Type to search

Why Does The House GOP Think Benghazi Is A Scandal? Because An ‘Act Of Terror Is Different Than A Terrorist Attack’

Memo Share

Why Does The House GOP Think Benghazi Is A Scandal? Because An ‘Act Of Terror Is Different Than A Terrorist Attack’


Finally House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) is explaining exactly why Benghazi is a scandal:

“Act of terror” is different than a “terrorist attack.”

Duh. That’s why we’ve been talking about this for more than half a year…  the president didn’t properly modify a noun.

Issa also points out that he could have caught a commercial flight to Libya in seven hours, though it probably would take him over 20.

Screen Shot 2013-05-13 at 5.25.26 PM


  1. Dominick Vila May 14, 2013

    You know their witch-hunt is indefensible when the best they can come up with is improper syntax. Aren’t’ these morons supposed to be writing legislation designed to improve our standard of living, strengthen our industrial might, and improve our domestic and global interests? The saddest part is that there are many among us that actually support people like Rep. Issa, and who don’t understand how damaging his political crusade is to our abiiity to do what needs to be done to become the nation we once were. Much has been accomplished during the last 4.5 years to help us overcome the damage done to our economy and international credibility by the previous administration and Republican policies, but a lot remains to be done to become the world leader and the shining example of freedom and democracy that we were half a century ago.

    1. RobertCHastings May 14, 2013

      Well spoken. You focus culpability precisely where it belongs and identify the general weakness in the Republican position.

      1. Dominick Vila May 14, 2013

        I wonder how Mr. Issa feels about Ryan Fogle, the alleged CIA spy arrested by the Russian FSB (old KGB). Most importantly, I wonder how Mr. Fogle feels about people like Issa insisting on blowing their cover and demanding the disclosure of more classified information? People like Issa should be removed from the positions they hold on the basis of incompetence and deliberate attempts to undermine our national security. Why isn’t he investigated on the basis of high treason?

        1. Stacy Braverman May 14, 2013

          If they wouldn’t investigate Bush and Cheney for high treason and war crimes, no way will they investigate Issa.

          1. Patricia Robinson May 16, 2013

            vote in the mid terms and we can get rid of all of them.

        2. Patricia Robinson May 16, 2013

          yeah let’s IMPEACH him.

    2. Lovefacts May 14, 2013

      Issa may have more money than God, but given the changing demographics–it’s going Latino–in his district within a decade he’ll be out of office. Here’s hoping it’s less than a decade.

      Talking points do not display a person’s knowledge of the situation. No one’s discussed how the Republican controlled Congress has cut money–to the bone–from the Dept of State’s security/upgrading security budget. What’s also surprised me is how no one really points out that a Consulate does not have the same level of security as an Embassy. Also, it now turns out that Benghazi wasn’t a true Consulate but a government facility–a CIA site and safe house. That means, the security was probably better than the average Embassy.

      1. Dominick Vila May 14, 2013

        Some of the consulates I visited to have my passport renewed or for other reasons were just a room in an office building. The only security was a sleepy local cop, if any. What escapes some of the people that insist on the need for more security in Benghazi is the fact that we need more security in every embassy and consulate worldwide. They are all vulnerable. Unfortunately, that requires lots of money, a lot of security personnel, and permission from the host coountry. To make matter worse, it would confirm the fact that we are not welcomed in many parts of the world and that the only way for us to survive abroad is to embrace a bunker mentality.

        1. tobyspeeks May 14, 2013

          “Last year [2011], Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’
          proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s
          national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.”

          Republicans, in 2011 and 2012 before the attack in Benghazi, cut funding for the state department almost 500,000,000 while they rejected the claim it would be detrimental. Argument over. Nothing more needs to be said.

          1. Patricia Robinson May 16, 2013

            you are right…well said.

      2. RobertCHastings May 14, 2013

        The budget cuts were forcefully brought to the country’s attention when Hillary was being questioned, although it apparently didn’t make much of an impression. When you have thousands of diplomatic and security personnel in dangerous parts of the world, it is very difficult to allocate them adequately when budget cuts eliminate atleast 20% of them.

