps that’s because no one claimed they were anything other than just that. It also might be because a majority of the lifelong bureaucrats in the state department are card caring Democrats…much like Ambassador Stevens, god rest his soul.

          • powderriver

            raykinsella has FAILED miserably to repond to the topic of this article, which is why all the contrived [R] hullabaloo about 1 attack during Obama’s time in office while there was NONE about the 12 attacks during Bush’s time in office. raykinsella shows the typical sophomoric-level obfuscation, deflection and hypocrisy that America has come to expect from the intellectually challenged supporters of the rightwing underbelly.

      • hfg5678

        Did they find those weapons yet?

        • B Manz

          Yes, as a matter of fact they did. But you wouldn’t know that with the Leftist media hiding that fact from you.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003195410827 Ray Haze

        blamed ? lmaooo MEDIA BLACKOUT !!!

      • PeteRFNY

        This is the media trying to protect their own. They certainly cannot allow anything like lives lost and unscrupulous cover-ups taint the anointed one. This is why the left keeps comparing spontaneous attacks (that are not even remotely comparable) to what happened in Benghazi. Deflection and obfuscation, the exact thing they would go batcrap over if a Republican administration tried something even 1/100th as disgusting as this.

      • Brenda Knapp

        Ray – the liberals are in denial – they are so desperate to try to cover Obama failures. They dont even know the difference between a terrorist attack which successfully breached a US compound vs attacks which were UNSUCCESSFUL and security stopped them
        Nearly all those deaths reported above were NON-AMERICANS – notice they omitted that fact.
        Liberals just cant learn.

      • EvidenceBasedDecisions

        Did you actually read the article – or just stare at the words ?

      • julianenglish

        For the sake of argument, let’s say you are correct and the anti-Obama narrative is correct. As I understand it, the claim is that the Obama knew almost immediately that the primary impetus if the attack was NOT the video. The reason they continued to push the video theory for a week of so was because they thought this explanation was less likely to have any negative impact on the Obama presidential campaign. Did I get that right? This piece of the story, at least? In short, after the fact, the administration tried to spin the story to its favor. If this is true, it sheds an unfavorable light on the white house.

        But, let me interject this small taste of reality: no sitting president with reelection aspirations , in the history of our country, has been oblivious to the electoral implications of his administration’s actions. Particularly among modern presidents, history shows that nearly all can be found to have let this concern factor into their actions and public pronouncements.

        It’s pointless to discuss the motivations of people who are taking part in this discussion (especially since I’m almost a year late to the party), yet, I can’t help but wonder this: if you believe that this administration lied about the significance of the video, after the fact, for electoral purposes and it upsets you this much, I hesitate to ask how you feel about the GW Bush administration lying about the supposed presence of WMDs, BEFORE THE FACT, as a pretext to drag the US into a war in which thousands of Americans, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqui (mostly civilians) would die. That must really upset you. Right?

    • Millie Funk

      So that makes it okay to continue to do this?

      • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

        No one “continued to do this”. There is NO scandal. There are only LIES propagated by you and your fellow wingnuts.

        • http://www.facebook.com/Jkirk3279 William Carr

          Nicole, you should explain this better… let me help.

          @Millie Funk: just because a bunch of idiots start yammering about their Conspiracy Theories, doesn’t make any of it true.

          Senator McCarthy gained fame and power by claiming that “card carrying Communists” were infiltrating America.

          And he proceeded to pick victims that couldn’t fight back, hauling them up before his “Un-American Activities” panel, destroying their lives, ruining their reputations.

          He was a success, and might have made President, but he over-stepped.

          He had an issue with the Army; one of his staffers was drafted, and he tried to get the guy a waiver.

          The Army said “No”.

          So McCarthy went on a rant, accusing the Army of being “riddled with Communists”.

          The Army hired a lawyer that demolished McCarthy, and broke him. People woke up, and stopped believing the lies.

          McCarthy’s power was shattered, and he died a few years later, a bitter man.

          That’s what we need today; for people to wake up and stop believing these stupid lies.

          An accusation does not make the target guilty. Otherwise I could accuse YOU of being a child-molester, and have you arrested.

          • Mama62

            People beleive what they want to believe. They are very uncomfortabnle with the truth when it does not support their preconveived notions. IT takes a very strong person to admit when they are wrong. It is demeaning to the spirti and most people will try to avoid having to cvhange theri opinion even when confronted wioth the truth. In case you haven’t noticed, it’s usually Democrats who will go after their own for some infraction but when was the last time you saw the Republicans castigate one of their own? David Vitter who paid prostitutes for sex and even made the appointments from his seat in the seante over his cell phone has never been called to answewr by his own. Hell, they gave him a standing ovation when he came back to the Senate and helped him raise money for re-election.. He boke a criminal law. He didn’t just have a stupid lapse in judgement. People say it wasn’t Bill Clinton’s affair (sort of) that got him into trouble it was his lying to congress. Well lets haul David Vitters ass up in front of congress (probably too late) and ask him to explain what he was doing. Then can we arrest him for lying to congress or impeach him?
            This is all political gamesmanship and anyone who actually watches the hearings on C Span (not some clipped up videos on a “news” show) can easily see for themselves what is going on here. I am so sick and tired of these hypocrits it really makes me ill. 13 Emabssy attacks (at least) and nothing from the right. Nothing…….dead silence. ZZZZZZZZZZ.

          • B Manz

            Senator McCarthy was proven to have been right. Communists were infiltrating the government. That’s what happens when you get your history from Howard “Revisionist” Zinn.

          • http://www.facebook.com/angel.brom Angel Cagle

            Yet, here we have a communists controlling our government.

    • Scallion

      I keep reading these in John H. Benjamin’s voice, and it’s a little unnerving.

      • http://twitter.com/ZeddRebel Zedd Rebel

        Alligators eat people ALL THE TIME! Last year, Sarasota County, Florida, Chet Willard, age 16, swimming in the Oak River Canal, killed by an eleven-footer. Two years ago, Chatham County, Georgia, Ruth Baker, age 39, killed in her backyard by a ten-footer….

    • bruce.6

      These were in the news. Where are the cover ups?

    • Brenda Knapp

      Oct 2002 – Foley shot OUTSIDE his home in Ammam?? Was he refused assistance by BUSH? Did it happen within a US compound? NO!

