Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:26 AM

kentuck (66,187 posts)

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, 1533 views

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

48 replies	Author	Time	Post
Can someone explain to me in a couple of sentences what Repubs are pissed off about Benghazi? (Original post)	kentuck	Nov 2012	OP
They're not pissed off about Benghazi.	MineralMan	Nov 2012	#1
FIXED	DemocratSinceBirth	Nov 2012	#4
It's like this.	Ganja Ninja	Nov 2012	#2
They're the opposition party. It's their job.	slackmaster	Nov 2012	#3
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	struggle4progress	Nov 2012	#5
They don't know either, they're just making shit up as they go along.	JaneyVee	Nov 2012	#6
Obama's black and he won.	Brickbat	Nov 2012	#7
Yeah, but Bush didn't try to cover it up.	Jackpine Radical	Nov 2012	#30
they know there's nothing there	veganlush	Nov 2012	#8
For the same reason they tried to impeach Clinton ... its a an attempt to overthrow an elected Prez.	JoePhilly	Nov 2012	#9
+1000!!!	BlueMTexpat	Nov 2012	#23
I can do it on one:	Posteritatis	Nov 2012	#10
They are pissed off that they can't paint the president as "weak" on foreign policy	Orangepeel	Nov 2012	#11
It certainly gives the "pundits" something to talk about.	Jim__	Nov 2012	#12
They are pissed that a TeaPubliKlan isn't in the White House while others are upset that a Democrat	TheKentuckian	Nov 2012	#13
Tax hikes for the rich. nt	Barack_America	Nov 2012	#14
Good answer.	TheKentuckian	Nov 2012	#21
Holding Washington hostage.	Barack_America	Nov 2012	#39
It is the only issue that keeps them glued to faux for the moment	randr	Nov 2012	#15
National Security Was Their Last Issue...	Laxman	Nov 2012	#16
Three words	Fumesucker	Nov 2012	#17
There's a black man in the White House. n/t	Egalitarian Thug	Nov 2012	#18
It was a CIA operation gone sour.	gordianot	Nov 2012	#19
I think you are on to something with the "terrorism" label...	kentuck	Nov 2012	#24
Yes, but why was the Ambassador there? What was the operation? n/t	godai	Nov 2012	#27
Maybe he was a risk taker?	kentuck	Nov 2012	#32
Patreus's sweetie may have been right they were doing interogations of prisoners.	gordianot	Nov 2012	#37
I think it's useful to remember	veganlush	Nov 2012	#20
They were hoping to make it an Iran Hostage like crisis - in importance, which could have	Lucinda	Nov 2012	#22
Sure	bowens43	Nov 2012	#25
I've never understood their "outrage," what with Reagan and Bush II.	KansDem	Nov 2012	#26
I think I finally figured it out	jberryhill	Nov 2012	#28
Yep.	kentuck	Nov 2012	#33
The more they play with it, the dumber they look	jberryhill	Nov 2012	#44
They got FOX...	kentuck	Nov 2012	#46
They're outraged that Obama won, not about Benghazi.	gollygee	Nov 2012	#29
I can explain it in one word.	Ash_F	Nov 2012	#31
The Democrats won the election. The Republicans took a thrashing n/t	doc03	Nov 2012	#34
The president won re-election.	WilliamPitt	Nov 2012	#35
Democrats were involved	librechik	Nov 2012	#36
They want to attack Iran. They are pissed at Obama for his "soft footprint" foreing policy because	OregonBlue	Nov 2012	#38
Plan A, throw election to Romney,failed.	magical thyme	Nov 2012	#40
They are angry and looking to attach it somewhere :)	Blue4Texas	Nov 2012	#41
One Republican I know is pissed off that an investigation into the real action may cloud	Sheepshank	Nov 2012	#42
Senile and Incompetent John McCain Feels that He Should Have Been Elected President	jeremyfive	Nov 2012	#43
Simple: Obama won. nt	Javaman	Nov 2012	#45
One sentence: The GOP doesn't have anything else to bitch about.	HopeHoops	Nov 2012	#47
Deflection.	Jamastiene	Nov 2012	#48

