Skip to main content

Watching the ongoing freakout and paranoid conspiracy-mongering over the Benghazi attack by numerous Republicans and conservatives, the rest of us over in Planet Reality watching this have been scratching our heads wondering what's causing this meltdown. Now, in the cases of John McCain and Lindsey Graham, the diagnosis for their behavior is pretty easy to pinpoint (the latter is terrified of a primary challenge in 2014 and thinks picking a fight with the evil Kenyan Muslim Anti-Christ is the ticket to survival, while the former is an angry, bitter, spiteful old bastard who is lashing out any way he can in the hopes of causing damage to "the One" who stole his precious widdle Presidency).  But what of the other GOPers, the folks like Limbaugh, Hannity, the folks at Fox News (which should be renamed The All-Benghazi Network these days) and the rest? What is their motivation, besides the obvious one of lashing out in anger after Obama's reelection.

Well, as Paul Waldman explained over at the American Prospect a few days ago, the answer may be quite simple.  First he notes the rhetoric from McCain, Graham and company:

But now, some Republicans, particularly John McCain and Lindsey Graham, are essentially saying this horrifying cover-up was quite possibly the greatest crime in the history of the United States government and if we're going to get to the bottom of it nothing short of a slect committee - a "Watergate-style committee," as it is being referred to by reporters - will do. Who knows what it might uncover? Were there CIA whistleblowers whose bodies are now lying at the bottom of the Potomac? Was David Petraeus being blackmailed? Are William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright invovled? Did Susan Rice fly to Tripoli, have a steamy liason with a clone of Ayman al-Zawahari created in a secret underground laboratory, then go to Benghazi where she personally killed Ambassador Chris Stevens with a hat pin? We won't know unless we spin this out into a multi-week story!
Clearly, this rhetoric has nothing to do with reality or the actual facts about Benghazi. So why the hysteria from the GOP? Waldman continues:
So what's going on here? I can sum it up in two words: scandal envy. Republicans are indescribably frustrated by the fact that Barack Obama, whom they regard as both illegitimate and corrupt, went through an entire term without a major scandal. They tried with "Fast and Furious," but that turned out to be small potatoes. They tried with Solyndra, but that didn't produce the criminality they hoped for either. Obama even managed to dole out three-quarters of a trillion dollars in stimulus money without any graft or double-dealing to be found. Nixon had Watergate, Reagan had Iran-Contra, Clinton had Lewinsky, and Barack Obama has gotten off scott-free. This is making them absolutely living and they're going to keep trying to gin up a scandal, even if there's no there there. Benghazi may not be an actual scandal, but it's all they have handy.
I couldn't have said it better myself. The GOP and the conservative movement are desperate for something, anything they can use to try and bring down Obama like they tried to do with Clinton. And they have come up completely empty-handed. (It especially must kill them that Obama is a very happily married man, so they can't nail him Lewinsky-style.) And the more desperate they become, the more they grab at anything even remotely resembling a scandal and look more and more ridiculous in the process. Indeed, as Steve Benen pointed out, Republicans have used the term "Watergate" to describe no less than six seperate supposed instances of Obama administration malfesence (raning from Benghazi to "Fast and Furious" to the 2010 attempt to woo Joe Sestak out of the PA Senate race) -  and all of them have come to nothing. And that's not even counting Donald Trump and the Birthers.

Again, like with Clinton, it all stems from a noxious mix of craziness and stubborn belief. Obama must be a criminal, so he must be doing some kind of illegal activity. Over at Mother Jones, Kevin Drum made note of Waldman's piece and added a little commentary of his own:

Yep. They're just convinced that Obama runs a gang of Chicago thugs who are lying and cheating behind the scenes at every opportunity. It's a foundational story on the tea-party right. Unfortunately, the reality is that whatever else you think of Obama, he's one of the straightest arrows we've had in the White House since...forever. He runs a tight ship organizationally, and on a personal level he's so intolerant of personal peccadilloes that he sometimes seems almost inhuman. It would be astonishing if he could actually avoid a serious scandal for an entire eight year term, but if anyone can do it, it's probably Obama.

And yes, it's driving Republicans crazy. Even the ones who don't want to impeach him at least want to bring him down to earth a bit. So they latch onto anything they can. It's all starting to seem kind of desperate, but I doubt they're going to let that stop them. After all, it eventually worked against Clinton.

No, I have to agree with Drum, nothing's going to stop them. And yet, they should remember the Clinton years and how their mania to take him down constantly caused them to shoot themselves in the foot and make themselves perhaps Clinton's greatest asset. Returning to Steve Benen again, he has a little advice for the Obama scandal hunters, rooted in a little Aesop fable:
I'd just add one thing to keep in mind going forward: the boy who cried wolf didn't do himself any favors. For Republicans to scream "Watergate!" and set their hair on fire every time there's a hint of a controversy that kinda sorta might involve the administartion, they're undermining their own credibility.

With this in mind, if/when there's a legitimate scandal involving the Obama White House, and Republicans once again go berserk, there will be plenty of folks who simply roll their eyes, tired of the faux outrage and manufactured controversies that never pan out. They'll say, "No, no, this time there really is a wolf," and many will respond, "We've heard it all before."

Act like a conspiracy nut all the time and people will treat you like a conspiracy nut. Words McCain, Graham and their ilk would be wise to heed.

Originally posted to gf120581 on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 11:41 AM PST.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

Poll

What's been the lamest attempt by the GOP to pin a scandal on Obama?

12%111 votes
2%21 votes
6%53 votes
1%10 votes
0%5 votes
0%3 votes
3%31 votes
19%169 votes
52%452 votes
0%6 votes