      3. angelsinca May 14, 2013

        “No one’s discussed how the Republican controlled Congress has cut money–to the bone–from the Dept of State’s security/upgrading security budget”

        Maybe because republicans didn’t ‘slash’ the security budget. Clinton is lying. The State Dep’t was given more than they asked for in the fy2013 budget request. The fy 2012 budget was TWICE what it was in 2002.

        1. Lovefacts May 14, 2013

          Maybe you need to stop attacking Clinton and calling her a liar, Angel. I’ve spent most of my adult life overseas with the CIA. I tend to look at things through the dispassionate eyes of an Intelligence Analyst.

          The budgets were cut in 2001-2012. As for the 2012 budget, it wouldn’t take much for it to be double 2002. The 2013 budget increase by the Congress was made after Benghazi.

          So maybe instead of lashing out, you might consider looking into the history of budgeting for Embassy Security. However, I will admit that while during a three year tour serving oversea, I witnessed three assassinations and experienced the US Embassy being bombed may have my colored my views.

          1. angelsinca May 16, 2013

            Thanks for the advice, Love. Appreciate someone like you to keep assertions somewhat honest. Can’t say I can relate precisely to your seasoned front line views and embassy security budgeting. As a quasi-retired budget analyst for space-based programs, I have a slight understanding of the budgeting process and how it relies on appropriation. There is nothing partisan or personal about the process unless the category happened to get caught up as a trading card for other favor. Benghazi. That mess surely wasn’t due to egregious budget cuts by congress, much less the GOP. Pleaase correct if wrong. The ‘lashing out’ is just ointment to catch some of the flies hovering around the republican carcasses strewn around here. While here, Lovefacts, and if able to say, is it possible, or likely, or even certain that your contemporaries in the field erred on WMD in Iraq? Finally, yes, I will stop attacking Clinton. I just won’t vote for her (unless I stumble across a reason to trust her). thx mas

          2. Sand_Cat May 16, 2013

            Sorry, but cutting budgets foolishly is partisan. And even if it didn’t contribute to the mess in Libya, it probably did to some of the other attacks, and will to those yet to come. Cutting the security of people serving the country seems pretty personal, too. And “much less the GOP”? Who else has been cutting budgets to the bone or demanding that it be done lately?

          3. angelsinca May 17, 2013

            “Who else has been cutting budgets to the bone or demanding that it be done lately?”

            SOMEONE had to apply brakes to the spending free-for-all.

          4. Patricia Robinson May 16, 2013

            thank you….

        2. Patricia Robinson May 16, 2013

          AND?????????????? your point? I for one don’t belive you.

          1. angelsinca May 16, 2013

            What do you need to hear, Patricia? That sexism will prevail if Hillary is elected in 2016, just as racism twice assured the selection of Obama?

          2. Sand_Cat May 16, 2013

            Probably true, actually. The degree of insane hatred shown by the opposition no doubt helped re-elect the president, and likely helped re-elect Bill Clinton. So what IS your point?

          3. angelsinca May 17, 2013

            “The degree of insane hatred shown by the opposition no doubt helped re-elect the president”

            Well, it was some of that. Plus, the uncounted overseas military ballots, and the multiple votes per voter, and the billion dollars in negative untrue ads, and the over reaching hate toward Romney, and the contrived war on women and the summoned war on the wealthy, and the Christian demonizing, and the Bush-blaming. They all helped the DNC election.. After the character-revealing first term, we are all pretty sure that we won’t have to worry about Mt. Rushmore being tainted with big ears and bleached teeth. Maybe Alfred E Newman is appropriate since half the country seems to be mad about the other half.

    3. angelsinca May 14, 2013

      You really ought to view the unedited version of the Issa interview. Or, just wander over to FoxNews (gasp!) and look at the I/V Issa did w/ O’Reilley. Your talking point about the use of the term ‘terrorism’ as the driver behind the Benghazi hearings will quickly evaporate.

    4. cats33 May 15, 2013

      I think your boy is in deep do do this time. Even the press is pissed!!! Wonders never cease

  2. RobertCHastings May 14, 2013

    It would have great if he had caught that flight. What, in truth, is the syntactical difference between “act of terror” and “terrorist attack”. Newtown was an “act of terror”, as was the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City, as was 9/11, and the perpetrators of all three incidents were, essentially, terrorists, making their acts “terrorist attacks”. Mr. Issa is once again proving his failure to master the English language.

