Popular Conservative Website Tries and Fails to Debunk Our ’13 Benghazis’ Article

A little more than a year ago, I wrote an article for The Daily Banter titled “13 Benghazis That Occurred On Bush’s Watch Without a Peep From Fox News.” In it I listed 13 terrorist attacks on U.S. consulates and embassies that happened during the years when President Bush was evidently “keeping us safe.” Throughout the past year, the article has sporadically gone viral among one internet clique or another, and at least one graphical meme has been based upon the list.

Late last week, I began to receive a new onslaught of tweets from readers of a website called IJReview about an article written by Managing Editor Kyle Becker, titled, “’13 Benghazis That Happened Under Bush’ Viral Meme Taken Apart & Destroyed Before Your Very Eyes.” Clearly it was intended to debunk my article — hocus-pocus alakazam! — before our very eyes.

It didn’t.

Before I continue, I should note for those of you who are unaware: this isn’t another case in which I get all wrapped into responding to a Twitter troll with zero followers and an egg avatar. IJReview has 52,000 Twitter followers, 4.8 million Facebook Likes, and Becker claims the publication is the “#2 conservative site in U.S. traffic.” IJReview is indeed quite popular, ranking 407th in the U.S. overall, according to Alexa.com. Well done.

So anyway, Becker went through the 13 items in my list and tried desperately to find a reason, no matter how thin, why each attack wasn’t precisely like Benghazi. And, look, obviously none of the attacks were exactly like Benghazi — for that, they’d each have to take place in Benghazi, for one. Needless to say, the concepts of similarity, contrast and correlation seem to have escaped literalist Becker and his many readers.

Indeed, all of the attacks during the Bush era were against U.S. consulates and embassies, just like the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. What makes these attacks different from Benghazi is that not all of the fatalities were American — and yet there were still 13 terrorist attacks against our embassies, as opposed to one under the current administration. And while not every attack involved American fatalities, the 13 Bush-era attacks did, in fact, result in a total of 11 American deaths, or seven more U.S. deaths than in the Benghazi attack.

Yet the centerpiece of Becker’s feckless debunkery involved merely stating that, where appropriate: “NONE [of the casualties] WERE AMERICAN.” Unfortunately, he could only say this about 10 of the 13 attacks, each of which, by the way, inflicted dozens of other casualties. That leaves three terrorist attacks against our embassies in which 11 Americans died. Three times the attacks and nearly three times the fatalities as Benghazi.

I’m still waiting for my post to be magically “taken apart” and “destroyed.”

Predictably, Becker never once noted that one of the attacks with an American fatality occurred at an embassy that had been attacked once before. On March 2, 2006 in Karachi, Pakistan, terrorists specifically targeted for assassination a U.S. diplomat named David Foy, so a terrorist suicide bomber hit the embassy, killing Foy and three others. In spite of the fact that the same embassy had been attacked two years earlier — also by a suicide bomber who killed 12 people and injured 51 more — there was no additional security ordered to the compound. Now imagine the unhinged outrage that would’ve been generated if there had been not one but two similar attacks on the Benghazi consulate, the second of which resulted in the death of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. And yet when a very similar pair of attacks under Bush occurred, there weren’t 30 investigations or a House Select Committee convened. No emails were made public, no inquests against the administration were suggested and no conspiracy theories were circulated. Nothing. (Republican presidential frontrunner, Sen. Rand Paul  of Kentucky, has honored the death of Ambassador Stevens by accusing him of running Libyan guns via Turkey to Syrian rebels with ties to al-Qaeda. Classy.)

But that’s not the only instance of dual attacks resulting in an American casualty on Bush’s watch. The same thing happened at our embassy at Sana’a, Yemen on September 17, 2008, where an American student, along with her newlywed Yemeni husband, were killed while they waited in the embassy for information about how to bring the husband back to the states. 14 other people were killed, but since none of the others were American, I suppose they don’t count as real deaths. However, what should count and which strangely doesn’t count is that the exact same U.S. embassy had been attacked just six months prior, when a terrorist fired a mortar at the compound, killing two students at a neighboring school. Are we catching a pattern of incompetence here? Fool me once, shame on — shame on you… Fool me — can’t get fooled again!

Curiously, Becker linked to a CNN article verifying that Susan Elbenah was absolutely a New York-born American student, and then also suggested that she wasn’t actually an American at all! To verify this, he quoted an article from The Washington Post that claims, “No Americans were killed.” The Post article, published on the same day as the attack, was clearly incorrect, for in addition to the CNN article, which Becker linked, there are many others contradicting the Post‘s undeniable error. For example, here’s both Fox News Channel and The Los Angeles Times verifying Elbenah’s U.S. citizenship.

Becker concluded: “So of all the Americans killed, only one was a diplomat, and he was killed almost instantly. Nine others were defense contractors.”

No, no, it’s one diplomat, nine contractors and one student — a total of 11 including Elbenah.

Wow, Becker really did make one of the deaths vanish before our very eyes.

Of course, the other counter-arguments we generally hear when the issue of these 13 attacks is brought up is that there wasn’t a so-called cover-up or that Obama never referred to the Benghazi attack as “terror,” which he absolutely did the very next day. Becker also invoked the debunked “stand down” order and the YouTube video, the latter of which, as we all know, was drawn from an early assessment by the CIA.

What about that other Bush-era attack — the one that killed nearly 3,000 people on September 11, 2001? Where were the cries for a House Select Committee from Becker and all the rest? What about the Reagan-era attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon? The nearly unified reaction to those attacks was to immediately hunt down the perpetrators, not the administration under which those attacks occurred. As for the previous administration, not only did it not capture the mastermind of the attacks, Osama Bin Laden, but it literally called off the search in lieu of invading Iraq based on, yes, intelligence failures and misleading promises to the American people.

It gets worse. Politifact actually took a hard look at my “13 Benghazis” numbers and determined the claim to be “Mostly True.” Earlier this month Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) quoted my numbers on MSNBC’s The Ed Schultz Show and the popular fact-checking site reported that the numbers weren’t entirely accurate — they were actually “a bit low.”

It turns out, I failed to include numerous attacks in Baghdad and a series of other diplomatic locations in my list. Politifact concluded that during the Bush presidency there were “39 attacks or attempted attacks on U.S. embassies and embassy personnel. Of these 39 attacks, 20 resulted in at least one fatality.” There were a total of 80 deaths, including 24 U.S. embassy officials, some American, some foreign. (Politifact is unclear on the total number of Americans killed.)

Now to be fair, Politifact quotes Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, who notes that none of the U.S. casualties included an ambassador. This is absolutely true. But given the sheer number of deaths, it very well could have. The diplomatic rank of one man, when compared with at least 11 American deaths in 13 attacks on our consulates/embassies — our soil — seems like a trivial distinction. Chris Stevens was a capable public servant, and his death, like so many others, should be mourned and avenged. But is an ambassador’s life worth more righteous indignation, outrage and investigative action than 11 other citizens, including David Foy? What about 3,000 citizens? Or 241 Marines? Should the rank of ambassador be the hinge upon which the distinction between outrage and apathy swings?

Again, were each of these attacks exactly like Benghazi, down to every last detail? Of course not. But taken as a whole, the Bush record on protecting our embassies along with our fellow Americans assigned to those posts is far more egregious than a single attack. The Bush administration framed itself as the safety and security administration and yet it allowed at least 13 attacks, with many more aimed at U.S. diplomatic officials, to occur (and don’t forget that big one on 9/11/01). And, no, there wasn’t a peep from Fox News, Kyle Becker, Hannity, Limbaugh, Boehner, Gowdy, Graham, McCain or any of the others who have barely mentioned bringing to justice the Benghazi attackers as often or with as much tenacity as they’ve demanded bringing to justice Obama, Clinton, Rice, Mueller and even Kerry (for some reason).

Unlike many on the left, I’ve made it clear on many occasions that conducting investigations of Bush-era mistakes or the officials who made them is a very bad idea (an article for another day). But any rational evaluation of the current administration versus the previous administration on these counts shows not only a higher rate of attacks and U.S. fatalities, but also a ridiculously lopsided reaction by the press and public. Why? Because it’s been determined by the Republican leadership that the attack in Benghazi and the deaths of four Americans makes for great politics, not only against the current president but against his possible successor, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The Benghazi drumbeat frames an administration that’s notorious for its use of UAVs (drones) against a so-called “kill list” of terrorists, as well as its hunting and killing of Osama Bin Laden, as being somehow weak on terrorism. The GOP is successfully stripping “Benghazi” of all meaning, adding sinister connotations and transforming it into a bumper-sticker, careening very close to “birth certificate” and “Teleprompter” territory. The strategy is undoubtedly to repeat it often and loudly enough; to make people forget the administration’s counter-terrorism record just in time for the midterms and the impending Hillary campaign. Convenient.

  • YogiBear87

    Instead of trying to figure out who to blame let figure out how to make things safer for our patriots serving around the world. It’s over, it’s done. Let’s try to improve things instead of pointing fingers and deflecting the blame.

  • Hannah_955

    The fact is that no US diplomatic employee was killed INSIDE an Embassy or diplomatic mission on George Bush’s watch. Even in Iraq which was a chaotic extremely dangerous war zone.

    The attack in Karachi that killed David Foy in Pakistan was a car bomb OUTSIDE the Embassy.

    I don’t believe that we would be having this Benghazi debate if Ambassador Stevens had been killed by a rocket attack. But no. He died of smoke inhalation. On September 11th. in a diplomatic mission in which there were only seven people in the building. During an eight hour siege. After four requests for additional security had been denied by the State Department.

    His body was removed from the mission by Libyan civilians. His body was taken to the ER in a private car by Libyan civilians.

    Seriously. This is how we protect our AMBASSADORS?

    And then Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton lied about the nature of the attack.

    It’s disingenuous to suggest that George Bush could have prevented the attacks on US diplomatic missions and consulates during his administration. No President can *prevent* such attacks. But it’s his job to try to protect the diplomats inside the consulate. And it’s a fact that no US diplomat was killed inside a consulate or diplomatic mission on Bush’s watch.

  • Government_Goodies

    This article is a false analogy which reinforces to me that politics is more about faith than it is about reason.

  • Tal Katz-Touaf
  • the_iowa_hawkeye

    You can lie to yourself all you want. But not a SINGLE attack you mention was an on-going struggle that was IGNORED by the White House, POTUS and Sec State. NONE OF THEM.

    You, sir, are a liar and a fraud.

    The anger from real Americans about Benghazi does not come simply because the consulate was attacked. The anger comes because the consulate was attacked, Americans BEGGED for help and Clinton and Obama turned their backs on them.

  • Melvin_Udall

    “What about that other Bush-era attack — the one that killed nearly 3,000
    people on September 11, 2001? Where were the cries for a House Select
    Committee from Becker and all the rest?”

    There was an investigation. A bipartisan investigation ***without resistance from Republicans***. Maybe you’ve heard of the 9/11 report? It was incredibly famous. Oh… wait… that “doesn’t count” because [whatever fits your propaganda].

    I’m embarrassed for whatever sheep readers are unaware they are so blatantly being deceived.

  • Melvin_Udall

    SOP leftist – As long as you don’t admit you’re wrong, you aren’t. When someone confronts you with facts, double down on the propaganda.
    If your ideology is superior why does it require constant deceit and games?
    If none of you can take responsibility for anything while you govern, why should anyone trust you?!?

    WAKE UP:
    When you find a case where Bush or Reagan waged war with a country (that
    was working with the US) without congressional approval AND
    Insisted on opening a consulate in that war torn country now full of terrorists AND
    stuck and left their Ambassador in that consulate despite the danger AND
    ignored warnings of attacks, including the attacks on two allies in the region (Red Cross & British) AND
    ignored requests for greater security from the Ambassador AND
    offered no help when that consulate came under attack AND
    therefore sat aside during the death of a US Ambassador AND
    flew out the next day to fund raise AND
    hid his activities and those of the Sec State that night AND
    blamed the terrorist attack on a video to win an election when CIA already told him it wasn’t about that AND
    watched Sec State lie to their families at their funeral AND
    lied for two years, ongoing, obstructing any investigation and demonizing anyone who asks about it all…
    do let us know.

  • chesterfielder

    “But any rational evaluation of the current administration versus the previous administration on these counts shows not only a higher rate of attacks and U.S. fatalities,”

    JANUARY 30, 2010 – ADANA, TURKEY:
    Two gunmen fired an AK-47 assault rifle toward the U.S. Consulate, hitting the Consulate and a nearby police guard booth but causing no injuries.

