Dems Bite Back on Benghazi
Before the presidential election, certain Republicans on the Hill were hammering at the ever-unfolding Benghazi scandal while Democrats offered condolences to the victims but deferred much more comment than that — citing the need to let an investigation take its course and hoping the passions would die down a bit.
Now, as many lawmakers are still trying to get at the facts, Dems are chiding GOPs for the continued furor, accusing them not just of trying to politicize the tragedy but of staging McCarthy-style Hill lynchings.
Or, as in the case of President Obama yesterday, all but challenging Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to a fight on the South Lawn over their threats to block any advancement of U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice.
The State Department’s Accountability Review Board investigation isn’t due until next month, and a lame-duck Congress freshly returned from the campaign recess is just starting to dig its teeth into the scandal, but Democrats have made clear this week that they’re willing to bite back on Benghazi.
And it was the threat to oppose a potential nomination of Rice as the next secretary of State that really got them going.
Nowhere was that more apparent today than at the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which held the only open hearing of three Benghazi inquiries of the day. Two Intelligence Committee hearings in the House and Senate behind closed doors featured intelligence and counterterrorism heavyweights.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton turned down a request to testify before the Foreign Affairs panel, citing travel in Australia, but Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) announced that she has agreed to testify before the panel when the ARB report is released.
Committee Democrats wrote off today’s proceedings, which featured a Government Accountability Office official and a trio of think-tankers, as a political show — or worse.
“I just want to observe that a tragedy occurred. It ought to be something that brings us together, it ought not to be a political football. It ought not to be an opportunity to smear other peoples reputation, prevent other people from participating in a meaningful way in the formulation and annunciation of U.S. foreign policy,” Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) said. “Those are tactics this Congress ultimately condemned during the Joe McCarthy era. Let’s not revisit that, let’s not return to that.”
“Let’s not devolve into a political spectacle. Friends, the campaign’s over, the signs have been taken down, TV commercials are again about Ginsu knives and exercise videos and Americans have had enough of it,” said Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.). “They want us to solve problems and not go on political witch hunts. I am very disturbed that some of the political rhetoric that I hear. You know, Barack Obama was no more responsible for what happened in Benghazi than George Bush was for September 11 or that Ronald Reagan was with the blowing up of the U.S. Marines in Beirut.”
“Let’s just hang the guilty parties. You know, the stench of hypocrisy that hangs over this city, today emanates from this room,” blasted Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.). “When I — I listened — and I did come here to try to learn. I’ve listened to my colleagues talk about the president of the United States and others in the administration; using terms [like] ‘deliberate,’ ‘lies,’ ‘unmitigated gall,’ ‘malfeasance,’ which is malicious and knowing evil-doing, ‘disgust,’ and ‘cover ups.’”
“Asking questions of, who is responsible in this town for what happened? Well, if you want to know who is responsible in this town, buy yourself a mirror,” the retiring Democrat continued. “Those of us who have been to these hearings, and briefings, and mark-ups hear time and time again from our colleagues that ‘this cost too much money, and we have to make cuts.’ Well, our evil-doing, American-citizen-hating administration requested a lot more money than we provided.”
One Democrat even questioned whether the administration should have corrected its meme about the cause of the attack from video protest to terrorists.
“I want to address this idea that somehow the confusion as to whether this was mostly a planned attack with some ad hoc help, or an ad hoc demonstration with terrorists coming in, or somewhere along that spectrum is somehow part of some intentional effort to mislead the American public for political reasons,” said Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.).
“I know of no political plan nor could I conceive of one that could ever be successful in trying to convince the American people that either of these problems weren’t there,” he said.
Republicans, though, showed they are definitely still in fighting mode.
“As late as yesterday, the president said that we would be learning all the details. He’d be cooperating with Congress, yet we have no witness from the administration here with us today to talk to us and to explain under oath what the details of this debacle really are,” said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.). “What is clear is that this administration, including the president himself, has intentionally misinformed — read that, lied — to the American people in the aftermath of this tragedy.”
Addressing Ackerman’s charge, Rohrabacher also reminded the panel that the State Department itself, in recess testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, admitted that the refusal to send more security to Benghazi wasn’t a budget consideration.