    1. JDavidS May 14, 2013

      Robert… good call. The GOP cuts to education are coming home to roost. ESL tutoring, Mr. Issa?

      1. cats33 May 15, 2013

        Obamas’ Chechens are coming home to roost.And so are all of his other lies : ))

        1. Patricia Robinson May 16, 2013

          What pray tell do you know that I don’t…what other lies…??? Be careful now…I want your answer.!!!!!!!!!!!

    2. cats33 May 15, 2013

      Your boy is in trouble by his own doings.FINALLY : )))

      1. Sand_Cat May 16, 2013

        Not likely by his own doing… but I’m delighted to hear your acknowledgement of the phoniness of all the other charges, FINALLY ;)))
        And by the way, “boy” is no way to refer to the president, even in the unlikely event you didn’t mean it as a racist smear.

  3. Lucien May 14, 2013

    “Act of terror” is different than a “terrorist attack.”, give me a break!

    1. Dominick Vila May 14, 2013

      That’s what idiots come up with when they have nothing tangible to offer.

      1. tobyspeeks May 14, 2013

        Full on liberal here, but I am reminded of Bill Clinton asking for the definition of “is.” Also I remember him saying “how can you be alone when you’re with someone?” Idiotic statements, remarks and other ways of communicating are not limited to the right. All though they sure do use it more often.

        1. angelsinca May 14, 2013

          You folks have successfully taken Issa’s full statements out of context. Not your fault. The Memo is not the best for presenting all the facts, clearly.

          1. Sand_Cat May 16, 2013

            So your friends at Fox “News” are, right? At least when they’re not just making it up.

          2. angelsinca May 17, 2013

            “So your friends at Fox “News” are, right? At least when they’re not just making it up.”

            I don’ thave any friends at FoxNews. But, I still can’t get over how Sheppard Smith was voted the least likely journalist to be trusted (by women polled). I’m pretty sure they just didn’t recognize his name. Besides, Shep is an anchor, not a journalist.

            Apologies offered, but I had to change the subject to deflect your negative obsession over FoxNews. That kind of stress is unhealthy for you, sand_cat.

  4. Mark Forsyth May 14, 2013

    Well Gee Whiz,When you can’t make a case because you don’t have anything to begin with,aren’t you supposed to grasp at straws?Just what we need for our country-more republican clap trap.

  5. JohnRNC May 14, 2013

    The failure to defend the compound at Benghazi rests squarely with a Congress that refuses to collect the financial resources necessary to fully fund the activities of the US government both at home and abroad. If they would pay as much attention to our fiscal responsibilities as they do trying to protect their wealthy constituents, then our state department (and our military) would have the resources they need to do their jobs as safely as possible.

    It is also fair to say that every agency has the responsibility to be frugal with taxpayer dollars, but a country of this size with humanitarian, economic and security interests all over the world cannot be run on a shoestring. That’s when diplomats and other Americans abroad get killed.

    1. RobertCHastings May 14, 2013

      Because of budgetary restraints, primarily (as evidenced by our economy since 2007), we have pulled out of Iraq, a war that cost American taxpayers in excess of $1.5T (and continues to cost us), and have virtually nothing to show for it. Where are the many benefits we were promised, such as an end to terrorism, a calmer middle east, greater security at home, stabilized oil prices, etc.? Cheney and Rumsfeld fired at least one General (Shinseki) because he refused to go to war in Iraq with the troop levels they insisted upon. Franks finally caved, and went in with less than half the number of troops he had originally suggested, and the result is – what – certainly not a pacified Middle East. The insurgents in Iraq and elsewhere have not seen any essential reduction in numbers or in capability; once we are out of Afghanistan the Taliban will return, with ease, because the government we are backing over there is too corrupt to even want to keep them out; the Arab Spring has resulted in a chaos that many of those looking through rose colored glasses see as the budding Spring of Democracy, but is really just the beginning of probably decades of internecine warfare. We have not made ourselves safer, nor have we made our allies (especially Israel) safer. And any attempts to hold those responsible accountable result in shouts of partisanship. As many of you know of my frequent plunge into gutter syntax, I will not print what I am thinking about the Republican party.