      Oct 2003 – Roadside bombing strikes? Again not in US compound and not due to BUSH denial of assistance.
      Oct 2008 – Again NOT in US compound. Nobody ever arrested or captured or held responsible.

      There is difference with Benghazi where 4 americans died due to refusal of US aid and within the US compound due to lack of security and those killed on public open air streets.

      We know its hard for liberals to accept the fact that Obama is a failure but HE IS A FAILURE.

  • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

    It’s not just Fox. CNN is still fucking on it with the very serious Conservative Jake Tapper presiding over the examination of the Benghazi Scandal.

    I was forced to watch this crap with seething anger yesterday, at my Dad’s house. I barely restrained myself from screaming very bad words at Jake’s very concerned visage on the damn television.

    • raykinsella

      If Hilary, Obama and administration are so pure, why the ridiculous lie? Furthermore, isn’t it smart to investigate the failure to protect our foreign state department personnel if for no other reason than to try to prevent future deaths and tragedies? Lastly, why has it taken so long for the surviving victims to be brought forward? Why have they been hidden, even from congressional investigators? Perhaps it will be true that little could have been done to prevent(despite many requests for additional security from Amb. Stevens) this attack or the ensuing deaths. However, it would be instructive to know how we could be better prepared to react to these types of attacks in the future. This is an important function of our elected officials…to properly safeguard our civilian and military assets! Who is really politicizing this…those searching for the truth, or those trying to bury it?

      • TheGingerbreadman

        Copying and pasting your own comments? Weak. What is this ridiculous lie you keep referring to?

        • raykinsella

          I know, but sometimes you have to repeat things several times before it even has a chance to get through ideological bias!

          • missingleader

            nicole-how does someone take you seriously?

      • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

        Oh please…………”searching for the truth”.

        Is that what you’re doing? I think not. A right winger values truth like he values gun control.

        You already know the truth. This isn;t about the fucking truth.

        The truth is that you hate Obama because A-he is BLACK, and B-he is a Democrat. You managed to foist the biggest asshole in the world on us in the form of GWB the moronic lying skunk. Never again. Get used to the idea. We’re done lying down.

        The TRUTH is that the R Party has turned into something extremely slimy and unworthy of governing. And, if we can help it, you won’t be in power for a very long fucking time, if ever.

        • red_fez

          Delusional Liberal puke.

          • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

            Another articulate wingnut.

          • red_fez

            Go back and re-read your tirade, puke.

          • Jay B.

            Conservatives and their policies have killed more Americans than any fucking terrorism group in history. Both terrorist fundies and American exceptionalists believe the same stupid, purely ignorant things — that God has intervened on their behalf and rendered them more noble than the deaths of the people they’ve killed. Worse, Americans conservatives control enough of our government that millions more people around the world will die because of the ignorant fantasies these stupid, cruel and blind people support. Go fuck yourself.

          • red_fez

            Oooooo… another tirade. Glad to got you to hemorrhage. He-he-he

          • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

            This. THIS.

            thank you, Jay.

          • B Manz

            Actually, LEFT WING GOVERNMENT has killed more. But you Leftists worship left wing government so that is a historical fact you want nothing to do with.

          • Victor_the_Crab

            Learn reading comprehension first, shitbag.

          • red_fez

            Haw-haw… Looks like I came into a Liberal puke convention.

          • kfreed

            Looks like you were trolling for a virtual arse kicking and got exactly what you came for:)

          • B Manz

            Another sign that one suffers from the mental disease known as Liberalism are delusional thoughts. Only a liberal could have his ass handed to him and call it victory.

          • Victor_the_Crab

            Spoken like some-thing whose biological parents were also blood siblings, shitbag.

          • red_fez

            Sounds like you have a “shitbag” obsession, butt boy.

          • Victor_the_Crab

            If it looks like a shitbag and smells like a shitbag, then it is a shitbag. So don’t go crying like a spoiled brat just because I call it like I see it, shitbag.

          • red_fez

            Hey, don’t take it out on me ’cause your boyfriend left you for a tighter azz.

          • Victor_the_Crab

            Lemme guess, you’re eight years old and mentally retarded.

          • red_fez

            Let me guess, you’re bowlegged and slosh when you walk.

          • Victor_the_Crab

            Why are you obsessed with my sex life? Are you lonley and looking for companionship that you hope will lead to a gay sexual relationship? Well, I hate to tell you this, but I’m straight. And even if I was gay, I wouldn’t be interested in a stupid little ugly troll that’s deep in the closet that you’re in. Try the all men online dating services to get what you’re looking for.

          • red_fez

            Let me guess. The last time you bent over to tie your shoe, you were mistaken by a semi for the Lincoln Tunnel.

          • Victor_the_Crab

            How many times do I have to tell you, I’m not interested at all in having gay sex with you because, unlike you, I’m not gay. Are you retarded? Oh wait, never mind, that’s a rhetorical question.

          • red_fez

            Where ya been? Let me guess, you had a date with the door knob.

          • Victor_the_Crab

            I was busy with my life. Yardwork outside. You should try it sometime, it might get your mind off of trolling on sites like this in a desperate and pathetic attempt to hook up with a male to sate you desire for gay sex.

          • red_fez

            Let me guess, your former boyfriend affectionately referred to you as mumbles.

          • Victor_the_Crab

            Do you like to hang around here hoping to suck someone’s cock off, or getting a big one up your ass? Are you waiting for me to respond to your replies so that you can jerk off to my words? Is your life that pathetic that you’re incapable of anything else other than gay sex? If so, and the answer seems to be yes, then I pity you for the loser existance you lead. I keep exposing you as the desperate closeted homosexual you are yet you can’t take the hint that I’m not interested at all in your advances because I’m not gay. Get help so that you can deal with who you are and maybe you can actually lead a normal life. Buh-bye pervert.

          • red_fez

            Let me guess, you can whistle Yankee Doodle Dandy by just dropping your drawers and bending over with your back to the wind.

          • B Manz

            Even more projection. Seriously, seek help.

          • Victor_the_Crab

            If anybody needs help it’s you shitbag, because you keep stalking me. Are you also a closeted homosexual, and are hoping to go out with me? I already told rez_fed that I’m not gay and would never be interested in him. The two of you should get together seeing as you both have so much in common as you both suck, literaly and figuratively.