    APRIL 5, 2010 – PESHAWAR, PAKISTAN:
    Three vehicle bombs detonated at the U.S. Consulate General, injuring several Pakistani security forces, locally hired security guards, a motor-pool driver, and a Consulate General officer.

    MAY 1, 2011 – TRIPOLI, LIBYA:
    Members of the Libyan military opened fire on Embassy doors, windows, security cameras, and alarms, and set several of the buildings on fire. Several hundred demonstrators also stormed the Embassy and looted the U.S. Embassy’s warehouse as well as the residences of the ambassador and Deputy Chief of Mission.

    JULY 8 TO 11, 2011 – DAMASCUS, SYRIA:
    Demonstrators outside the U.S. Embassy threw eggs, rocks, and paint at the Embassy compound, smashed ballistic-resistant glass windows, broke security cameras, and set fire to the Embassy’s roof before attacking the ambassador’s residence, where they destroyed two armored vehicles and an unarmored box truck.

    JUNE 6, 2012 – BENGHAZI, LIBYA:
    An explosive device detonated outside the U.S. Special Mission, leaving a large hole in the perimeter wall but causing no injuries.

    SEPTEMBER 3, 2012 – PESHAWAR, PAKISTAN:
    A suicide bomber in an explosives-laden vehicle attacked a U.S. Consulate General motorcade near the U.S. Consulate General’s housing complex, injuring two U.S. officials, two locally employed staff drivers, a local police bodyguard, and several other policemen providing security for the motorcade.

    SEPTEMBER 11 TO 12, 2012 – BENGHAZI, LIBYA:
    Attackers used arson, small arms, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades, and mortars against the U.S. Special Mission, a Mission annex, and U.S. personnel en route between both facilities, killing the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other U.S. government personnel, wounding two U.S. personnel and three Libyan contract guards, and destroying both facilities.

    SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 – SANA’A, YEMEN:
    Protesters stormed the Embassy compound, looting property and setting several fires. No U.S. citizens were injured in the attack.

    OCTOBER 11, 2012 – SANA’A, YEMEN:
    The U.S. Embassy’s senior foreign service national investigator was shot and killed in his vehicle by gunmen on a motorcycle. The terrorist group Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula claimed responsibility for the attack.

    FEBRUARY 1, 2013 – ANKARA, TURKEY:
    A suicide bomber entered the U.S. Embassy and when questioned by a member of the Local Guard Force, detonated a bomb concealed beneath his clothing, killing the bomber and the guard.

    NOVEMBER 18, 2012 – PESHAWAR, PAKISTAN:
    Two mortar rounds exploded near U.S. Consulate General housing, injuring one local guard and damaging the consul general’s residence with shrapnel.

  • aynwrong

    And remember…the reason the that the media will never ever point out that these attacks occurred or the complete and total lack concern, caring, outrage or interest of any kind from the GOP or the babbling idiots of the FAKE NOISE CHANNEL is of course because
    …….liberal media.
    Yeah right.

  • Ryan P.

    Republicans, the true terrorists.

  • 6cheri6

    The is one HUGE difference in the attacks on Bush’s watch. President Bush did not himself go on National TV and send his minions on TV and LIE about what happened for weeks! He did not conceal his whereabouts during the attacks. He did not REFUSE help to the attacked. He did not vow on National TV to arrest and punish the perpetrators and over 2 years later have done nothing. The one huge difference is Bush actually cares about the US.

    • That River Gal

      Bullshit Mountain has spoken.

      • RSpung

        …and that would be you.

    • MadamDeb

      No. He just kept the facts hidden on the back page of all newspapers.

  • morgan

    guys… guys… hey guys… this will probably induce a
    metric ton of liberal rage but i think youre all missing the point. there is a
    huge difference between the 13 attacks that happened during bush’s presidency
    and the real benghazi attack on 9/11/13. those 13 attacks were, from what i
    understand, hit-and-run guerrilla-type jabs. all im hearing about in these
    cases were dudes ambushing the embassies via suicide bombs, car bombs or
    mortars and running the hell away. you cant really protect against that.
    honestly, what are you going to do to combat someone who decides they want to
    covertly post up hundreds of yards away and launch a mortar at you? how about
    when some innocent looking dude strolls by and all-of-a-sudden pulls out a
    detonator and blows himself up in your face? the same thing you could do to
    combat a terrorist pulling up nonchalantly in his jihad mobile and detonating
    explosives hidden in the trunk: not a whole lot. i suspect that is why there
    was so little outrage from the media. all of the 13 attacks listed were
    generally short, ineffective, and pretty damn tough to avoid. not only that,
    the attackers didnt completely destroy the embassy. now look at benghazi: a
    crapload of terrorists show up, engage the embassy in an EIGHT HOUR FREAKING
    FIRE FIGHT, torch the place and then SODOMIZE AND TORTURE an ambassador before
    killing him. he didnt die of freaking smoke inhalation. he was murdered. look
    at the video of all the “protestors” dancing around him yelling
    “allahu akbar! im a terrible person” as he dies. hopefully even the
    most liberal amongst you can see why that would piss people off more than
    “one dude ran over and blew himself up, instantly killing two
    americans”. no, in the case of benghazi, it was much more than a cowardly
    suckerpunch that kinda stung and the attacker running away with his tail
    between his legs. in the case of benghazi, we were f**ing conquered. they came
    in, overpowered us, defeated us, and to add insult to injury, literally raped
    one of us. then on top of that you have the fact that there were multiple
    requests for increased security that went ignored. THEN when the fighting
    slowed down for a bit, the only reinforcements the embassy got were 22 men ….
    14 of which were Busch league libyan soldiers. i wonder why they were attacked
    again immediately after they showed up? that is why there was a little more
    media outrage after this attack than there were for the 13 incidents of
    hit-and-run.

    and about the youtube video/intentional misleading of the american people….

    1) there were no protestors at the compound before the gunshots/explosions were
    heard that sparked the benghazi attack. this was known. we found out on oct.
    9th 2012 that the white house was aware of this a day after the attack via a
    background briefing where a senior
    state department official says so.

    2) quit saying that obama declared that it was a terrorist attack the next day.
    he didnt.

    he said,“no ACTS OF TERROR will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,
    alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” he
    said basically the same thing on 3 separate occasions that day with the same
    wording and didnt even mention benghazi.. ACTS OF TERROR would usually be
    enough to imply terrorism but since he doesnt mention benghazi specifically and
    then references the anti-muslim video immediately afterwards saying “since our
    founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. we
    reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. but there is
    absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence”, you cant say
    he declared anything. if he was trying to convey that it was a terrorist
    attack, why add that? because of this you cant really tell which he is saying
    happened: planned or spontaneous.

    BUT THEN, that same day, sept. 12, he says to the 60 minutes dude, “well,
    it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved,
    but obviously it was an attack on Americans and we are going to be working with
    the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice one way
    or the other.”

    im just making the point that he didnt say it was a terrorist attack the next
    day because ive read responses from like 4 tards on here saying he did. nope in
    fact it takes a lot longer.

    3) on sept 13, clinton speaks with the libyan ambassador to the US. he refers
    to it as an act of terror but she does not. she condemns the anti-Muslim video,
    but adds that there is “never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”

    4) on sept 14, the white house press secretary, jay carney, says “We were not
    aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S.
    mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.”

    5) on sept 15, pentagon officials say it was a planned terrorist attack.

    6) on sept 16, obama discusses the Benghazi attack in his weekly address.
    He makes no mention of terror, terrorists or extremists. He does talk about the
    anti-Muslim film and “every angry mob” that it inspired in pockets of the
    Middle East.

    7) that same day, Libya President Mohamed Magariaf says on CBS that the attack
    on the U.S. consulate was planned months in advance. But Susan Rice, the U.S.
    ambassador to the United Nations, tells CBS News’ Bob Schieffer: “We do not
    have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was
    premeditated or preplanned.”

    8) we find out later that two
    days before susan rice’s appearance on the sunday talk show circuit, Deputy
    National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes sent an email
    to other administration officials, including White House Press Secretary Jay
    Carney, with the subject line “PREP CALL with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.”
    Rhodes’ email outlined four “goals” for Rice’s TV appearances. One of the
    goals: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and
    not a broader failure of policy.”

    PLEASE READ THE LAST TWO SENTENCES of the paragraph above if youre just
    skimming through this… seriously.

    9) so now we know at this point, sept 16, the obama administration knows that
    it was a planned terrorist attack.

    SO THEN… Obama was asked about the Benghazi attack on The Late Show with
    David Letterman. The president said, “Here’s what happened,” and began
    discussing the impact of the anti-Muslim video. He then said, “Extremists and
    terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies,
    including the consulate in Libya.”

    10) on sept 20, Obama, at a town hall meeting, says “extremists” took advantage
    of the “natural protests” to the anti-Muslim video to attack the consulate in
    Benghazi. He does not call it a “terrorist attack.”

    11) by this time, a shit load of US officials and even hillary clinton have
    said that benghazi was a terrorist attack buuuuut…

    on sept 24, Obama tapes an appearance on “The View,” and he’s asked by co-host
    Joy Behar whether the Libya attack was an act of terrorism or caused by the
    anti-Muslim video. He does not call it a terrorist attack and says, “We’re
    still doing an investigation.”

    12) on sept 26, Jay Carney is asked at a press briefing why the president has
    not called the Benghazi incident a “terrorist attack.” He said, “The president
    — our position is, as reflected by the NCTC director, that it was a terrorist
    attack. It is, I think by definition, a terrorist attack when there is a
    prolonged assault on an embassy with weapons. … So, let’s be clear, it was a
    terrorist attack and it was an inexcusable attack.”

    heres the link to all the information i used. after reading the article, if you
    REALLY think that the obama administration was telling the WHOLE truth… that
    he honestly wasnt trying to cover anything up that would cost him votes in the 2012
    election… i…. i dont even know.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

    in conclusion, bob cesca, not only was the benghazi attack far more terrible,
    tragic, and traumatic (dat alliteration doe) than any of the embassy attacks
    that occurred during the bush administration, there was also no wide scale
    cover-up/deceit on the part of his administration to save face with the
    american people. that is why no one at fox news got butthurt when they
    happened.

    • morgan

      welp, disregard the rape comment. apparently that was BS spread around by some french news network. lol hey at least ill admit when i screw up.

      • MikeH

        No one cares…Videotape…

    • MikeH

      Raped? You’re an idiot…

      • morgan

        haha beat ya to it cool guy. but im glad you commented on the whole post and not just a insignificant detail.

        • MikeH

          You are very very late to the party. You wrote out that whole thing without skimming through what has been said here already by commenter and troll alike. Nice try though…

          • morgan

            im not sure what youre saying… besides the forced gay sex aspect of my post which i realized wasnt true earlier, what exactly is the “nice try”? was there any other parts that were untrue?

          • MikeH

            Read what has been written here already. You provide no new perspective on this. You were late to the party..

          • morgan

            lol so do you agree with my post or not? me being late to the party seems irrelevant if what i said is true.

          • MikeH

            If you read what came before, you would know where I stand..

          • That River Gal

            Does what you’re typing on have a “shift” key? Just curious.

          • RSpung

            hey moron, is that all you care about?

          • morgan

            if you disagree with anything i said, why not address what you think is wrong with it? you obviously dont agree with me or else you wouldnt have said anything at all. you and mike both with the unrelated comments… both the utilities of my keyboard and the fact that what i posted has been said before seem pretty irrelevant when we’re trying to discuss benghazi.

      • MadamDeb

        They love these lies with sexual overtones, especially gay sex.

  • D_C_Wilson

    Hey, Bob. Looks like you’ve got a bad troll infestation here. Try to fumigate again.

  • Tim Bromund

    Ahhh, it’s always refreshing to come to a site like this and see such severe mental illness on vivid display. It restores and enhances my strongly held belief that liberalism truly is an actual, identifiable, mental disorder.

    • MikeH

      That shit you smell on yr shoes? It actually fell down yr own pant leg. Just sayin’….

  • Right Wired

    Grasping at Straws – Level 100!

    • MikeH

      Denile River- Level 1 Cajillion!!

  • Jared Martin

    “Last night Jon Stewart opened his show with a segment about Fox News Channel’s aggressive coverage of Benghazi.

    Stewart’s criticism of Fox News Channel is that Fox News Channel is more aggressive about President Obama and Benghazi than it ever was about President Bush and Iraq.