      1. angelsinca May 14, 2013

        ” Where are the many benefits we were promised, such as an end to terrorism, a calmer middle east, greater security at home, stabilized oil prices, ?”

        That all changed when Obama was pressured by the left to get out of Iraq, and he made his world apology tour. While we were in Iraq, the middle east knew not to challenge the US. Obama aided the downfall of Mubarik and Khadaffi, ending THIRTY years of peace in the middle east. It was an uneasy alliance, but not the murderous free-for-all we have now. But please keep targeted the right. The truth will contiunue to elude you.

        1. RobertCHastings May 14, 2013

          He wasn’t pressured by the left to exit Iraq, it was one of his original campaign promises in 2008. He made his “world apology tour” for the purpose of assuring our allies that this country was under the control of sane people, once again, and that we sincerely valued their friendship, something they had not heard in the eight years of Bush’s presidency. He may have helped in the downfall of Mubarak (whom the US helped put into office) and Khadafi, but it did not end your fictitious “thirty years of peace” in the Middle East – since European intrusion in the area, there have not been more than two or three years of consecutive peace in the area since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Arbitrary decisions by outsiders about political divisions put deadly enemies within the same state, the most arbitrary of all being the creation of Israel. From the beginning of the Cold War, the US and the USSR sought alliances to offset one another, and the US armed the Taliban in Afghanistan to fight the invading Russians. Until Obama came on the scene, American presidents had shown interest only in resolving the Israeli/Palestinian issue, not the broader issues that plague the area. While we have supported Israel since its founding, we do not necessarily have to agree with its leadership, only be willing to aid it against its enemies. Bush had no desire to even approach the Isreal/Palestine question until 2007,when it was already too late for him to accomplish anything, and you Republicans say you are Israel’s friend. You would not recognize the truth if it were staring you in the face.

          1. angelsinca May 16, 2013

            Thanks for the reply Robert. Vrey thoughtful. But, omnce again, you craft a version of history that isn’t altogether the entire picture. I don’t have the time to gpo after every missed or left-spun point. But thanks again for the input. Ultimately, we care about the same things. The differences we share seem to be in those things we don’t like about the others’ chosen political leadership.

          2. Sand_Cat May 16, 2013

            You mean history as it was projected on the lining of your colon?

          3. angelsinca May 17, 2013

            “You mean history as it was projected on the lining of your colon?”

            So, that was YOU up there. I’ve had discomfort all day. Damn tourists.

          4. Patricia Robinson May 16, 2013

            amen brother!

        2. Sand_Cat May 16, 2013

          Wow, so the truth comes out as you parrot all the batshit-crazy GOP talking points. You love being in Iraq so much, why don’t YOU go? It’s always nice to puff out your chest and talk about how “they” knew better than to challenge “us,” when someone else is doing the dying and the suffering. I’m sure you could get a job with one of the right-wing “contractors” still employed by the State Department there.

          You, of course, love supporting mass-murderers who maintain “peace” so long as you aren’t confronted by the consequences. I guess it is refreshing to hear a Republican object to killing Khadaffi, even if he seems somewhat unworthy of your concern. Any regrets over Allende? I thought not.

          1. angelsinca May 17, 2013

            “Wow, so the truth comes out…You…love supporting mass-murderers”

            Sure, whatever you want to believe. Get it all out, little kitty_litter. Oh wait, I see more of your posts to review and rate. Similar to the Rotten Tomato scale of rating movies, I use cuckoo clocks with 10 being the zaniest. So far, this ‘batshit-crazy” post of yours is doing good at about 7.5… Thanks.

    2. angelsinca May 14, 2013

      BS. The ownership of the Benghazi debacle rests on those that decided to play it safe and ‘smart’ by NOT doing everything humanly possible to rescue those poeple. You can play politics and avoid the reality of the matter, but all the money in world, such as what Soros is still pouring into the Obama machine, will not account for the bad judgement that night. I really admired Leon P before then, be he wouldn’t take any risks to save those souls. He played it safe. The pencil necks aren’t equipped to deal with crises that need military command. The military that pointed that out to Obama were summarily reassigned or forced to resign.

