Benghazi: Liberals are Panicking

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
Post Reply
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Benghazi: Liberals are Panicking

Post by _bcspace »

There is no escaping the fact that, where Benghazi is concerned, there is blood in the water and the mainstream media has (at long last) picked up the scent. Yesterday, the sharks representing the three major TV networks circled Press Secretary Jay Carney, bombarding him with questions that were uncharacteristically tough.

ABC’s Jonathan Karl, who broke the story that the talking points underwent twelve revisions, had the aspect and attitude of a man scorned and determined to set the record straight as much to clear his own name as to ascertain the truth. When Carney attempted to weasel out of his claim earlier in the week that the White House had merely made minor “stylistic” changes to the talking points, Karl was adamant and unrelenting.

While there are now premature suggestions that impeachment may be in the president’s future, there is no dismissing the fact that this is a major cover-up whose potential for harming administration members present and past (that means you, Hillary!) should not be underestimated. As Mark Steyn reminds us, in January, Clinton “denied ever seeing Ambassador Stevens’s warnings about deteriorating security in Libya on the grounds that ‘1.43 million cables come to my office’ — and she can’t be expected to see all of them, or any,” adding:

"Once Ambassador Stevens was in his flag-draped coffin listening to her eulogy for him at Andrews Air Force Base, he was her bestest friend in the world — it was all ‘Chris this’ and ‘Chris that,’ as if they’d known each other since third grade. But up till that point he was just one of 1.43 million close personal friends of Hillary trying in vain to get her ear.

Now we know that at 8 p.m. Eastern time on the last night of Stevens’s life, his deputy in Libya spoke to Secretary Clinton and informed her of the attack in Benghazi and the fact that the ambassador was now missing. An hour later, Gregory Hicks received a call from the then–Libyan prime minister, Abdurrahim el-Keib, informing him that Stevens was dead. Hicks immediately called Washington. It was 9 p.m. Eastern time, or 3 a.m. in Libya. Remember the Clinton presidential team’s most famous campaign ad? About how Hillary would be ready to take that 3 a.m.call? Four years later, the phone rings, and Secretary Clinton’s not there. She doesn’t call Hicks back that evening. Or the following day.

Are murdered ambassadors like those 1.43 million cables she doesn’t read? Just too many of them to keep track of? No. Only six had been killed in the history of the republic — seven, if you include Arnold Raphel, who perished in General Zia’s somewhat mysterious plane crash in Pakistan in 1988. Before that you have to go back to Adolf Dubs, who died during a kidnapping attempt in Kabul in 1979. So we have here a once-in-a-third-of-a-century event. And at 3 a.m. Libyan time on September 12 it’s still unfolding, with its outcome unclear. Hicks is now America’s head man in the country, and the cabinet secretary to whom he reports says, ‘Leave a message after the tone and I’ll get back to you before the end of the week.’ Just to underline the difference here: Libya’s head of government calls Hicks, but nobody who matters in his own government can be bothered to."

That includes Obama, who was off to a big campaign fundraiser in Las Vegas.

Yet, the view from the liberal blogosphere is still “Nothing to see here.” The expectation that the testimony before the House Oversight Committee by three whistleblowers on Wednesday would “break the dam that would lead to President Obama’s eventual downfall?” Pure fantasy. That was how Hayes Brown of ThinkProgress summarized the hearings. If anything, Brown wrote, “these witness [sic] actually served to debunk several theories that the right-wing has pushed on Benghazi, leaving the hearing a fizzle for the GOP.”

Much of his post was devoted to the testimony provided by Gregory Hicks, a Foreign Service Officer and the former Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya. Most analysts after the fact found Hicks’s testimony to be among the most riveting and politically toxic to the administration. But not Brown. In his view, Hicks’s account was but a feeble attempt to connect the dots between the White House and the deaths of four Americans in Libya last Sept. 11 collapsed altogether under a withering cross-examination by ranking committee member Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.).

