More and more, “people” are starting to say he became irrelevant long ago. One described the whole thing as “old man yelling at clouds” (Simpsons reference).
I used to feel some respect for him, but this is so DAMN hypocritical of him.
It is possible that this is all grandstanding so McCain can get a new flashy committee seat because he is losing his Armed Services Committee seat due to term limits. The only other available seat is the Indian Affairs Committee. However, if there were to be a new Benghazi committee, well holy cow, it looks like McCain would be likely to get the ranking Republican spot. Hmmmmmm.
Also, someone made the point on cable last night that McCain was left holding the bag on Benghazi after Romney lost, and has no other option but to “double-down” on it. I could see him backing off if Romney had won and McCain just letting the idea of a scandal die out. But that isn’t a possibility for him now without looking even more the hypocrite that he already is, given his support for Condi Rice back in, 2005 I believe it was.
Not this time. Nope. Not this time.
I’m putting the Benghazigate impeachment vote in the House in either April 2015 (if the GOP goes into the midterms looking like it will retain the House) or in October 2014 (if it doesn’t look that way and they rush it as a Hail Mary pass.)
I’d change my prediction based on the time it will take to gather evidence, but evidence doesn’t matter. This is what the Republican Party’s going to try to hang the black guy with (metaphor totally intentional) and by God, they’re gonna run with it. It’s horrible but it’s true. Like watching a car wreck unfold.
Love to see it happen in early 2014, followed by a blowout in November that puts the Speaker’s gavel back in Blue hands.
This. The connection is tenuous at best, and saying that they were from Al-Qaeda, or taking orders from Al-Qaeda, or had anything more than a barely-present connection to Al Qaeda, would be simply downright false. So… I guess FOX is criticizing the administration for not pushing misinformation? That’s nice…
From the New York Times:
This. And as I suspected, the references were removed to avoid tipping them off. And despite what I said earlier, I assume FOX will get around to reporting this eventually. But I’m not holding my breath.
Maybe FOX news is doing a patriotic act as they “know” that Al-qaeda only checks FOX news, so FN must continue with the misleading reporting so they will not tip the terrorists… :dubious:
… Nah, can’t not even say that with a straight face, so pull the other one FOX news, it has bells on it…
Harry Reid’s letter to John McCain (cc: Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, and Kelly Ayotte) A few highlights:
Ouch!
- to GIGObuster
To be fair, I’ve been looking at other sites trying to find the same info reported by the Times, but I haven’t found any. The reason I singled out FOX was because they’ve been pushing this “scandal” pretty hard. To mention a reason for the removal of the Al Qaeda references that doesn’t involve nefarious actions from the White House wouldn’t comport with their other reporting.
Questions still bothering me…
Why was Amb Stevens there? His safest base is the Embassy, in Tripoli. He had to realize he was at risk, so why was he there? Is there a procedure for when someone as important as he puts himself at such risk, a procedure whereby he gets consent? His value as a hostage would be a serious consideration.
The length of the attack, several hours, by many estimations (or has that changed?) Against whom?
What resistance was mounted against such heavily armed marauders? How long could any such resistance last? What, did they keep firing rockets and mortars for the hell of it? If so, that would underline the suspicion that these were a bunch of “amateurs”, who happened to be heavily armed due to the chaos in Libya. That suspicion is further enhanced by their reported behavior, talking on cell phones about their triumph. Dumb-da-dumb-dumb dumb.
Then, there’s the different reasons for intelligence, which may alter how it is perceived and presented.
For State, the interest is diplomacy. An embassy is an expression of confidence in an unsettled nation, as well as a means of keeping several eyes on things. And a place for business meetings, with interested parties. CIA’s interests are more “military”. Where their interests diverge, so do their perceptions. i have the unsettled sense that the info suggesting a spontaneous eruption was more from State, and a planned attack more like CIA. I offer that more as a “hunch” than a proposition.
This makes me wonder if the Neo-Conservativesreally belive in a Democracy, if they forget the Majority rules in our country. Sounds just like sore losers to me!
To be fair, it was originally a majority of rich, white men. They won that, so we are not being true to our founding principles by denying them the presidency.
Give up fake Benghazi outrage? Hell no! Please Senators, proceed.
Excuse me, sir, I believe you just dropped your microphone.
They really believe in capitalism; democracy is a secondary consideration. As we saw when the neocons had their chance to run Iraq.
Fox News is doing a story on war profiteers? A disapproving story, are we to understand?
I should think it will be a very selective story.
The horrendous Benghazi blunder is well worth rubbing our noses in, however. It killed outright a half million people, displaced millions more, cost the U.S. trillions of dollars and was conducted mainly as an almost-sociopathic experiment.
Oh wait. That’s the Iraq blunder. Well … same difference, hunh?
Well, for scandal purposes it does beat “Fast and Furious”.
The quality of Washington scandals has declined markedly in recent years. Even the sex scandals aren’t what they used to be.
These things cycle though - expect a major revival eventually.