      1. RobertCHastings May 16, 2013

        Military intervention is notalways the only or the best avenue. As with the Boston bombing, you may have noticed that Obama did not go off and blame it all on any particular terrorist organization, did not get into planning sessions to invade one of “the usual suspects”, did not use it as an excuse to seek revenge on someone, did not call someone he sent out to investigate aliar and out his wife. As missives indicated, the situation was already hopeless and the host country was unable to provide adequate security or intervention. That is the way it goes when we have people in foreign countries – we must, basically, rely on their ability and authority to protect our resources. Libya never was and probably never will be apart of the United States, and we do not control it.

        1. angelsinca May 17, 2013

          “As with the Boston bombing, you may have noticed that Obama did not go off and blame it all on any particular terrorist organization,”

          His people and supporters were too busy concocting blame at the GOP and attempting to make valid comparisons between Obama and Bush with invalid qualifiers.

          1. RobertCHastings May 17, 2013

            Who in the Obama administration was blaming or comparing the Boston bombing with what occured during the Bush years. In what manner did they cast blame for this on the GOP, except insofar as the GOP was responsible for reducing the budget for the State Department and thus weakening security at Benghazi, Tripoli, and avery other embassy and consulate around the planet? Are you willing to deny that occured? When blame is merited for a specific action by the accused, that is not “concocting blame”, that is merely telling the truth.

          2. angelsinca May 17, 2013

            Can you prove a direct connection between austerity and the lack of security that caused the deaths at Benghazi? You STILL don’t get what the Benghazi issue is all about. You probably believe it is only a partisan witch hunt. It’s not about the money or who is to blame or who is going to be the winner in this disgusting spectacle of responsibility aversion. It was how the non-rescue was handled and the deceptive spin to make the assault appear what it wasn’t and the gall to downplay the lives lost in order to protect the incompetencies. This is directly related to the tragedy there, unlike the stretch to blame the GOP for the deaths through fiscal policy years earlier. And you feel a need to lecture about the truth. That’s rich.

          3. RobertCHastings May 17, 2013

            “fiscal policy years earlier”? Either you are not an American and have no concept of who controls the budget or, as an American, you have never read that part of our Constitution that gives control of the purse strings to the House of Representatives. This is NOT an issue from years ago, this is a current fiscal issue. However, you are right in that those who are responsible just don’t want to accept that responsibility, and there are individuals who should be held accountable, in more ways than just one.

          4. angelsinca May 17, 2013

            I was wrong. Should have said ‘months’ earlier. Thanks for catching that. The past several budgets have been extraordinary in their implementatio since they were late and overshadowed by growing concerns on every front. As a sidebar, the law requires the president to submit budget request to congress by the 1st Monday in February. This didn’t happen, repeatedly. How about that. Accountability exemption seems to be the new normal.

          5. RobertCHastings May 18, 2013

            However, Obama DID submit a budget, after both Houses of Congress had formulated their own budget plans. This in order to forge a middle groound, with both Houses knowing full well their individual versions would not pass in the other House of Congress. This was around the second week in April. However, it is unlikely ANY budget plan will pass both Houses AND escape a presidential veto, due to partisan wrangling over spending cuts and revenue increases (and other issues). Obama has cut, over the next decade, about $750B from Medicare EXPENSES (not benefits), which should, by itself, satisfy the right’s demands for spending cuts, and savings in many otheer areas are constantly being negotiated. Bear in mind, until Kennedy dropped the top tax rate on the wealthy from 90% to 70%, the middle class was doing very nicely. Once Reagan came along and reduced that top rate below 40%, the middle class began hemorrhaging wealth, to the tune of $30T (trillion) over the past 30 years, and you wonder why the middle class is yearning for a “redistribution of wealth”. We only want back what was taken from us in the first place. As you SHOULD recognize, in all too many cases it is the lobbyists who write the laws, not the legislators.

          6. angelsinca May 18, 2013

            “Obama DID submit a budget”

            Yes, but late, as in violating the law.