          • B Manz

            There you go, projecting again.

          • Victor_the_Crab

            There YOU go acting desperate, shitbag.

          • B Manz

            Projection is also a sign of suffering from Liberalism.

          • Victor_the_Crab

            Wrong shitbag. You rightwing whackadoodles have perfected the art of projection because you have nothing to prove yourself correct.

          • B Manz

            Another “tolerant and enlightened” liberal.

          • Victor_the_Crab

            Another ignorant right wing shitbag.

          • B Manz

            I, too, have read Rules for Radicals. I am on to your game.

          • Mike Johnston

            Only in the sense that democracts are slimy and at least somewhat unworthy of governing. But yeah, Republicans are slimy and unworthy of governing for sure. What we need is a well programmed computer to make the “tough decisions” that doesn’t have any rich friends.

          • red_fez

            Oh, you mean like George Soros?

          • kfreed

            Who? Please demonstrate on your chalkboard.

          • jewelbomb

            Who’s George Soros?

        • RingtheAlarm

          It’s the Democrats! No it’s the Republicans! No it’s both! Quit thinking this is the WWE. Both at the top are rotten to the core. I’m for sending Obama, Clinton, Big Bush and W all to Gitmo for enhanced interrogation.

          • jewelbomb

            Deep thoughts, bro.

          • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

            No matter which Party claims you, you’re an idiot.

          • RingtheAlarm

            I believe in principles not parties and politicians. Thanks for your thought provoking response. You sure did tell me!

          • http://www.facebook.com/Jkirk3279 William Carr

            False Equivalency. You’ve fallen for the GOP’s backup strategy; discourage people that AREN’T in their camp from voting by convincing them that both Parties are the same.

            They know that ardent Conservatives will ignore that bullshit; and hope to dissuade the powerful block of Independents from voting.

            As Paul Weyrich put it “I don’t want everybody to vote. Our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down”.

          • RingtheAlarm

            “They know that ardent Conservatives will ignore that bullshit; and hope to dissuade the powerful block of Independents from voting.”
            That’s what republicans said democrats did with McCain and Romney. Grow up and think independently. Vote for what’s right not the lesser of “two” evils. Endless wars, military/industrial/prison complex thrives under both of them. Corruption, the police state, poverty and economic rape of this country continues as long as we think the other team is bad and our team is good. We need to stop playing games and put in work for the future.

          • villemar

            Useful Idiot.

          • RingtheAlarm

            villimar, next time you should add to the discussion instead of just giving us your profile.

          • villemar

            Well let me elaborate then. I do not distinguish between drooling crackpot extreme right-wing teabaggers and firebaggers/Glenn Greenwald Libertarians/Alex Jones cultists or whatever who preach the “no difference” Big Lie. You are all basically paranoid anarcho-nihilist vandals who want to burn the country to the ground because you have emotional problems.

            You have about as much chance as overthrowing the US Governemnt as some hoople redneck bucktoothed inbred drooling illiterate hillbilly Neoconfederate in Shitkicker, Alabama who is hoarding hundreds of guns for the great uprising against gubmint cause they’re gonna take away our guns and freedom and put us in sociamalistical FEMA camps, blah blah blah.

            And let’s say you vandals actually succeed in overthrowing the US Government, well, nature abhors a vacuum so what organizing principle will fill in that role once you’ve overthrown the shackles of tyrannical governmet? A neo-feudal Corporatocracy with no checks and balances, or Somalia. No thanks.

            I’ve heard the same old “no difference” chestnut ever since Ralph Nader raised his Walleyed head back in 2000 proclaiming that there was exactly no difference between Bush and Gore. That original Purveyor of the Big Lie was enough to push Florida into the margin of theft in that election, and cost NH for Gore, which would have made FL irrelevant. I’m sure the hundreds of thousands of dead and injured and displaced Iraquis appreciate the Naderites’ moral perfection, not to mention the thousands of US soldiers killed and the thousands killed in NYC in 2001.

            So yeah, that’s why you would be a Useful Idiot, if you’re still recycling this stale “both sides are equally bad” rebop 13 years later.

          • Mama62

            You are absolutely correct. False equivalency. We Democrats may have our own failings but it is not the same as the crazies who are running the GOP today. How I long for some rational Republicans to step up so we can get back to business. The people’s business.

          • RingtheAlarm

            He speaks!!! Thanks for your awe inspiring words. Now time for a history lesson. Let’s start with the Ralph Nader thread. Pay attention now because this is probably breaking news for you. There once was a man named Ross Perot and he ran as an independent before Ralph in 1992 and 1996. All the shitkikin hillbillies got mad because of him the commies from New Yawk and San Fransiissies won the election by electin’ Slick Willy. Slick Willy lovingly continued the sanctions (nice word for siege warfare) on Iraq were an estimated 100K to 500K children starved to death.Then in 2000 Al Gore didn’t have the election stolen from him. he gave it away. He obviously didn’t see the need to fight for the people who voted for him. Then the republicrats didn’t see why it would be necessary for there to be some sort of election reform and the same crap happened again in 2004 in Ohio and New Mexico with Kerry. Again no election reform.

            The vote in congress on the Iraq war could have been voted down by the democrats but 29 (D) Senators voted to bomb the shit out of Iraq The Democrats had fifty seats, 1 independent, 49 for Republicans. Patriot Act:99 senators to 1. 357 to 66 in the house. Reauthorized by Obama in 2010. NDAA: 86 to 13 Senate and 283 to 136 house. Signed by Obama.

            So besides your vulcan like, logical and unemotional argument where you call everybody names who disagrees with your opinion or who is geographically inferior to you. do you have anything else to add to the discussion?

            As for overthrowing the gummit. I don’t beleive that you can fight missles with a AK-47, Tanks don’t get destroyed by hunting rifles or shotguns. If you understood warfare you would no that combat is just one aspect of war. On top of that I love government. I don’t want to fly on a plane where everyboby just does whatever they want up there. I like fire departments, etc. I just hate corruption and kleptocracy’s.
            . I foolishly think that the government needs accountability. How many of the bush war criminals have been brought to trial for all those deaths? None because they are just as guilty (see numbers above). So my way to overthrow the top layers of corruption is to inform people that the only power they have is the power we give them. When we stop accepting their Bullsh*t they stop feeding it to us.

