HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Can someone explain to me...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:26 AM

Can someone explain to me in a couple of sentences what Repubs are pissed off about Benghazi?

It appears to me to be a feeble attempt to create a scandal?

It is their worst effort thus far. It is even worse than Whitewater.

They will only go as far as the media will take them and the media has no idea of what they are looking for either?

48 replies, 2563 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 48 replies Author Time Post
Reply Can someone explain to me in a couple of sentences what Repubs are pissed off about Benghazi? (Original post)
kentuck Nov 2012 OP
MineralMan Nov 2012 #1
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #4
Ganja Ninja Nov 2012 #2
slackmaster Nov 2012 #3
struggle4progress Nov 2012 #5
JaneyVee Nov 2012 #6
Brickbat Nov 2012 #7
Jackpine Radical Nov 2012 #30
veganlush Nov 2012 #8
JoePhilly Nov 2012 #9
BlueMTexpat Nov 2012 #23
Posteritatis Nov 2012 #10
Orangepeel Nov 2012 #11
Jim__ Nov 2012 #12
TheKentuckian Nov 2012 #13
Barack_America Nov 2012 #14
TheKentuckian Nov 2012 #21
Barack_America Nov 2012 #39
randr Nov 2012 #15
Laxman Nov 2012 #16
Fumesucker Nov 2012 #17
Egalitarian Thug Nov 2012 #18
gordianot Nov 2012 #19
kentuck Nov 2012 #24
godai Nov 2012 #27
kentuck Nov 2012 #32
gordianot Nov 2012 #37
veganlush Nov 2012 #20
Lucinda Nov 2012 #22
bowens43 Nov 2012 #25
KansDem Nov 2012 #26
jberryhill Nov 2012 #28
kentuck Nov 2012 #33
jberryhill Nov 2012 #44
kentuck Nov 2012 #46
gollygee Nov 2012 #29
Ash_F Nov 2012 #31
doc03 Nov 2012 #34
WilliamPitt Nov 2012 #35
librechik Nov 2012 #36
OregonBlue Nov 2012 #38
magical thyme Nov 2012 #40
Blue4Texas Nov 2012 #41
Sheepshank Nov 2012 #42
jeremyfive Nov 2012 #43
Javaman Nov 2012 #45
HopeHoops Nov 2012 #47
Jamastiene Nov 2012 #48

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:28 AM

1. They're not pissed off about Benghazi.

They're pissed that President Obama won the election and that the Democrats gained seats. It is that simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #1)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:30 AM

4. FIXED

Due to the fact they weren't able to exploit the tragedy at Benghazi for partisan political purposes during the presidential election they're pissed that President Obama won the election and that the Democrats gained seats. It is that simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:29 AM

2. It's like this.

The GOP has to pick a fight with the Democrats or face down the angry teabaggers in their own party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:30 AM

3. They're the opposition party. It's their job.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:31 AM

5. Condensed version: "I'm an a-hole! He's an a-hole! She's an a-hole! We're all a-holes! Wouldn't you

like to be an a-hole too?"

Alternate condensed version: "I got plenty of nothing! And nothing's plenty for me!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:31 AM

6. They don't know either, they're just making shit up as they go along.

Which is why they keep looking stupid and people are disinterested.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:32 AM

7. Obama's black and he won.

That's about it.

ETA: Here's a list of similar attacks under Bush.

June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51.

February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Truck bomb kills 17.

February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Gunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards.

July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan
Suicide bomber kills two.

December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Militants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded.

March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomate directly targeted by the assailants.

September 12, 2006, U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria
Gunmen attacked embassy with grenades, automatic weapons, and a car bomb (though second truck bomb failed to detonate). One killed and 13 wounded.

January 12, 2007, U.S. embassy in Athens, Greece
A rocket-propelled grenade was fired at the embassy building. No one was injured.

July 9, 2008, U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey
Armed men attacked consulate with pistols and shotguns. Three policemen killed.

March 18, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Mortar attack misses embassy, hits nearby girls' school instead.

September 17, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Militants dressed as policemen attacked the embassy with RPGs, rifles, grenades and car bombs. Six Yemeni soldiers and seven civilians were killed. Sixteen more were injured.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brickbat (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:56 AM

30. Yeah, but Bush didn't try to cover it up.

If Romney can resign retroactively, why can't they retroactively create a coverup to hang on the Democrats?