| 861 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (153+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jm214, FiredUpInCA, Jay C, misterwade, kevinpdx, jan4insight, Joieau, jfromga, dougymi, blueyedace2, adrianrf, myboo, pimutant, cassandracarolina, divedeeper, ssgbryan, La Gitane, page394, kacemo, ruleoflaw, Dumbo, TexasLefty, Shirl In Idaho, walkshills, Gemina13, collardgreens, linkage, citizen dan, Onomastic, ardyess, real world chick, RubDMC, Words In Action, exiledfromTN, rantsposition, Thinking Fella, jamess, elwior, sow hat, NYC Sophia, elginblt, jazzence, Colorado is the Shiznit, Debby, OldDragon, BB10, manyamile, ichibon, BeninSC, owlbear1, Lefty Coaster, lcrp, missLotus, greycat, rb608, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, nice marmot, Beetwasher, Lilyvt, deep, harlinchi, notrouble, bontemps2012, fou, CA ridebalanced, rmonroe, kerflooey, zorp, GreyHawk, skybluewater, DianeNYS, Sarea, defluxion10, night cat, tofumagoo, Matilda, Siri, Ekaterin, Black Max, blueoasis, anafreeka, thatpj, JDWolverton, Gowrie Gal, Nowhere Man, rapala, rasbobbo, Involuntary Exile, SherwoodB, edsbrooklyn, Empower Ink, ER Doc, bnasley, Loudoun County Dem, sailmaker, Emerson, TX Freethinker, Dirtandiron, Ckntfld, the good witch, PeterHug, pvasileff, JVolvo, Nebraskablue, rini, Larsstephens, CTLiberal, ahyums, tundraman, DuzT, chicagoblueohio, cherish0708, filkertom, SteelerGrrl, buckstop, Shotput8, MarciaJ720, Rashaverak, RAST, shypuffadder, arizonablue, Robynhood too, fixxit, jalenth, Richard Cranium, Dobber, David PA, Glacial Erratic, Zinman, Chitown Kev, JonBarleycorn, FindingMyVoice, Arahahex, semiot, jrooth, TokenLiberal, jw1, Nailbanger, Rhysling, Tfill, eztempo, skohayes, True North, jfdunphy, armadillo, Hastur, radical simplicity, followyourbliss, TexDem, Hirodog, brentbent, Cronesense, sostos
    •  I agree with many of the comments (8+ / 0-)

      But I still think it boils down to one HUGE biggie....

      Don't tell anyone, but there is a Black Man and family in the White House and the R's, the party that we know is full of racists, cannot handle it.

      We need to get the Democrats out in force in 2014 to keep the Republicans from taking over the States.

      -6.13 -4.4 Where are you? Take the Test!!!

      by MarciaJ720 on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 05:11:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's called "news cycle management" (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tfill, eztempo, skohayes

      While all of this is good, it seems to sidestep one key factor: since the election, without the presence of a pseudo-controversy the Republican "entertainment" complex would be forced to examine facts. More to the point, the election has deligitimized a whole range of Republicans as potential news cycle hogs. Look at the Sunday "news" talk shows - John McCain has dominated these through the years anyway, and so the Republican establishment needs to feed him something to maintain their dominance of this forum. Without this, Washington insiders might otherwise be forced to have Democrats and other more reality-based participants in public affairs invited on to these shows. Perish the thought.

      The Benghazi controversy exists as fill for airtime until the Republicans can come up with something better to simulate "fair and balanced" public debate. Petraeus' testimony should have ended the fact-seeking substantially, but as long as they don't have anything else with which to fill the airwaves, their own bloviating will have to do. This is straight out of their playbook for Clinton's second term, when a scandal that they had kept on ice conveniently broke into the news cycle in time for it to paralyze his second-term agenda.  Substitute Jill Kelly for Linda Tripp and Paula Broadwell for Monica Lewinsky and the media has the same sort of bull to chew on rather than to approach policy matters of substance with real thinkers (apologies to Ms. Broadwell, she has a brain at least, if but a corrupt one).

      •  They must be so frustrated at this point (0+ / 0-)

        The non-troversy poutrage generator has been running very effectively, non-stop, since the Iranian hostage crisis during the Carter administration. It was invented during that crisis (which is why I've always despised Ted Koppel), and has been not only a cash-cow, but a fabulously effective propaganda machine ever since.

        But now ... people just don't buy it anymore. Enough people have enough access to countervailing information that the generator is failing at its assigned task. Enough of us know better than to fall for the BS any longer. This, of course, makes them turn up the volume (both in terms of sound level and in terms of number of utterances about the topic) in the hopes that more, louder repetition of the Big Lie will be more effective against a populace that's no longer listening.

        It's nice to see this particular tool's effectiveness fading. Its end cannot come too soon.

  •  Big question is how to shove 310 million off the (23+ / 0-)

    tread-mill of MSM bullshit. And corollary -- how to get "journalists" to do the fucking job that Fourth Amendment notions (that Amendment they are only too  happy to hide behind and claim sanctification by) held that they ought to do. you know, investigative and plain old who-what-when-where-why reporting.

    "Is that all there is?" Peggy Lee.

    by jm214 on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 11:52:31 AM PST

  •  Darrell Issa is the posterchild of subpeona envy (33+ / 0-)
    “I want seven hearings a week, times 40 weeks,” Issa said.
    Read more: http://www.politico.com/...

    Clearly this quote confirms that he has lost his way as to the reason why he supposed to be in Washington. This quote and the painting hanging on the wall at the link. Good grief.

    The choice of our lifetime: Mitt Romney, It Takes A Pillage or President Barack Obama, Forward Together.

    by FiredUpInCA on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 11:54:19 AM PST

  •  You know the Rs are in trouble when (32+ / 0-)

    they want to abuse an ambassador for saying in public precisely what her principal told her to say, after finding out that what she said was what she was told to say, and repeated accurately.

    The whole point of an ambassador is that such dignitary represents a principal, a government, and says in person to whoever whatever that principal or government wants said. This is the origin of the heraldic tradition of not shooting the herald. In the old old days, a herald was the servant of king A and his duty was to go, wrapped in certain heraldic devices that identified him as a herald, before king B and say literally whatever king A told him to say, no matter how insulting.  And it could be very insulting. This gave rise to a bit of bloodshed before the tradition of not shooting the messenger arose, so that the message could be delivered and charged properly to King A, not to the messenger personally who was ordered to deliver it.

     Apparently we may add this to the vast history about which McCain and his cronies know bupkes. .

    •  This has nothing to do with Susan Rice in 2013... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ckntfld, buckstop

      ...and everything to do with Hillary Clinton in 2016.

      I can't believe everyone is missing that.

      "Mitt who? That's an odd name. Like an oven mitt, you mean? Oh, yeah, I've got one of those. Used it at the Atlas Society BBQ last summer when I was flipping ribs."

      by Richard Cranium on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 07:27:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So you are saying that Hillary's team is behind (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MarciaJ720

        the smearing of Susan Rice? I am not seeing how trashing Rice hurts the Hillary campaign.

        President Obama at Madison Rally 9/28/2010 - "Change is not a spectator sport."

        by askew on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 08:16:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Absolutely not. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nowhere Man, buckstop, FindingMyVoice

          All I'm saying is that the GOP bruhaha over Benghazi is not (and has never been) about Susan Rice.

          It's about Hillary.

          "Mitt who? That's an odd name. Like an oven mitt, you mean? Oh, yeah, I've got one of those. Used it at the Atlas Society BBQ last summer when I was flipping ribs."

          by Richard Cranium on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 08:18:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  In other words, (3+ / 0-)

            it's about trying to poison Hillary's record as SoS, to try to make her a weaker candidate for President.

            I agree.

            Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

            by Nowhere Man on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 08:37:39 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  How many non Caucasians have the Rs gone after in (0+ / 0-)

              this way. Rice and Holder are not. Obama obviously is not as well. Although the only two non Caucasians I remember from Bush were also both SoS. And IIRC Susan Rice went with O rather than Hillary in 2008.

