Way to go, Dems. My hat off to Democrat Reps. Elijah Cummings and Jackie Speier for actually staying to hear from the families, who simply want answers on why no arrests have been made. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...ore-testimony-from-benghazi-families-n1704732
I'd like to know the reason they left. If they did so for the reasons stated above, shame on them. The children of these people gave their lives in service to their country. Agree or disagree that the Executive did all they could to save those people, it doesn't matter. Their families deserve respect. Leaving was profoundly disrespectful.
You are a slow learner. Read the brief article I posted again. You can't arrest people who are already dead, under orders from Obama. http://sportstwo.com/threads/244668-Syria?p=3091959&viewfull=1#post3091959
...or was this just more of the same?! --> 13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush's Watch Without a Peep from Fox News
Ha! I had considered posting that link - but what's the point. It's only a scandal if a liberal is involved.
Btw, does it bother anybody else that the life of one diplomat is considered more important than the thousands of military personnel killed in Iraq?
In Iraq, if a platoon had been left to die while there was still a way to get them out, I think there'd have been a bit of an uproar and some hard questions asked. If the bin Laden SEAL team had been left to die in the compound b/c a chopper broke, and we didn't do everything we could to get them out, there would've been some questions asked. In Afghanistan, two two-star Marine generals were fired because they didn't do all he could to ensure perimeter security on their base, leading to a loss of 2 Marines and 8 airplanes. And they didn't have "prior warning" of the attack. The ambassador is the de facto President of the US for any country where the President isn't there or until the President overrules. The military has to listen to him/her. I mean, I understand that no one in America knew who the guy was (or his staff were), and few cared about a backwater north African country run by a dictator with terrorist ties, but this isn't the same as kidnapping a POW or planting an IED that blows up a convoy or something.
Nice try, but you are just repeating Republican spin. It turns out the vast majority of the R's also skipped out on the hearing. And really, why shouldn't they? What could the parents of the dead possibly have to say that would be relevant to a congressional inquiry? Do they have more knowledge or insight than any other parents who lose a child overseas? The real question is why our tax dollars were wasted flying the parents to Washington to testify. barfo
The hawkish Lara Logan of 60 Minutes recounted the standard Republican story. When examined, her story was quickly found to be full of lies. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/13/208446/questions-about-60-minutes-benghazi.html More lies found. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/26/209848/lara-logan-producer-on-leave-after.html When Republican tales are subjected to examination, they collapse.
What are the rules for what happens to a president who uses fraud to drag us into a major war, just to rehabilitate his father's reputation?
Total waste of tax dollars our children will be forced to repay to China. I expected outrage and condemnation from both sides for this PR stunt. Tired of the feds publicly pandering and catering to these ultra-select groups of "injured" citizens and using them to attain political aims at taxpayer's expense.
There is really nothing D or R about this. Bush called them what they were, regardless of how it effected him personally or politically. Obama and his merry band of fools blamed the event on a fucking you tube video..then lied to the public for weeks..
When Republicans sense they are losing an argument, they revert to "Both sides do it, so it's okay that we do it." To the contrary, Democrats had class and didn't make a Federal case over these events. That's why we immediately forgot the events on the list. Republican hypocrites would have said, don't politicize national security. DaLincoln, the list says the Karachi consulate was attacked 2-3 times. Why didn't Republicans whine about impeaching Bush for lack of protection after the 1st time? After the 2nd time? After the 3rd time? The Yemen embassy was attacked twice. Why didn't Republicans whine on and on about lack of protection after the 1st time? After the 2nd time?
The article by the NYT is complete horseshit, and flies in the face of many known facts that came out during congressional hearing. I knew somebody would post it, though, as some sort of "Gotcha!" The NYT is little more than a mouthpiece for Hillary Clinton. Calling out FauxNews while at the same time relying on the NYT and treating its word as fact says a lot about the intelligence of the poster to me.
Posts like this are why I went independent. Dumb, and clearly coming from a Democrat. You start your post by describing an action as if it's something only the Republicans do. No, it's something clearly that both sides do. When Democrats sense they are losing an argument, they revert to "Both sides do it, blah blah blah". I'm sensing you're a Democrat and you're losing your argument. To hell with both parties. The political and economic landscape are simply to complex to blindly accept and follow one party of the other. Which is why I really laugh at the Republic v. Democratic finger-pointing.