What they're really pissed about, besides Obama's re-election, is that there have been no legitimate scandals (which I guess are sorta like legitimate rape), so they have to come up with non-starters like Solyndra and apology tours and bowing to foreign leaders and suchlike to keep the droolers fired up.

When your whole political strategy depends on keeping the sheep enraged, you gotta keep coming up with things to enrage them. Fortunately for the demagogues, the sheep are more interested in being enraged than they are in whether or not the rage stimuli make any sense.

Another way of looking at it is that the Dittoheads get addicted to the natural body chemicals produced by chronic anger, so Rushbo has to keep the fixes coming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:32 AM

8. they know there's nothing there

but they also know that if they keep insisting that it is a scandal, it will become one, just because they keep saying that it is. There is absolutely nothing there. There was a CIA operation and by definition such operations are not transparent. Just like a murder investigation, you don't tell the public everything it would just serve to tip-off the perps that you are trying to catch. The repugnants got nothing but they know the public will eventually fall for it if they keep it up. WhiteWater was also nothing but they kept talking about it until people started to believe them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:33 AM

9. For the same reason they tried to impeach Clinton ... its a an attempt to overthrow an elected Prez.

They aren't interested in governing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #9)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:46 AM

23. +1000!!!

The bottom line is that they still do not believe that they lost the election.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:34 AM

10. I can do it on one:

Something bad happened while a Democratic president was in office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:35 AM

11. They are pissed off that they can't paint the president as "weak" on foreign policy

They think it should be *their* strength. They were grasping at straws before the election to try to make Obama look like Carter and that's the best they could do. Now they are sticking with it because the only legitimate things to criticize the president on in regard to foreign policy are things that they want to do, too, only worse.

So, yes, it is a feeble attempt to create a scandal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:35 AM

12. It certainly gives the "pundits" something to talk about.

And, if anything "bad" turns up, it will reflect back on the Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:36 AM

13. They are pissed that a TeaPubliKlan isn't in the White House while others are upset that a Democrat

is in the Oval Office while others are disturbed that a black guy is President.

Some have all three concerns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:36 AM

14. Tax hikes for the rich. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Barack_America (Reply #14)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:42 AM

21. Good answer.

Incompetent blackmail is always an option.

Give us an extension and all of this goes away, Mr President, could easily be a part of this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #21)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:21 AM

39. Holding Washington hostage.

Then, suddenly, the conversation will be dominated by "Fiscal cliff, ZOMG! No time for legislation! Just sign the extension or we're all dooommed!".

This, with a side of Republicans trying to stay relevant in national security concerns (and failing miserably, as usual).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:37 AM

15. It is the only issue that keeps them glued to faux for the moment

Like Pavlov's dogs, they need a whistle to fix there attention

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:37 AM

16. National Security Was Their Last Issue...

and the killing of Bin Laden and the fall of Qaddafi have taken that from them too. This is a tantrum designed to try and show that President Obama's administration is not the force in national security that the facts say it is. Combine this with the electoral butt kicking and their continuing desire to just be disruptive and obstructionist and its the perfect combination to set them off.

The facts just aren't lining up for them however. I hope they just keep riding this strategy off into oblivion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:40 AM

17. Three words

Yargle Bargle Blargh.


h/t Tom Tomorrow

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:41 AM

18. There's a black man in the White House. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:42 AM

19. It was a CIA operation gone sour.

The words crafted by the CIA were designed to discredit whoever uttered them. Obama did not follow the script especially by uttering the word terrorist and giving the discredited words to a surrogate. They are equally pissed that Hillary Clinton did not fall for this ruse knocking her out of 2016 by repeating what was nonsense "spontaneous demonstration" and not "an attack planned and executed by organized military".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gordianot (Reply #19)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:47 AM

24. I think you are on to something with the "terrorism" label...

Repubs needs acts of "terror" in order to keep the "war on terror" going and to keep the slop coming to the big hogs out back....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gordianot (Reply #19)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:54 AM

27. Yes, but why was the Ambassador there? What was the operation? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to godai (Reply #27)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:57 AM

32. Maybe he was a risk taker?

He had been over there, in dangerous positions, a long time and he had survived all of it before...?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to godai (Reply #27)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:07 AM