“Anyone suggesting otherwise should not be pointing fingers at hypocrisy at this side of the aisle. Yes, this is not simply a cover-up of a third-rate burglary. We have four of our diplomatic personnel dead,” the California Republican said. “And it is not a McCarthy-era tactic to demand accountability, and demand that the American people are not misinformed about it, to the point that they don’t know what the threat is.”
“I’m sorry our friend from California — our other friend from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, takes umbrage at the comparison of McCarthyism but smears and character assassination, judgment before all the facts are in is McCarthyism,” Connolly shot back, decrying a House letter from Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) circulating in opposition to a Rice nomination due to her Benghazi muddling.
“That’s not an honest inquiry and that’s an attempt to besmirch, in my opinion, the reputation of very talented and capable public servants and I want no part of it,” Connolly continued. “And when we do that, and I understand why Mr. Rohrabacher might be upset, but he invites — not he personally — one invites the kind of reaction you will get from this side of the aisle.”
“If it wasn’t about money, if it wasn’t about budgetary cuts, why would we continue to put our ambassador at risk in an area that we took our security support team, special ops people, it wasn’t about the money, and we replaced them with $4 an hour Libyan nationals — who were unarmed, by the way,” said Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.).
Ros-Lehtinen noted that more than two months after the attack, the State Department has failed to follow up on the GAO recommendation that they perform a strategic review of diplomatic security.
“Our front-line diplomats should be secure in the knowledge that the United States government will provide for their safety while they carry out their duties on behalf of our country,” she said. “Safety must not be sacrificed on the altar of vague and uncertain agendas or other pet projects from climate change, to bailouts, to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, whose value is questionable. Our diplomatic personnel deserve no less.”
Outside of today’s hearings, one group of Democrats issued a statement calling Rice an “American treasure” and demanding GOPs back off.
Democratic women in the House will hold a news conference Friday morning to defend Rice.
“I am joining my colleagues in calling for an end to the scapegoating of Ambassador Susan Rice,” said D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D). “In a hearing by one of my committees on Benghazi, we got the documented intelligence that Ambassador Rice relied on from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Ambassador Patrick Kennedy testified that this was the same intelligence that he relied on, as well. Yet convincing evidence did not sway Republicans from partisan attacks. Ambassador Rice should not need to be defended, but I will be happy to stand with my colleagues to do so.”
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) wrote an op-ed published this evening on the Huffington Post lashing out at her Republican colleagues for “hurtful rhetoric” about Rice.
“She was not spinning. She was not twisting the truth. She was simply being forthcoming with the best information available at the time. And for that, she is now being viciously attacked by Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham,” Boxer wrote. “This treatment stands in stark contrast with their vocal support of Condoleezza Rice who — unlike Susan Rice — deliberately misrepresented intelligence.”
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said Rice isn’t responsible for the talking points given to her by others.
“There’s always a certain amount of scapegoating that goes on in this town,” he said. “…That’s not her fault. That’s whatever intelligence agencies gave her that information.”
Republican senators canvassed news shows to convey that a Rice nomination faces a real filibuster threat in the upper chamber.
“I think her nomination should be held until questions are answered as to why she would do that on every major news network. I also raise the question based on the president’s news conference he said she didn’t have anything to do with Benghazi,” said Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.). “Why would she or the administration send her on every major news network to put out a certain narration of what happened when it wasn’t the case?”
“I would oppose her, unless she has some logical explanation,” McCain said on Fox. “I will listen to anybody tell their side of the story. But clearly right now, I would be opposed because the American people were told false information by her at the direction of the White House.”
“I have nothing against anybody, but do I have a desire to get to the truth. And I am going to hold this president accountable, Susan Rice and others for what I think is a national security breakdown of monumental proportions,” Graham said on Fox.
“What did Ambassador Rice know? Why is that what she knew? And why was she the person sent out to represent the administration?” Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said on CNN. “The president doubled down on this yesterday by essentially saying she had the information we wanted to convey and she was representing him, and so let’s talk about him.”
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), however, told CNN he’s “not ready to make a decision on it.”
“I mean, the person who decided to have no marines guarding the ambassador should be fired. I mean, just plain and simple. But I don’t know if that’s Susan Rice,” he said. “I think we get involved with Ambassador Rice when we’re getting off subject.”