            “However, it is unlikely ANY budget plan will pass both Houses AND escape a presidential veto, due to partisan wrangling”

            You’d think, that after the unilateral bipartisan rejection of two consecutive late budget submittals from the white house, Obama is out of touch with fiscal reality. They seem to have experienced the white house’s transparency of number-cooking BS.

          7. RobertCHastings May 18, 2013

            I question the correctness of you assertion, primarily because, late or otherwise, any budget Obama submits will NOT meet House approval for two basic reasons,1)it will seek funding for ACA, 2)it will seek enhanced revenues. IF the 2014 elections give control of the House to the Democrats, this situation will change, and we will go from partisan wrangling and continuing resolutions to a passable budget. If, however,the Republican party maintains its majority hold over the House, what we are experiencing today will continue at least until 2017, when the next president is sworn in. You can affix blame for this to whichever party you wish, it is entirely irrelevent.

          8. angelsinca May 19, 2013

            The budget isn’t as important as it is for the president to get the congress to work with him. You are blaming the people he cannot work with. I blame the one that is supposed to be able to bring the opposition together. I hope he survives the current political assaults IF he is not culpable in deception and illegal activity. If he is, the tide of malcontent that has been rising for almost 5 years now won’t recede until the MT elections play out, or the undesirable option of impeachment begins. But, one ace up the sleeve is the notion of a Biden presidency. The right sees this about the same as the left would see Palin waltzing into the White House.

          9. RobertCHastings May 19, 2013

            There are several aspects to the dysfunction in DC that you seem to be ignoring. The first two years of Obama’s first term(2009-2011) Obama bent over backwards to get BIPARTISAN cooperation, even though he did not have to because he had a majority in both Houses. Once he realized this and understood the implications, he DID get ACA passed, in the face of united Republican resistance. Since that “honeymoon” period, the Republicans have refused to work with Obama on pretty much anything, resulting in the worst performing Congress in decades; you can analyze the reasons for that yourself. Partisanship is worse now than at any point in the past 100 years,plus. Two factors contribute hugely to this 1) the “Norquist pledge”, and 2) the inordinate influence of the Tea Party(which is,after all, a minority within the Republican party). IF Obama is responsible for any of what the conservatives claim, then he should not be president any longer. However, if conservatives like Issa and King are making this out to be much larger than what it is, impeachment is a double-edged sword – Newt Gingrich, while not impeached, was kicked out of Congress for ethics violations, something people seem to have lost sight of when they elevated him to candidate Gingrich. Over several decades Democrats have held their fire,while Republicans have done everything they could to reduce the effectiveness of Democratic presidents. W Bush and Reagan escaped their presidencies unscathed, even though both were complicit in some impeachable offenses. The Democrats should have pounced on W after what the Republicans did to Clinton, but they didn’t, even though W well deserved impeachment.

          10. angelsinca May 19, 2013

            “There are several aspects to the dysfunction in DC that you seem to be ignoring”

            Thanks Robert. I wasn’t ignoring those aspects, though you have completely ignored the unfortunate incapacities of the president by blaming Republicans, again. Life was so much easier to impose unpopular agenda when all Obama had to do was not alienate his own party. But that too is changing as the media lap dogs are turning on him as much as the late night comics are mocking him. At least you didn’t diminish the president’s actions, that have fueled demands for impeachment, with anything a predecessor did. Oh wait.

          11. RobertCHastings May 19, 2013

            The culpability of Republicans in the “Benghazi scandal” has been clearly brought to light by the recent revelations by ABC reporter Jonathan Karl regarding his source for the alleged “scandal”. Once he realized that his source had given him a politically slanted “scoop”, thus compromising the impartiality of his story, Karl backed off from his assertions of WH coverup. As with all breaking news stories, reporters must evaluate their sources as to reliability, something Karl apparently failed to do, thus leading to a scandal that is not a scandal.
            I clearly stated that if Obama is complicit in the current “scandals” of the acts of which conservatives accuse him, that he should no longer be president. I guess you just glossed over that for whatever reason. And any culpability of the president is in no wise diminished simply because the previous president was much worse and escaped 8 years in the WH unscathed. The lessons of the Nixon Watergate scandal were not the ones that ALL politicians or public servants should have learned.