You’d think with Hicks’s evisceration at the hands of an experienced statesman, there would be no need for a follow-up column. Yet on Friday, Brown delivered a second post-mortem, quoting a former staffer under Hicks who called him “the worst manager I’ve ever seen in the Foreign Service.” Another of Hicks’s former underlings is reported to have said, “Literally every single one of us begged for him to be removed from post.”

The question is why bother devoting column inches to defaming a man who has already been discredited — whose testimony, if anything, vindicates the president and his successor, Hillary Clinton? Could all the president’s acolytes have lapsed into denial, the first of the five stages of grief? Or is this just a case of shooting the messenger? We will learn the answer in the weeks and months to come. The Benghazi cover-up is not going away.

Liberal Panic Now That Benghazi Fiasco Finally Getting Real Coverage?


It's really too bad the media missed so many opportunities to do it's job otherwise the nation wouldn't be in such a pickle. From Obama's militant Marxist/Socialist roots, to his super rich upbringing, to his unwillingness to show us his actual birth certificate, to the Democratic party's illegal certification of his candidacy in multiple (if not all) states, to what Obamacare really is, to gun control, to immigration, etc. etc.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: Benghazi: Liberals are Panicking

Post by _Res Ipsa »

Actually, no we're not. We're smiling every time the GOP leadership opens its mouth in front of a microphone. Why? Because, instead of retooling to figure out how to win elections, your leadership is having to suck up to the bat crap crazy wing of your party. You're out of step with the country, and you're getting farther out every day. Why? Because you've got nothing. You are morally and ideologically bankrupt. and are taking no steps whatsoever to fix the problem.

Panic is that flop sweat we all smell every time Issa gets near a microphone.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: Benghazi: Liberals are Panicking

Post by _Kevin Graham »

Liberals are panicking?

LOL!

The crazy things you folks say to yourselves back in the bubble. It just amazes us.

Liberals are laughing at this circus you've created, which is further reducing your credibility to such a low point that it may never recover.
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Re: Benghazi: Liberals are Panicking

Post by _bcspace »

Actually, no we're not. We're smiling every time the GOP leadership opens its mouth in front of a microphone. Why? Because, instead of retooling to figure out how to win elections, your leadership is having to suck up to the bat crap crazy wing of your party. You're out of step with the country, and you're getting farther out every day. Why? Because you've got nothing. You are morally and ideologically bankrupt. and are taking no steps whatsoever to fix the problem.


I agree that you are feeling cozy, but not because of how conservatives are addressing this issue, it's because you have more and more of the country as slaves to the government. Only people who have any brains left are concerned about this and other issues. Everyone else is in the deep restful slumber that comes after drinking the Kool Aid. Do conservatives have to find a way to break that ice? Of course. But in the mean time, we are fully engaged with reality. But you can see how Liberals are trying to defend the indefensible which is a clear sign they are panicking. So we are indeed breaking this ice. And if it turns out to be catastrophic, watch the Obama administration respond by proposing more candy packages to buy off the weak minded.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: Benghazi: Liberals are Panicking

Post by _honorentheos »

bcspace wrote:And if it turns out to be catastrophic, watch the Obama administration respond by proposing more candy packages to buy off the weak minded.

What do you think is potentially catastrophic?
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_ajax18
_Emeritus
Posts: 6914
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:56 am

Re: Benghazi: Liberals are Panicking

Post by _ajax18 »

Image
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: Benghazi: Liberals are Panicking

Post by _Droopy »

Brad Hudson wrote:Actually, no we're not. We're smiling every time the GOP leadership opens its mouth in front of a microphone. Why? Because, instead of retooling to figure out how to win elections, your leadership is having to suck up to the bat s*** crazy wing of your party.



The Democratic Party is now a post-American party, Obama a post-American president, and the Democrat party base post-American Americans.

The people you are calling "crazy" are normal, intelligent, educated adults who also happen to be both sane and morally literate.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
Post Reply