    Besides the obvious — that almost all the Democrats in Congress voted for the war in Iraq and other media reporting – is my simple note to Stewart: **2 wrongs don’t make a right.**” – Greta Van Susteren

    http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2014/05/06/note-to-jon-stewart-who-i-think-is-very-smart-and-very-clever-but-like-the-rest-of-us-not-always-right-but-a-comedian-has-of-course-way-more-lattitude/

    • MikeH

      LEAVE FOX NEWS ALONE…BOOOHOOHOOOO….

  • Jerry S

    This article ignores 2 major points of the IRJ article:
    1. None of those attacks took the form of a multiple hour siege, during which help was requested, but the help never came, an attack during which the CIC was MIA and didn’t even appear in the situation room.
    2. Our Benghazi consulate requested additional security multiple times, but was denied that request. Why???

    • MikeH

      1. An embassy hit multiple times in Karachi Pakastan, which killed a US Diplomat the second time, somehow doesn’t get additional security? Why?

      2. How do you know those other attacks weren’t requesting help during?

      3. Please don’t use Marty Feldman as your avatar. Thank you…

      • Jerry S

        How do I know? How do you know that the Karachi embassy didn’t receive additional security? We know that the Benghazi consulate requested, and that their request was turned down. I like how you shift the burden of proof onto me, as if I worked for the state department under Bush.
        2. None of those attacks were prolonged. That’s how I know.
        3. I’ll use whichever avatar I like. Thank you…

        • BumpIt McCarthy

          Instead of prolonged –which by the way, you offer no backup for—they were REPEATED.

          2. You can use Mary Feldman’s avatar, but you should know that Marty would have hated your using it; he once refused to meet Frank Sinatra, because he didn’t like Sinatra’s politics.

          • Jerry S

            I offer no backup? Is it not a known fact that the entire Benghazi attack took several hours, first the attack on the consulate then on the annex?

            What do you know about what Marty hated or liked? Marty was Jewish. So was I. After just few minutes of research he may well turn out to be my cousin. Maybe he hated Sinatra’s Italian Shtick?

        • MikeH

          So “prolonged” is the new talking point. Good to know…

    • TrollBaby

      1) This question was answered several times over the last 2 years. Military command in Africa already stated that reinforcements would not have arrived in time to help and military policy does not allow forces to be sent into a situation where it is unclear what’s going on on the ground.

      2) the location that was attacked was a CIA installation. It’s far from clear that additional state department security forces would have made a difference, but you should ask republicans in the House why they blocked President Obamas request for additional funding for embassy security.

      • Jerry S

        They could not have possibly known that, because they didn’t know for how long the attack it will carry on!
        Military policy? Are you saying they don’t send air support for our troops unless its clear what’s going on on the ground?

        Republicans blocked additional funding? Here’s what the State Department under Hillary Clinton spent taxpayer money on.

        http://blog.heritage.org/2013/12/09/state-department-waste-booze-crystal-and-a-million-dollar-stack-of-rocks/

        http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/2/last-call-for-liquor-state-department-buys-180000-/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

        One of these linked articles read:
        These records show the State Department bought $415,000
        worth of alcohol in fiscal 2012, which was 25 percent more than the $331,000 spent in 2011 and more than triple the $118,000 spent in 2008.

        All this liquor and wine requires proper drinkware, of course. Thus,
        the State Department raced to fill an order of $5 million just hours
        before the shutdown, buying 12,000 pieces of hand-blown crystal
        glassware—retailing up to $85 per glass.

        Read the rest in the links provided above.

        Yet you have the gal to claim the state department was short on funds, and you blame the Congress GOP!

        Are you Serious?

        But you guys are ignoring the main difference between the Benghazi attack and the attacks under Bush:

        The Bush administration did not put out a false narrative about the attacks. The Obama administration put out a politically convenient yet blatantly false narrative that was not supported by the evidence.

        “We will not waiver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act in Benghazi. And make no mistake, justice will be done.”

        That was the President of the United States over a year ago.

        “We’re investigating exactly what happened, but my biggest priority now is bringing those folks to justice.”

        That was the President of the United States over a year ago.

        We have four dead Americans. A U.S. ambassador’s body was dragged through the streets. CNN and the NYT interviewed the main culprit/suspect. He’s not even in hiding. Yet the Obama admin has not managed to catch one single terrorist. Not one terrorist in custody.
        And in the immediate aftermath? The Obama Admins response was to go political.

        http://www.tpnn.com/2014/05/13/trey-gowdy-destroys-the-mainstream-media-in-just-three-minutes-on-benghazi/

      • Jerry S

        here’s some more on that funding issue, from the Benghazi hearing:

        But when questioned, Lamb denied that budgetary concerns had
        influenced her decision. committee “It has been suggested that budget cuts are responsible for a lack of security in Benghazi, and I’d like to ask Miss Lamb,” said Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.). “You made this decision personally. Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which lead you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”

        “No, sir,” said Lamb.

  • Tort Master

    Sorry for the double post immediately below. I tried to delete, but it turned them into “Guest” posts. Now I can’t delete. Mea culpa! The day after those four died in Benghazi, the Republican lie machine began to gloat over their graves. It’s sickening.

  • Guest

    For those trolls who claim that President Obama didn’t mention terrorist acts, this is what he said when he addressed the nation: “”No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.” (h/t Lady Willpower)

    For those trolls who don’t remember Romney gloating and gleefully enjoying those deaths in Libya the next day, here is a screengrab of him making political hay in his first address about Benghazi (Note that Romney gloats throughout and compare that with the somber President and Secretary of State):

    • morgan

      he said,“no ACTS OF TERROR will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,
      alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” he
      said basically the same thing on 3 separate occasions that day with the same
      wording but doesnt mention benghazi. ACTS OF TERROR would usually be enough to imply the attack was terrorism but since he doesnt mention benghazi specifically and then immediately references the anti-muslim video afterwards saying “since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. we reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. but there is
      absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence”, he seems to imply that the violence was in retaliation for someone denigrating the muslim religious beliefs (the video).

      also, what does mitt romney being a douche have to do with obama allegedly misleading the american people? thats like me accusing you of lying and you defending yourself by saying “well, youre a dick”.

  • Guest

    For those trolls who claim that President Obama didn’t mention terrorist acts, this is what he said when he addressed the nation: “”No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.” (h/t Lady Willpower)

    For those trolls who don’t remember Romney gloating and gleefully enjoying those deaths in Libya the next day, here are screengrabs of him making political hay in his first address about Benghazi:

    • morgan

      he said,“no ACTS OF TERROR will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,
      alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” he
      said basically the same thing on 3 separate occasions that day with the same
      wording
      but doesnt mention benghazi. ACTS OF TERROR would usually be enough to
      imply the attack was terrorism but since he doesnt mention benghazi
      specifically and then immediately references the anti-muslim video
      afterwards saying “since our founding, the United States has been a
      nation that respects all faiths. we reject all efforts to denigrate the
      religious beliefs of others. but there is
      absolutely no justification
      to this type of senseless violence”, he seems to imply that the
      violence was in retaliation for someone denigrating the muslim religious
      beliefs (the video).

      also, what does mitt romney being a douche have to do with obama allegedly misleading the american people? thats like me accusing you of lying and you defending yourself by saying “well, youre a dick”..

  • Tort Master

    If you never do another thing with your life, Bob Cesca, this one shining piece had real and long-lasting meaning. I have cited your article numerous times on the internet, and at other times, I have asked the reader to google “George Bush 13 Benghazis.” That leads to your Huffington Post article, as well the PolitiFact response. Great stuff!
    I usually end one of those internet postings with the statement that “Not a single patriotic Republican tear is being shed for those lost lives.”

  • mrbrink

    Chris Stevens died of smoke inhalation looking for a way out of the compound. He was still conscious after the ‘flash mob with weapons’ attacked, and by all rights should have survived, but I imagine the confusion, noise, and smoke was disorienting, especially for a U.S. Ambassador who may not have had the instincts and physical strength to find/fight his way out. After his death there was an outpouring of condolences and support from locals who knew him and sort of looked out for him. U.S. intelligence knew there were friendlies in the region and counted on them as a sort of unofficial security barrier. Wingnuts seem to think he was murdered in cold blood by a head-chopping militia of masterminds. The truth is, his death had more in common with a ‘freak-accident than an execution.

  • politicsbyothermeans

    “What makes these attacks different from Benghazi is that not all of the fatalities were American — and yet there were still 13 terrorist attacks against our embassies, as opposed to one under the current administration.”

    Do people have to be killed for you to count an attack Bob? If not, okay. If so, why aren’t you counting attacks against the American embassies in Baghdad and Afghanistan that have taken place during the current administration?

  • MichaelZWilliamson

    Oh, which crappy videos did Bush blame these attacks on?

    • mrbrink

      It’s a fact that the video resulted in widespread protests throughout the region and created a national security nightmare for U.S. forces and allies. Which crappy dictator did Obama blame 9/11 on?

  • MichaelZWilliamson

    At this point, what difference does it make?

    By the way, when is he closing Guantanamo?

    • nathkatun7

      Apparently you have no idea of how the U.S. government functions! Congress attached a provision on the defense authorization bill that prohibited the President from closing Gitmo! Idiots like you accuse President Obama of being a dictator, but when he abides by the laws enacted by Congress, you blame him for what Congress did. You want Guantanamo closed? I suggest you ask scared members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, who voted overwhelmingly to prevent President Obama from closing it.

  • Eff-BHO

    Had a great time here today. Great entertainment and lots of laughs. Thanks Libtards

    • Caribou “PAYCUT” Barbie™

      libtards?

      • MichaelZWilliamson

        A rude name for Neolibs.

    • Lady Willpower

      I’m not retarded. Your insult makes no sense.

  • Eff-BHO

    VA scandal: DIDN’T KNOW
    Benghazi security: DIDN’T KNOW
    Fast and Furious: DIDN’T KNOW
    Lose your doctor: DIDN’T KNOW
    Bin Laden hit: MASTERMIND

  • Carl Gauthier

    Excellent article. Just one thing though Bob, Obama did not, in the Rose Garden, refer to the Benghazi attack specifically as an act of terrorism, he spoke rather in vague terms and refrained from attributing Ambassador Stevens’ death directly to terrorism. On subsequent interviews on CBS, Univision, and finally ABC, the president still refused to call it an act of terror.

    • Lady Willpower

      September 12, 2012:

      “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.”

      Sentence 1: refers to terrorist act.
      Sentence 2: refers to victims of said terrorist act.

      Two sentences. Right next to each other. The next day. Couldn’t be clearer.

      • Carl Gauthier

        Just a little bit of intellectual honesty and research unclouded by partisanship will take you a long way. Try it.

        • Lady Willpower

          Reading a transcript does not require political allegiance. Breaking down the train of thought in a single paragraph is not a partisan exercise.

          If you can read the transcript that I just cited and believe it was not a description of Benghazi, I don’t know what more there is to discuss.

          Be objective.

          • DoremusJessup20

            These guys are incredible, pedantically arguing whether “acts of terror” is equivalent “terrorist act.” It’s the Romney campaign’s “you didn’t build that” in a nutshell.

        • jziglar

          Dude the president called it an act of terror. This is a fact so stop with these bold lies.

        • nathkatun7

          Do you care to explain to us the fundamental difference between “Acts of terror” and “terrorism”? Who is being dishonest here? The person who quoted the President’s words or the person who told us what happened on CBS, Univision and ABC, without quoting exactly what the President said?

      • morgan

        ACTS OF TERROR would usually be enough to
        imply the attack was terrorism but he then immediately talks about the video afterwards saying “since our founding, the United States has been a
        nation that respects all faiths. we reject all efforts to denigrate the
        religious beliefs of others. but there is absolutely no justification
        to this type of senseless violence”, he seems to imply that the
        violence was in retaliation for someone denigrating the muslim religious
        beliefs (the video).

    • GrafZeppelin127

      “Refused”? Let’s dispense with the mind-reading, shall we? Unless he was asked to “call it an act of terror” and said, “No, I will not call it an act of terror,” he cannot properly or reasonably be said to have “refused.”

      • Carl Gauthier

        KROFT: “Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word ‘terrorism’ in connection with the Libya attack.”
        OBAMA: “Right.”
        KROFT: “Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?”
        OBAMA: “Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.”

        Get it together.

        • GrafZeppelin127

          Oh, that’s what you meant. That’s more of a “we don’t really know yet” than a “refusal,” but OK.

        • GrafZeppelin127

          I think something else that has to be made clear before we can even begin to discuss whether and why it’s important whether and when the President actually Called It An Act Of Terror™, is whether the phrase “act of terror” or “terrorist attack” (irrespective of which) refers to (1) the manner in which the attack was carried out, (2) the motivation behind the attack, or (3) the identity of the attackers. The words “terror,” “terrorist” and “terrorism” can be taken to mean any one, or any combination, of the three. So, which is it? What did the President supposedly “refuse” to admit or acknowledge; the who, the how, or the why?