            •  I have wondered if (8+ / 0-)

              it is about undermining Rice for any serious long-term prospects.  Admittedly I haven't followed her all that closely, so I don't have a good feel for her long term potential.  However, I have read that she is interested in the senate - are they looking to take her down now with hopes of making her toxic in the long run?  Or would that just be a side benefit to hurting Obama and Clinton?

              I have to say that McCain is making himself look like a doddering old fool.  What particularly stood out to me was the remark disparaging her intelligence.  For me, that kind of a gratuitous swipe makes for an instant 99% discount of whatever the major point someone is trying to make. But then there is probably a part of him that is offended that Barack Obama is still the president, and that she might become the Secretary of State, and that there is almost no chance that he will ever hold either post.  How could a relatively young African-American woman achieve what he will not?  It seems to be nagging at him.

          •  Starting the Clinton-scandal mongering eraly? (0+ / 0-)

            Well, there was that whole freakish thing with the new Monica Lewinsky book, so I could believe that.

            BTW, on eof the most refreshing things about the Obama Administration is the freedom from scandal that plagued the Clinton years.

          •  Nah. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jfdunphy, askew

            Republicans want John Kerry as SoS. Then his Senate seat opens up.
            Occam's Razor.

            “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

            by skohayes on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 01:36:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's a two-fer (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Calamity Jean

              I do agree that the GOP seems to be playing 3 dimensional chess with the Benghazi flap.  There are both short term and longer term benefits to them in doing so.

              1) Deny Susan Rice the SoS job, thereby moving John Kerry into the contender's spot for that position.  Yes, that scenario opens up a Mass. seat in the Senate that the GOP would love to plug Scott Brown back into.

              2) As I said previously, give Hillary a black eye.  She has been a stand out SoS, and probably logged more air miles than any SoS since Kissinger.  Add her Senate cred to the mix, and if she decides to run in 2016, would be difficult to beat.  So they need an albatross to hang around her neck.

              The bottom line is that the GOP's pearl clutching about Benghazi has little to nothing to do with what actually happened, but rather, staking out future political ground back here in the good ol' U.S. of A.

              "Mitt who? That's an odd name. Like an oven mitt, you mean? Oh, yeah, I've got one of those. Used it at the Atlas Society BBQ last summer when I was flipping ribs."

              by Richard Cranium on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 02:31:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  And you call Rs consipracy theorists? (0+ / 0-)

        Evidence?

  •  Pretty much. Despite pouring money and sleazy (27+ / 0-)

    tactics into the race, he got re-elected, and in a way that makes him more powerful politically, if he's willing to use it.  The only hope they still have not to 'suffer through four more years' is to find some excuse to impeach him, so they invent crazy conspiracy theory after crazy conspiracy theory in hopes that if they can get a free hand to dig around, they can find something, anything, that will allow them to remove him.

    Benghazi is a tragedy, but if there is any chance that added security could have changed the outcome for the better, it was Republicans in Congress who slashed State Department funding that prevented such an outcome.  It doesn't matter a rats' ass what was said AFTER the attacks, since that wouldn't change a thing about the lives lost, both American and Libyan.  Sides, at 'worst', even if the admin did deliberately put out misleading info, that's nothing different than psy-ops run under the Bush admin, other than to be far less.  I don't hear them screaming that we need to hold Bush or his pals accountable for the hundreds of documented, recorded lies they put out that got wound up costing thousands of American lives and exploded the deficit, so that they could blame Obama when he put their unpaid-for wars on the books.

  •  Once they're done with this (9+ / 0-)

    inquisition, perhaps they could turn the spotlight onto their own craven malfeasance. That will prove much more interesting.

    Those who do not understand history are condemned to repeat it... in summer school.

    by cassandracarolina on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 05:09:23 PM PST

  •  Repub SOP... (18+ / 0-)

    Make up shit.   Throw said shit at walls.   See what sticks.  Call for hearings.

    This is not just "scandal envy" or Obama Derangement Syndrome.  Not for all of them anyway.  For some, this is an entirely calculated ploy to try to rally their dispirited base, chip away at the President's renewed legitimacy, and make governing harder.  

  •  Other... (5+ / 0-)

    I hear more about the notion that the President has personally shipped ALL the good jobs to China from my few conservative friends.  But they also say he has NO experience and he does nothing but play golf and basketball.  Quite a feat for anyone to accomplish, by proxy I suppose.

    Dreams must be heeded and accepted, for a great many of them come true. ~ Paracelsus

    by page394 on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 05:23:50 PM PST

  •  McCain and Graham - (7+ / 0-)

    aka "The Obama BenCrazies"

  •  I could see this all along. I'm surprised it (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ardyess, blueoasis

    even needed a diary.  

  •  They want an Impeachment so bad they will... (29+ / 0-)

    do anything to get one started.  They don't care if they expose a covert CIA mission and help the bad guys keep heavy weapons, including rocket launchers, or interfere with other secret operations, adversely affecting their own country--as long as they can try to get a Dem POTUS on the hot seat, in front of cameras.  They don't care about how they jeopardize covert agents or operations, as long as they can get their own 15 minutes of fame asking asinine questions and pontificating in front of the world's media.

    •  What is even more ridiculous and racist about this (15+ / 0-)

      impeachment fervor...and yes, it is RACIST, is that they're pretend goal is to stop Obama's socialist/facist/Kenyen policies, when in fact what happens if, lo and behold their dearest desires are acheived? That's correct, VP Biden takes over as President...who will continue the same policies that President Obama is putting forth.

      When you look at it through this prism, that their pretend goal is so easily defeated, then you can reach no other conclusion that it is pure, blatant RACISM that is driving this desire to find some kernel to lay impeachment charges.

      "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" Voltaire.

      by JWK on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 06:01:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  bah, *their not they're (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shirl In Idaho, bontemps2012

        "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" Voltaire.

        by JWK on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 06:02:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  along with the fact that it's going to be this (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JWK, Calamity Jean

        angry black man whose going to make them all pay more taxes if they can't attach themselves to some new found loophole......

      •  They've proven they are racists and bigots... (9+ / 0-)

        (and misogynists, etc.) but they are also determined to have power.  If they can't do it by a democratic election, their current method of controlling the narrative and distracting from more important issues is to dig up or manufacture what they think is some impeachment-worthy "scandal", or to constantly harp on one idiotic issue to the point of hysteria, and/or both.  

        They couldn't defeat the last Dem POTUS, so they decided to drag the country through a long drawn out, embarrassing, and minutely detailed public sex scandal to publicly humiliate the Dem POTUS and to keep him from working on the business of governing the country.  