          12. angelsinca May 19, 2013

            Karl’s admission doesn’t discount culpability in how Benghazi was handled. It only backsteps to May 10 when the supposed incriminated email surfaced.

            “Clearly, I regret the email was quoted incorrectly and I regret that it’s become a distraction from the story, which still entirely stands. I should have been clearer about the attribution. We updated our story immediately.” -Jonathan Karl, ABC News Chief White House Correspondent.

          13. RobertCHastings May 19, 2013

            I think you need to dig a little deeper. The erroneous information was provided by a usually reliable source with an agenda other than enhancing Karl’s reputation.

          14. angelsinca May 20, 2013

            The non-scandal isn’t worth enough of my time yet. Until then, the direct quote from the source works for me. Thanks.

      2. Sand_Cat May 16, 2013

        Which “military”? The ones who publicly insulted him?

        Were you so enraged at Bush when he “summarily reassigned or forced to resign” those who pointed out that invading Iraq would take a lot more than he was prepared to give? When his surrogates forced the re-writing of CIA reports that didn’t suit their political assertions and desires? Would you be so full of praise if one of those 4,000 plus American lives thrown away so Bush could be “a War President” as he put it in a very rare moment of honesty were your son or daughter? We’re not even talking about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died and all those wounded to boost Cheney and Bush’s (and apparently your) egos.
        Yes, you certainly know a very great deal about “avoiding the reality of the matter,” but I don’t think I’ll take your advice on the subject, thanks.
        And congratulations on including another right-wing cliche in your post: of course, we all know that only the “left” (that tiny and marginalized minority in this country) are the only ones who receive big money from the wealthy. Why, poor Carl Rove probably has to cut down on food (well, looking at his waistline, apparently not that), clothing and shelter since no one gave his organizations any money. And all those struggling right-wing think tanks! I tell you, it’s a damned shame the right just can’t get any funding from anyone in this country in order to get the “reality of the matter” out in the open. Obviously you’ve never seen it!

        1. angelsinca May 16, 2013

          You have a lot to say there cat. If you don’t mind, I’ll print this out and then go find a car with a Bush/Cheney 2004 bumper sticker and post it. I’m sure they’ll appreciate that someone else is stuck in past too.

  6. adriancrutch May 14, 2013

    Basically the continued harping on this issue just illustrates the reinforcement of the policy of the Military Industrial Complex. Keep the Hate Engines firing.

    1. angelsinca May 14, 2013

      Get down slowly off that high horse, adriancrutch. The left seems to enjoy playing soldier all over the world and does some of its most empassioned hating toward the GOP and conservatives. The right is simply amused by the left, if not mostly annoyed.

      1. Sand_Cat May 16, 2013

        Which “Left”? The moderate conservatives Obama and Clinton? Great how you always point to your projected image of an imaginary “left” when someone points out the depravity of your side’s actions.

        1. angelsinca May 16, 2013

          “Which left?”

          Whatever you oppose politically is on your RIGHT. This would put you to the LEFT of that. I can upload a video to explain the concept, if needed. Maybe you will be my imaginary friend on the imaginary left.

  7. Robert P. Robertson May 14, 2013

    So, saying “potatoe” is different from saying “potato”? Is being pregnant different from being half-way pregnant?. . . Oh what a wicked web we weave when first we practice to deceive. President Obama summed it up brilliantly when he said “There is no “there” there.” Issa, one of the sorriest most childish neo-Confederate Tea Bags on the Hill, is constantly going in circles like a dog chasing his own tail with the same ol’ bull rehashed from last year. Even after Gen. Ptereaus explained to Puffen Stuff McCain and that faggitty Lindsey Graham what happened in Benghazi, and this b.s. fell on its face in the last debate between President Obama and Myth Romney, Republicunts/neo-Confederate Tea Bags has decided to go ahead with this nonsense and continue to embarrass themselves with it. They are trivializing the deaths of four brave Americans and soldiers who lost their lives in that attack. And, just like Bush, they prefer to overlook the real culprits in favor of their personal agendas. What about those who attacked the consulate? Who master-mind it, what groups was involved, how deep did it run in Libya, where did they get their weapons, and how to prevent another such attack. That’s what should be the issue. When President Obama finds the master-mind and group responsible for the attacks and bring them to justice the way he did with binLaden, what will these Republicunt/neo-Confederate Tea Bags do then?