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            I guess it depends on what the word “is” means.

          • nathkatun7

            There you go again playing stupid childish word games! The death of four Americans is not liket a private sexual affair. which, understandably, most people, and especially married people, do not readily admit to in public.

        • melora

          Is “we don’t know what GROUP was involved” claiming no terrorist group was involved? A mob is not a group. A demonstration is not a group. A riot is not a group. An organized terrorist organization IS a group. How do you interpret his use of the word “Group?”

  • Eff-BHO

    But it was a video that sparked that spontaneous attack on our embassy that’s why they arrested Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, an innocent man who now sits in jail. Obama got the bad guy and Al Qaeda is on the run! It’s a good thing Obama spent $70,000 in taxpayer funds airing an ad on Pakistani television apologizing for that terrible YouTube Video…and remember Obamabots..if you like your healthcare you can keep your healthcare and your doctor.

    • DoremusJessup20

      Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was arrested for violating the terms of his probation.

      • Eff-BHO

        yeah ok

        • DoremusJessup20

          Glad I could help.

          • D_C_Wilson

            I think he ran out of talking points. He’s probably frantically searching Breitbart for more right now.

          • Eff-BHO

            Help yourself youre gonna need it when your Messiah is impeached

          • Caribou “PAYCUT” Barbie™

            When?

          • nathkatun7

            Good luck with the impeachment nonsense! I guess you learned nothing from the debacle of Clinton impeachment.

          • Lady Willpower

            Only wingnuts like you refer to him as “Messiah.” We don’t.

    • NintendoWii10

      And there you have it! The missing link between Benghazi and the Affordable Care Act!

      • Eff-BHO

        no link just more obama lies that you turds like to guzzle down – yummy

        • NintendoWii10

          I get it. If Obama didn’t lie about you can keep your doctor, those four Americans wouldn’t have died in Benghazi. Makes sense to me!

          • Eff-BHO

            Sure it does! Just like linking Benghazi to Bush! It all makes sense to you

          • nathkatun7

            When did President Obama link Benghazi to Bush? Do all of you right wingers go to secret school to learn how to lie without shame?

        • Caribou “PAYCUT” Barbie™

          That’s just sick

          • Eff-BHO

            How many times a day do you stroke your little winky off to Palin

          • BumpIt McCarthy

            Ladies and gentlemen, the wingnut mind disclosing itself in all its fragmented, filthy glory. You’re a fine representative for your case, Eff, and just who any policy analyst would want as a partner. Be sure to accompany Dennis wherever he goes on the Internet; he needs you.

          • Eff-BHO

            Policy analyst!? Oh my aching sides. Please dont stop

          • Eff-BHO

            You gotta thing for Palin as well dontcha

          • Caribou “PAYCUT” Barbie™

            Nope

          • nathkatun7

            Right wing men sure do have a thing for Palin! Never mind the fact that Palin is totally clueless! But when she winks, right wing men think she is winking at them. And that’s all they care about.

          • Dizivi

            Why in the hell would anyone want to jerk off to something as shallow as caribou barbie?

          • Caribou “PAYCUT” Barbie™

            None.
            How do you feel now?

          • That River Gal

            I can’t wait for the banhammer to fall on this pathetic child.

          • Eff-BHO

            Hillary turns you on

        • melora

          Lies? I’m shocked! Can you name one single politician or president who did not lie with regularity. Not that two wrongs make a right, but some of Obama’s lies were half-truths without caveats ir clarifications.
          (As far as we’re concerned ) You can keep your doctor, policy, yada, yada,yada, (but the INSURANCE COMPANIES may not let you.)
          It will be easy to sign up (woops, the website isn’t working)

    • melora

      Just wondering, did you ever see the video? It was exremely inflamitory and intended to be so. It was made by some Coptic Christians in California and was so obscene no “Christian” should have been involved in such a thing.
      It was released right before 9/11. Was that just a coincidence?
      It did cause violence in some cities, which is what it was intended to do.
      There is evidence (mentions of the video by some of the terrorists) that there were some people there who were upset about the video who may have possibly joined in on the organized terrorist attack. They didn’t start it, but they joined in and took advantage of it. Anyone not affiliated with a terrorist group who participates in attacking and killing people at consulates and embassies IS a terrorist.

  • DoremusJessup20

    @Dennis

    “Can you tell me why Chris Stevens was in Benghazi the night that he was killed? Do you know?”

    Stevens planned to stay in Benghazi for five days. He’d had meetings in the city on Monday, and he would have more outside the compound on Wednesday. On Thursday, perhaps the most important day of his visit, he planned to turn over the Benghazi mission to the Libyans. The compound would be rechristened “an American Space,” and it would offer English lessons and Internet access and show films and stock a library. The United States would provide some computers, books, and the rest of the materials and support—but it would be owned and operated by locals. “An American Space,” Stevens planned to say, “is a living example of the kind of partnership between our two countries which we hope to inspire.”

    “Does it bother you whether or not you know why Chris Stevens was in Benghazi?”

    See above.

    “Do you know why we were the last flag flying in Benghazi after the British had left and the Red Cross had been bombed?”

    Also, see above and note the decision was ultimately left up to Ambassador Stevens.

    “Do you know why requests for additional security were denied?”

    According to the report ofthe ARB, “there appeared to be very real confusion over who, ultimately, was responsible and empowered to make decisions based on both policy and security concerns” at the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, Bureau ofNear Eastern Affairs, the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, and the Mission facility in Benghazi. The Independent Panel on Best Practices, which the ARB recommended State establish to identify best practices from other agencies and countries, found that a “potential root cause for the confusion, lack of clear lines of authority, and communication at the headquarters level” was that “some senior Foreign Service officers and DS agents who met with the Panel identified the Under Secretary for Management (M) as the senior security official in the Department responsible for final decision making regarding critical security requirements,” even though this role was “not identified by Congress in the Diplomatic Security Act of 1986.

    -snip-

    Additionally, the uncertain future of the Mission facility, due to its one-year expiration in December 2012, contributed to a lack of continuity for security staff and constrained decision-makers in Washington regarding the allocation of security enhancements to that facility.

    “Do you know why an ambassador asking for more security days and weeks before he was murdered and those requests went unheeded?”

    See above.

    “Do you know the answer to why those requests went unheeded?”

    Maybe if he asks the same question over and over again and expects a different answer it means he’s insane?

    “Do you know why no assets were deployed during the siege? And I’ve heard the explanation — which defies logic, frankly — that we couldn’t have gotten there in time, but you know, they didn’t know when it was going to end. So how can you possibly cite that as an excuse?”

    This subject was thoroughly addressed by Thomas Ricks in his article Benghazi (II): A military analysis of the Fox mystery man’s fantasy rescue plan

    “Do you know whether the president called any of our allies and said, “Can you help? We have men under attack.” Can you answer that?”

    This is getting weird. Who was he supposed to call? The newly formed government in Libya obviously had no control in Benghazi, that was the problem in the first place.

    “Do any of you know why Susan Rice was picked? The secretary of state did not go. She says she doesn’t like Sunday talk shows. That’s the only media venue she does not like, if that’s true. Why was Susan Rice on the five Sunday talk shows?”

    Because Susan Rice is perfectly capable, why does this matter? This is a political question and thus we get to the real motivation behind the select committee.

    “Do you know the origin of this mythology that it was spawned as a spontaneous reaction to a video? Do you know where that started?”

    Even the attacker themselves say this was their motivation.

    Mr. Abu Khattala, 41, wearing a red fez and sandals, added his own spin. Contradicting the accounts of many witnesses and the most recent account of the Obama administration, he contended that the attack had grown out of a peaceful protest against a video made in the United States that mocked the Prophet Muhammad and Islam.

    “Do you know how we got from no evidence of that to that being the official position of the administration?”

    Because that’s what the attackers themselves said. See above.

    • BumpIt McCarthy

      Bravo, Doremus. I’m bookmarking your comment for reference.

      • DoremusJessup20

        It just proves Sir Trolls-A-Lot wasn’t really interested in the answers to his questions.

        • BumpIt McCarthy

          Fairly representative of his kind. Dollars to donuts he’s squinting at his Iphone composing a lovely groupthink piece for his peeps, rebutting Bob’s rebuttal and mewling about the horrible incivility shown him here.

          • D_C_Wilson

            And yet he keeps coming back here. What’s up with that?

    • Dennis

      Those are hardly answers. Are you seriously so naive that you think something one of the attackers is reported to have said is true? The headline tells you he’s scoffing at the US. But you take him at his word. Good enough for you, moving right along. Bookmarking, Bravo Doremus. Seriously?

      • D_C_Wilson

        Those were answers. They just weren’t the ones you wanted.

        • Dennis

          Relying on the word of an attacker is pretty weak when our intelligence on the ground said it was a planned terrorist attack from the first day. Did Hillary take his word like you and Doremus did?

          • D_C_Wilson

            There was more there than just the word of the attacker. Try reading the whole thing, Sparky.

          • DoremusJessup20

            when our intelligence on the ground said it was a planned terrorist attack from the first day.

            Can you provide a link that backs up that assertion?

          • MikeH

            No he can’t. He is a troll and an Artful Dodger…

        • GrafZeppelin127

          Bingo. They’ll keep asking what 2+2 is until someone says “5.”

      • DoremusJessup20

        Are you seriously so naive that you think something one of the attackers is reported to have said is true?

        Of course, you won’t believe the attacker when they tell you their motive because you prefer to make up your own.

        • Dennis

          That guy is laughing at you right now.

          • nathkatun7

            And how do you know this for a fact, dear wise one? Did you personally talk to the guy? Or are we supposed to accept your speculations as revealed TRUTHS? Clearly, no answers are acceptable to you unless they are the type of answers that confirm your preconceived conclusions.

        • Dennis

          Eyewitnesses also say Abu Khatella led the attack. Khattala claims he wasn’t there. Which of those two conflicting reports do you choose to believe?

        • morgan

          dude i seriously question the credibility of khattala. hes was a freakin participant. you think someone who helps murder innocent people is a trustworthy person? come on now.

          also, google Taqiyya. its a principle of islam that says while lying is a sin, its ok to lie to an infidel if its in the best interests of the muslim faith. yea, we should totally take that dudes word as fact.

      • MikeH

        Ahhahahahahahaha…

      • MikeH

        Shorter Dennis- “I don’t like one of the many points you bring up, therefore your whole premise is bullshit to me”

        SOOOOOOO……….we can refer to you as Artful Dodger from now on..????

  • Eff-BHO

    libtards do not care about justice and truth. 6 years later it is still Bush’s fault. Whaaaaa call the wambulabce…our Messiah is going to jail

    • GrafZeppelin127

      [Applause]

      Now, pull the string and say “IRS.” Then pull the string and say “Fast & Furious.” Then say “Solyndra,” then say “ACORN,” then say “Muslim,” then say “libtards” again.

      • Eff-BHO

        now, crawl back under the progressive rock you live under. buh bye

        • Lady Willpower

          You can only say “buh bye” when you’ve won an argument, not spouted catchphrases.

          • Eff-BHO

            this is not an argument. it’s a bush bashing progressive back patting joke. buh bye

          • melora

            There hasn’t really been all that much Bush-bashing. There has been Benghazi-Conspiracy-bashing, Republican bashing, and mostly Eff-BHO bashing. And Bush-Bashing is a misnomer. It is actually about bashing people who didn’t get upset or outraged about something until Obama did it. Really, I mean, how moronic was Umbrellagate? How paranoid and moronic was the claim that Muslims wouldn’t have to sign up for Obamacare? That one really makes my head spin!

        • GrafZeppelin127

          [Applause]

          Dance, Bobo, dance!

          [Applause]

      • nathkatun7

        Indeed! And this poor idiot probably doesn’t know what the word “libtards” means. He probably heard it repeated, over and over again, at those right wing talk radio shows.

    • BumpIt McCarthy

      Bush’s Wrong-Way-Corrigan (look it up, you illiterate chunk of asphalt—if you can spell “Google”) War-for-no-reason destabilized the Middle East and caused a thousand terrorist cells to bloom. A hundred years from now, it will still be Bush’s fault.

      Dubya is the Big Bang of Dumbass Disaster.

      • Eff-BHO

        my my libtard it seems your panties are all bunched up your tolerant arse

        • Lady Willpower

          And out comes the “oh the tolerant Left” card!
          I’m sure you’re sooo tolerant, right? I mean, when you’re not calling us “libtards?”

