Today's Poll: Should there be congressional hearings on Benghazi?
The article represents the issue well, In My Humble Opinion. The truth will never be arrived at. Both sides only care about winning. Noone is going to come clean or stop lying. Issa doesn't care about the truth, only about winning this battle, the White House and State Dept are never going to tell the truth to protect their derrieres. It's a totally disgusting situation all the way around.
The only answer I have is bust up the 2 party system, and elect people who are not Dems or Repubs. One good start is to support this movement:
God bless the families of those who perished in Benghazi, and may they find peace elsewhere, because their government won't give them any.
There is an ignored consequence in all this and it centers on two things. If American voters were given the opportunity to judge the Benghazi situation on it's merit AND knew then what we know now about ACA, Barack Obama would NOT have been re-elected...Period. I'm not saying this in support of Mitt Romney or that he would have been the answer to our problems, I didn't vote for him. However, those two stories alone, carefully crafted in known and willful deception, resulted in the direct influence of a Presidential election outcome. That is a big deal.
"The only answer I have is bust up the 2 party system, and elect people who are not Dems or Repubs."
The only thing a third party would have done in this instance would be to triangulate the blather.
Shouldnt the question be "Should there be MORE congressional hearings on Benghazi"?
A question I I would actually like answered was why Mr. Gregory Hicks ignored his phone ringing (which was in the same room as him) while he was watching TV. Two calls from Ambassador Stevens went to voice mail during the attacks. I would like to know what time the calls came in and what time the person informed Mr. Hicks stormed into the room. I also find it odd that upon seeing a phone call from Mr. Stevens' number and also a phone call from an unknown number, why did he choose to call the unknown number first?
Also in my opinion whether it was stated it was a terrorist attack in the aftermath or stated it was a demonstration would NOT (edit) have changed enough people's votes to make a difference in the outcome of the election.
Sure could use a "Deep Throat" again. His advice, though is probably still good "Follow the money"
Debbie, the attack on Benghazi was Sept. 11th The Administration's stories changed a few times in the next three to four weeks. It was suspected that the Administration "erroneously" misinformed the public weeks before the election. Had the 4th estate actually done it's job and called out several Admin officials from the President on down on their "inconsistencies" which we now know where willful lies, then yes, it would have been plenty to sway the election. Even more so with the lies about ACA that have been consistently confirmed post election. Would we be better off now if Obama had been defeated? I'm not convinced of that either, but what is apparent is that we were worse off after the first 4 years and even more so now.
Debbie is correct. We've heard about this incident ad nauseam; it's been the constant drumbeat of Issa and the FOX News crowd, since the day after the attack. Any so called "revelations" that have come out post election would not have changed a thing. And no, Jeff, it is NOT apparent that we are worse off under Obama; that is merely your opinion. Many of us would say just the opposite.
Congressional hearings can be valuable tools for airing out a problematic situation and setting the stage for remediation. They can also be witch hunts aimed at manufacturing political advantage. If the Senate Hearings (which seemed as protracted as CNN's coverage of MH 370) were incapable of vetting the Benghazi attack, what deus ex machina exists in the House? Aside from posturing, beating the Benghazi dead horse and Obamacare votes, could the House direct its attention toward the unfinished business of Immigration Law, failing public infrastructure and the economy?
Thank goodness Fox News is covering the story in depth and will eventually ferret out the truth from a President who once predicted that his administration would have an “unprecedented” level of transparency.”
CNN, CBS and ABC chose not to cover Benghazi in depth. They chose not to cover the I.R.S. Scandal in depth. They chose not to cover Fast & Furious in depth. They chose not to cover N.S.A., the F.B.I. or any of Obama’s other scandals in depth.
It makes a thinking person regardless of political affiliation question why?
Perhaps it is because CNN President Virginia Moseley is married to Hillary Clinton's Deputy Secretary Tom Nides.
Perhaps it is because CBS President David Rhodes is the brother of top Obama official Ben Rhodes.
Perhaps it is because ABC President Ben Sherwood is the brother of Obama special advisor Elizabeth Sherwood.
In the spirit of honest and transparency of open government; I for one am more interested in news about Benghazi and the above mentioned scandals rather than the current fashion of our First Lady or Hillary Clinton is wearing and for that coverage in depth see: ABC, CBS and CNN.
" And no, Jeff, it is NOT apparent that we are worse off under Obama; that is merely your opinion" Actually it's not an opinion, it is a verifiable fact. At no time in history has every citizen enjoyed the same level of success nor the same level of despair. There are always winners and losers. I'm glad that you apparently are one of the current winners. However the undeniable facts (regardless of what manufactured employment statistics we are fed and false narratives of recovery) are this: 1.) More Americans are unemployed right now than ANY time in history. 2.) More Americans are on government assistance than ANY time in history. I could go on with foreign policy, gas prices, escalating healthcare costs, decreasing choices and flexibility in healthcare choices, etc.. But the first two alone are enough evidence to factually support my assertion.