“President Obama has the gall to float the name as possible secretary of state the name of the person who is the actual vehicle used to misinform the American people during this crisis,” Rohrabacher said. “The arrogance and dishonesty reflected in all of this is a little bit breathtaking, and it’s about time that the president of the United States decide to level with the American people.”
I don’t know how wanybody can listen to anything a Democrat says and not be physically ill. Susan Rice is a national treasure? And Condoleeza Rice is a liar? We truly do have irreconcilable differences. We don’t even live on the same f**king planet.
Most importantly, when liars lie, as easily as they breathe, truth telling is impossible to find.
And even though Benghazigate is the BIGGEST lie of all, the likes of which will eventually end up to be the BIGGEST scandal in US history, no matter. To the aggrieved Dems nothing is as awful as Watergate and McCarthyism.
Oh well – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/10/20/what-are-the-chances-of-reining-in-a-lawbreaker-in-chief-who-abets-illegal-aliens-then-punishes-those-who-expose-said-lawbreaking-addendum-to-the-results-of-washingtons-dictator-in-chief-via/….how many lies have they told during the Radical-in-Chief’s reign….let us start counting the ways!
And Susie Rice is Susie Q, and what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Unless…have a lying surrogate’s back is more patriotic than dead Americans, as well as America’s project of power, all over the world, becoming a laughingstock!!
Nothing makes liars madder than having their lies exposed.
Heard somewhere; If you lie to a liberal, they probably won’t notice, or even care. Tell them the truth and they want you and your family murdered…
So we found the WMD’s that were the smoking gun of the mushroom cloud over Manhattan? Wow. I missed that one. So glad we didn’t waist all that money and life on nothing.
Waste. Not waist. Thank you.
I think Michelle might get her dander up with Barry’s defense of Susie Ricecakes. Since when does he defend anyone?
Re. “…it’s about time that the president of the United States decide to level with the American people.”
good luck with that.
good luck with that
To understand DaOne, and company one must understand Alice Bailey, and Lucis Trust.
When the media plays the race card with Rice being a black woman,being persecuted by white men, someone should ask them if they are asking that Rice be given a pass, because she is a black woman?
Oh, they’d be all over that like white on rice.
(Well, someone was gonna say it)
We’re getting suckered again. Susan Rice is a decoy to fan the flames of the ongoing GOP war on women and minorities.
Got to keep our eye on the ball – what happened in Libya, starting with Benghazi and why was Stevens there at that time to begin with?
In the New Media Politics, the first story out there becomes the irrevocable truth. If that story begins to buckle, then another story, related but distractive is started to misdirect the first. If the second story loses its sound byte impact, a third distractor is started. Eventually the facts of the first story become media irrevalent because of the heat created in the ongoing narratives.
The strawman argument, highly successful for the last 4 years will continue to flout our senses. Here we are: Rice who works in a different department, is defensible because she was not directly a part of the first pronouncement, and attacking her is “outrageous.”
The newspeak declares this administration to be the most transparent.
Rep. Sherman said:
‘“I want to address this idea that somehow the confusion as to whether this was mostly a planned attack with some ad hoc help, or an ad hoc demonstration with terrorists coming in, or somewhere along that spectrum is somehow part of some intentional effort to mislead the American public for political reasons,” said Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.).
“I know of no political plan nor could I conceive of one that could ever be successful in trying to convince the American people that either of these problems weren’t there,” he said.’
Eleanor Holmes Norton said:
‘“I am joining my colleagues in calling for an end to the scapegoating of Ambassador Susan Rice,” said D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D). “In a hearing by one of my committees on Benghazi, we got the documented intelligence that Ambassador Rice relied on from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Ambassador Patrick Kennedy testified that this was the same intelligence that he relied on, as well. Yet convincing evidence did not sway Republicans from partisan attacks. Ambassador Rice should not need to be defended, but I will be happy to stand with my colleagues to do so.”’
Would someone please quote Ambassador Rice to these people? On five TV shows she said unequivocally that (1) there was a demonstration that turned into a violent mob action and (2) that there was no evidence of a “pre-planned” attack. In addition, she said (3) that this was the best intelligence at the time. All three of those statements are contradicted by the facts and were known to be contradicted at least three days before Rice appeared on the five Sunday shows.
love to know what the Clintons are thinking.
after all, it was Bill who won the election…
No – Bill was paraded before the electorate much like that poor ‘prep’ horse that gets the mare excited and ready to mate – only to have the ‘stud’ come in and reap the benefits.