          • CultOfTheBean

            Isn’t it amazing? He doesn’t even know what “tolerant” means, so obviously he projects “retard” on liberals.

          • Eff-BHO

            He is a she! Stop your war on women libtard

          • CultOfTheBean

            So, that sex change operation was a success? I bet you and Ann Coulter are best of friends.

          • Eff-BHO

            Not a fan of Ann but thanks to Obama Bradley Manning can have a taxpayer funded sex change while Veterans die waiting for basic healthcare.

          • melora

            Is that you Ann Coulter? Actually she’s also masculine and conservative, but she is not stupid. You’re a special kind of stupid. And Ann is American.
            Ok, I know that wasn’t nice. You are really being so mistreated here!

          • Eff-BHO

            Call it like i see it

          • BumpIt McCarthy

            THAT’S the problem! Looking at the world through wingnut-colored glasses makes everything ugly.

            When we open Camp FEMAwacky, we’ll have the Obamopterist take a look at you.

          • Eff-BHO

            We?

          • Dizivi

            “Call it like i see it” = No tolerance.

            Good to know.

          • Lady Willpower

            Have fun with that.

        • melora

          OMG! Arse isn’t the word American use! Why are you arguing about this on the “Patriot” side if you aren’t even American. You are a total troll.

    • NintendoWii10

      “libtards”

      Sooooooooooooo original!

      • Eff-BHO

        Its Bush’s fault! So original

        • Dizivi

          But true in a lot of cases.

    • J_Enigma32

      0/0 on the Troll Scale. A pre-Turing device could probably do this job better than you.

      That’s some weak trolling, dude. Seriously. They invented “stupid” to express frustration with things more intelligent than you.

    • nathkatun7

      Don’t you guys get tired of making predictions that never come true? You predicted that he will be impeached over the “birther” nonsense and it didn’t happen. You predicted that he would be a one term President and he thoroughly humiliated your man by winning re-election with an electoral landslide. You predicted that Obama Care will fail, but it’s turning out to be a rousing success. It might do you some good to stop and reflect on how pathetic you are with all your BS predictions.

  • Eff-BHO

    Nice try Goebbels. You have a severe case of BDS coursing through your progressive lying veins

    • That River Gal

      Wow. Just wow.

      • Eff-BHO

        like totally… right

        • That River Gal

          I was just amazed. You are a walking stereotype. The epitome of trolliness. And dumb. My god, so dumb.

          • Eff-BHO

            You must be looking in the mirror

          • Dizivi

            Look in mirror = shitty comeback.

            Try again.

          • That River Gal

            Next up, “I’m rubber and you’re glue…”

      • Lady Willpower

        You have lying veins!

  • D_C_Wilson

    10 of these attacks don’t count because no Americans were killed? Really? He went there? Only American deaths matter? Wow.

    • melora

      One of the claims was that the only people who died in one of the attacks were the terrorists. What’s up with that??? I very much doubt that it is true, but if it is, I agree that terrorists shouldn’t count. But Non Americans who are killed as a result of a terrorist attack against American installations count just as much as the Americans.

  • http://www.osborneink.com/ OsborneInk

    “I’ve made it clear on many occasions that conducting investigations of Bush-era mistakes or the officials who made them is a very bad idea.” So have I, and you make the point very well, but anyone who insists otherwise should be asked which achievements of the last five years should be set aside to pursue their “war crimes” circus. The ACA? Frank-Dodd? Overturning DADT? Would they trade all these advances for one oxygen-consuming investigation, or just some of them?

  • NintendoWii10

    It’s all about the RW being scared shitless of Hillary running in 2016 and winning it all, THAT is what this Benghazi sideshow is about. Add that in with Rove’s brain damage attack and you can smell their Hillary fear from a mile away.

    • Dennis

      Heh.

      Keep telling yourself that. Better yet, sit back and read other people writing it over and over every day here.

      • NintendoWii10

        You’re scared of Hillary running in 2016. Look at the GOP clowncar, who has a chance of winning? Jeb Bush? Ted Cruz? Rand Paul? Rick Santorum?

      • D_C_Wilson

        If they aren’t scared of her, why is the conservative entertainment complex dedicating so much air time this week to the “sudden” concern over a concusion that she sustained over a year ago?

        • Dennis

          Heh. You’re scared she won’t run. You have no good options after that. She’s an older, white privileged politician who was called a racist by many Democrats and liberals in an effort to get her to drop out of the Dem primaries. Everyone here will misremember that they once thought 70′s was too old for a president. A woman you called a racist. Oliver called her Hillary ‘White Power’ Clinton.

          Plsn B is Uncle Joe Biden. OW called him a racist, too. And an idiot.

          • D_C_Wilson

            Actually, I’m hoping someone better runs and beats her in the primary. I’ve never been a huge fan of hers and I have no use for political dynasties, especially given how poorly the last one worked out. So, try again.

            And I wouldn’t gloat. We’re still more than two years out and each anointed republican savior keeps crashing and burning. Rubio, Cruz, Christie. Randy is in the process of flaming out right now. If this keeps up, you’re going to be stuck with Ginrich or Santorum.

          • J_Enigma32

            Honestly? Speaking as a liberal? I hope she doesn’t. The last thing I want is to start political dynasties.

          • nathkatun7

            Cite evidence to support your claims!

          • Dennis

            Hillary White Power Clinton
            Oliver Willis on May 08, 2008
            The Daily Banter

          • Dennis

            http://thedailybanter.com/2008/05/hillary-white-power-clinton/

            Hillary White Power Clinton
            Oliver Willis
            May 8, 2008

            Comments from that time have been deleted.

    • melora

      There are also the 2014 elecrions. Trying to make Democrats look more corrupt and stupid than Republicans is one of their campaign strategies. It won’t work any better than it did in 2012. The average American is not an extreme-right Fox News viewer. Fox News’ average viewer is 68 and that is not an average demographic. But they have no clue because they only hang out with each other. That’s why they were so shellshocked by the 2012 election. Hell, even I was surprised. I expected Obama to lose but he won by a big margin. Not only the electoral votes, but the popular votes.

  • HSmith

    Don’t read the comments on that article. There worse than you’d think.

  • Danann13

    Good job, Bob Cesca

  • Valerie Roberts

    I have gone up against Becker in the past on IJR. He is a tool. He thinks he is super intelligent, of course. He worked in Russia. O, wow! He hates Progressives. He likes to post at Mediaite on stories. He in fact, just yesterday, commented on a story. He’s a narcissist.

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/of-course-theres-a-gift-shop-at-the-911-museum

    Check his comments on the story here.

    • Keith Keck

      IJR is a typical right-wing site; facts are unimportant as they are just preaching to the choir. Pretty much a just few ass hats making money following the Limbaugh/Hannity playbook.

  • Sirfith™ (D)

    “all of the attacks during the Bush era were against U.S. consulates and embassies”

    Nope not a U.S. consulate or embassy “May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound”

  • Sirfith™ (D)

    Moving the Goalposts.
    “13 Benghazis That Occurred On Bush’s Watch Without a Peep From Fox News.”
    ” And, look, obviously none of the attacks were exactly like Benghazi”

    • Rollo Tamasi

      Full quote:

      “And, look, obviously none of the attacks were exactly like Benghazi — for that, they’d each have to take place in Benghazi, for one.

      • Sirfith™ (D)

        Headline not -> 13 attacks against U.S. consulates and embassies That Occurred On Bush’s Watch

        Nice to see you know the difference between “THIS WAS JUST exactly/ preciselyLIKE BENGHAZI” and “THIS WAS JUST LIKE BENGHAZI.”

    • D_C_Wilson

      When has any disaster looked exactly like another disaster, numbnut? Only an idiot would expect two attacks to look exactly the same or that someone else claimed that they were.

  • i_a_c

    B’GAZI
    Oops, sorry for the double post guys. Thought it didn’t go through. Feel free to delete the other one.

  • Guest
  • BumpIt McCarthy

    Fantastic piece. I was waiting for it, but knew that it would take you a little while since instead of simply making angry assertions, you would have to do research the way a real journalist does.

    As far as cover-ups and deflections, how about this: the entire RW pimping of BENGHAAAAZI is a deflection from the fact that the rancid anti-MuslimTea Party YouTube video DID have a role in the violence there. Terrorists seized the opportunity given them by the YouTube to make the attack, piggybacking on the outrage the video created across the Middle East.

    The families of the dead have asked specifically that their loved ones not be politicized, but the RW has lost all moral compass: they’re addled with need to politicize EVERYTHING, stoking themselves with hatred and fear. These are the grandchildren of McCarthyites, and the question Welch asked at the Army hearings wouldn’t play any more, because the simple answer is “no.”

    • Churchlady320

      That is precisely the correct characterization – “pimping of Benghazi”. Thank you.

      One of the men who died in Benghazi was a colleague of mine. His life and name were among the first to be OPENLY politicized by Romney who claimed he’d met Glenn but had not. His parents were livid at the blatant exploitation of their son for political gain using a totally false statement. Nothing but nothing is sacred to these people who use the deaths of four people to fund raise, to promote themselves, to try to impeach this president. They are a true “Parliament of Pimps” if not whores themselves.

  • GrafZeppelin127

    It must always be remembered that inside the paracosm, all of the broad principles, ideologies, philosophies, etc. that they believe are self-evidently true. The only reason to look at “evidence,” the only purpose “evidence” can serve, is to validate those beliefs and the “truth” or “correctness” thereof.

    “Conservatism” can’t fail; it can only be failed.

    When bad things happen during Republican presidencies, it’s the fault of either (1) Democrats in Congress, (2) the previous Democratic president, or (3) the next Democratic president. When Republican policies fail, it’s because Democrats and RINOs prevented them from working as intended.

    Remember, George W. Bush was, inside the paracosm, a brilliant, strong, resolute, courageous, divinely-inspired historically-great leader … yet was utterly powerless to prevent the Democrats from ruining everything during his disastrous presidency. Reagan was Our Greatest President, yet was utterly powerless to prevent the Democrats from tripling the national debt.

    You have to work backwards from the self-evident awesomeness of Republicans and conservatism to understand what’s going on in the paracosm. Everything that happens anywhere ever, everything that has ever happened anywhere in the history of the world, validates and proves that being a conservative and voting Republican is the only sane, correct, proper thing to do. That’s the universe in which they exist.

    • http://buddymccue.wordpress.com/ Buddy McCue

      Yes, in order to understand the Right’s method of thought, it is indeed necessary to realize that they work backwards from “self-evident” conclusions.

      Scientists call this “confirmation bias,” and they know that they must always guard against it. This is why the Scientific Method was developed, to have a disciplined approach to avoid the influence of preconceived notions on the truth-finding process.

      The Right’s method is to start with the answers, and work backwards to the question, almost like a Scientific Method in reverse. If one wished to codify ignorance itself, that would be a good way to do it.

      • Dennis

        Uhhh, we want to know basic question we’ve had since it first happened. The same questions. Like why was Stevens there. Why did we allow fighting to go on for 8 hours with no response. What was Obama doing that might, who did he talk to, when, and what did he say? Where did the notion if an Internet video being the cause pop up, who promoted it, and just how did it become the official line by the administration and who decided to go with that fir another two weeks when it was known very early on that it wasn’t what spawned the attacks? Those are all questions asked from the very first weekend.

        • http://buddymccue.wordpress.com/ Buddy McCue

          These were the questions dreamed up AFTER the initial conclusion that maybe this was something the Republicans could attack the administration with.

          They started with the answer (or the verdict, if you will,) that the administration was guilty of SOMETHING, and then started the process of figuring out what that something might be.

          Personally, I doubt this fishing expedition is going to bring home any fish, so to speak. The Republicans must be pretty desperate at this point.

          • Dennis

            Seriously, if you thought that, you wouldn’t be talking about it here everyday. You just wouldn’t.

          • BumpIt McCarthy

            That’s a fallacy. When the same circus unpacks its clowncar in front of you every day, it may become tedious, but one still has to remark upon it.

          • http://buddymccue.wordpress.com/ Buddy McCue

            “Everyday?”

            Shows what you know. I’ve never posted to this website before in my life.

          • Dennis

            Should’ve said ‘you guys’. Sometimes people say ‘you’ referring to ‘you all’. People here talk about Benghazi every day.

          • http://buddymccue.wordpress.com/ Buddy McCue

            I’m a Southerner. Unlike the rest of the country, we do have a plural form of the word “you.”

            If I meant to talk about people in the plural sense, I would have said “y’all.”