            Here’s to sayings that I live by:

            Be the change you want in the world.

            and
            Let a Ho be a Ho.

          • guest

            Best post on this board. Except for W and Clinton. I wanna party with those guys.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1090582196 Cindy Porcase Wolf

          First……. I want to state that I was a democrat for a very long time. Anyway… I was told that when liberals hit a dead end on what to say in any political argument, the final argument is… “You hate Obama because he is black”. This is ‘the truth that I know’. I will refrain from name-calling but Nicole, your writing does show your ignorance.

          • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

            The hell you were a Democrat. What you are is an ignorant right winger without the courage or character to tell the truth.
            Actually, you probably are incapable of discerning the truth since you lack even a semblance of an intellect.

          • villemar

            I used to be a ceiling fan. Nice to meet you.

          • http://www.facebook.com/angel.brom Angel Cagle

            She would be one of the very many low info voters that elected the current disaster…..again.

        • B Manz

          The truth is you can’t grasp the fact that Obama’s policies are bad for America so you resort to the moronic notion that it is because his skin is black.

          In case you haven’t noticed, you Leftists are the only ones concerned with Barry’s skin color.

      • kfreed

        If you all are so worried about embassy attacks why not ask the GOP why they cut security funding in spite of being warned?
        If the issue were how to be better prepared for such incidents, we’d be more than happy to hear it. However, the issue is yet another tea party clown show designed to bolster yet another call for impeachment over fabricated bullshite.

        • SteveDK

          A good question which will be met with silence from the Republicans. Remember “more government is the problem” to them!

      • Mama62

        If they were searching for the truth it would be different. The truth is not what they are after and if you watched the actual hearings you would know that.
        Witnesses aren’t even allowed to answer the question put to them if the answers they are trying to give aren’t what the questioners want to hear. This is an absolute joke. No one is asking genuine questions. They make accusations based on rumor and then wait for the witness to agree. If they don’t agree, they cut them off before they can complete an answer. If this wasn’t being televised, I doubt that these people would be engaging in this highly partisian conduct. If they want to make sure the chances of this happening again are slim, they would properly fund these places and listen to the experts. Second guessing everything those in charge have had to do is not constructive. If they were so interested in avoiding this kind of attack, why didn’t they investigate the 13 incidents that took place from 2000-2008? Why, no political ground to be gained from it, that’s why. Care about those who died? Where was it for those 8 years? To me, it was perfectly logical to think that video may have casued an already tense situation to escalate. That may be what they thought in the first few hours. Once they believed differently they said so. In the beginning, the President did call it an act of terror. But these days that term is thrown around pretty loosely. IT’s all an attempt to discredit Hillary Clinton and find a way to hogtie Presidet Obama for the rest of his term, just as they did with Bill Clinton. They can’t win an election fair and square so they will invent something to divert us from the destruction of our democracy and the middle class that is at hand. They have to control and divert the masses. GOP propaganda machine in high gear. Wonder how many orgasims Karl Rove has had over this? This may be even better than his election rigging schemes that didn’t work.

    • Mike Johnston

      “CNN. We legitimize FOX news, thanks for the bags of cash Rupert.”

    • Mama62

      CNN has recently proven it is becoming a tool for the right anyway so who cares. I guess in an effort to boost their ratings, they needed to join the tin foil hat brigade. I now watch them with less and less interest as they have begun crossing over to the dark side. You use to be able to trust them for some modicum of truth. Seems truth doesn’t pay the bills.

  • areffjones

    February 17, 2008. Belgrade, Serbia. Approximately 2,000 Serbs protested and stoned, then entered the Slovenian embassy, causing major damage, burnt down portions of the United States and Croatian embassies in Belgrade. CNN reported that “charred remains” of an individual had been found inside the burnt-out offices.

    • raykinsella

      There was nothing Bush could do…it was all initiated by a heinous youtube video!

      • kfreed

        How do you know there wa nothing Bush could do? Seems he couldn’t do much of anything except fuck up, and yet not one of you made a peep.

  • joseph2004

    The Bush foul ups deserved scrutiny. But the Obama/Clinton foul up does not deserve scrutiny because the Bush foul ups didn’t get the scrutiny they deserved.
    Now there’s logic for ya.
    Maybe Obama hoped he’d get away with it, too. Hillary certainly hopes so; she’s, to borrow your phrase, crapping in her cage right now. Bill is running interference, downplaying the whole Benghazi thing. Talk about political motivations!
    Benghazi showed us a lot about President Obama and Hillary Clinton. Obama scrambled to sweep it under the rug before the election. Hillary did the same. And they’re still at it.
    For anyone willing to see it, this event offers quite the view into how Obama and Clinton both view America, its laws, and its politics.

    Your only motivation is political; it has nothing to do with ethics, morality, doing the right thing.
    So you go on and continue making excuses for them. It’s what we’ve all come to expect.

    • Robert Scalzi

      no you right wing fuck that is not what Mr Cesca is saying here, what he is saying is the entire conservative sphere here in the US is a hypocritical bunch of ass lickers who wouldn’t know Truth or Justice if it dick slapped them in the face. Fuck off buddy and Die too

      • churchilliscool

        Such eloquence. Attacking the person: the last refuge of a leftist scoundrel.

        • Lady Willpower

          “There is real evil in the World you fool…”
          “You liberals are shameless and pathetic!!”
          “You #$%@!!-ing liberal hypocrites!!!”
          “Your minds conveniently ignore the truth for the sake of your perverse agenda. ”

          Such eloquence.

          • churchilliscool

            Mr. Scalzi is much less mallifluous than I, Ms. Marxist.

          • jewelbomb

            You throw around the term Marxist like it’s a bad thing.

          • ManfredMehboobeh

            Good to see you own a thesaurus. I figured you likely had a “bible and Ayn Rand drivel only” type of bookshelf.

          • Lady Willpower

            Huh? Marxist? Is that your catch-all term for anyone who’s smarter than you?

            “mallifluous”
            Heh. Stop trying to use vocabulary words. You’re not qualified.

          • churchilliscool

            You and he are hardly smarter than I am.

          • Lady Willpower

            It’s cute that you think that.

          • http://twitter.com/pjcostello Paul Costello

            The least you could do is spell it right.

            “mellifluous”

          • Lady Willpower

            I’m not the one you need to be talking to. I know he misspelled it.