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:28 AM

MineralMan (53,915 posts)

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

Response to MineralMan (Reply #1)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:30 AM

DemocratSinceBirth (46,047 posts)

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

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:29 AM

Ganja Ninja (15,712 posts)

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

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:30 AM

slackmaster (60,567 posts)

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

Reply to this post

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:31 AM

struggle4progress (71,480 posts)

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

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:31 AM

JaneyVee (3,818 posts)

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

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:32 AM

Brickbat (14,397 posts)

7. Obama's black and he won.

Last edited Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:33 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

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

Response to Brickbat (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:56 AM

Jackpine Radical (36,575 posts)

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

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:32 AM

veganlush (1,903 posts)

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

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:33 AM

JoePhilly (15,991 posts)

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

Response to JoePhilly (Reply #9)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:46 AM

BlueMTexpat (2,594 posts)

23. +1000!!!

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

Reply to this post

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:34 AM

Posteritatis (17,280 posts)

10. I can do it on one:

Something bad happened while a Democratic president was in office.

Reply to this post

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:35 AM

Orangepeel (12,701 posts)

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

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:35 AM

Jim__ (8,612 posts)

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

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:36 AM

TheKentuckian (17,391 posts)

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

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:36 AM

Barack_America (24,436 posts)

14. Tax hikes for the rich. nt

Reply to this post

Response to Barack_America (Reply #14)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:42 AM

TheKentuckian (17,391 posts)

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

Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #21)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:21 AM

Barack_America (24,436 posts)

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

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:37 AM

randr (4,681 posts)

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

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:37 AM

Laxman (255 posts)

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

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:40 AM

Fumesucker (31,585 posts)

17. Three words

Yargle Bargle Blargh.

h/t Tom Tomorrow

Reply to this post

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:41 AM

Egalitarian Thug (7,119 posts)

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

Reply to this post

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:42 AM

gordianot (6,478 posts)

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

Response to gordianot (Reply #19)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:47 AM

kentuck (66,187 posts)

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

Response to gordianot (Reply #19)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:54 AM

godai (2,831 posts)

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

Reply to this post

Response to godai (Reply #27)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:57 AM

kentuck (66,187 posts)

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

Response to godai (Reply #27)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:07 AM

gordianot (6,478 posts)

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

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:42 AM

veganlush (1,903 posts)

20. I think it's useful to remember

Last edited Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:43 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

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

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:43 AM

Lucinda (16,741 posts)

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

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:48 AM

bowens43 (14,361 posts)

25. Sure

1. Obama is the President
2. Obama is black

Reply to this post

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:53 AM

KansDem (24,332 posts)

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

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:54 AM

jberryhill (29,884 posts)

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

Response to jberryhill (Reply #28)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:58 AM

kentuck (66,187 posts)

33. Yep.

I think you are correct.

Reply to this post

Response to kentuck (Reply #33)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:44 AM

jberryhill (29,884 posts)

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

Response to jberryhill (Reply #44)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:51 AM

kentuck (66,187 posts)

46. They got FOX...

...but they need more.

Reply to this post

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:55 AM

gollygee (12,321 posts)

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

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:57 AM

Ash_F (1,743 posts)

31. I can explain it in one word.

Desperation.

Reply to this post

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:00 AM

doc03 (13,838 posts)

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

Reply to this post

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:02 AM

WilliamPitt (54,469 posts)

35. The president won re-election.

The president won re-election.

The president won re-election.

Reply to this post

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:05 AM

librechik (25,004 posts)

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

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:18 AM

OregonBlue (4,026 posts)

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

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:26 AM

magical thyme (4,059 posts)

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

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:27 AM

Blue4Texas (437 posts)

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

Reply to this post

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:28 AM

Sheepshank (5,026 posts)

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

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:30 AM

jeremyfive (466 posts)

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

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:44 AM

Javaman (40,613 posts)

45. Simple: Obama won. nt

Reply to this post

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:51 AM

HopeHoops (47,675 posts)

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

Reply to this post

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:53 AM

Jamastiene (32,059 posts)

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

General Discussion (Forum)