            No, when I say “shows what you know,” I’m pointing my finger at YOU, and I’m referring to you alone. You can’t squirm out of it.

          • http://buddymccue.wordpress.com/ Buddy McCue

            Where I come from, we say “y’all.”

            English really does need a plural form of the word.

        • Dizivi

          How the hell are we suppose to take you seriously if you took the time to write ‘Uhhh’?

        • DoremusJessup20

          Those questions have all been answered, you just don’t like the answers.

          • Dennis

            You know what, I don’t disagree with that. If you were running the show, I don’t think you’d be, either. Elections have consequences. If they don’t like the answers, and they don’t for good reasons, they can keep asking them. Your option is to keep calling it a witch hunt.

          • BumpIt McCarthy

            You just admitted that you’re using the hearings as a political stunt. Perhaps this is how you rationalize the number of investigations of Republican malfeasance that have taken place over the years: Watergate, Iran-Contra, the 911 Commission—all just political jockeying and fair game, huh?

            So the consequence of elections is that the party with the power to investigate gets to grandstand with the gavel, by your lights. Cynicism of a truly magnificent scale.

          • Dennis

            So the consequence of elections is that the party with the power to investigate gets to grandstand with the gavel, by your lights.

            See, there you guys go again, starting a sentence with the word ‘So’ only to be followed with a dishonest representation of what I just said. Why do you do that? It’s so sleazy.

            Anyone can sit at a hearing and give vague answers to questions and then claim they answered those questions. Trey Gowdy can do much more now. He can call two witnesses at the same time and cross-examine. No one on the conservative side wants him to grandstand. That’s not what he was chosen for. I never admitted conservatives were using this as a political stunt. The questions being asked now are the questions asked the first few days after the attack.

          • NintendoWii10

            Gowdy Doody? He’s already declared that this “committee” is a trial. IOW, he’s already decided the Obama administration is guilty and is looking for a conviction.

          • Dennis

            Gowdy never called it a show trial, he simply compared what the Democrats were doing to what happens in other trials when evidenced is legally subpoenaed and the other side refuses to comply with said legal request.

            There’s no IOW about what he said. There’s nothing true about what you just said.

            Thanks for admitting you have the intelligence of a piece of lawn furniture.

          • NintendoWii10

            WASHINGTON — Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) backtracked on Sunday from an earlier description of the select committee he is leading to investigate the 2012 attack in Benghazi as “a trial.”

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/11/trey-gowdy-benghazi_n_5305134.html

            He’s already slipped and already knows he gave up the jig, hence the backpeddling.

          • Dennis

            He gave you a card to play. It’s boring. If you knew it was a slip, why did you describe it first as his definition of what was going to take place? I mean, I appreciate you coming clean and all, but why the charades at first?

          • BumpIt McCarthy

            ” The questions being asked now are the questions asked the first few days after the attack. ”

            Well, looks like you DID admit the hearings are being used as a cynical political stunt!

            Somebody needs to do a concordance of the 8? 13? Benghazi hearings questions and answers. It would save so much time.and taxpayer money.

            For anybody who cares about taxpayer money.

          • Dennis

            Bumpit, seriously, put down the crack pipe.

          • DoremusJessup20

            Hey asshole, why don’t you quit jerking off and engage me substantively?

            http://disq.us/8ih7q0

          • Dennis

            Because you’re a Copypasta chef and little else.

          • DoremusJessup20

            I provided three links that completely destroys Gowdy Doody’s questions that you copy and pasted and you can’t even address one of them substantively. You suck at this.

            Edit to add: Do you have any friends that can put forth a worthy debate based on substance that you could invite to this thread?

          • Dennis

            I think you overstate your contribution, Doremus. Sites like HuffPo, DailyKos, MMfA and ThinkProgress (which does neither), often write counter-arguments and then quickly and dishonestly make the same claim that they ‘completely destroyed the other side’s argument’, or ‘debunked it’ and that now the debate is over. You’ve picked up on that pattern with your copy and pastes. A quarter of your answers were ‘see above’. Another one regarding Susan Rice being competent was dismissive, arrogant and quite frankly, a joke. You give complete credence to the answer of Abu Khattani, as if it were the Gospel truth. It shows your level seriousness to this matter. It’s not one of understanding, it’s one of trying hard not to understand.

      • GrafZeppelin127

        Exactly; that’s what the Benghazi™ “scandal” is about. They’re waiting for the POTUS, his administration and his party to confirm their prejudices and delusions, and they won’t stop until they get it.

        • http://buddymccue.wordpress.com/ Buddy McCue

          Absolutely. Here’s what we know:

          1. The Right started looking for anything they could attack the Obama administration with from the very beginning. Some of it was frankly ridiculous (the birth certificate nonsense, for example.)

          2. As Bob Cesca points out in his article, attacks on embassies are (sadly) not uncommon, and yet the Right has not seen fit to question them before.

          The logical conclusion of an objective observer would be that the present hearings are hypocritical in nature.

  • courtbt

    I just can’t handle this anymore. It makes me genuinely angry and frustrated. I clicked the link to IJReview and my gosh – I hate that these people are allowed to vote! They live in their little bubble of mostly debunked talking points and have no interest in learning the facts about Benghazi (i.e. the fact that there have already been multiple, incredibly extensive, bipartisan hearings or that there were protests across the Middle East about the youtube video).

    • Dennis

      Do you know the origin of this mythology that the attacks were spawned as a spontaneous reaction to an Internet video? Do you know where it started? Do you know how we got from no evidence of that to that being the official position of the administration?

      • BumpIt McCarthy

        It is not mythology. A Libyan reporter for the NYT was lectured about the video by one of the terrorist sentries on the road to the embassy; the attack UTILIZED the video, rather than being a spontaneous demonstration. The video did inspire spontaneous demonstrations, and attacks, resulting in deaths, in Kabul, in Tunis, in India. http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/05/02/the_innocence_of_muslims_video_that_time_forgot.html

        The deflection and downplaying of the video’s true role in the deaths at Benghazi is a PR masterstroke by the RW, aided by the center and left’s tendency to self-examination and apology, traits the RW entirely lacks.

        Every time you utter “Benghazi,” you should see that the handwriting on the wall applies to you.

        • Dennis

          Bumpit, why were Hillary and Obama still flogging the video theory still nearly two weeks later?

          Why did Hillary tell Tyrone Woods’ father at Dover, while the four caskets were laid out before them, that they were going to charge and prosecute the makers of that video?

          • BumpIt McCarthy

            Obama stated that the attack was an act of terror the NEXT DAY.

            Charles Woods, in his grief and anger, has said that the administration watched his son die via drone, which is very simply untrue: there was no video feed, no drone. The only footage is security cam footage, which wasn’t available for viewing for TWENTY DAYS. http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/benghazi.asp

            Moreover, the video was a catalyst for the attack: the terrorists piggybacked their assault on demonstrations of outrage that took place throughout the middle east, demonstrations for which that video was responsible.

            You may regret continuing to pimp the grief of these people, including Mr. Woods, for political gain, because the focus on the culpability of the wingnuts who decided to light this fire may come back under the focus it rightly deserves.

      • courtbt

        I do and am worried about your cognitive capabilities that you don’t.

        1. Internet video – you cannot claim that this is mythology, considering there was a Internet video and there were protests across the Middle East in response to said Internet video, Innocence of Muslims. The CIA released talking points to the House Intelligence Committee that stated they believed, to the best of their knowledge, “the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo.” You can find copies of the original email online.

        2. Do I know where what started? The protests over the video or the belief that the attack was due to the video? Domestic analysts with the CIA on Congressional Intelligence pointed to the protests.

        3. I believe that this was the “official” position of the White House at the time:

        “Based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that– in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution.”

        • Dennis

          That wasn’t at all the best information they had to date. People on the ground, who were there, were all saying it was not a spontaneous uprising from an Internet video, but an Al Qaeda attack. We still haven’t been able to interview those people, eyewitnesses. Why not? Does that bother you? Does it even make you mildly curious, given the fact you’re upset with Cheney and their transparency, and further given that Obama promised full transparency?

          Honest question, courtbt.

          • courtbt

            You mean the people on the ground whose identities the CIA were trying to protect by scrubbing Al Qaeda references from talking points?

            I have no problem with being kept in the dark to protect sources. It’s why I will never support the document dumping that occurs by “whistleblowers” and why I support maintaining some secrecy within our intelligence agencies.

          • Dennis

            Then you were against CIA agents testifying about enhanced interrogation techniques?

          • courtbt

            Ahh, I see now why others on this site do not seem to like you very much.

            When I said “I support maintaining some secrecy within our intelligence agencies,” I, of course, blatantly meant that I think the CIA should do whatever it wants. Snark aside, I’m truly baffled as to how my statement of “I have no problem with being kept in the dark to protect sources” translates into me supporting torture?

          • Dennis

            I didn’t imply that you support torture. I didn’t even mention torture. And dude, I don’t post here to be liked by people I’ll never meet. If that’s your goal,that’s fine, but it’s not mine.

            The fact is, you don’t have principles outside of declaring them when they follow the liberal line. And that’s sad.

          • courtbt

            Um, you are aware that “enhanced interrogation techniques” = torture, right? I thought that was a pretty commonly known euphemism for torture.

            I love that based on what, five comments today, plus maybe three other ones in total on this site, you feel that you can state “facts” about me and my principles. Except I missed that liberal line of lionizing “whistleblowers” – whoops! Whatever will my principles do??

      • Robert Scalzi

        go away troll

        • Dennis

          Please check your liberal privilege at the door when you first log in, Robert.

          • BumpIt McCarthy

            You really are demonstrating your inherently trollish, gruesome nature. See above, a colleague of one of the dead, speaking of the parents’ horror to see their son’s name constantly invoked by ruthless ghouls like you.

            Of course, there’s precedent for the right wing profiteering off the conveniently dead-and-unable-to-speak-for-themselves: poor Vincent Foster’s suicide became a neverending source of amusement and trolling for the RW. He too had a family, who not only had to bear the grief of losing him, but the ugly insanity of idiots who promptly turned his name into a bizarre conspiracy theory that has obliterated the memory of the living man.

            There’s really no punishment fitting enough for these creeps, beyond hoping there’s a God to handle them, and that there are bleachers in heaven for victims of false witness to observe the judgement.

          • LookAtThisIdiot

            Shouldn’t you be jerking yourself off over at IJReview?

  • judi

    Spot on!!!!!

  • MikeH

    Haha. Your move, “Dennis”.

    “But,but,but talking points….”

    • Dennis

      Gladly. Here’s Trey Gowdy throwing down the gauntlet a while ago. Questions never answered. Not by anyone. Not attempted by this blog.

      ”We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act in Benghazi, and make no mistake, justice will be done.” That was the president of the United States over a year ago.

      “We’re investigating exactly what happened, but my biggest priority now is bringing those folks to justice.” That was the president of the United States over a year ago. No one has been arrested. No one has been prosecuted. No one has been brought to justice. We don’t even have access to the witnesses.

      You in the media were good enough for my 16 years as a prosecutor not to tell me how to do my job, and so far in Congress, y’all have been good enough not to tell me how to do my job. I’m not telling you how to do your job. But I’m going to ask you some questions, and if you can’t answer these questions, then I’ll leave you to draw whatever conclusion you want to draw about whether or not the media has provided sufficient oversight.

      Can you tell me why Chris Stevens was in Benghazi the night that he was killed? Do you know? Does it bother you whether or not you know why Chris Stevens was in Benghazi? Do you know why we were the last flag flying in Benghazi after the British had left and the Red Cross had been bombed? Do you know why requests for additional security were denied? Do you know why an ambassador asking for more security days and weeks before he was murdered and those requests went unheeded? Do you know the answer to why those requests went unheeded? Do you know why no assets were deployed during the siege? And I’ve heard the explanation — which defies logic, frankly — that we couldn’t have gotten there in time, but you know, they didn’t know when it was going to end. So how can you possibly cite that as an excuse? Do you know whether the president called any of our allies and said, “Can you help? We have men under attack.” Can you answer that? Do any of you know why Susan Rice was picked? The secretary of state did not go. She says she doesn’t like Sunday talk shows. That’s the only media venue she does not like, if that’s true. Why was Susan Rice on the five Sunday talk shows? Do you know the origin of this mythology that it was spawned as a spontaneous reaction to a video? Do you know where that started? Do you know how we got from no evidence of that to that being the official position of the administration?