Hmm – theres an analogy there somewhere………
I was wondering the same thing K2K.
But we’ll probably never know.
Hilary is hiding on the other side of the world, hoping this whole Bengahzi mess will be over when she gets back.
And Bill? Well, he did his job during the election so he’s in the wind again.
I wonder if he’s spending some quality time with the wife in Australia?
Yeah, right.
Maybe Wet Willie doing Julia Gillard. She’s a serial adulteress.
“…the administration should have corrected its meme about the cause of the attack from video protest to terrorists.”
Back when I was growing up the word was propaganda. People can say meme instead, but the reader should think propaganda.
“Yes, this is not simply a cover-up of a third-rate burglary. We have four of our diplomatic personnel dead,” the California Republican said. “And it is not a McCarthy-era tactic to demand accountability, and demand that the American people are not misinformed about it, to the point that they don’t know what the threat is.”
This is the only thing that may keep this investigation going. The fact that there ARE four dead Americans here, one of them the first American ambassador killed since 1979, demands that there be some answers. Somebody is going down for this. The only question is who, and if the CIA’s testimony is an indication of what is to come, it looks like the CIA does not want to be the fall guy for this. The problem always was in the White House or the State Department, NOT the CIA. And I doubt Hillary Clinton is going to take the blame for this. That only leaves the White House, and we all know where that is going to lead.
“Let’s just hang the guilty parties. You know, the stench of hypocrisy that hangs over this city, today emanates from this room,” blasted Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.). “When I — I listened — and I did come here to try to learn. I’ve listened to my colleagues talk about the president of the United States and others in the administration; using terms [like] ‘deliberate,’ ‘lies,’ ‘unmitigated gall,’ ‘malfeasance,’ which is malicious and knowing evil-doing, ‘disgust,’ and ‘cover ups.’”
What an old political hack – when in his pathetic existence has he ever said anything good about a republican? He wouldn’t know hypocrisy if he looked in the mirror – and he is the epitome of hypocrisy. And recognizing lies? Come on you old hack – you’ve been spouting the party line (AKA THE BIG LIE) every day of your career. You’ve nothing in congress but run interference for your fellow
liars– er – democrats for 15 terms. And this is your major accomplishment? Interference?This is the SOB that said about George W. Bush in reference to the celebration over the slaying of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden: “This is the ‘Mission Accomplished’ moment President Bush only fantasized about.” You’re not above gloating when you guys ‘score’ are you? But don’t let a ‘score’ go against you eh? Thought so. His only shinning moment in an otherwise dull career may have been a vote for authorizing force against Iraq in 2002. Which he later regretted. I think more than a few of his constituents have regrets also.
Lets see if this old political hack and his tin-horn god The Feckless Won can find a way to ‘spike the ball’ after the smoke clears from the Benghazi affair. I think they’ll be lucky if they are still in the stadium (White House) when the smoke clears.
I believe The Feckless Won sat on his ass on that day when the Benghazi attacks ramped up at the US Embassy – when asked what the orders were he said to stand down – do nothing. Why? And if he didn’t give that order why do we not yet see a body under the bus? Was Petraeus set to be that body? I think he has the goods on Feckless Won – better keep those body guards close and well armed General. Petraeus only became expendable to Feckless Won when Petraeus decided not to play the game – parroting the party line stuck in his craw – especially after that baffling and questionable 10-14 hearing before congress. Nothing else makes sense.
McCarthy was a great statesman. That’s all I can say.
Now THAT’s funny. If only he had been, he might have been a lot more effective.
I believe that McCarthy will be vindicated before the Obama mob is finished. Too bad McCarthy is not still around to finish them.
Come on, let me hear it! All of the Republican Party are unilaterally trying to stir something up and politicize Ambassador Stevens’ death. All of you are trying to lynch this president and somehow claim that he was responsible for the ambassador’s death, as if he had shot that mortar at the ambassador’s compound himself.