        • Robert Scalzi

          It’s really too bad that I cannot do it in person, and that goes for your right wing retarded ass too, You morons can’t handle the truth or facts so you pull your info straight from your un-wiped asses. If not for you regressive fucktards we could actually make this country a better place to live for every one not just the few whom you want to make it better for while the rest of us suffer your stupidity, Do Us a huge favor – commit suicide.

          • guest

            Robert, you really do yourself a disservice in the way you represent yourself and your party affiliations. You just come off as a babbling fool. Regardless of the post to which you are replying, churchilliscool has a real point about your eloquence. Unless you are just hosting a pep rally for closed-minded people whose beliefs align with yours, your comments are meaningless and nobody will ever take you seriously. All anyone will perceive you as is angry, vulgar, and violent. Your self-righteousness only pushes people away from your ideas. Even if they are good ideas, most professional, respectable adults wouldn’t want to be categorized with the likes of a classless low-life as you appear to be, and you’re no better than the “right wing fuck” who you tell to “commit suicide”. You should seriously consider some counseling. People like you are a cancer to our society and constructive dialogue, and until you can present yourself as an educated, respectful individual, your words are empty, and you will be nothing more than an internet troll.

          • jewelbomb

            “You…come off as a babbling fool…People like you are a cancer to our society” s/he says, while calling for respectful political discourse.

          • guest

            Well I will at least take solace in the fact that you didn’t actually disagree, but also realize that I also didn’t try to delve into any sort of political discussion. It seems this site may indeed just be a giant “Republicans suck!” cheer squad meeting. Quite honestly, I don’t know why I bothered expecting anything more. I’m sure the regular readers are just as closed-minded as the Tea Party. Just look at the title of this article for Pete’s sake! It absolutely panders to the “If-Fox-News-Says-It-Then-It-Must-Be-A-Lie” crowd. But I guess that is par for an internet message board.

          • jewelbomb

            Well why don’t you just shut up and go away then; I’m sure your insightful commentary will be missed.

          • guest

            That’s not very nice, you pumpkin-headed goof.

          • jewelbomb

            Um…?

          • kfreed

            Well, if there’s at least one thing we can all agree on it’s the general suckitude of Republicans.

          • kfreed

            It’s just the way right-wingers play it. Whenever someone refuses to take crap off them, they start with the victim card (or the “I thought liberals were supoosed to be tolerant, therefore you must tolerate me” card).

            It’s long past time they had their asses handed to them.

          • legtingle

            Looks like the truth is dripping out, finally.
            Oh, and re: BUSH DID IT, TOO….which one of those events were not reported? Which one did Bush immediately have Bolton go on 5 Sunday shows and tell a deliberately false story to take the heat off him?
            Can’t wait for that answer, and btw, most big Democrats saw the same evidence Bush saw and voted to go into Iraq. Why’s that you think?

          • Victor_the_Crab

            So we should be polite to this right wing troll who comes on here to parrot Fox News’ Benghazi talking points like the sheeple it is? Fuck off asshole! We don’t have to be nice to these vile Republican projectionists, or to you for that matter.

          • guest

            Sheeple, nice buzz word. How long have you been “parroting” that one? I couldn’t really care any less if you’re nice to me to be perfectly honest. But if you’re being perfectly honest as well, you know you’re never going to affect the “right wing nutjobs”. But by acting like a complete a-hole, you’re going to drive away not only the moderates and somewhat right leaners, but you will also have even the staunchest lefties dissociating from you to the point where you are no different from the tea party folks you love to loathe. Have the intelligence to know there is a lunatic fringe to both the right and the left side (as well as the Muslim, Christian, and atheist sides), and the wisdom to know when you are bordering on any one of those fringes.

          • Victor_the_Crab

            I don’t care if you think I’m an asshole, douchebag. Because you’re opinion is shit to me. You disgusting pigfuckers have had it your way for the past decade with all of your destructive policies on America, then when a Democratic president comes in to try and clean up the mess caused by the right, Republicans do everything they can to sabotage him, consequences be damned. We are fucking sick and fucking tired of your antics that have done nothing but cause harm to the country. So don’t you fucking come here and explain to us about the so called divisiveness the left has caused, because you bubble dwelling whackadoodles on the right are the one at the root of all problems in America.

          • guest

            Thanks for reinforcing my point!

          • Victor_the_Crab

            The only point you have loser is the one atop your thick skull.

          • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

            Well said, Victor. Goes double for me.

          • http://twitter.com/pjcostello Paul Costello

            WAAAHHHH!!!!!!
            Liberals are such crybabies. And have such pottymouths. Shame, shame. What else can anyone expect, I suppose?

          • Victor_the_Crab

            What can anyone expect? Well, perhaps maybe if you grew a brain and understand you’re being used by the right wing machine that sees you as a stupid retarded fuck who’s easy to manipulate and quick to dispose, you wouldn’t be typing that stupid shit of yours, dumbass.

          • legtingle

            I get my news from a variety of places. And I see that Mr. O is going down. (Not talking about he and Reggie, either.)

          • Victor_the_Crab

            Your grade three education won’t help you to understand any of it, except for Fox News which speaks at your low hanging fruit level of illiteracy.

          • Sabyen91

            A “variety” of places from Breitbart all the way to Newsbusters (oh, throw in some Hollywood Reporter.)

          • watchpocket

            You did not mention the hundred plus other religions you bigoted lemming.

          • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

            Hey, it takes courage to come on here as “guest”, cowardly wingnut.

            Speaking of classless and un-constructive.

          • guest

            My apologies for not having an account for every news website in existence. While I do think that Churchill (specifically, Winston) is, in fact, cool, I am not the commenter to whom you reference.

          • AuntInAZ

            While I don’t disagree completely with your points about discourse, representation and so on, I do agree about with Nicole about the ‘guest’ tag. This site uses Disqus, and many sites do the same. This means you only need one account to use across any site that also uses Disqus.

          • kfreed

            The sock puppetry has developed int an art form on the right, so we’ll be needing to see some evidence to that effect:)

        • kfreed

          From now on, I intend to make it the first refuge.

