or can that even be talked about?
Yes it can be talked about. But why should we?
You mean that embarrassing period when a bunch of idiot conservatives attempted to use the deaths of a diplomat and part of his staff to shit on the then Secretary of State who handled their crude and offensive attitudes with strength, grace and tough talking? Is that what you’re referring to?
Hitlery?
No bias there in the OP…
Can we use this OP as the standard example for ‘poisoning the well’? I don’t think I’ve seen a finer one in recent times. I mean, by the 5th word* it is clear that there will be no real discussion on this topic.
- counting Benghazi-gate as a single word.
Hitlery? Seriously?
It depends. “Someone” decided to downplay the attack in Benghazi and the murder of a U.S. Ambassidor and three others. There never was a peaceful demonstration over a movie. This was always a heavily armed assult on the compound. That was known by the State Dept and WH from the very start.
So who made the decision to repeatedly and incorrectly blame the attack on a movie? Who decided to alter the reports by removing/redacting the referrences to a terrorist attack?
“Hitlery” reminds me of all of the crazy disparaging nicknames Selina Meyer has on “Veep.”
Funny thing is, I was alive back then. I don’t recall the incident being downplayed at all. The administration wasn’t over hyping the whole thing, but I recall some outrage, some promises to figure out what went wrong and to find those responsible. I didn’t feel the need for Obama to yell from the Truman Balcony every day “Terror! Terror! Terror!”
Were there people upset about the movie? Undeniably yes, there were. Did that contribute to the attack? Who cares?
It is interesting how the focus has changed from anti-Obama (during the 2012 election) to anti-Hillary (2016 election?). I don’t think the Republicans have a political motive here, however.
[Drunk Uncle]Immigrants[/DU]
Not only can we talk about Benghazi, we have. Extensively.
As for how it will affect Hillary’s chances, assuming she runs the Republicans and fellow travellers will continue to spread misinformation and rumor about what happened and will, in true Giuliani style, “noun verb Benghazi” until all our ears start to bleed. The truth of the matter will be buried under Bullshit Mountain (to borrow a turn of phrase) and will be irrelevant anyway. Politics as usual.
She should be taken to task for her support for the attack on Libya, but that won’t happen. Apparently she was all gung-ho over destabalizing the region and whatnot.
Wow. That’s…really vague.
Sure it can… in the Pit, thanks to your choice of thread title.
It’s not his fault. It’s them TIGHT-ASS JOCKEY SHORTS riding up that makes him so cranky.
The CIA, based on initial reports.
Also the CIA, based on developing information. Unless you’re a devotee of Fox News it really isn’t that hard to follow the timeline of events.
Well I hadn’t heard ‘Hitlery’ before and it’s faintly amusing in a sort of self-parodic way. Certainly waaaay better than ‘Bushitler’, c’mon, whoever coined that was really reaching.
Look, everybody: Mr. “All Government is Immoral, Natural Law FTW” wants to say something about the sovereign rights of Libya.
Sure we can talk about it. We can also talk about how the GOP is trying to beat this dead horse in the hopes it will turn into delicious, delicious hay.
Had I not checked the OP’s posting history…
(look, I wanted to see if he was a one-shot wonder - tell me you didn’t look at the join date when you saw the OP).