Come on, let me hear it! It’s President Obama that you are all after, not Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or the U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice. What do you all think that you can accomplish with all of this? Get President Obama to resign just like ex President Nixon did with Watergate by constantly throwing the analogy that this is worst than Watergate? Please explain how this is worst than Watergate? Did the president preemptively and purposely took measures to ensure the ambassador’s death? Was it premeditated on the actions of the president to ensure the ambassador’s death?
This administration had previously requested for worldwide security for the State Department budget and because it was $440 million more than what the Republican Party expected, they blocked it, including your beloved Paul Ryan. This was much prior to the Benghazi terrorist attack. I know most of you Republicans don’t like fact checking but it would not hurt to try it for once, unless you absolutely MUST lynch the first black president. Wonder why the Republican Party is falling? The party of hypocrisy cannot stand!
Just ask yourself the simple questions that a prosecutor would ask. Did Obama watch the live feed of the attack in the Situation Room of the White House. If he did not then why did he not? If he did then what did he see? What decisions did he make on the basis of what he saw? What orders did he give? And so on.
Obama has been unwilling to say anything about what he knew, when he knew it, and what he did with that knowledge. Without that information, the American people can only assume the worse, namely, that he made one or more serious mistakes and that he is trying to hide them. If he made no mistakes then that will become clear when he gives us all the facts.
Notice that this is not a witch hunt or a fishing expedition. Americans know exactly what information we want. That information could show that Obama did nothing wrong. So why won’t he give it to us?
I have no ulterior motive in all this. I do not want to see Obama brought down for the sake of being brought down. But from what I have seen of him during the last six years, I do believe that he was frozen during the Benghazi attack and unable to make decisions. I find that terrifying because it shows that he cannot act as a commander in chief. Consider his ultimate duty as commander in chief. His finger is on the nuclear button. If that finger is incapable of pressing that button at the right time then we are doomed. You do realize that our enemies are watching all this very closely and asking the question that I just posed, don’t you? And let me remind you that in recent years Jimmy Carter has said that he would not have been able to press that button.
James, as an ex Republican, I see all the hypocrisies of this party so nothing gets pass me. To this very day, has George “Dupe-ya” Bush explained in clear details of why no WMDs were found in Iraq or why there was no evidence of Saddam Hussein’s ties to Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida to the American public? In the Benghazi terrorist attack, we lost 4 innocent lives. In the Iraq War, we lost 4,487 U.S. forces; 32,226 U.S. forces wounded in battle; 47,541 U.S. forces injured or diseased through non combat situations; 1,554 contractors killed; and 43,880 contractors wounded or injured.
Now which of these 2 scenerios deserve ALL OF THE TRUTH to be revealed to the American public? Do you clearly see the hypocrisy now or just continue to view this world through a peephole that is the Republican Party?
Oh, spare me. Around 600,000 Americans were killed in a series of pointless European/Asian wars that liberal Democrats (Wilson, FDR, et al) bungled us into.
Many times 4,000 Americans died to maintain the gigantic PEACETIME military the liberal Democrats created to not-fight the Cold War, which they also bungled us into.
Anyone who supports the Democrats over the issue of warmaking and military casualties is an absolute moron.
And, Bush II was absolutely right to invade Iraq. We should have burned Iraq down to the bedrock the first time their pet terrorists attacked and killed American citizens.
Dave, I’m talking about 2 recent historical events that deserves our attention in really making the right comparisons without hypocrisy and you are bringing up WWI and the Vietnam War? I know for a fact that we are our own worst enemy, not the world around us, but do we keep continuing on this path of being our own worst enemy? That is the underlying question that needs to be answered and the way that our political course has been taking us, I doubt that we will break out of this neverending cycle. We will continue to be our own worst enemy because we have a 2 unrelenting party system!
Rob, Just like every Liberal I’ve heard defending Obama over this Benghazi fiasco you seem more concerned with continuing to find something to whine about that happened during the Bush or Reagan administrations than what actually happened in Benghazi. Give it up unless you are going to make a case for this administration doing nothing while four Americans were murdered.
Chuck, it is in the hands of the party of hypocrisy to make this case, not me. In a time when America should come together like 9/11, especially a tragic event on the anniversary of 9/11, we have one party that chooses instead to politicize a well respected U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens’ death. I hope you all can sleep at night while the ambassador is rolling over in his grave.