        They simply cannot stand not being in total control, so they will do whatever they have to to sabotage the Democrat(s) in power, even if by doing that they hurt their country and its people.

         

      •  I bet they hope for a Two-fer... and Pres. Boehner (0+ / 0-)

        Find the mother lode scandal and somehow impeach BOTH Obama and Biden (both conspiring after the fact, coverup etc) and because what Issa and other savior snoopers find will be so heinous it will force enough purple-ish dems to crossover save their electoral asses from the righteous wrath of the true American voters...so that conviction would be so certain that both Pres and veep would have to resign making way for the great weeping fake tan one to take the helm...

        a pipe dream.

        But variations on this turns up often enough on foaming right sites and in associated comments so you know these notions are out there...

        Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie (hah...)

        by IreGyre on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 02:55:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Copy Iran-Contra ??? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      auditor, mkor7, Zinman

      $$$$$ and missiles to Iran, so's they would keep the embassy hostages till after the 1980 election.

      Anything to defeat Jimmy Carter.

    •  The Republicans don't want an Impeachment (0+ / 0-)

      They impeached the last Dem President and everyone remembers that.

      Unless President Obama...I don't know...is shown committing a premeditated murder on live TV, the I word will have a lot of bark but no bite, or the Rs are done for sure.

  •  I'm not satisfied with Waldman and Drum's (14+ / 0-)

    explanation for the Benghazi-nuttery.  I'm still puzzled by it.  I've thought about surfing over to Redstate or LGF and posting there, "Hey, I'm from DailyKos, I don't want to troll, don't want to argue, just want to know exactly what the hell you are talking about with Benghazi because I seriously don't understand what you are trying to say."

    This seems like such a thin and nonsensical scandal that I don't understand the point of it at all, especially when you look at the oversized and self-destructive mania that they've poured into it.  Fox News totally threw away whatever little chance Romney still had in the last election by going Benghazi-nuts in the last week of the election, crowding out all other coverage that might have helped him, like focusing on unemployed Ohio workers who blame Obama or something like that.  This is that nuts.

    The best I can understand where they are going with this is something like this:  "If it weren't for Obama's plotting to cover up the involvement of terrorists in the Libya attack, it might have suggested to voters that Obama hasn't been tough on terrorism, and that would have turned the tide allowing our guy, Romney, to win.  Thus, this is a dirty double-dealing conspiracy to keep Obama in the Whitehouse and it must be illegal in some way."

    That's the best (for them) thing that I can make out of it.  And even that is pathetic.  It basically argues that Obama, a politician, tried to spin the attack to his advantage, and that's what politicians do, and they're just not going to take it anymore.  Any news (like Petraeus's denials) that Obama had nothing to do with it, then, are just chum in the water to stir up their suspicions which are otherwise made up of the same stuff as loose bowels.  Can't they see how ineffective this is?  They literally threw away their last chance (if they had any) to win because of this crock of shit.

    •  I think your take on the RW on this one is about (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pluto, Tfill

      right:

      "If it weren't for Obama's plotting to cover up the involvement of terrorists in the Libya attack, it might have suggested to voters that Obama hasn't been tough on terrorism, and that would have turned the tide allowing our guy, Romney, to win.  Thus, this is a dirty double-dealing conspiracy to keep Obama in the Whitehouse and it must be illegal in some way."
      And it is really lame. But it's all they've got.

      The Class, Terror and Climate Wars are indivisible and the short-term outcome will affect the planet for centuries.

      by Words In Action on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 06:16:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Read on down. (0+ / 0-)

      They're defending Reagan.

    •  Sounds right to me. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DianeNYS, papercut, Tfill

      I'm pretty sure there was a security leak in the Romney camp the morning of the attacks. They "knew" it was an al Qaeda attack and that US intelligence was well aware that al Qaeda was active in Libya -- which has essentially collapsed into chaos after NATO's holy war against Gaddafi, which was to be expected.

      Hence, Romney's ill-advised and vague and bizarre morning presser. Romney wanted to suggest that under Obama al Qaeda had grown. It didn't work and the Republicans were humiliated. They really couldn't fire back because the CIA black hole in Benghazi is something they support -- not something they want to expose.

      Really, their hands are still tied. There are questions that they don't want answered (and connections they don't want made) in the hearings regarding Petraeus and activities at the Benghazi compound. All of this stupid Rice business will come to nothing because there is nothing there. She repeated intelligence talking points and only one word was changed. "Mission" was changed to "Consulate."

      Still, Rice will be damaged in the eyes of the world and in the role of SOS.

      This is my analysis and opinion, only, based on observations and reading.


      A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five. -- Groucho Marx

      by Pluto on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 07:28:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You're missing the point (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      timber, ClevelandAttorney

      This has nothing to do with Obama or Susan Rice in 2012 or 2013.

      It has everything to do with Hillary Clinton in 2016.  The groundwork is being laid.

      It's hard for me to believe that no one is getting this angle.  Think "long game".

      "Mitt who? That's an odd name. Like an oven mitt, you mean? Oh, yeah, I've got one of those. Used it at the Atlas Society BBQ last summer when I was flipping ribs."

      by Richard Cranium on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 07:31:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm still not getting it. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Larsstephens

        Hillary is connected to Stevens -- but how does persecuting Rice (at the UN) rub off on Hillary?


        A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five. -- Groucho Marx

        by Pluto on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 08:55:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Election is over (0+ / 0-)

          But they are still Benghazi mode.  I suspect you can be right

          wall Street Casino is the root of the problem. Don't call them banks.

          by timber on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 09:08:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I agree - you're not getting it (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Pluto, mkor7

          From the git go, the entire GOP dustup on Benghazi (like any of them could find it on a map) has been about Clinton's conduct as SoS.  Susan Rice is only the unfortunate strawman at present.

          In their fevered minds, everything about Benghazi will track back to SoS come 2015 / 2016.  At least, that's how the other side is envisioning it now.  

          I felt this before the election, and the GOP's barking ever since only reinforces my viewpoint.  Susan Rice is just the current pawn on the GOP's chess board.  99% of Americans couldn't tell you who is the current American UN ambassador.  But that same 99% could probably tell you that Hillary Clinton is the current Secretary of State, and that as SoS, she's ultimately responsible for the diplomatic missions of the U.S.

          The GOP is playing the long game.  Their Benghazi noise has absolutely nothing to do with Susan Rice.

          "Mitt who? That's an odd name. Like an oven mitt, you mean? Oh, yeah, I've got one of those. Used it at the Atlas Society BBQ last summer when I was flipping ribs."

          by Richard Cranium on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 09:17:12 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Just one question (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Richard Cranium

            (since I agree generally)

            Why aren't they talking about Hillary all day every day?

            By saying that Rice would be a bad SoS -- aren't they saying that Hillary is a good one?