    • jewelbomb

      Wow, you really missed the point of the column didn’t you? It’s not that Bush’s so-called foul-ups didn’t get the scrutiny they deserved. Rather, sane people understand that these types of incidents are the price that we pay for our interventionist adventures. The left didn’t collectively shit our pants over these attacks because they are utterly unsurprising (as was Benghazi !!1111!); they are the cost of inserting ourselves where we aren’t wanted. The point of the column was to point out the right’s astounding hypocrisy on the matter. (Tell me, joseph2004, where was your outrage at the earlier attacks mentioned in the piece? You were no doubt throwing a similar hissy fit when the consulate in Calcutta was attacked.) And you have the audacity to claim that the columnist’s only motivation was political. Cognitive dissonance, how does it work?

      • churchilliscool

        That’s right, blame America first. There is real evil in the World you fool and despite some warts, this Country remains the preeminent example of human rights and freedom. If you can’t see that, feel free to move to one of these countries where America “isn’t wanted”.

        • jewelbomb

          I didn’t blame America for anything, you pumpkin-headed goof; I said that it was unsurprising that people who hate us attack us when we are in their county against their wishes. Is this really a controversial point?

          Otherwise, even if I did trash the US (I didn’t), that right is protected in the Constitution. I have the freedom to stay here and criticize my government to my heart’s content. It’s what patriots do; look it up, doofus.

        • Christopher Foxx

          this Country remains the preeminent example of human rights and freedom

          It’s a great country with many fine qualities. But the “preeminent example of human rights and freedom”???

          From Human Rights Watch’s 2013 report:

          The US incarcerates more people than any other country. Practices CONTRARY to human rights principles, such as the death penalty, juvenile life-without-parole sentences, and solitary confinement are COMMON and often marked by racial disparities. Increasing numbers of non-citizens are held in immigration detention facilities although many are not dangerous or at risk of absconding. Federal prosecutions for illegal entry and reentry have escalated.

          The federal government under President Barack Obama has continued some abusive counterterrorism policies, including detentions without charge at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, and proceedings before fundamentally
          flawed military commissions.

          http://www.hrw. org/sites/default/files/wr2013_web.pdf, p. 640

          • raykinsella

            Don’t forget to include more than 50 million aborted fetuses in the last 60 years!

          • Jay B.

            Too bad they missed one.

          • AuntInAZ

            And that has what to do with this article?

          • kfreed

            Ah yes, the pro-gun, fuck-everybody- and-their-little-kids-too, “let them eat cake” people screeching about the rights of non-existent beings. Pardon me if I call bullshit on your feigned “concern” for life.

          • legtingle

            Were the viable babies that great abortionist in Cleaveland murdered “non-existent beings”?

          • kfreed

            The term “viable” answers your question. Of course, nobody expects right-wingers to be able to tell the difference.

          • legtingle

            Look up the word. Must make for long days with your mind set.

          • Lady Willpower

            Just tell yourself those fetuses would have grown up to be liberals, if it helps you sleep at night.

          • watchpocket

            You reich wingers are always talking about following the LAW. Well unfortunately abortion is the law of the land. There are no lefties out shooting doctors that do not want to follow the law and offer abortions.

        • plantnerd

          Tell that to the innocent people tortured or the ones locked up in Gitmo for the last decade. Or the dead Iraqis or the dead Afghanis or the dead Pakistanis or the dead Native Americans or the Africans brought here for slavery. This attitude people have about how great we are will do nothing but continue to allow us to intervene and kill others cause we’re right or freedom or whatever.

          • churchilliscool

            You’re breaking my heart. Tears are running down my face as I write. I could care less about Islamic fundementalists whose pinnacle moment in life is to blow themselves up to slaughter innocent infidel women and children so that they can meet Allah and receive 17 virgins in heaven. The moral comparison is so stark, only a sociopath or a liberal couldn’t tell the difference.

            Here’s a little news for you. There have been innumerable attrocities perpetrated by humans in EVERY part of the world on every day since time began. Yet you would rather be incessantly critical of the Country that gives you the right to criticize it!! Good and evil are the nature of humanity, it is the Ying and the Yang. This Country has been unjust and been incongruous with the purpose of its founding at times, but never forget it is BY FAR the closest thing to a paradise on Earth there will ever be!!

            As to slavery, African tribes enslaved eachother long before Europeans did and the Arabs began the slave trade out of Africa centuries before the Europeans became involved. Where is your outrage against them!!!

          • pippip

            You’re toeing the line, attempting to justify slavery by claiming that others did it first. While slavery is unacceptable in any circumstances, only in western culture was slavery racially motivated.

          • AuntInAZ

            I would never attempt to justify slavery, because it is unjustifiable. However if “only in western culture was slavery racially motivated” is what you really believe, please take some time to delve more into history, because you are wrong.

          • kfreed

            Well, there ya go. You care little for Islamic fundamentalists and we care exactly as little for the “Christian” fundamentalists you douchebags continuw to elect and slobber over. Most of the world’s population wishes you’d all find an island where you could go to town on each other. That there is my idea of utopia – fewer dumb fucks in the world.

            I wouldn’t call this “paradise” on earth. See: Europe. We can’t even compete – thanks to Republican’s idiotic ideology. We’re getting left in the dust.

          • legtingle

            How’s Obama on Gitmo>

        • Jay B.

          America is fine. American idiots are the clear problem. When the solution to anything is “invading countries that didn’t attack us”, “torturing our way to safety” and “tax cuts”, it’s conservatism that’s lead us to this awful place. Human rights and freedom? That you might even really believe that, in spite of the last 12 years of endless war, infinite detention and kicking the poors tells me just how fucking blind you are.

          • churchilliscool

            You are living in a fantasy world my friend. Reasonable people can disagree about Iraq, but Afghanistan and the War on Terror are and were manifestly and inconvertibly justified. How can you possibly compare Islamists murderers who have no compunction and who have no interest in peacefully coexisting with the infidel to America’s motivations in these conflicts!!? Your thinking is the product of a twisted mind, period.
            Tax cuts!!? As if allowing hard-working taxpayers to keep the money THEY EARNED rather than giving it to the government to piss it away on pork projects and counter-productive liberal social programs is a bad thing!!!? I’ve got news for you, aside from children and the mentally ill, those in poverty are there because they either lack intelligence or most often simply lack the ambition and work-ethic necessary to succeed. The longer you make them out to be victims, the longer NOTHING WILL CHANGE!! Put that in your pipe and smoke it!!

          • Jay B.