    1. ralphkr May 14, 2013

      RE: your last sentence, Robert, they shall then complain that by killing the master-mind that Obama aroused them to vengeance against the US. At least, that is what I have been told in posts answering mine that President Bush’s attitude of not caring about Bin Laden was far better for the US than Obama’s killing of a beloved leader. Really, there are idjits out there that believe that a live Bin Laden was better for the US than a dead one.

      1. angelsinca May 14, 2013

        If Obama didn’t parade around as the murderer-in-chief of Bin Laden for his own political gain, and maybe even ran the terrorist through an int’l tribunal, he would have received a lot less hate from the millions of OBL followers that are more determined than ever to now destroy all westerners. Obama handled this in the most dire and corrupt manner; as a springboard for his own chances of reelection. Nice going. He won. We lose again. It doesn’t take a degree from MIT to understand.

        1. ralphkr May 14, 2013

          Thank you ever so much for your post, angelsinca. One of my great-granddaughters saw my post and told me that I really should not be making up wild things such as that since no one could be so stupid as to prefer a live Bin Laden to a dead one. You just proved that my post was true and not fantasy and that there are people who are stupid.

          1. angelsinca May 16, 2013

            “prefer a live Bin Laden to a dead one”

            You got that one WAY wrong there raplhy. That is YOUR imagination acting up again. Or maybe the grand daughter has hacked your account. The little ones are so smart now. I NEVER stated a preference for a live Bin Laden. Just one that we could have extracted some useful intel from before the bullet pierced the eye socket. And now, it looks like NO ONE seems to have witnessed the burial at sea of your OBL. Your man in the WH sure can kill ’em and hide ’em (when he’s not throwing his own people under the bus).

          2. ralphkr May 16, 2013

            Well, your past posts certainly gave every impression that you felt that a dead Bin Laden was a mistake which definitely leaves a live Bin Laden as preferable.

            No, my little 14 year old GREAT-GRANDDAUGHTER (you missed a generation there, angelsinca) did not have to hack any accounts since this is definitely a public forum. I would like to add that I am very proud that my great-granddaughter is able to so easily recognize B.S. as yours considering that she just turned 14.

          3. angelsinca May 16, 2013

            That was noble to admit the faulty logic. But it isn’t necessary to continue presuming further BS. This is a good example why the left is disregarded by the right. It’s a huge bother to continually defend against imaginations.

          4. Sand_Cat May 16, 2013

            Kind of takes up time better used for making up the right’s own lies or spreading them. And I’m sure you’ll never admit to any faulty logic, “facts,” or anything else, so you should be grateful.

        2. Sand_Cat May 16, 2013

          And if the incompetents in the Bush Administration had managed to “murder” Bin Laden, I’m sure they wouldn’t have bragged, and you would have been angered and disgusted had they done so. But fear not. You have plenty of the indefensible on which to lavish your efforts: torture, abuse of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, serial dishonesty, mental laziness, the protection given “us” ON 9/11, not just after.

      2. Robert P. Robertson May 14, 2013

        You’re right, my friend.

  8. angelsinca May 14, 2013

    The GOP doesn’t give a rip about about nomenclature in the Benghazi debacle. Please do keep pretending that it’s all about how the wording was used. You’ll end up missing the one about inappropriate use (abuse) of gov’t resources to target political opposition. It might have worked in Chicago, but Nixon would’ve told you it wasn’t such a good idea.

    1. Sand_Cat May 16, 2013

      No pretending necessary, thank you. And the GOP doesn’t give a “rip” about anything constructive, or anything factual that doesn’t support their lies and insanity. But here you are, defending what the GOP doesn’t give a “rip” about. If what you say about them is true (though virtually nothing else you say is), why can’t you stop?

      1. angelsinca May 16, 2013

        “And the GOP doesn’t give a “rip” about anything constructive, or anything factual that doesn’t support their lies and insanity”

        That’s the GOP you see. That’s the GOP you have to live with.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.