            A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five. -- Groucho Marx

            by Pluto on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 09:27:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The GOP isn't targeting Clinton just yet (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Pluto, Chitown Kev

              She's basically bullet proof from GOP criticism at the moment, although I'm a bit perplexed about why Issa, et.ux. haven't trained their scopes on her.

              The only answer I have is that (again), they're playing the long game.  To be honest, I never saw Susan Rice as heir apparent to Secretary Clinton, so the GOP's coordinated attack on her has caught me, and a lot of other people, a bit off guard.

              Maybe the GOP wants John Kerry as SoS to open up Mass for a return of the Brown?  I dunno.  It's hard to get inside the reptilian brains of the GOP leadership.  By the same token, it's easy (at least for the GOP) to draw a straight line between the leadership of the State Department and the incident in Benghazi.

              They're not invoking Hillary Clinton yet.  They will in the future.  Count on it.

              "Mitt who? That's an odd name. Like an oven mitt, you mean? Oh, yeah, I've got one of those. Used it at the Atlas Society BBQ last summer when I was flipping ribs."

              by Richard Cranium on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 09:47:29 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You could be right. (0+ / 0-)

                It seems that the Republicans are furious that Rice was the scripted stand-in for Clinton; that Rice protected Clinton from passing on misinformation, herself; that the Sunday shows had all requested Clinton, but she refused.

                At least that's the talking points I'm hearing. They're out for Clinton.


                A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five. -- Groucho Marx

                by Pluto on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 12:21:06 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  The problem is (6+ / 0-)

    the GOP knows this is working with the corporate-owned, idiot-run MSM.  All they have to do is keep repeating it and the MSM will keep reporting it.  

    With gerrymandering, the teabagger assholes in the House have no motivation to do anything but act like right wing teabagger assholes and attack President Obama over fake conspiracies.  

  •  I don't know about anyone else (11+ / 0-)

    But when I hear dog whistles from the RW I pay attention.  What comes to mind when you hear "Watergate type Investigation?"

    Only one thing I know of.  IMPEACHMENT.  They desperately wntt to find something to call a SCANDAL that might lead to a reason for Impeachment.  Since they can't win at elections, they can't think of any other way to get the Black man out of the White House.

    Not CT.  In some places there are tables set up collecting signatures to petition congress to Impeach the President.  In Ohio, accompanied with pictures of Obama dressed as Hitler.  Heard it on the Stephanie Miller Show (Current TV) a couple of days ago from a caller in Ohio.  I don't know which city, but this is a regular caller, so no reason to doubt the story.  If you watch or listen to Steph, you know who John and Pam in Ohio are.

    Makes more sense to me than anything else.  These R's are so disgusting.  I am sick to death of them and their nonsense.

    JMO

    *the blogger formerly known as shirlstars

    by Shirl In Idaho on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 06:01:03 PM PST

    •  Impeachment (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chitown Kev, salamanderempress

      got Clinton reelected. If they try this before the 2014 midterms, the Republicans will lose the House and Obama will still be president.
      Not that I disagree with you at all, I think it's exactly what they're aiming for.
      That's how stupid they are.

      “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

      by skohayes on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 01:52:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The booths and petitions are real (0+ / 0-)

      One was set up in front of my local post office yesterday (it even had the Obama picture with a Hitler moustache), and I live in one of the coastal blue states west of you.

  •  It's NOT about "the scandal".... It's about (9+ / 0-)

    monopolizing, to the extent possible, the limited bandwidth of national dialogue... The Repubs have perfected this.  It doesn't matter WHAT the issue is, even if it's insane (birthers, etc.)...  the goal is to occupy the lion's share of the national media's flavor of the day...  

    With space limited, the greater the presence of right wing bs entering media's consciouness, the less space there is for any other messages to sound clearly.

    The only things Repubs are really good at is getting their bullshit national media attention, thereby monopolizing the small space given to politics/ideological arguments in the minds of regular (non-politically astute) citizens.

    Absent this expertise, aided by wiling and un-witted assistance by corporate media, the entire right would forever be standing in the back of the room.  But shallow minds love a good story, so they flock to same like moths to a flame, playing the right's game for them, to the detriment of true national political dialogue (f/k/a journalism).

    A closed mind believes the future and the present will be the same, attempting to counteract an underlying fear that the future will be worse than the present, which inhibits the tendency to question at all. (Paraphrasing "A Course in Miracles.")

    by ceebee7 on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 06:27:21 PM PST

  •  I went with "birthers" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OldDragon, Debby, Michael James

    Because it has at least one extra dimension of stupidity.

    Even if.  EVEN IF BHO was everything they say--
    even if he was born in Kenya,
    even if his father was whoever they hell the latest iteration is,
    even if he's a Muslim,

    He's still qualified to be president, because he would still be a "natural born" citizen.  If his mother is a US citizen, he is too.  And nobody anywhere has ever alleged otherwise.  

    Get a clue, people.  

    How many wrongs does it take to make a right?

    by pdknz on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 06:41:13 PM PST

  •  this is about impeachment (6+ / 0-)

    They've been searching desperately for something, ANYTHING, to justify investigations that then might lead to something they haven't found out about yet, a fishing expedition. After all, he's Governing While Black, he has to be up to no good, amirite?

    •  On what grounds? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skohayes

      That eludes me. I don't know much about impeachment, however.


      A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five. -- Groucho Marx

      by Pluto on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 07:37:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Technically, impeachment is like any other vote. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FindingMyVoice, LynnS, Pluto

        So it's not so much about a "sustainable reason" as it is just about a pretext.  It will probably be permissible to call the question in the Senate after 5 min and put that dog out of its misery.

        I'll always be...King of Bain...I'll always be...King of Bain

        by AZphilosopher on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 06:24:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I had to read up on it too (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pluto
        The impeachment process is a two-step procedure. The House of Representatives must first pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been "impeached". Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. For the impeachment of any other official, the Constitution is silent on who shall preside, suggesting that this role falls to the Senate's usual presiding officer. This may include the impeachment of the vice president, although legal theories suggest that allowing a defendant to be the judge in his own case would be a blatant conflict of interest. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment (of anyone besides the President), the duties would fall to the President pro tempore of the Senate.
        To convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required. Conviction automatically removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring him from holding future federal office, elected or appointed. Conviction by the Senate does not bar criminal prosecution. Even after an accused has left office, it is possible to impeach to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of his prior office (such as a pension). If there is no charge for which a two-thirds majority of the senators present vote "guilty", the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

        by skohayes on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 01:54:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Bingo! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LynnS

      Think Kenneth Star.