Might not have effected the elections, but discovery of the plot and subsequent coverup back then would have made more of a difference, and we might have seen the arrests and convictions for treason and conspiracy to murder. We might even have got to the sentencing part by now... Many people in power swinging in the breeze would be a good start...
However, until people realize what the REAL problem is, we will keep chasing the left-right paradigm, which is simply a puppy chasing it's own tail...
"However the undeniable facts (regardless of what manufactured employment statistics we are fed and false narratives of recovery) are this: 1.) More Americans are unemployed right now than ANY time in history. 2.) More Americans are on government assistance than ANY time in history."
Undeniable, Jeff, except you get the facts wrong. The great recession was loosed upon us before President Obama was even elected -- it began in 2007 -- thanks largely to bank deregulation and the repeal of the Glass-Steagall banking act of 1933 -- in 1999. (Thanks, Phil Graham.) Obama took office in '09. You can blame him, but you can't make it stick. Thankfully all the trends are looking up now, including employment. It's slow, but it's better times than 'W' left us with, when the economy very nearly imploded. You seem to forget upon whose watch these things fell apart. And why. Just a little bit of chronology would help you out immensely here.
Should there be congressional hearings on Benghazi?
100% yes. We had an incompetent Secretary of State that will probably be running for President and all she could say was "what does it matter now." Massive cover up on their complete lack of providing security for an Ambassador who requested more security. All this from our current administration that promised complete transparency. Yeah right.
1.) More Americans are unemployed right now than ANY time in history.
Gee whiz, man. And holy freaking cow. Have you never heard of the Great Depression? In 1938, unemployment was at 19%. Learn history.
The great Depression lists the no. of unemployed at around 13 million. The current no. of unemployed Americans including those who have stopped looking is nearly 17 million. The number of eligible Americans out of the labor force is 92 million. Gee whiz, man. And holy freaking cow. Learn Math.
You seem to forget that Obama has been President for 6 years, a term and a half. We are long past the blame Bush period. Just a little bit of reality would help you out immensely here.
Scott what is the bigger number? 19% of 129 million or 9% (2011 rate) of 315 million?
19% of 129 million is 24,510,000
9% of 315 million is 28,350,000
Maybe Scott you should learn math instead of advising others to learn history.
So Jeff is correct. Politically the % numbers are skewed anyway because of the definition of who is unemployed changes with the political winds.
"We are long past the blame Bush period."
Not really. The educated are still blaming Hoover.
"The current no. of unemployed Americans including those who have stopped looking is nearly 17 million. The number of eligible Americans out of the labor force is 92 million"
So, based on population, you're touting an unemployment rate at about 29%. Yeah, you're really well informed on this.
LOL Jeff I posted almost the same numbers, but you posted while I was "researching"....
but I see we both came to the same conclusion on math LOL.
I blame TARP and stimulus for the slow recovery. Bi-partisan disasters.
This whole "it's the Republicans fault. No it's the Democrats fault" is so tiresome. The blame is shouldered equally and goes back decades.
"I blame TARP and stimulus for the slow recovery. Bi-partisan disasters."
Yeah, but without it, you and I would be selling apples on the corner.
"The blame is shouldered equally and goes back decades."
Yep. True that.
Nothing good came of TARP or stimulus.
Scott, there is an entity called the Bureau of Labor and it publishes current and historical statistics. I'm not pulling them out of thin air. You may want to reconsider all the superiority comments, especially when you're wrong.
Completely agree Howard. TARP was a flawed and failed concept from the start and stimulus compounded it.
"there is an entity called the Bureau of Labor and it publishes current and historical statistics. I'm not pulling them out of thin air"
I don't see where you're pulling them from anywhere. Produce the evidence?
"Nothing good came of TARP or stimulus."
Except, we still have an economy to recover.
Emma how is it not? What is better? ACA? Welfare? Job Employment? Violence? Absolutely nothing is going well in this country and peoples' ignorance is amazing. Where is the transparency of the Obama Administration as he promise? It is lie after lie and threat after threat!
Jobs are falling and our economy is falling so, where do you think we are better off with Obama. ACA has caused my healthcare and dental care co-pays triple or more. Yes ACA received 7 million enrollees but, what they do not mention is most are unemployed or are just part-time workers. It is just another Obama Fairy Tale that it is working.