            The “War on Terror” is a fraud. Killing Pashtuns for the actions of Al Queda is monstrous. The tissue thin rationale for Afghanistan flew out the window the minute Bush and Rummy let bin Laden go at Tora Bora. It was a terrible war done on the cheap and largely abandoned in order to fight the bigger, infinitely less justifiable war in Iraq. But it certainly was a meaningless and counterproductive war on its own terms. The War on Terror is a manifest joke. What is it, anyway? A giveaway to “security” companies? A license to spy on people foreign and domestic? A reason for our government to shred the Constitution in order to calm your terrified ass? You have no idea what the War on Terror is or means. It’s the Patriot Act and it’s endless surveillance. It’s torture and infinite detention. It’s a lasting shame on our country. No wonder you cheer it so much.

            As for tax cuts, they are a means to funnel wealth up. Maybe you don’t notice, but the economy is still a shambles because of them. They were designed to punish most working Americans — people who rely on social programs, to say nothing of Embassy security that you just now care about — while further enriching the overwhelmingly wealthy.

            It’s hilarious that programs designed to help people are targets for your scorn (so you can keep $10 a week more of your precious “hard work” of dicking around on the Internet) while government programs designed to kill and spy gain your complete approval. And you think OTHER people are victims. You live in denial and fear and you obviously hate most Americans. Tell me again about freedom you flag waving asshole.

          • jewelbomb

            Reasonable people don’t disagree about Iraq; it’s pretty much universally accepted to have been a major league fuck up.

            Also: paying taxes is patriotic you whiny, entitled little crybaby.

          • kfreed

            Welp, that was a well-rehearsed Koch commercial if ever there was one. Do any of you even hear yourselves?

            I’m totally out of patience with this crap.

            Newsflash: if you wish to commit suicide, economic or otherwise, please help yourself. You may not, on the other hand, take the rest of us with you.

        • kfreed

          Hate to break it to ya, but no, this country is no longer the “preeminent example of human rights and freedom” it may once have attempted to be thanks to batshit crazy Republicans.

          P.S. We don’t blame the whole of American, only the half who voted for Dubya.

          And since you’re not into “blaming America first” you should stop making shit up about this president.

          If you don’t like it, please move to Somalia.

        • watchpocket

          This does not leave many countries to consider camel bait. You need to get off fox snews and see just how many friends this country has.

      • raykinsella

        The left did shit its pants and lied about the Benghazi attack…perhaps because the lead from behind strategy didn’t cause the terrorists to love us.

        • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

          sigh…….another complete IDIOT.

        • Victor_the_Crab

          Here’s an idea: take your head out of your fucking ass so that you can see clear for once and not just what you recently ate, douchenozzle.

        • kfreed

          Youre right, the leading with your behind strategy is unworkable, yet you keep doing it.

      • dumblibisdumb

        They were unsurprising because no Americans were killed and the situation was handled professionally. Do some research before spewing your ignorant garbage for other small minded libs to feed on.

        “Indian police said the four men, draped in shawls, sped up to the American Centre building on two motorcycles at about O615 local time (0045GMT), refusing to stop at checkpoints and shooting at police guards who returned fire. Sixteen other guards were injured in the attack, three critically, before the attackers fled. The area has now been sealed off Four of the dead officers were killed on the spot. They were all from the Calcutta police or a private security agency, Group Four. We have tightened the entire security arrangements at the US embassy and all US establishments. The US consul-general in Calcutta, Christopher Sandrolini, said consular staff had escaped unscathed.”

        • jewelbomb

          I forgot, only American lives (and not the lives of our allies) are worth anything. Spoken like a true monster.

          • dumblibisdumb

            It’s almost funny how much of a moron you are. At what point did I say their lives weren’t worth anything? Are you putting words in my mouth to skew an opposing viewpoint from a conservative?(Cognitive dissonance, how does it work?)

            You say there is hypocrisy in outrage toward Benghazi and not Calcutta with complete neglect to their inconsistencies. Why would an american citizen be outraged at the death of 4 citizens of a foreign county? Also, the outrage towards Benghazi is not from the deaths of Americans and never was. It was caused by the lack of transparency and deceit of the people who control and represent our country. And if you are not outraged by that then you should be ashamed of yourself.

          • jewelbomb

            “Why would an american citizen be outraged at the death of 4 citizens of a foreign county?” Hmm…because they are human beings, and the loss of human life is tragic? Because they are our military allies? If you’re trying to prove that you’re not a monster, you’re doing a really poor job of it.

            Otherwise, it was a developing situation that was happening half a world away. Accurate details of what happened emerged one week later. BIG. FUCKING. DEAL.

      • dumblibisdumb

        You sir miss the point. You say the left didn’t collectively shit their pants over these attacks? And the right did? No way in hell the reaction was a fraction of that of the left’s. But wait who was it that was giving all of those attacks during the Bush administration extensive media coverage? That’s right all the left wing media. And who was it that didn’t cover the attack on Benghazi which was more aggressive than most if not all of the attacks listed above? Yup you got it the slimy left. BUT WAIT of the 13 events listed above and the Benghazi attack, how many were immersed in controversy?

        • AuntInAZ

          Thank you for helping Bob to make his point. Aside from your lame ‘left wing media’ nonsense, to ask ‘how many were immersed in controversy’ only proves his point. They should have been immersed in all sorts of controversy, but they weren’t.

          • dumblibisdumb

            No they should not have. Give one why.

          • AuntInAZ

            Give a logical reason why they should not have been immersed in controversy. You can not, because there isn’t one.

        • kfreed

          “BUT WAIT of the 13 events listed above and the Benghazi attack, how many were immersed in controversy?”

          None. Because we we are neither evil nor stupid nor overly prone to making shit up out of thin air. Republican sins are bad enough without embellishment.

          P.S. There is no such thing as left-wing media. Consertive douchebags dominate what there is of the mainstream media.
          If there ever were such a thing as left-wing media it would be because right-wingers can no longer be trusted to tell the truth if their lives depended on it.

        • villemar

          Impeach or STFU.

    • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

      “Your only motivation is political; it has nothing to do with ethics, morality, doing the right thing.”

      On the contrary, Joseph, YOUR motivation, and that of the other right wing idiots pushing the Benghazi crap, is entirely fucking political. ENTIRELY.

      You ALL ought to be ashamed of yourselves when you call yourselves by the much misused term “patriot”.