  •  So, I've been following this story (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pluto

    out of Indianapolis about the house that exploded? Still a mystery though today it was moved into the homicide category (hideous: the neighbors died in the explosion). Yeah, in the comments, nut jobs comparing it to Benghazi. "They must investigate this! Not like they did in Benghazi!" "Oh, those poor neighbors died!--Why didn't you care that much about the Americans in Benghazi?" Luckily, many people are shouting these posters down.

    Twenty years from now, you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. Throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. --Mark Twain

    by Debby on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 06:46:07 PM PST

  •  John Kerry Senate Seat (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    defluxion10, skohayes

    Maybe I am too much into conspiracy theories, but I think that since John Kerry has also expressed an interest in being Secretary of State, they are making the nomination of Susan Rice for Secretary of State a non-starter.   John Kerry would resign his seat, the repugs would swift-boat his nomination but approve him, and that handsome rogue Scott Brown would ease himself into the open seat.  This would complicate the new Senate. Possible??

    Plus, they love being on the TV.

  •  B-b-b-but 4 people died! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pluto, skohayes, dadadata

    Photobucket

    "It strikes me as gruesome and comical that in our culture we have an expectation that a man can always solve his problems" - Kurt Vonnegut

    by jazzence on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 06:47:18 PM PST

  •  Benghazi fever. got into a nasty tangle with 4 (4+ / 0-)

    raging, ranting, foaming at the mouth women over this..not a shred of sense among them..they are so beyond understanding what a fact or reality is, it is truly astonishing.. barking  just like chained dogs . One of them was one who seemed to have remained rational throughout the election. for whatever reason ,she went over the edge on this one and has caught the fever.

    this will go on for the next four years.desparate for a scandal they will overreact   for every event that rates a 1 or 2, they will react with a 9 or 10 on the outrage scale. .. the Republican party has to deal with the Republican party..from the looks of it, i don't see much hope that sensible Republicans will prevail in any way.
    Gad what a bunch of , tiresome bullshit

  •  Obama & Benghazi vs. Reagan & Beirut (9+ / 0-)

    If they don't crowd out normal thinking, someone will do a thoughtful piece and connect what happened 9/11/2012 in Libya with what happened 10/23/1983 in Lebanon.

    Benghazi, 4. Beirut, 392. Tough Lessons Going Forward

    People say they love Reagan. You have to be ignorant about what happened in Lebanon to entertain a thought that he was competent as Commander in Chief.

    Obama and Reagan made decisions to take sides in civil wars. Reagan overrode his ambassador's warning that allowing Sharon to invade with IDF in 1982 would destabilize the Lebanese government, causing a civil war. Reagan lost 241 at the Marine barracks, 392 overall to thermobaric truck bombs.

    63 -- victims at American embassy 18-April-1983
    241 - victims at the Marine barracks 23-October-1983
    58 -- victims at the French barracks 23-October-1983
    30 -- victims at Tyre for the Israelis 3-November-1983

    392 total

    Obama went in to Libya because his gal Parker heard the voices of 800,000 dead Tutsis. Because Benghazi would have been slaughtered by Gaddafi's tanks.

    Losing 4 when you take sides in a civil war? Goes with the territory... and it's only 4 if you're one of the luckiest SOBs ever to sit in the big chair.

    Beirut was a disaster. Surprising how Robert McFarlane's "Peacekeeper" PR angle never grows old as fakery/fxckery but the realities of Lebanon in 1983 are hard to find:

    -- America was at war with Iran in 1983. Billions of dollars in American military equipment were being used by our ally, Saddam Hussein, to kill Iranians (1980-1988.)
    -- Iran had every reason to seek revenge.
    -- Ariel Sharon had Israel's IDF invade southern Lebanon in 1982. The stated aim was to knock out Arafat and Fatah.
    -- A civil war between Christians and Muslims ensued within the year following Sharon's invasion.
    -- American Ambassador Dillon had opposed that invasion on grounds that the resulting political shocks would destabilize Lebanon. On 18-April-1983 the American embassy in Beirut was hit with a 1-ton truck bomb from just below the ambassador's office. The front of the building pancaked, killing 63.

    -- While the Marines had indeed arrived as United Nations Peacekeepers, Robert McFarlane as Assistant National Security Adviser to President Reagan, had gotten approval to have the USS New Jersey open fire on Muslim positions.
    -- That use of heavy artillery converted American forces to combatants on the Maranist side. You're not "Peacekeepers" when you're firing 2700-pound artillery rounds into Muslim villages. (Helluva shock wave. 500 meter kill radius.)
    -- Six months after the embassy bombing, the Marine barracks was undefended. A 20-ton thermobaric PETN-and-liquid-butane weapon turned that 4-story concrete building to a 1-story wreck. France and 10 days later Israel in Tyre were also hit. 329 total dead.
    -- Ronald Reagan never admitted fault. Never had the incompetents fired and/or court martialed. No blame fell on the C.O., the area commanders, or the Pentagon brass.
    -- Official blame went to a lowly duty-roster officer who had been paralyzed in the bombing. He never learned that the classified "Lessons Learned" documents  were falsified to use him for the cover-up.
    Reagan sucked up the PR bull. Never questioned the scapegoat theory. Never went around the official channel. Never said a word that wasn't written down for him.

    Useless as CinC was he. Promoted McFarlane from Assistant NSA to National Security Advisor. Damn fool for that.

    Reagan went on to abandon the Maranists. (Similar to Bush41 and his Iraqis after the Gulf War.) Terrorists were shown that a Paper Tiger could be driven out of Lebanon and made to betray allies for the price of four suicide bombers.

    Compared to those two: Thank God for Black Eisenhower !

  •  I think there is more to this (7+ / 0-)

    than the GOP just wanting something to pin on Obama.  I think they are in a corner politically.  It is more evident to more people that they can't govern, they don't want to govern and they're willing to sell out the poor and the middle class for more power anytime.

    What they are enjoying is a diversion and that is what we should be fighting back.  They bring up Benghazi, we bring up jobs.  They bring up Amb. Rice, we bring up infrastructure.

    After all how does one contest the nomination of someone to a cabinet post, WHEN IT HASN'T EVEN HAPPENED.

    They want and are getting the diversion in the corporate media.  We need to turn the narrative back to reality and to the real priorities of the country.

    I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

    by Satya1 on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 07:01:28 PM PST

  •  Ya know... (6+ / 0-)

    because it's about stopping Susan Rice from possibly being nominated to be Secretary of State, you could've as easily titled your piece Desperately Seeking Susan.  :-)

  •  Watergate, Iran-Contra (5+ / 0-)

    We'd have to go wildly afield to ever come close to those two giant scandals and it drives Republicans crazy.

  •  It is about controlling the media narrative (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    starduster

    The more the media talks about the "alleged" Obama administration's failings the less the media can talk about the successes, and the less the Democratic Party's framing of issues will get through to the voters.  