I beg to differ about the election would not have changed if, the truth about, Benghazi, IRS scandal and ACA were understood by the low informed voters. Look at the ACA support falling. Doesn't Benghazi mean anything to you? It should since your fellow Americans died because, our government (OBAMA) failed them.
Keep drinking your Kool-Aid and holding a blind-eye to the truth. Do not coming crying when this country falls. BTW, Debbie is not 100% correct. Where was Sec. Clinton? Where was Pres. Obama? After Obama claimed during a debate with Gov. Romney that, he truly cares about his Ambassadors. That is 100% BS along every other promise and statement coming from his mouth!
"Jobs are falling and our economy is falling so, where do you think we are better off with Obama."
Well, dream on, sweet dreamer. Where you get your 'facts', I don't know. Your opinion runs contrary to fact. (I doubt that will trouble you.)
So Scotty, what dream am I in? The Sweet Dreamer is you my friend. Our economy is falling and China will soon be the economic leader of the world. Our US Dollar will only be good enough to wipe our ignorant arses with. Unemployment in this nation is worsening and if you think otherwise just keep smoking your left wing obamaweed. Did you know if, you consume Obama Kool-Aid it will turn Obama lies into the truth. Not! Just BSing. Keep your ignorance though it will serve you well on the street corner one day.
TARP did zero, zilch, nada to save the economy. We'd still have an economy without the act of massive crony capitalism.
"So Scotty, what dream am I in?"
I have no idea what dream you're in. You haven't presented any source for your facts. A crumbling US economy (US employment is up, as well as all other economic indexes), the ascendant (soon to be bubbled out) Chinese economy? Derp. Employment in the US is up -- simple fact. Sorry, Charlie. You're without facts, and you're at least six months out of date. Way behind the power curve.
"We'd still have an economy without the act of massive crony capitalism."
Can you substantiate that, Howard? Do you know the lessons of '29, and how those lessons informed the crisis of '07?
Well, okay. I can't help myself. In '29 the Hoover administration thought the failing, wayward equity markets of the day deserved no monetary policy reward for their errant ways. Well and good for the Presbyterians, but to teach discipline, the Fed starved the banks, and to teach discipline, the banks starved their creditors -- starved them off their businesses, off their properties, and off their lands. Because credit was dead, there were no jobs -- it was an economy in which there could be no growth. And so credit was dead -- and so the economy died -- until the general mobilization after Pearl Harbor. (And talk about massive Federal spending. . .)
TARP, for all its admitted, and stomach-turning 'crony capitalism' (is there any other sort of capitalism?) kept the credit markets open, and at least marginally alive. We're now finally emerging on the positive side of that Mephistophelian bargain. And this is to the credit of both the Bush W and Obama administrations, who recognized the steadily advancing specter of a second global depression, well on the way.
Please make sure you dont point to unemployment numbers there Scott as they only indicate the RECENTLY unemployed ( ie those collecting unemployment or using the labor dept to help with finding employment) they dont count those now on other assistance and or those who have stopped looking for work. Numbers look good because of who they count not because of actual jobs being filled.
Jay Carney is stepping down shortly and needs a replacement
Scott, you continue to push the economic collapse narrative. Outside of Washington DC politicos from both sides and select economists who were the only ones given public platforms, the notion was pure speculation. Truth is, we don't know with certainty that collapse was imminent or if it would have been a large, possibly painful, market correction. Our financial system, banking system, economic and manufacturing structures are completely different from 1929. To paraphrase one your spokesperson "Dude, that was like 85 years ago". What we do know is the "too big to fail" is now a part of our systemic culture, that huge federal infusions of cash into the market to boost confidence while creating a false sense of market security are commonplace, and giant pork filled, crony paybacks called stimulus are acceptable economic recovery tools.
"CNN, CBS and ABC chose not to cover Benghazi in depth."
You might wanna look up Lara Logan's "in depth" Dylan Davies 60 minutes story
A search on CBS news finds this...1,438 results for "benghazi"
A search on CNN finds this.. Showing 1-10 of 2,766 CNN results for benghazi
A search on ABC news finds Results 1 - 15 of 1649 for Benghazi
". . .the notion was pure speculation."
Which is the soul and foundation of any economy. Faith in the dollar (the money), and speculation on the future. I think you've got it, Jeff.
Did you bother to explore the context of those results?
I think not.
I'm thinking that you may limit your "research" to network shows because they are close to what you want to believe and are therefore close to gospel - and opposing views, even if based on FACT, are BS because they do not reflect your esoteric view of our nation's condition.
Jeff?!?! Is he?!?!
PLEASE tell me you aren't BSing!!!
Definition of irony: the term BS being used in the same context as Jay Carnival.
"Step right up folks! What we have to show you is truth yet beyond belief"! Take a look ladies and gentlemen! It only costs a nickle!"
