If you look at their behavior since the election it’s obvious this is what they think, at least on most issues. And were that not the case, they might have let the Benghazi thing go already. It’s a red-meat issue for the far right, and I think the response from most other people is still ‘What? That?’
No, they’re wrong about Benghazi, not deluded. You don’t actually believe the Pubs actually believe the things they are saying about it, do you? That would be delusional – but they see quite clearly see that it is what they see it as: An opportunity. Not much of one, but ya gotta play the hand you’re dealt.
I’m not sure it matters since my point was about who the party is trying to appeal to. Most of the party has decided it needs to go to the right except maybe on immigration.
It’s Santorum’s turn. Republicans are pretty predictable that way when they are out of office. Romney was the runner up in 2008, Santorum was the runner up in 2012. With the exception of Dubya, the GOP doesn’t like nominating fresh faces. Bob Dole in '96, Reagan in '80, it’s a clear pattern.
Here in Texas, we’ve got Governor Rick hinting he’ll try again for the Presidential Nomination; or maybe he’ll just try to stay Governor. But Ted Cruz has also been hinting that he’ll be ready for* either* job. Therefore, we Texans are looking at a couple of years of both of these eejits trying to out-eejit each other. Watch The Daily Show for amusing/horrifying clips!
If either guy becomes the Republican candidate, there will be yet another reason to vote for Any Democrat…
The Republicans ought to spend less energy trying to tear Ms Clinton down & more trying to find a candidate whose very name does not induce projectile vomiting.
But, don’t they realize that even Kucinich could beat him?!
The Benghazi hearings seem to be a vehicle for Rand Paul to primp and preen for his 2016 presidential campaign. It’s obvious to everyone that Congress is being used as a fundraising tool. His comments about HRC being “unfit” were laughably and nakedly political. How can anyone take the republicans seriously on this?
The specter of Hillary in 2016 will turn out to be one of the great fake-outs in American politics, IMO. I don’t think she has any intention of running. But as long as she keeps quiet, the republicans will be “running” against her.
That’s plausible. I’m not convinced she’s going to run, but she makes a nice decoy for the time being. She’ll certainly draw fire that might otherwise be directed at other targets.
I think the contradictions from the various governmental bodies requires a bipartisan commission with supoena powers. Let the facts come out which may or may not support a lot of things. Everything else is bluster as we don’t have all the facts other than then disconnect between what Rice said and what subsequently came out.
This and the IRS, fun times for the administration.
Somehow, Benghazi reminds me of the blue dress
Only . . . drier.
What CLOSED THREAD?
I was OP in a thread that referred to Mrs Clinton as “Hitlery”
The thread was not closed - but moved by Marley to BBQ Pit - where it is now running its eighth page…
Is this the thread referred to as “closed by Marley”?
Somebody might need to pop their head out…
Well, rather the opposite, as it is on the gulf and has a harbor. And if you look on the, um, south edge of town, the Benghazi Cement Factory look like a bit white spot …
that thread didn’t use the term “Hitlery”
bbq pit thread
You ask questions you already know the answers to.
Well, it goes both ways. If more were out there, openly chasing the party’s nomination, we’d hear about them too. Ms. Clinton is just the most obvious candidate right now.
Has the bar for the Obama administration been set so low that it gets a pass for anything, as long as another administration has sunk lower? Must they commit an actual crime before you’ll acknowledge that they’ve done something wrong? Is this really your argument? Did I miss the sarcasm or something?
In case you’re being sincere – the “malfeasance” is lying. It doesn’t matter whether they were under oath or not. The government lying to the America people is bad. However, lying to Congress – which is the accusation against Sec. Clinton – is a crime. See 18 USC § 1001. But even if a crime wasn’t committed, one would hope that everyone – no matter their political affiliation – would see something wrong with the government lying about the reasons American civil servants were killed.
But the “big fucking deal” is that the Obama admin screwed up, which lead to the death of four Americans. Embassy personnel requested additional security, and had been requesting additional security for months. But the Obama admin actually withdrew security forces. Former ambassador Thomas Pickering’s report criticized the “grossly inadequate” security leading to the death of four Americans, and found “systematic failures and management and leadership deficiencies.” Even Obama has acknowledged that the State Department showed “sloppiness” and they’ve identified “huge problems” in how they handled the situation.
Unfortunately, the issue was apparently complicated by the fact that the attack took place during a Presidential campaign. And officials in the Obama admin thought it was more important to give the appearance that this was a “spontaneous” attack, unconnected to the deteriorating security situation in Libya. Possibly because toppling the Libyan regime may have contributed to the deteriorating security in Libya, and Obama had supported the Libyan rebels. (In case you’re wondering, yes, I supported Obama’s actions in supporting the Libyan revolution.) Or maybe they just wanted to appear strong on foreign issues before the election. Or maybe they didn’t lie, and they just screwed up. I don’t know. But I think it’s worth asking whether the Obama admin lied.
But if you’re unwilling to admit that being lied to by a Democrat is bad, then I’m not sure that you have any grounds to accuse Republicans of being deluded.
sorry, Age Quod Agis, I don’t see the lying. Granted, there was inadequate security, but that kind of thing happens in a complicated world. There are probably hundreds of places that need more security on any given day, but get by without incident. It’s easy to say in retrospect that someone screwed up, but those kinds of decisions are not made by Secretary of State or POTUS.
I can’t really follow the outrage that we didn’t understand the terrorists’ motivation completely right away. There were, after all, spontaneous demonstrations throughout the region at the time, some were getting out of hand. Besides, I recall the right wing after 9/11 telling us that even asking “why” we were attacked is implying it was our fault.
It’s amazing how often people keep repeating the same claims that have been debunked time and time again, as if they didn’t even bother to read the rest of the thread before thinking they’d wow us with their totally original screed.
- Republicans voted to cut funding for embassy security. Twice. Including Darrell Issa.
- The attack occurred 400 miles away from the embassy, at a private residence which local police were responsible for, so the state of embassy security is irrelevant anyway.