  •  It's hilarious (0+ / 0-)

    Same time they are talking about changing the party, they are making same old tired accusations with zero merit.  They remind me of 9/11 truthers. You give them some facts and they ignore to ask more unrelated questions.

  •  The GOP is all about "second verse, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pluto, skohayes, catfood

    same as the first." (Note how they still believe, or say they believe, that their same old policies will Kick Ass in 2014 and 2016.)

    It worked with the last Democratic president, when they tried, with some success, to hamstring the Clinton presidency from the get-go with one bullshit conspiracy/scandal after another. (How many can YOU remember? Monicagate. Filegate. Travelgate. Vince Foster. Whitewater. Illegitimate black babies in Arkansas. Cocaine running in Mena. Juanita Brodderick. Paula Jones. Gennifer Flowers. And that's just off the top of my head.) They even succeeded in running an impeachment scam on Clinton, which didn't remove him from office but did eat up a hell of a lot of time and resources that could have been spent solving problems. And, of course, they gave him a parting gift of one more heaping bucketful of bullshit, the "Vandal Scandal."

    With four years gone, they haven't succeeded in pinning anything of substance on this administration. But it's all they know. They're just digging in and trying harder.

    •  Trouble is, some of those scandals were real. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      catfood

      At least the ones involving the Clenis.  Thank goodness we have a President now who doesn't see beautiful women as a job perk.

      Early to rise and early to bed Makes a man healthy, wealthy, and dead. --Not Benjamin Franklin

      by Boundegar on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 08:47:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oh, you forgot (0+ / 0-)

      Campaign cash from Indonesia...

      I'm surprised they haven't used Indonesia to connect the Clintons with Obama or say that the Indonesians have taken over the United States, lol

    •  Christmas card mailing list (0+ / 0-)

      -gate. Lincoln bedroom-gate. Cattle futures trading-gate.

      “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

      by skohayes on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 02:02:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  These people are unhinged (0+ / 0-)

    It is all about impeachment of the Kenyan muslim imposter.  A booth in front of my local post office, today, had a sign "Sign the petition to impeach", with a picture of Obama (with a Hitler moustache) and "BENGHAZI" in big letters, with "He had 48 hours"--the latter must be some right-wing radio meme, because I'm unfamiliar with it.  Engagement in civil discourse with these jackasses is impossible.  Oh, they were doing a fairly brisk business, too.  I need a drink because I can't deal with these f*(kers any longer.

  •  Hillary2016 (0+ / 0-)

    Could it be remanufactured vs Hillary in 2016?

    wall Street Casino is the root of the problem. Don't call them banks.

    by timber on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 09:05:46 PM PST

  •  What Changes Has Your Department Made (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skohayes, catfood

    The strangest question I have been asked in a long time came from someone I know somewhat well, but not about her TV viewing habits. We had talked politics a little over the summer and fall, but not much more than her asking me about some mundane policy questions, almost nothing in depth.  Last week she went further.

    She asked me what changes the department I work for, I am a federal employee, was doing because of the Benghazi attack. She knows I do not work for State, but a very benign and well loved department that helps people in the US and around the world. My questioning look must have triggered her next statement, "it is all over the news that the federal government is doing something about it". IIRC. It was then I realized she watches Faux News.

    I explained to her that there has been nothing about Benghazi in anything the department, or even down to my division, does.  Maybe State had something for the funeral, but nothing in my department.  She was sure we were changing and increasing security at our buildings.  I assured her that our world was unaffected by the terrible attack. But, she was positive the whole of the federal government was deeply affected by the attack. She found it difficult to grasp that the whole scandal was a Republican political attack against Obama.  I find it difficult to believe the Repubs are still trying to create something about it after the election.

    She explained her understanding of how serious the attack was and how the Obama administration was covering things up. . . etc. I suggested she watch a few hours of MSNBC night programs.  

    There was no need to explain to her that old man McCain was a loser and very bitter about his crappy world; and how he was going to attack Obama about anything his mind created. The real McCain vs the McCain persona really is a show in itself.

  •  I firmly believe Obama will be impeached (0+ / 0-)

    What for?  They don't need a what for, they have Fox News.  It will probably backfire on them, but maybe not.

    "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

    by Subterranean on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 12:36:52 AM PST

    •  They do need a "what for" (0+ / 0-)

      If they don't, and try to impeach him on trumped up charges? They'll lose their majority in the House.

      “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

      by skohayes on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 02:04:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Re: Past scandals (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chitown Kev, TheDuckManCometh
    Nixon had Watergate, Reagan had Iran-Contra, Clinton had Lewinsky, and Barack Obama has gotten off scott-free.
    Remember: The bulk of expressed Repub outrage over Clinton had nothing to do with Lewinsky. Remember the name of the proceedings?: Whitewater.

    Whitewater was the pretext for punishing Clinton for the heinous crime of Treating the Presidency Like a Goddamned Job. The punishment was that of consuming Clinton's time and financial resources—and hopefully distracting the public from the unseemly spectacle of a real President doing the country's business in an efficient and forthright manner. They didn't win an impeachment vote, but I'm more than sure of their mindset: A successful impeachment vote would have merely been the cherry on the top of a more significant, more practically obstructive shit sundae.

    And I'm saying all this for a reason. Trotting out Obama's squeaky-cleanliness don't really mean much. If they want to obstruct, the agents of institutional terror don't have the moral constitution of a leech. Benghazi is as good for the purpose as anything else. It doesn't matter a whit whether something got covered up or not. Only the privileged few who are cleared to get into the chambers to hear the classified reportage will get the full truth of the matter; the hoi polloi will continue to take scraps that fall off that table. There's an informational black hole, as far as the polity is concerned. And that hole is big enough for an obstructing minority to drive into with a large, expensive, time-consuming, tea-party-enraging public show of outrage. Outrage over... something. Anything. As long as it serves to shovel huge wads of time, talent, and money down the rathole, and hopefully slow down (and ideally derail) the sensible management of a decent democratic republic, then Mission Accomplished.

    Isn't it a good feeling when you see the paper in the morning, it says 'Axe Slayer Kills 19' and you say, "They can't pin that one on me!" - Jean Shepherd

    by razajac on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 12:53:19 AM PST

  •  Started as "Obama blames US first, soft on terror" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skohayes

    bit, but Rs are unable to let go even as Mitt got smacked over that.  Why?  It's not helping them at all as it morphs into "coverup".

    One piece of free advice to the GOP: Drop the culture wars, explicitly.

    by Inland on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 03:38:29 AM PST

  •  It's about a pretext to impeach. (0+ / 0-)

    I would put the odds of impeachment at 60-70% and that is not a reflection of what I think of the President, but my low opinion of the House Republicans.

    In fact, I think the strong defense of Rice was not about confirmation, I think it was about antagonizing the House into impeachment.  This is so Republican overreach can be translated into midterm gains.