      In conclusion, Congress is supposed to provide oversight, the voters are supposed to provide oversight, and you are supposed to provide oversight. That’s why you have special liberties, and that’s why you have special protections. I am not surprised that the president of the United States called this a phony scandal. I’m not surprised Secretary Clinton asked, “What difference does it make?” I’m not even surprised that Jay Carney said Benghazi happened a long time ago. I’m just surprised at how many people bought it.

      You bought it, Mike. Everyone here did. You’ve all invested heavily in to the notion that there’s nothing here and that those questions don’t merit answers. And it’s shameful.

      • GrafZeppelin127

        There is nothing here, and the questions have already been answered.
        You can’t squeeze orange juice from a brick no matter how badly you want/need to believe that it’s in there.

        • Dennis

          Your spontaneous reaction to those unanswered questions is to say that those questions have already been answered. It was spawned from a video you watched of Jay Carney saying all questions have been answered. He also said all emails had been turned over. You bought that, too.

          • GrafZeppelin127

            Mind-reading is not your strong suit.

          • Dennis

            Thise questions haven’t been answered, Graf. You are mistaken and brain-washed. Numb to realities and not even curious about them. Sometimes I think I envy that about liberals, but my mind won’t allow me that luxury.

          • GrafZeppelin127

            If it pleases you to believe so.

          • aceshigh

            Dennis doesn’t care about those four dead Americans, nor did he care about the 3,000 Americans who died on 9/11, nor the thousands who died in Iraq.

            He sees everything through the prism of political gain. His cut-and-paste job above is a perfect example…he knows no one has the time to go point by point and answer each question, so he thinks that by leaving it out there hanging, it somehow proves something.

            It’s a typical fallacious debate tactic that the right loves engaging in.

          • Dennis

            No, aces. I care about all men and all deaths. I read and ponder John Donne’s meditations on isolation and mortality daily.

            It’s an ignorant thing to say about someone you don’t know. It’s bigotry on your part, actually. You seem proud to say it, actually, even though it’s not at all liberal. I find that odd about you.

          • NintendoWii10

            “No, aces. I care about all men and all deaths.”

            BULLSHIT! Where was your and other RWers outrage over the deaths from 9/11/01, which happened here ON AMERICAN SOIL?????!!!!!!!

            Where was YOUR outrage over the 4000+ deaths in Iraq?

            And, to address the point of your article, where was YOUR outrage over the multiple embassy/consulate deaths during President Bush’s administration?

          • BumpIt McCarthy

            But Nin, the diplomatic dead weren’t AMERICANS, except 10 or 11 of them. Don’t know what they would count for in Donne. Evidently every man’s death diminishes Dennis, but just not by very much, unless it can be used politically, in which case it augments him.

          • BumpIt McCarthy

            Weapons-grade Bushwa. Where is your care that the State Dept security budget was cut, by Republicans, AFTER Benghazi? Where was your care for the NON-American diplomatic employees who died in the multitude of attacks on American missions under Bush, not to mention the eleven Americans who also died? Where is your care for the Marines who died in Lebanon under Reagan?

            Where is your care for the thousands of Americans who died fighting a completely unnecessary and destabilizing war in Iraq, or the hundred thousand plus Iraqis who died?

            Reading Donne daily doesn’t seem to have diminished your appetite for bloodsport, nor your pondering to have been anything but solipsism patting itself on the back.

          • http://buddymccue.wordpress.com/ Buddy McCue

            It’s sometimes called “The Gish Gallop” after creationist Duane Gish.

            http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

          • aceshigh

            Thank you. I meant to reference Gish Gallop, but couldn’t recall the name of it.

          • http://buddymccue.wordpress.com/ Buddy McCue

            I remember the name because of a debate on evolution that Duane Gish had with Isaac Asimov, printed in the pages of Science Digest.

            I read that as a teenager, and it made a real impression on me. It was a good example of how to debate with someone who has no sense of fair play. Somewhat recently, I heard of this term “the Gish Gallop,” and I said “Oh, THAT guy! I remember him; he was awful!”

          • aceshigh

            The lack of self awareness that it takes for a right-winger to claim that it is liberals who are blind to reality is breathtaking.

            But that’s what happens when you live inside an artificially-constructed information bubble created by the conservative entertainment/media complex. It’s already been proven that conservatives live in a perpetual state of epistemic closure.

          • Dennis

            aces, what you know about Benghazi could be written on a Post-it Note, with plenty of room to spare. It would go something like this….

            Benghaziiii!!!! There’s no there there. Conspiracy!?!? OMG!! Haha.

          • BumpIt McCarthy

            There’s something there, all right, but it isn’t what you’re hoping for — and your glee in fighting little snitty internet battles using the deaths of these four Americans (and discounting the deaths of all non-Americans in the multitude of embassy attacks during the disastrous, know-nothing-learn-nothing Bush administration) is shameful.

          • nathkatun7

            Ambassador Thomas Pickering, who along with Admiral Mullen headed an Indepedent Review Board that investigated Benghazi, said: “There is no there there.” Apparently you think that Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen are not as credible as Trey Gawdy. If Republicans members of Congress waste millions of dollars on a another bogus investigation, as they did with “Whitewater,” they should be required to reimburse the tax payers for their wasteful spending and for neglecting to deal with real problems facing the American people.

      • MikeH

        Hahaha ..I called it…

        • Dennis

          No you didn’t call it. Asked and answered. Now, why don’t you do the same.

      • crypticedge

        Every single one of those questions have been answered multiple times in the briefings trey continuously skips. He’d know the answers if he’d take 5 minutes away from lying on Fox to attend them.

        Basically, you’ve taken the word of someone who’s refused to do his job as gospel.

        • Dennis

          To say every question has been answered takes an extreme level of naïveté, cryptic. An almost willing one.

          • NintendoWii10

            13 investigations have been conducted. There have been 50 congressional briefings and over 25,000 documents released.

            Seriously, WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO YOU NEED ANSWERED?!!!!!!!!!!

          • Dennis

            Dude, you don’t need to shout. I posted questions. Most of those weren’t answers. The investigations had no teeth. The amounts don’t mean anything if those giving them can spin and obfuscate like they did.

          • JozefAL

            “The investigations had no teeth.”

            Well, there’s the fucking problem dude. Get the GOPers who keep launching these insane investigations to get their shit together BEFORE they launch them.

            But seriously, dude. 13 fucking investigations in the last year and a half, and NOT ONE has delivered anything new or relevant (aside from allowing yet another group of smug GOPers to get a little face time on TV).

            If only Obama had the kind of mystical powers on OTHER matters that he apparently has when it comes to Benghazi…….

          • nathkatun7

            So the findings by Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen were all spin and obfuscation?

          • Dennis

            You guys all seem to have the “So” virus. Must be highly contagious on liberal blogs. Where does it come from, shows line Law and Order that solve mysteries in 15 seconds and five conclusions that all defy logic?

            What follows never has merit. It never logically follows other than in the speaker’s mind based on his win prejudices and conclusions about groups. Completely dishonest and intellectually dull. A leap from one statement to an illogical conclusion while giving the appearance that one has actually thought hard about that conclusion. And that’s never the case here.

          • nathkatun7

            In other words, you can’t honestly answer the simple question if the Benghazi findings of an independent Reviews Board, chaired by two respected public servants: Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Admiral Mike Mullen, “were all spin and obfuscation” as you alleged!

          • JozefAL

            Obviously the ones Dennis hasn’t thought of yet. I mean, this administration ought to be able to cover every possible angle (and the angles of the angles, and the angles of the angles of the angles, and so on ad infinitum) just–on the off minuscule chance–that someone (with obviously too much time on his hands) has yet to ask.

          • GrafZeppelin127

            It’s not that there are questions they need/want answered. It’s that they need/want answers that validate their prejudices and delusions, and until they get those “answers,” they’ll keep “asking” “questions.”

      • Eff-BHO

        Libtards do not want answers, they want to blame Bush.

        • BumpIt McCarthy

          Not blaming Bush for the astounding, global, thousand-year grand disaster on every level, that was his epic failure of a presidency, would be like not blaming the flu virus for the 1918 pandemic.

          As to answers, wingnuts are singularly uninterested in WHO were the A Q members who actually MURDERED the four Americans in Benghazi, much less hunting them down. And probably, hunting them down would be easier if Issa didn’t let classified information slip out during his turn at the Republican Dream House Investigation Playset.

          • Lady Willpower

            These are the same people who blame 9/11 on Bill Clinton. But don’t you dare blame anything on Bush!

        • Caribou “PAYCUT” Barbie™

          Bush is to blame for a great many things.

      • MikeH

        Soooooooo….you refer to someone else here as a copy pasta-er and you post that pile of same? Trey Gowdy? Is he Fox News’ next Great White Hype, in line after Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachman, Ted Cruz and Cliven Bundy; only to be forgotten about after he publicly embarrasses himself?? Counting down when that happens. 5, 4, 3, 2…..

  • aceshigh

    A low point was reached yesterday when Dick Cheney…DICK CHENEY…said that Hillary Clinton should be held accountable for Benghazi.

    This is Dick Cheney at his sociopathic best (worst).

    Don’t think he doesn’t know exactly what he’s doing…and he’s LOVING it. He knows people are going to go berserk over the grotesque double standard on display here (accountability over Benghazi vs. 9/11 and Iraq).

    This is actually a page right out of the Rove playbook, where you take your biggest weakness and project it onto your opponent; in this case, Bush/Cheney’s failure to not take the warning signs over 9/11 seriously, and OUR collective failure to not hold them accountable for it, and cynically spinning it into, “Well, Hillary failed us all in Benghazi because four people died, so now she should be held accountable.”

    I bet he’ll have some assistant read him irate responses to his comments tomorrow, and he’ll have himself a good chuckle over them.

    Twisted, soulless, murdering son of a bitch.

    • GrafZeppelin127

      Cheney may be the most evil man to ever hold high office in the United States, with the possible exception of Joe McCarthy. He’s certainly the most evil man to ever hold high executive office. And those familiar with my writing know I don’t make such hyperbolic characterizations lightly or indiscriminately.

    • don

      I have issues with Benghazi but they pale in comparison to my issues with Dick Cheney. It would be tough to find a Politician/Operative that has been more wrong with more negative consequence than Dick Cheney.

      • Dennis

        What are your issues with Benghazi?

        • don

          In a nutshell … I think the policy in Libya has been a failure. I think we involve our diplomatic core with secret policies that are often ill considered and hurt US credibility as a positive force in the World. I suspect those two things came together that night at a critical point in a Presidential campaign and politically driven concerns distorted the administrations response to the point of being deceptive. Don’t get me wrong, Dick Cheney and his pals invented this kind of crap. I just expect more from a man I voted for.

          • aceshigh

            So, basically…what you’re saying is Obama personally murdered Ambassador Stevens?

            Glad to know you’re on Team GOP, don! Welcome aboard.

          • don

            I didn’t even come close to saying that. Your hyperbolic hysteria is self-evident. Move on.

          • aceshigh

            I was being sarcastic. Forgive my snark.

          • don

            Lol … sorry … I have just had a few of those types of tomatoes thrown at me around here.

          • Dennis

            aces, why are liberals so find of starting sentences with “So basically…” That then proceed in to full blown lies about what the person just said?

          • Christopher Foxx

            So, basically…what you’re saying is Obama personally murdered Ambassador Stevens?

            So, basically…what you’re saying is it doesn’t matter what don actually wrote, you’re going to pull a Cheney on him and claim it was something else entirely?

            UPDATE: Based on the subsequent don-aceshigh exchange I misread something. I’m going to blame it on an early Monday morning.

          • NintendoWii10

            Not only that, but Obama was actually there in Benghazi, watching Ambassador Stevens take his last few breaths while cackling manically!

          • Dennis

            I admire you for saying that. I feel the same way, though I think it superfluous to blame Cheney. If Obama had admitted as much, he’d have been forgiven and it would’ve been forgotten. It might even be today. But now, he can’t. He’s invested in it. It’s not an option.

          • missliberties

            Obama will NEVER be forgiven by the right. He got re-elected. Period. End of story.

            Your drumbeat on Benghazi is the most pathetic, repititive, nauseating talking point in your war on talking points.
            But as long as it keeps you off the streets and out of trouble, carry on.

            The more you drone on about this, the more people will understand this is complete partisan hackery squared times infinity.
            The right has crossed a line known has decency.

          • Dennis

            missliberties, in regards to decency, why do you suppose there are two blog posts here daily concerning Benghazi? Do you need two of them to constantly reinforce the notion that there’s nothing to it? As if overnight doubt about that creeps back in and you need the reassurance again the next day.

            And why does it bother you so that not everyone is as convinced as you are that there’s no there there?

