Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is what happens when the GOP and the Fox News noise machine cry wolf too many times. It is clear to everyone that the right wing has latched on to Benghazi as a way to hopefully smear Hillary Clinton and make it harder for her to be our next President.
IMO, the Benghazi show trial is just another GOP/Fox dirty trick and smear like "terrorist fist bumps", "deep seated hatred for white people", and birtherism. Rational people are tired of the right wings antics.
In your opinion. What gets me is the "we have to listen to the Generals, they know what they're doing".
And what happened with Vietnam when everyone listened to General Westmoreland - he lied and escalated the Vietnam War. Westmoreland started out with 15,000 troops in Vietnam, going up to 500,000 in 3 years, and when the Tet Offensive happened the following year, Westmoreland asked for an additional 200,000. It was only then that Johnson started to question Westmoreland's claims that the US was making progress. You (not you directly!!!!) would think that someone who was around at that time or knows their war history would remember that screw up.
I remember when Bill Clinton was elected. The Right couldn't stand him and they immediately came up with an Arkansas scandal about his involvement in a real estate deal called Whitewater. For eight straight years the Republicans tried to remove him from office. After investigations by every goverment agency known to man they settled for a blow job. The day the Republican house impeached him every Democrat walked out. Man Alive they had the senate on a fast track to remove Clinton from office till billionaire publisher Larry Flynt dug up abortions, daliences, etc. on the Republicans and the newly elected speaker of the house Bob Livingston had to resign and Henry Hyde didn't run again after their affairs were reported. Turned out that rep Bob Barr had paid for an abortion for his first wife after standing on his soap box screaming pro-life for his whole career. The best part is that Flynt told them all that he had other things he would release if they removed Clinton from office. Guess What Sport's Fans?? The senate did not remove him from office and during his final year his approval rating rose to the mid 60's.
Bottom line is that Republicans are sore losers and since they've lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections they're boiling over. Benghazi is a tempest in a tea pot and the people who were killed were drawing big salaries plus hazardous duty pay for every month they served. They went to one of the most dangerous places in the world volunteerily and were smart enough to know why the pay was that good. Like other Americans I feel sorry for those who died and their friends and families but how quick we forget. George Bush farted around getting some tax cuts for the wealthy passed and 9/11 was no Benghazi....that's the bastard who should have been impeached. The WTC had already been hit once in 1993 and Bin Laden had been quoted as saying he was wanting to use passenger jets as weapons and the hijackers were in America receiving training on...get this, taking off and flying but did not take the training on how to land. The FBI and CIA had both been alerted of these facts but Bush got his tax cuts.
Benghazi in a nutshell. Thanks, Finley. And like the R's during Clinton's Administration, this current batch will keep holding hearing after hearing until they finally find something, anything, to use to try to impeach Obama. Maybe they'll catch him sneaking a smoke after saying he quit, and they can impeach him for lying about it. Why not? An equally flimsy excuse worked to impeach Clinton.
Not everyone watches CSPAN, either. But it's part of the media you're whining about. And you could always go to your local watering hole and ask 'em to switch from NBA playoffs to Fox for some "fair and balanced" updates.
Are they denying it? It is politics because they dare question Obama and Hillary. How dare anyone do that? You would think that you would want the most competent people in positions of power.
And where was Obama our "commander in chief" while it was happening. Dealing with this type of thing, isn't that his job?
A commander-in-chief is the person exercising supreme command authority of a nation's military forces or significant element of those forces.
Was there a point in there somewhere?
That you want Obama telling the commanders on the ground which move to make next or something like that?
But then, you were never in the military. Or, if you claim you were, that whole "chain of command" thing just kinda slipped right past you.
Of course, that might be the root of the Pubs' anger and confusion. Almost none of them served.
Hicks also testified that the terrorists, if they followed the usual pattern would have fled when they heard the first U.S. aircraft in the area. So, we couldn't even send a fighter or two? C'mon really?
What really floored me was hearing that the security forces for the diplomats consisted of a group of people with known terrorist ties and/or sympathies. Fox guarding the hen house?
My understanding, based on the testimony was that the available fighters would require refueling and there were no tankers in place to perform the refueling. It doesn't surprise me at all that the U.S. Military was not in position to perform an unexpected mission in a short time frame.
I thought Nordstrom's response to a similar question about the make up of the security forces in the hearing was pretty compelling. Unfortunately relying on local security forces comes with risk and can't be avoided in all cases.
Oh, you mean the current complete rehash ones that are nothing but a partisan witch hunt? Yeah, go figure the serious news networks aren't carrying those.
Yeah, because dead people, that's just a part of life and happened a really long time ago.
Or maybe they're investigating this to see that the ineptness doesn't occur again. Hard to understand, I suppose.
A "disgruntled employee" is usually someone who has work-related complaints/issues. Was he complaining about being passed over for a promotion? nepotism? racism? someone in the same position was making more money than him, or got a bigger pay raise? I didn't listen to the entire hearing, but I do know that he took issue with the fact that there was a need for additional security and his employer didn't consider the earlier request to replace security that had been previously removed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And like the R's during Clinton's Administration, this current batch will keep holding hearing after hearing until they finally find something, anything, to use to try to impeach Obama. Maybe they'll catch him sneaking a smoke after saying he quit, and they can impeach him for lying about it. Why not? An equally flimsy excuse worked to impeach Clinton. 
You would think that you would want the most competent people in positions of power.