    I'll always be...King of Bain...I'll always be...King of Bain

    by AZphilosopher on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 06:21:23 AM PST

  •  Remember... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jrooth

    ...fondly all the principled screaming and hollering we heard from Senator John McCain when Colin Powell read WMD intelligence talking points at the UN in 2003?

    Pause,

    more pause ,

    maximum pause,

    neither do I.

  •  This should concern ALL Americans (0+ / 0-)

    The administration clearly concocted some BS story about an anti-muslim video and parroted that story from the gate when they knew it was an unrelated terrorist attack all along.

    I want to know why they lied.  Shouldn't we all?

    •  Clearly? No. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TheDuckManCometh

      What is clear is that there was (and to an extent still is) a plethora of conflicting evidence.  You're just pulling "facts" out of your ass here.

      “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

      by jrooth on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 09:54:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It all goes back to Watergate (0+ / 0-)

    For the last nearly 40 years, the GOP has been desperately looking for a scandal they can hang "gate" on.  

    Some of them are even trying to make a issue of when Obama found out about Patraeus's affair and if he knew before the election.  I read that and feel hopeful.  Why hopeful?  Because there are some in the GOP who believe if the Patraeus sexual antics would have turned some voters to Romney?  No explanation as to why.  No party that dumb has a healthy future.  

  •  Are They Freaking Kidding? (0+ / 0-)

    Hillary could pulverize them before breakfast.   This woman has been thru the rumor mill so many times she's got a backbone of steel.  She would emerge like a phoenix from their tawdry little Republican ashes.  

  •  I don't understand why there is any motivation (0+ / 0-)

    for the adminstration to "cover-up" anything here.  What is the logic the GOP is suggesting (I know that is kind of an oxymoron)?  
    If it turned out this event really was about the video, the GOP probably would have had a much better attack on the administration.  They could have made the point that the Arab spring, which the Obama administration supported, and even participated in, is a failure.  They could make a case that these countries led into these civil wars without proper forethought and it resulted in violent chaos that could lead to instability throughout the world.  They could blame Obama for a long-term structural problem and blame him for everything bad that ever happened in the middle east.  That is a much easier argument to make.
    I think if the administration had a choice, they would rather blame it on terrorists.  Unless you are a brainwashed RWNJ, people understand there are always going to be bad people, doing bad things, and you can't stop them all.  Placing the blame for the act on a small group of rogue individuals seems much less damaging politically than a demostratable accusation that the administration's overarching middle-east policy failed.

    When it comes down to it though, no matter what the outcome, the GOP would try to turn it into a scandal.

  •  Republicans lack imagination...and winning issues (0+ / 0-)

    Let's face it:  the Republican Party is a one trick pony with only one tactic to paralyze a presidency entirely, a Big Scandal.  Sure, Mitch McConnell has made pretty effective use of the Senate filibuster to slow things down, but he hasn't been able to absolutely stop the large initiatives like Obamacare or the elimination of Don't Ask Don't Tell.  Only an all-embracing scandal can do that.

    This is the lesson Republicans learned from Watergate (and why they keep referencing that scandal with their wan imitations).  Hell, they're still getting even with Democrats over Watergate!

    This is also what they brought home from the Clinton Impeachment -- it doesn't take a high crime or significant betrayal of the public trust to do the trick.  It just takes something salacious enough to stay in the headlines.

    Of course, if they had a party-defining issue that the American people supported, they'd all flock to that and actually do, you know...politics.  But, in the absence of such a winning program, all they've got is slime and slander.

    Poor things.

  •  President Obama will earn $3.2 million as POTUS (0+ / 0-)

    That's not a massive fortune but it's more than I will earn in my career. For a guy growing up with his roots, a $3.2M gig is pretty good pay. Add into that existing book sales and he's already made nearly $10M with a long post-Presidential career ahead.

    Republicans perhaps just cannot fathom there are people for whom very much is enough, who feel no motivation to cheat merely to obtain ore.

  •  Please understand the psychology (0+ / 0-)

    It is deeply disconcerting to most Republicans to feel that there are people out there who disagree with them.

    I'm sitting here listening to Karen Finney on "The Ed Show" who is trying to explain their objection to Rice. "They don't want this dynamic woman to rise any higher."

    "Any time something goes wrong, they pick on women and minorities...Your hate is going nowhere."

    I truly hope Obama doesn't buckle here. I'll lose some real faith!

skybluewater, filkertom, Corax, PeterHug, Emerson, CleverNickName, Jay C, Richard Cranium, Matilda, RubDMC, rasbobbo, missLotus, sponson, kalihikane, themank, gayntom, mkfarkus, Lilyvt, ninothemindboggler, TexDem, NYC Sophia, figbash, exiledfromTN, i dont get it, defluxion10, walkshills, Sembtex, mungley, tomjones, TexasLefty, Gowrie Gal, ichibon, jfdunphy, el dorado gal, blueyedace2, SherwoodB, OpherGopher, Dobber, Unforgiven, fixxit, owlbear1, Beetwasher, Hastur, SBandini, noemie maxwell, minidriver, Shotput8, FindingMyVoice, Ekaterin, Alan Arizona, Shirl In Idaho, Themistoclea, Gorette, Dvalkure, fou, sailmaker, Lefty Coaster, blueoasis, birdbrain64, real world chick, JVolvo, armadillo, CTLiberal, el cid, ER Doc, Pilgrim X, BB10, kurious, Thinking Fella, BeninSC, Cronesense, Loudoun County Dem, edsbrooklyn, certainot, rantsposition, zorp, Empower Ink, rmonroe, JDWolverton, rogerdaddy, TX Freethinker, Sixty Something, 1983sedge, Involuntary Exile, elwior, skohayes, Sharon Wraight, tofumagoo, TokenLiberal, Gemina13, OrdinaryIowan, tristan57, dmhlt 66, cadfile, Satya1, Glacial Erratic, Dirtandiron, Nebraskablue, TheOpinionGuy, papahaha, collardgreens, Larsstephens, Words In Action, brentbent, The Jester, ahyums, kacemo, Oh Mary Oh, soaglow, slice, Quantumlogic, Onomastic, Colorado is the Shiznit, kerflooey, Matthew D Jones, sostos, jm214, Partisan Hack, La Gitane, deeproots, page394, dougbob, reddog1, SteelerGrrl, googie, Chitown Kev, Mentatmark, Rashaverak, Bruce Bourgoine, OldDragon, sow hat, Siri, pimutant, CA ridebalanced, This old man, jan4insight, Arahahex, cassandracarolina, arizonablue, Robynhood too, Greatwyrm, Chaddiwicker, Linda1961, Late Again, Alhambra, paccoli, Icicle68, nice marmot, bontemps2012, night cat, starduster, thatpj

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site