Yep, you guys run with that ad in 2016. I have a hunch Hillary will swat it aside, then swat your candidate aside. But hey, your campaign worked so well in 2008 and 2012, I am sure it will work even better in 2016...
[rquoter]Kirsten Powers: Diverting Benghazi probe Kirsten Powers 6:46 p.m. EDT May 6, 2014 The White House asked for this investigation by not telling the truth in the first place. "Diversion, subterfuge, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. ...Why aren't we talking about something else?" House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi complained last week. Here's why: An e-mail has surfaced from a deputy national security adviser to Susan Rice on how to characterize the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on Sunday news programs. He advised Rice, then ambassador to the U.N., that her primary goal was to "underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy." The e-mail was redacted when the most-transparent-administration-in-history provided Benghazi documents to Congress earlier, but was found through a Freedom of Information Act request. Democrats are furious that the House will hold a vote to create a select committee to investigate the administration's response to the attack in Libya that left four Americans dead. They know this won't end well. Though White House officials say they were operating on the best intelligence available, they were willfully ignoring information that the attack was preplanned by groups with terrorist links, a fact that undermined President Obama's re-election claim that "al-Qaeda is on the run." Cherry-picking intelligence is a big no-no. It took real effort for the White House to overlook the tsunami of evidence that contradicted its campaign talking points. Before Rice's appearances on Sept. 16, 2012, National Public Radio reported that Libya's president had told NPR that al-Qaeda was responsible for the "precalculated, preplanned attack." Former deputy CIA director Mike Morell testified last month, "Analysts said from the get-go that al-Qaeda was involved." A former deputy chief of mission in Libya, Gregory Hicks, testified last year his "jaw dropped" when he watched Rice blame the video. Retired general Robert Lovell, on duty at U.S. Africa Command at the time, testified last week, "What we did know ... was that this was a hostile action … a terrorist attack." Last week, Fox News' Bret Baier asked former national security spokesman Tommy Vietor how the administration came up with its video tale. Vietor replied that there were "guys quoted in newspapers saying (the video is why) they were there." So much for operating on the best intelligence. White House spokesman Jay Carney improbably claimed that the Rhodes advice was not "explicitly" about Benghazi but about protests throughout the Middle East. CNN's Jake Tapper called Carney's comments "dissembling, obfuscating and … insulting." He was being generous. Rice was dispatched to discuss Benghazi, which is why she was grilled about it on every show. White House officials brought this House investigation on themselves. They could have avoided it by simply telling the truth. Unfortunately, that was too much to ask. Kirsten Powers writes weekly for USA TODAY.[/rquoter] http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...oehner-benghazi-investigation-column/8766225/
They told the truth. You just didn't like the answer. Why don't you guys want to talk about Obamacare or the job market?
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=3545413343001&w=466&h=263"></script><noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>
Actually that's not true. There have been 4 different investigations, at least 3 different reports from different agencies (one a republican committee report), over 25 hearings and 25,000 pages of testimony over two years. Everything has been answered to the satisfaction of Americans (we had an election). So not sure what are we doing here? Except maybe Hillary running for President?
I have no problem discussing either. Both have their pros and cons. Obamacare certainly has lots of reasons, still, to criticize it---the recent data coming out certainly doesn't depict it as any sort of rousing success. But neither does it show it as any sort of abject failure, either. But I suspect that conversation would go the same route as this one, with very little discussion of substance.
Your failure to respond with anything of substance is duly noted. As is your continued attempt to make assumptions of me that are completely unfounded. Making your last statement either ironic or a really good selfie, or both.
Nobody wanted to respond, giff, so I just figure I'd quote the whole thing again, thanks for posting this. There was a great article in the VFW mag last Fall talking about the 30th anniversary of Beirut, if I can find it I'll post it.
I responded with substance, you chose to use the exact same silly arguments without even changing the wording. You are the very definition of "biased partisan," someone whose opinions are driven by ideology rather than facts and evidence. If you don't think you have all of the answers regarding Benghazi, I encourage you to read the House report. It answers every contention you have made in excruciating detail.
Exactly right, there were precisely zero Congressional hearings on Beirut, even though hundreds were killed in a much worse attack. Biased partisans will be biased.
Great info on Beirut. Sounds like a different thread would be warranted on the subject though. We need to look into Beirut AND Benghazi.
There is no need to look further into either. They were both terrorist attacks which were tragic, but what we need to do now is move forward, doing our best to correct the security issues which allowed these events to take place. Sadly, the GOP is so desperate to find ANYTHING with which to tar and feather Obama and Hilary, they will continue to call hearing after hearing because biased partisans will be biased.
As in, Kucinich would sink to the bottom of the electoral lake as he is little more than a lead weight?