      Patriots, hell, fucking scum of the planet is more accurate.

      • churchilliscool

        You liberals are shameless and pathetic!! Your minds conveniently ignore the truth for the sake of your perverse agenda. Cover-ups are the things of Watergate, which all honest Americans were livid about and rightfully cost Nixon his presidency. Apparently, anything goes if Obama is the one doing it. I suggest you relinquish your citizenship if you are unable to transcend your leftist ideology for the sake of the Country.

        • Lady Willpower

          What was covered up?

          • raykinsella

            Its not surprising that you know nothing of it. The liberal media has done its standard “look the other way” when its their heroes that are accused. As a fully indoctrinated liberal, you can’t be expected to know anything else. Just another poor victim in America…

          • Lady Willpower

            Mmm-hmm. And I’m sure you’re soooo well-informed, right?

          • kfreed

            They do not know. Vaguely “something” though they cannot answer what specific something. They hadn’t thought their conspiracy theory through to the eventuality of someone asking.

        • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

          There was NOTHING covered up re Benghazi. If you believe that, you’re delusional or you read too many wingnut rags.

          You know damn well why Republicans in Congress are staying on this, and it is you and your fellow lying fools who are shameless.

          Now, FUCK OFF.

          • churchilliscool

            Wow, schrill, dishonest, and irrational. How about lying to the American people about the nature of the ISLAMIC TERRORIST attack in Benghazi (see offensive videotape) for the sake of his reelection!!! How about failing to defend our diplomats whose lives we now know could have been saved and then lying about that!!! How about threatening those whistleblowers who DARE tell the truth to the American people!! How do you define cover-up, you Marxist fanatic!!? Please move to Libya and see how long you last.

          • Jay B.

            How do you figure that an Islamic Terrorist attack would hurt Obama? It was the best thing that ever happened in your life and made George Bush a two-term President. Remember? 9/11? The whole reason we were in two wars killing all those awful Islamist terrorists? Ring a bell? What kind of logic says that “American coming together” after the NYC tragedy is one thing (only 3,000 Americans died after all, due to massive incompetence on behalf of the Bush Administration) but that if terrorists killed 4 Americans in Libya it would represent some awful result for the President? Hmmm. I think it’s because Republicans would try and divide Americans over it. Because that’s how you guys roll. If it happens under Republicans it’s by definition good. Got it.

          • churchilliscool

            Huh!? Your whole post above was a non-sequitur. Benghazi disaster that could have been avoided and then cover-up versus Bush kicking ass in Afghanistan and Iraq, I don’t understand your point. Tell me, how do exposed cover-ups help a President any way!? Did wonders for Nixon!

          • Jay B.

            I’ll try and explain it, slowly, so you understand. Islamic terrorist attacks are in NO WAY a political negative. Idiots like you were so thrilled and scared by 9/11 that you cheered Bush and helped lead drumbeats for two catastrophic wars. Bush was a giant success entirely because of his massive failure for 9/11. Why would a much, much, smaller, much less preventable terrorist attack in Libya (and not New York) worry Obama politically? What would possibly be the motive to cover up? If anything he’d start waving around bloody shirts, bellow endlessly about being ever-vigilant about keeping American safe and re-doubling American efforts to root out terrorists at every turn and be MORE popular, because so many people like you respond to bloodlust and revenge. But instead, he was calm and measured. As facts became confirmed, he made them available. He didn’t start threatening Algeria. I can see why Republicans are after the Administration. The response was exactly the opposite of the hysterical stupidity you guys need to feel like big shots. Cover up? He should have lied his off about it and blamed the PLO or something. The only people who would have been mad about it would have been liberals.

          • guest

            Churchilliscool, Nicole. You are both ignorant, closed-minded lemmings of your particular brand of News Entertainment. But at least one of you is intelligent, reasonable, and correct (though, ironically, each of you will assume I’m talking to yourself).

          • Victor_the_Crab

            No, it’s only you and churchilliscool that are ignorant lemmings. Along with raykinsell and of course our resident right wing troll, joseph2004. You’re welcome!

          • AuntInAZ

            All you people who keep throwing around the term ‘Marxist’, do you even know what it means?

    • villemar

      HOT WATER BURN BABY!!! HOT WATER BURN BABY!!! HOT WATER BURN BABY!!!!

    • villemar

      No, please, keep doubling down on this. We need Republicans to start calling for Impeachment hearings and everything. I remember how that ended out working for the Whitewater hearings and subsequent House impeachment in 1998 when we gained seats in the midterms. And there isn’t even a blowjob involved! Run with it. Double down, then double down again, then double down again; ad infinitum. Please pressure your Congressperson, Joseph, and express your outrage and demand something be done about Benghazi!

      • raykinsella

        As much as I hate to admit it, you’re right…the Obama administration, like that of Clinton, has the major media running interference. Republicans hurt themselves if they push against any liberal president, regardless of the truth. Main stream media simply doesn’t assume its intended role of uncovering and reporting an unbiased truth. Rather it advocates, distorts and indoctrinates.

    • Christopher Foxx

      But the Obama/Clinton foul up does not deserve scrutiny because the Bush foul ups didn’t get the scrutiny they deserved.

      You can’t point to a single place where anyone has said that.

      Liar.

    • Victor_the_Crab

      Don’t you ever get tired of talking out of your bumhole, joey assface?

    • kfreed

      There wasn’t an Obama foul up as witnesses have already testified in the several hearings conducted on the matter.

      The only thing that has come out of this is a demonstration to the nation as to what an unprecedented bunch of incompetent and somewhat evil baboons tea bag Republicans are. So, thanks for that. We appreciate it.

      On the other hand, we can even now watch video of George W. Bush contemplating “My Pet Goat” duing the 9/11 terrorist attack. Oh yeah, and then there’s the matter of having lied us into war, for which evil baboons such as yourselves were more than willing to provide cover. Not to mention the many embassy attacks which ocurred on Dubya’s watch.

      Here’s the deal, evil baboons, we’re done entertaining your bullshit:)

    • Lady Willpower

      Yes, “foul-ups” always deserve scrutiny.

      Bush’s received none. What would a Democratic president have had to endure after 9/11? Hanging in the public square?

      Obama is on round NINE of Benghazi hearings, and they still haven’t found a scandal.