Rob said: James, as an ex Republican… I see all the hypocrisies of this party so nothing gets pass me.
Sorry but you aren’t very convincing in your self-professed ‘conversion’. Now if you were able to see the hypocrisies on BOTH sides I’d have awarded you an attaboy – well maybe.
NO hypocrisies exist on the left eh Rob? Or is it that your ‘perfect’ vision only sees what you wish to see. I suppose you can’t see the way in which Feckless Won is using anyone and everyone (Petraeus and Rice at the moment) to obfuscate from the truth. The truth will come out and I suspect Feckless Won(der) will have to eat much crow before this is settled.
Comparing Benghazi to Watergate is an appalling one – nobody died in all of the Watergate events – 4 people died in Benghazi – WHY? Was it because Feckless Won ordered that no help be sent? If not someone made that order – who was it? And why would they give such an order. These are the pertinent questions – all the rest is fluff IMO. Who ordered that no help be given to protect American soil? You did know that an American Embassy regardless of location is American soil don’t you? And failure to defend it is a serious subject.
I see hypocrisy coming out of both sides throughout history but in recent history, since the election of the first black president, one party’s hypocrisies far outweigh the other, hence my conversion and many of my friends. This president never stood a chance from the party that was founded by anti-slavery activists in 1854 whom are now far from that. This president has been in a predicament of “you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t” from the very first day that he took office. Don’t think that all Republicans side with you all. Some of us moderate Republicans see the truth clearly and I could care less really how you all label me now. You should worry about further defections in the party. I am just one of many to come and by God, there has never been a more better time than now.
Now to rephrase your last comment, comparing Benghazi to the Iraq War is truly an appalling one – comparing 4 innocent lives that were killed against over 100,000 lives that were either killed or wounded.
“It’s President Obama that you are all after…”
Yup. I hope to see him impeached and removed from office over issues such as effectively providing Mexican drug cartels with thousands of weapons, and using the U.S. military to HELP Muslim rebels in Libya (in violation of U.S. law), and then refusing to use that military when American citizens are murdered by Libyan rebels.
Over two months since our people were killed in an armed attack, and still no military response by the incompetent and corrupt Obama administration.
Then we’ll talk about trying and hanging him for treason (among other things), if that looks feasible.
Dave, I guess you were there firsthand to witness the president hand the Mexican drug cartels thousands of weapons? Why did you not report this to the FBI, CIA, or even DEA?
Also, were you not even born during the Soviet war in Afghanistan? The Afghan Mujahideen received direct and indirect support from the Reagan Administration in their war against the Soviets. Guess who lead the Afghan Mujahideen? Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban. Now that 9/11 occurred the way that it did, was what the Reagan Admistration did back then a violation of U.S. law?
Lastly, were you also not aware that some of the culprits that were involved in the Benghazi terrorist attack are under custody? Do you live outside of the Fox News or Rush Limbaugh bubble at all?
“Dave, I guess you were there firsthand to witness the president hand the Mexican drug cartels thousands of weapons?”
His henchmen did it…it’s his responsibility. Just like the invasion of Iraq was George Bush’s responsibility, even though he didn’t actually carry a rifle…hypocrite.
And, support for the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan was initiated by the Carter administration, fake “ex-Republican”. If you have a problem with that policy take it up with your fellow liberal whack jobs.
Lastly, I don’t watch Fox News or listen to Limbaugh. Congratulations on not knowing what the hell you’re talking about on a wide range of issues.
Obama’s henchmen handed the Mexican drug cartels weapons and you have solid evidence to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt in court?
As far as the Afghan Mujahideen receiving direct and indirect support, it was from the Reagan Administration, no matter how you want to rewrite history. The initial Soviet Army deployment into Afghanistan began on December 24, 1979 under Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev. Reagan escalated the Cold War, accelerating the reversal from the policy of detente which began in 1979 following the Soviet war in Afghanistan by ordering direct and indirect support of the Aghan Mujahideen, lead by Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban, in their war against the Soviets.
Obambi’s henchmen told American gun-sellers to sell guns to gun-runners and there isn’t any question about it.
Afghanistan…
“Years later, in a 1997 CNN/National Security Archive interview, Brzezinski detailed the strategy taken by the Carter administration against the Soviets in 1979:”
“We immediately launched a twofold process when we heard that the Soviets had entered Afghanistan. The first involved direct reactions and sanctions focused on the Soviet Union, and both the State Department and the National Security Council prepared long lists of sanctions to be adopted, of steps to be taken to increase the international costs to the Soviet Union of their actions. And the second course of action led to my going to Pakistan a month or so after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, for the purpose of coordinating with the Pakistanis a joint response, the purpose of which would be to make the Soviets bleed for as much and as long as is possible; and we engaged in that effort in a collaborative sense with the Saudis, the Egyptians, the British, the Chinese, and we started providing weapons to the Mujaheddin, from various sources again – for example, some Soviet arms from the Egyptians and the Chinese. We even got Soviet arms from the Czechoslovak communist government, since it was obviously susceptible to material incentives; and at some point we started buying arms for the Mujaheddin from the Soviet army in Afghanistan, because that army was increasingly corrupt.[114]”
“Milt Bearden wrote in The Main Enemy that Brzezinski, in 1980, secured an agreement from King Khalid of Saudi Arabia to match U.S. contributions to the Afghan effort dollar for dollar and that Bill Casey would keep that agreement going through the Reagan administration.[115]”
“The supplying of billions of dollars in arms to the Afghan mujahideen militants was one of the CIA’s longest and most expensive covert operations.[116] The CIA provided assistance to the fundamentalist insurgents through the Pakistani secret services, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), in a program called Operation Cyclone.”–wiki
Got a problem with the United States helping the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan…take it up with the liberal Democrats. It was their idea.
And, the problem isn’t me “rewriting history”, the problem is you not knowing what you’re talking about.
Dave, when did our full involvement in Afghanistan take course during their war with the Soviets? Our full involvement in Afghanistan did not take course until the Reagan Administration introduced the Reagan Doctrine. That’s when Reagan deployed the CIA’s Special Activities Division to Afghanistan and they were instrumental in training, equipping and leading the Afghan Mujahideen forces against the Soviet Army.
To add even further, President Reagan’s Covert Action program under the Reagan Doctrine has been given credit for assisting the Afghan Mujahideen, lead by Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban, in ending the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, though the U.S. funded armaments introduced then would later pose a threat to U.S. troops in the decade War in Afganistan from 2001 – present.
It was the Carter administration who initiated support for the Mujahadeen fighting in Afghanistan, just like it says in the wiki article.
Deal with it.
We have another Troll.
I won’t need to name who he is.
You will know him by the stench of his words, and the volume of the loose stool he has spewed all over the screen here.
Ignore him.
Let him die a lonely death in a place where he is not fit to be allowed to enter.
Ignore the guy making sense? – the sooner the Republicans kick all you retards out the better we will all be. Rob is correct – for the good of everyone, listen to him.
Another Troll has spoken.
BTW, aren’t you Cynical Wonder in another guise?
I like this site.
But you all have got to do something about the Trolls.
Hell, you’re not even getting the entertaining kind.
Their minds and words are as dull as they are offensive.
Dems should take out patents on their can’t-we-all-get-along BS. Their comments on the start-up of the investigation strongly suggest that they are well aware they have a lot to be worried about. It won’t be long before they run through their never more than limited fund of patience with the opposition. Republicans going outside their role as well-behaved props in the glorious Age of Obama just won’t do.
trying to lynch the first black president… the dark comedy that is bengazigate. yes i agree the president of the USA, isn’t responsible for much. Can’t we all have the truth? when i heard this on the news i just automatically thought the terrorists had done this. why? because all the news reports prior had warned that Al queda was planning something for 9-11. now prove that it didn’t. the spin that came out of the Whitehouse on this, and the Juvenile in chief telling everyone to leave his talking head alone and come after him. the only thing left out was the double dog dare you. we are going to dance around the Bush until we get tired and now some democrats are asking us to go home because we have danced enough. the guy was and is a liar of the first. that senator had to apologize for calling him out.
I triple dog dare ya. Touche!
To question Susan Rice is racist and sexist. She should not be held to account by a bunch of white men. Don’t you know they lost the election?
You are being sarcastic, correct? We don’t need any thumbsucking, diaper wetting, yellow bellied, sap sucking, lily-livered, pablum puking, belly slithering lefties comments muddying the waters in the “fog of war”. Just saying.
And yet, we find after all these years that McCarthy was right, there was communist infiltration.
Where was all this outrage from the Dems about Watergate?? There wasn’t anyone killed, and Nixon just helped with the cover-up, not the crime itself. There is a failure from obama on down through his administration, and the Dems are trying to promote the cover-up by lies and obsfucation.
Bit of a note. It is interesting to see what Dennis Kucinich is saying about all this. He was not reelected in his district because he lost his primary to another Obamabot, Betty Sutton. Kucinich is as left as they come. He is not towing the party line on this for the democrats. I guess he thinks since he has nothing to lose, he can finally just let the truth all hang out. Gotta love the leftists when they prove time and time again that they are ready to eat their young.
No. It took a grain of brown rice.
this reminds me of the Clinton impeachment trial when the WH sent up an attractive articulate African-American woman to the hill to defend Clinton.
She essentially accusssed the GOP of racism and it worked. All the media talked about was how these white men were mean to the black lady… Absolutley nothing to do with the issue athand. And it worked.
Knock off the racial comments. They are neither funny or productive.
At this point, after the election, we know that “mistakes were made” but we don’t know who screwed up. Logic can rule out Mitt Romney. We know that some one over ruled the head of the CIA, David Petraeus, who took minutes, with his intelligence capabilities to judge the attack was made by with ‘Al Qaeda involvement’. But we do not know who had the superior information and authority. In combat, when seconds mean life or death, Congress will form a committee and study the who until death resolves the conflict. The only facts we have is that no American voted with any certain information about the Commander-in-Chief’s competency when he lost an Ambassador. He had military assets overhead and boots which could have been on the ground, but they were ordered to stand down. Why? True we did not have perfect information, that will come with the Committee’s report. But we knew, real time, that our people were being killed.
Washington D. C. is a cesspool of deception; it was raised to a high art during the campaign. With all the media coverage and electronics, Americans vote in total ignorance of facts. But we can be sure, today, that if Susan Rice does not get the big promotion, at least she is breathing. And we can be sure that we voted for the exact same grid lock that has existed for years. Both parties now have a mandate to destroy this nation. A pox on both their houses, regardless of their race, creed, or nation of origin.
I have not said anything substantial about the Benghazi Travesty because, to be honest, I think everything of substance that can be said about it has been said.
We know what happened, and we know who deserve to be punished for their Sins.
We also know that they won’t be charged with any Crime, face Trial, much less have Sentence handed down.
This is not Right. This is not Fair. This is not Just. But it is what it is, because people like Rob (that’s the last time speak your Pseudonym, as you are unworthy of being acknowledged as a human being) or Lonnie Wild (same as Rob, and you are not worthy of me retyping it) got out and voted for Obama when people who knew what was Right did not vote for Romney.
That said, Bill Whittle is right. Romney is a good man who did not have strong enough faith in his own beliefs to defend them properly. He did try, though. I give him credit for that.
If you want Benghazi to not happen again, we need regroup and reaffirm what we know to be Right and Good by living it. Then we can take back the Senate in 2014, expand our hold on the House in 2014, and take the White House in 2016.
But Benghazi happened. Remember what happened, don’t let it happen again, but don’t make it everything we care about and talk about moving forward.
Could a Republican ever stand up with a New York Times (well no because they would never print it) and hold it above their head showing that it read “What did the President know and when did he know it” ala Hillary Clinton over Abu Garab. Or maybe one them should get up and shriek like Hillary and scream. “We are Americans and we have a right to disagree and debate with ANY administration.”
I’m sick to death of their Orwellian fascism!
Poor li’l girlie-girl Rice can’t handle criticism from some tired ol’ fat-arsed white guys? I can hardly wait until she tries it on with the likes of, say, Vladimir Putin, or King Abdulla, or Ahmedinejad: people who actively dislike – even hate – the US, and think of women as chattel slaves. It’ll be hilarious. Bwahahahahahahah!!!
After this, any thought that she is qualified for Sec. of State is flat out delusional.
McCarthy was right. The only problem was that not enough people were lynched.