"Get away from me boy, you bother me"...
This is exactly why I hesitated to register and participate in discussions here. I should have trusted my gut.
Because of a difference of opinion I have been told Eff You in the context of an angry tirade by a member in the same community as me.
I have no desire to fight with my "neighbors" or submit myself, my family or my property to the risk of some kind of retribution or retaliation or something by someone who after a few comments on a message board find me SO intolerable that he finds the need to curse at me and throw a string of venomous insults at me.
Debbie, I'm with you. The hostile response that you received is completely out-of-line and uncalled for. Sadly, however, it's not the first time that I've seen that level of hateful vitriol on these walls, primarily leveled (it seems) by a small handful of long-time posters who share similar conservative viewpoints. This is one of the primary reasons that I rarely share my political opinions here -- and, in the future, I will probably do so with even less frequency. I'm guessing that you and I are not alone, in that regard. Seriously, who the heck wants (or needs) to be subjected to that level of childish petulance?
Debbie, you win this one - on emotion alone. I apologize for my words.
I apologize to anyone that may have been offended.
I do, however, stand firm, VERY firm, in my view of you and your ilk.
In your opinion, everything we have done as a nation for however many years is wrong. As you go to sleep comfortably in your bed.
As those you oppose sleep in sand pits, and in my case, snake ridden pits that stank like hell.
I pray that nobody you care about will ever live through the things of which I speak. Maybe with your obama colored eyeglasses we can just wish it all away.
Can we all hold hands now and sing Kumbaya? Everything will be better if we just close our eyes, holding hands, and wishing all bad things would go away.....
All evil in the world goes away. There are no longer winners or losers - we are all equal. If we just treat them nice, they will forget about wanting to destroy we as a people and how we live.
"What does it matter now?"
I voted Bob down in this particular discussion while I dont fully agree with some of what you said Debbie you do seem to do your homework. I did look up some of the points you made and you ARE correct. As for Bob's childish and ignorance filled rant. He, like most internet bullies is a blowhard and full of himself. 90% of the time people like this are also so paranoid they wouldn't dare to lift a hand in retribution as the same paranoia they exhibit in their rants also makes them fearful of the police and others watching them for something to punish themselves for.
I hope Howard does the right thing and removes it because it goes way beyond his rules of conduct as well as shows how truly childish he can be.
Yeah Bob that apology is about as sincere as congress' vow to disband the irs and no longer collect sales tax.
Geeze, Kyle, you must know my thoughts, feelings, and motives better than I. Clue me into your insight.
Bob Harker writes: "In your opinion, everything we have done as a nation for however many years is wrong. As you go to sleep comfortably in your bed.
As those you oppose sleep in sand pits, and in my case, snake ridden pits that stank like hell. I pray that nobody you care about will ever live through the things of which I speak. Maybe with your obama colored eyeglasses we can just wish it all away."
HUH?! Talk about a lot of contemptible gibberish and utter nonsense! You don't know any of us, Bob, so why don't you just stop trying to paint and categorize us, based on NOTHING. Oh, and why don't you grow up, while you're at it.
"I do stand firm, VERY FIRM, of you and your ilk.": it is clear you can't even issue a half hearted apology without a dig. Nice try though. I stand firm that no one on this board deserves the language you used, especially the ladies.
On another note, do you really believe that the only people who experienced the horrors of war are Republicans and Conservatives? Is it difficult to understand that some of those people were your hated Democrats and Liberals? Playing the patriot card rings hollow when you assign it to a single group of Americans.
Isn't it the pot calling the kettle black when you cry intolerance, yet you have little tolerance to offer? In the end, it is up to Debbie to accept your apology.
Bea McManis writes: "On another note, do you really believe that the only people who experienced the horrors of war are Republicans and Conservatives? Is it difficult to understand that some of those people were your hated Democrats and Liberals? Playing the patriot card rings hollow when you assign it to a single group of Americans."
So true, Bea! That particular line of right-wing baloney burns me up. I happen to know a number of Democrats -- and yes, even "liberals" who have served our nation during wartime, including my Democratic father, and my *very* progressive/liberal Democrat grandfather, who fought his way across Europe, with the U.S. Army 100th Infantry Division ("The Sons of Bitche"), during WWII. Frankly, it dishonors the memory of those valiant fighters to pretend that they were/are all conservatives. Shame on you, Bob!
Really, I could just as easily suggest that many right wingers, like Bob, are merely *using* the tragic deaths in Benghazi to push their own petty political agendas. I'll try not to "go there," though.
Also, thank you Kyle for being rational, polite and level-headed, even though you and I are generally on opposite "sides" of the political fence.