          • Christopher Foxx

            missliberties, in regards to decency, why do you suppose there are two blog posts here daily concerning Benghazi? Do you need two of them to constantly reinforce the notion that there’s nothing to it?

            Dennis, in regards to decency, why have their had to be over half a dozen “investigations” concerning Benghazi? Do you need more than one of them to conclusively show that there’s nothing to it?

            An ongoing parade and charade of investigations, and you find a couple of postings here about Benghazi to be too much somehow? You really just want to folks to be able to spread lies without opposition, don’t you. After all, people pointing out Republican dishonesty is just so unfair!

          • missliberties

            but, but, you didn’t answer my questions!

          • BumpIt McCarthy

            “why does it bother you so that not everyone is as convinced as you are” —

            this from our resident John Donne scholar? It’s not even English, much less argument. Very on-point for whiny zeta-male conservatrolling, however: Why do you insist on disagreeing with me? Why do you keep putting up posts disagreeing with me?

            And of course, the other side of the coin is, should the DB miss a day posting about the antics of the latest Auto-da-faux starring Tres Gaudy, WHY DOES BANTER KEEP SILENT ON BENGHAAAAAAZI?

          • Dennis

            Several points here. You’re a psycho. I never claimed to be a Donne scholar, or a scholar at all. Typing on an iPhone with only cell service at work on the little box this Discus format affords us is not easy to get right. It’s hard to see what I’m typing and today I didn’t have time to go back and edit everything. I don’t insist on disagreeing with you, I just respond to your questions and responses to me. This blog barely mentions the IRS scandal, and I don’t question why not. Or the VA scandal. Or the NSA scandal. But they obsess over Benghazi, and keep insisting there’s nothing to it. That’s inconsistent logic.

          • BumpIt McCarthy

            IRS scandal, the one where it turns out Progressive groups were targeted more than Conservative? You’re right, after it turned out to be another bit of methane from the RW gasbag-O-sphere, we didn’t make a giant noise about it. I guess we’re just not as given to paranoiac moaning.

            The Banter covers the NSA scandal, but not from the angle you’d either assume or like. You’re not paying attention, though to be honest, most of us pay NO attention to your blog.

            Benghazi isn’t a scandal, aside from the cynical way the RW is working a tragedy for fun and profit.

            Finally, Dennis, perhaps you’re overworking yourself, trying to fit all your trolling in that little Disqus box. Remember to put down the Iphone from time to time and focus your eyes on something in the distance — like beyond November 2016.

          • Dennis

            I’m sorry, did you just say there’s no scandal to Benghazi? Because I’ve never heard that here before. Weird.

          • BumpIt McCarthy

            The scandal is how RW ghouls are raising money and trying to make political hay off the deaths of these people.

            The scandal is how secondary the capture of the group that did this is to the RW ghouls raising money and trying to make political hay off the deaths of these people.

            A frank, apolitical and clear-headed investigation into exactly what security failures were preventable, in order to prevent them happening again, would be beneficial, of course, but isn’t likely in the poisonous atmosphere created by your party.

            And, of course, that expression of desire to find out exactly what happened was the important portion of Hilary Clinton’s testimony that is continually and deliberately neglected by the right wing in its dishonest attempt to smear her with noncontextual, doctored quotes.

          • Dennis

            I think I’m about to cry.

          • Christopher Foxx

            If Obama had admitted as much, he’d have been forgiven and it would’ve been forgotten.

            Bullshit, and Dennis knows it. If Obama admitted as much Republicans would never allow it to be forgotten and would refer to it every other sentence.

          • Dennis

            A couple weeks ago re: Benghazi and the Left’s excuse-making by bringing up Iraq War deaths and Bush lying about WMDs, I told you that line of argument was false, that two wrongs don’t make a right. You pounced on that as an admission that Bush lied us into war.

            I guess I should accept your response here as an admission that Obama fudged on the narrative for political expediency.

            He’d have been forgiven eventually. Maybe not forgotten, but on the whole, forgotten by a majority of the public at this point. Nothing is ever really forgotten. But the scandal would’ve died out long ago.

          • Christopher Foxx

            Dennis, 2 hours ago: “ If Obama had admitted as much, he’d have been forgiven and it would’ve been forgotten.

            Dennis, 18 minutes ago: “He’d have been forgiven eventually. Maybe not forgotten

            Don’t trip yourself up backpedaling that fast, Dennis.

          • Dennis

            Oh, Good God, Christopher, you are such a dweeb. Mostly forgotten. Forgotten in that it wouldn’t be digging him like it is now. Nothing is ever completely forgotten. The fact it’s as big an issue now is entirely the fault if the administration’s, and they chose to make it this way, hoping they could stall and obfuscate long enough to run out the clock. They almost did.

          • Christopher Foxx

            Oh, Good God, Dennis, you are such a predictable hypocritical troll.

          • Dennis

            You missed me when I left for a bit.

          • stacib23

            I certainly didn’t.

          • Dennis

            Creepy lurker, you weren’t here then.

          • stacib23

            You’re taking a major asskicking from all over the blog, and the best you have for me is “creepy lurker”. I’m hurt – devastated beyond words.
            BTW – I didn’t know one could be considered a lurker if theyve been around and vocal for at least the past six years.

          • Dennis

            You popped out from behind the bushes. You’re Aqualung.

          • Christopher Foxx

            Dennis: “You missed me when I left for a bit.

            Nope, sorry. But perhaps a longer absence is needed. Tell you what, go away for a long time and I’ll see if I miss you at all.

          • Dennis

            Christopher, don’t fear differing opinions than your own or those of the party line. But more importantly, resolve never to fear rebuke from your own collective for being objective and contemplative.

          • Christopher Foxx

            Gods, I just love being condescended to. And having it done ironically, by someone who never dreams of considering other opinions? Bliss!

            Seriously, breaking out the condescension is what Dennis does instead of whining “Oh just shut up, you poopyhead!” But we still recognize it for the infantile reaction it is.

    • glogrrl

      Yeah, THAT lying, cheating, draft-dodging grifting torturing war criminal had the cojones to call out Hillary Clinton! He should be sitting in the defendants chair in The Hague right now.

    • blair houghton

      Is this the same Cheney who said Poppy shouldn’t be held accountable for cutting and running in Iraq in 1991? Then came back to be VP in 2000 and started a war with Iraq just to make up for that?

      Yup.

      What a flaming, self-serving asshole.

    • Lady Willpower

      This is the same Dick Cheney who actually had the temerity to say “When we were there, on our watch, we were always ready on 9/11, on the anniversary,”

      Yes. On the anniversary. What was it the anniversary of, I wonder? Oh, that’s right. The greatest intelligence failure in our history. The deadliest attack on American soil in our history. The anniversary. Got it covered!

      You know what would have been even better than “ramping up security” on the anniversary of 9/11? Making sure the original 9/11 hadn’t happened in the first place.

      • Dennis

        How was that supposed to happen? Totally revamping the whole airline industry after shutting it down for a couple months, or more, in the middle of a recession, based on a vague memo that said bin Ladin was determined to strike the US?

        • BumpIt McCarthy

          Based on multiple intelligence briefings detailing possible plane hijackings, including very fresh information in a briefing on July 10: http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/11/13809524-evidence-piles-up-that-bush-administration-got-many-pre-911-warnings

          You really don’t want to go into how Bush might have acted as a real leader would act, Dennis. You really don’t.

          • Dennis

            Sure, go right ahead. Rich emerald didn’t reveal anything new. We all know warnings went unheeded, bit no one put it all together. Steps had to be put together so all the agencies talk to each other better now. You could just as easily blame Clinton for leaving Bush with dominate ted and fractious intelligence agencies. But what good dues that do. Please, tell us all the heaven and earth Bush should’ve moved after reading that memo.

          • DoremusJessup20

            Dennis, I realize you’re quite busy ignoring the answers to the burning questions that I painstakingly provided but you could at least acknowledge my effort.

            http://disq.us/8ih7q0

          • Dennis

            Doremus. I’m sorry that copying and pasting is so painstaking for you. I find it fairly easy and straightforward. As for what you had to read, that shouldn’t be painstaking for you. What should be painstaking is taking an objective view and sincerely trying to understand what other opinions are without prejudice from what other bloggers have told you.

          • DoremusJessup20

            Why don’t you attempt to refute the evidence I provided?

          • NintendoWii10

            If President Obama received a similar memo, ignored it and instead went on vacation and then the attacks happened, you RWers would be putting up impeachment charges in the House and removing him from office in the next month.

            But we get it, nothing under President Bush’s watch was his fault. It was Hillary who voted for the Iraq War, and the new Democratic congress that crashed the economy in 2008. Party of personal responsibility my ass!

          • Dennis

            I don’t think you first claim is true had it happened when it did and Obama was the President. Recall that Obama has been blaming Bush since he first started campaigning. Promising to be the most transparent president ever. Hope and change and all that. He wanted to be held to a higher standard. I think if you were honest about it, you’d acknowledge disappointment at what he promised. But impeach him in 2001 after 9/11? I don’t think so. I don’t even believe he’d have voted against the Iraq War resolution had he been in Congress and could vote.

          • stacib23

            He’s got his head up his ass – he can’t see where he’s going.

        • NintendoWii10

          President Bush was given the very scenario in which Al Qaeda members were planning to hijack American airliners and crash them into buildings.

          His response?

          Go on vacation.

          But but but OBUMMER GOES ON VACATION AND HE GOLFS AND READS OFF OF TELEPROMPTERS AND STUFF!!!!

          • Dennis

            Yet Bush was re-elected. You’re grasping at straws.

          • Barbara Striden

            To this country’s profound detriment.

          • NintendoWii10

            Yes, Bush was re-elected, thanks to Tom Ridge raising the threat levels before the election. That’s not Bush’s fault either!

          • Dennis

            You’ve now revealed yourself as a nutcase. Just blew the doors wide open. You finally came out. Congratulations!

          • gocart mozart

            Actually, Ridge has admitted that he was pressured to raise threat levels for political reasons but facts are your enemies aren’t they denny.

          • BumpIt McCarthy

            That’s a logical non-sequitur. Public opinion turns very slowly, especially when it’s a misled public, as, for instance, when the president and vice president repeatedly lie about Saddam Hussein being connected with 9/11. Like that.

          • Dennis

            Like, if you like your plan you can keep your plan PERIOD? And like ‘the Benghazi attacks were spawned from a spontaneous reaction to an Internet video based on best intelligence we had at the time’?

          • MikeH

            So was Obama. And so are you. You ready to give this whole thing up now?

          • gocart mozart

            Lots of stupid people vote. Your point is what?

          • Dennis

            gocart, the average person thinks they’re much smarter than the average person. I suspect that includes you.

            It’s not true at all that Bush was given the very scenario that ended up happening and that his response was to go on vacation. If people thought that, and blamed him for dereliction of duty as Nintendo suggested, he wouldn’t have been re-elected.

        • MikeH

          Let us not for get the often forgotten DC Sniper attacks that took place in 2002 where 10 us citizens people were killed by Foreign terrorists. ANOTHER ATTACK that Bush let happen on his watch. “But, but. How could he have known? What intelligence could he have had at that time??”

        • AnnOnymous2U

          Read “Crossing the Rubicon” if you want the whole story of the horrendous intelligence failure that led to 9/11. Or more precisely, the horrendous *ignoring* of an astonishing mass of data coming in to the CIA and other intelligence agencies here that was all flat out ignored.

          Bottom line: the Bush administration knew very well that this sort of attack was going to happen, and indeed how, although maybe not exactly when and where. There were far too many documented reports *from other countries* about the intelligence they provided to the US to even consider any other possibility.

          And yet they did absolutely *zero* to protect against it, and indeed had war games and exercises going on that very day that had our fighter jets too far away to be able to respond as each attack occurred.

          *NORAD* was told to stand down when they wanted to try to respond, once they realized what was happening.

          And that’s assuming the administration didn’t plan and execute the whole thing their own selves from the get-go, which is a distinct possibility, if not likelihood, but that’s another topic.

          So how was making sure the whole thing didn’t happen supposed to happen? Well, I’d start with having people actually pay attention to their intelligence reports, and then instigating far tighter security – including making darn sure our defense forces were ready and waiting right where they were supposed to be.

          Oh, but no, this wasn’t like Benghazi at all.

    • NintendoWii10

      There aren’t enough foul words to describe my disgust towards Emperor Cheney.

    • Right Wired

      Clinton’s FBI was warned about 9/11 by the Philippine government in 1995.

      “Hillary Clinton should be held accountable for Benghazi.”

      Of course she should be. Who else?!