37. Patreus's sweetie may have been right they were doing interogations of prisoners.

The Ambassador was off his reservation and those killed with him were military types "former Seal" who almost never are identified. Remember the former Seal was also a Medic. No disrespect intended for those who lost their lives in the field. Adding on the political talking points seems just an added bonus but Romney spouted off very quickly and I think blew it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:42 AM

20. I think it's useful to remember

that Obama liberated Libya from it's dictator without spilling a drop of American troop's blood. The fact that we lost four people in the aftermath is of course very unfortunate but they knew the risks and they knew the level of security they had. They were there voluntarily serving their country. If Obama had liberated Libya the way bush and the repugnants would have, we would have lost, and would still be losing, thousands of young American troops.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:43 AM

22. They were hoping to make it an Iran Hostage like crisis - in importance, which could have

cost Obama the election. They were trying VERY HARD to make him into a one term president like Jimmy Carter.

They can't afford to let it go now because it would be obvious that's what they were trying to do.
Romney was smart enough to (mostly)drop it once he made a fool of himself during the debate (and started getting briefings)
McCain truly despises Obama and feels that he is without honor, especially after he didn't limit his campaign to federal funds during the 2008 election - so he will have a hard time dropping it too.

My .02


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:48 AM

25. Sure

1. Obama is the President
2. Obama is black

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:53 AM

26. I've never understood their "outrage," what with Reagan and Bush II.

Reagan saw 241 Marines killed in one attack in Lebanon in 1984 and some 3,000 Americans were killed on 9/11/2001 while Bush II sat by and did nothing.

But for some reason Benghazi is an "outrage."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:54 AM

28. I think I finally figured it out

Amid Lindsey Graham's blusterthon yesterday.

They didn't like the fact that Bin Laden's death helped Obama appear tough on terrorism during the election. So what they are now saying boils down to:

"Obama wanted us to believe Al Qaeda was eliminated, so he covered up the terrorist element of the Benghazi attack for political purposes."

In their mythology, Obama was campaigning on "every terrorist in the world is gone" or something.

Never mind the fact that in an emergent situation, it is unwise for the administration to release every detail to tip off suspects being pursued and monitored - their entire bullshit point is that if word got out that any terrorists still exist on the planet, then it means "Obama was campaigning on a lie."

It is such an infantile piece of bullshit, that it is not worth harming brain cells to the extent required to even figure out wtf they are excited about. They are trying to sell the line that the Benghazi story was manipulated for domestic political purposes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #28)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:58 AM

33. Yep.

I think you are correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #33)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:44 AM

44. The more they play with it, the dumber they look


I don't understand why they don't just let it go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #44)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:51 AM

46. They got FOX...

...but they need more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:55 AM

29. They're outraged that Obama won, not about Benghazi.

They were hoping to spin Benghazi into a scandal that would keep Obama from winning, and they're upset that people didn't buy their lies and bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:57 AM

31. I can explain it in one word.

Desperation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:00 AM

34. The Democrats won the election. The Republicans took a thrashing n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:02 AM

35. The president won re-election.

The president won re-election.

The president won re-election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:05 AM

36. Democrats were involved

not to mention a politically active minority woman with an advanced degree. That's like ignited magnesium to those a-holes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:18 AM

38. They want to attack Iran. They are pissed at Obama for his "soft footprint" foreing policy because

there is no need for as large a military or as many military contractors and hardware manufacturers. John McCain said yesterday that Benghazi was a consequence of the presidents "soft footprint policy".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:26 AM

40. Plan A, throw election to Romney,failed.

Plan B is fake scandal to obstruct via impeachment.

IOW, same ol' same ol'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:27 AM

41. They are angry and looking to attach it somewhere :)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:28 AM

42. One Republican I know is pissed off that an investigation into the real action may cloud

her screeching assumptions about lies and cover ups. I am amazed that they do NOT want a measured, accurate response, they want immediate and off the cuff sound bites so they can propagate the 'cover up' lies when bad information is initially released, and informed data is finally at hand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:30 AM

43. Senile and Incompetent John McCain Feels that He Should Have Been Elected President

McCain burns with revenge--Graham is just an ignorant South Carolina GOP tool!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:44 AM

45. Simple: Obama won. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:51 AM

47. One sentence: The GOP doesn't have anything else to bitch about.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:53 AM

48. Deflection.

They are embarrassed at how badly they have been defeated in the elections this year and want to just cook up a scandal or anything else they can manage to deflect the embarrassment they feel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread