WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Washington was in turmoil on Tuesday morning as a House select committee abruptly cancelled its Benghazi hearings shortly after former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that she was withdrawing from the Presidential race.
Secretary Clinton's stunning announcement came at 9:00 A.M., followed by the committee chairman Trey Gowdy's decision to cancel the hearings at 9:04.
"As you know, we have been preparing for this week's hearings for months," Gowdy said. "However, after meeting with fellow committee members over the past four minutes, we've come to the conclusion that we know all we need to know about Benghazi."
Gowdy flatly denied that the decision to cancel the long-awaited Benghazi hearings had anything to do with Clinton's sudden departure from the race. "We wish her well in whatever her future endeavors may be," he said.
But shortly after Gowdy's announcement, Clinton called an impromptu press conference at 9:13 to announce that she was jumping back into the race. "I was just trying to prove a point," she told reporters, before heading off to campaign stops in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Minutes after Clinton's second announcement, an irate Gowdy called her decision to reenter the race "beyond unethical" and revealed that the committee's investigators had just uncovered fresh evidence about Benghazi.
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/benghazi-hearings-cancelled-after-clinton-drops-out-of-race
;)
Nailed it.
Too funny!
Borowitz is terrific
Hmmm, not sure which would be better - her dropping out of the race, or taking accountability for one of her (many) scandals.
All Uncle Joe has to do is throw his hat in the ring and he'll get the nomination - what's he waiting for?!
Quote from: coredumped on October 20, 2015, 01:30:15 PM
Hmmm, not sure which would be better - her dropping out of the race, or taking accountability for one of her (many) scandals.
In this case, in the absence of evidence, it would appear that there is no scandal and any such "scandal" is purely a fabrication for political purposes. I don't think we can actually call this one a scandal until there is actually any evidence to support the claim.
Quote from: stephendare on October 20, 2015, 02:41:38 PM
Quote from: Adam White on October 20, 2015, 01:37:16 PM
Quote from: coredumped on October 20, 2015, 01:30:15 PM
Hmmm, not sure which would be better - her dropping out of the race, or taking accountability for one of her (many) scandals.
In this case, in the absence of evidence, it would appear that there is no scandal and any such "scandal" is purely a fabrication for political purposes. I don't think we can actually call this one a scandal until there is actually any evidence to support the claim.
Thats never stopped the right wing nut jobs from claiming otherwise adam. From murdering Vince Foster to the Whitewater Boondoggle to Blowjob Impeachment (which came out of white water, btw) the same old chumps who peddled this kind of nonsense about the Kennedy's have continued peddling the same stuff every time a Democrat gets elected.
True. I think Clinton was the first American President to undergo that level of scrutiny. From day one, there were attempts to dig up dirt on him. He was under constant attack for his entire two terms. It's a shame - no sense of decorum whatsoever. I'm not saying that we shouldn't investigate Presidents if they have done something wrong - but basically launching an open-ended investigation/smear campaign is wrong.
Quote from: Adam White on October 20, 2015, 04:22:54 PM
From day one, there were attempts to dig up dirt on him. He was under constant attack for his entire two terms.
And with the fake Benghazi "scandal" they're attacking before the candidate has even been nominated, much less elected.
Quote from: stephendare on October 20, 2015, 02:41:38 PM
Thats never stopped the right wing nut jobs from claiming otherwise adam. From murdering Vince Foster to the Whitewater Boondoggle to Blowjob Impeachment (which came out of white water, btw) the same old chumps who peddled this kind of nonsense about the Kennedy's have continued peddling the same stuff every time a Democrat gets elected.
Comon, let's not be biased, at least not be THAT obvious about it. Lewisnky's ex-boyfiend (see what did there?) gave perjured testimony and THAT's why he should be impeached. As far as cheating on his wife, that's a contract between them.
On to the "other woman" (Hilary) - the email thing should also land her in jail. She broke the law (and it's a good law, not smoking pot, etc). Why would you want to ignore the fact they these idiots broke the law, just because they have a "D" next to their name?
Don't get me wrong, Republicans should go to jail for similar things, or if they break the law too, but let's not ignore it because some "demo-tard" (is that how it's done stephen?) did it.
But, vote for her and you deserve what you get...
(https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/451287667.jpg)
Quote from: coredumped on October 20, 2015, 05:03:40 PM
Quote from: stephendare on October 20, 2015, 02:41:38 PM
Thats never stopped the right wing nut jobs from claiming otherwise adam. From murdering Vince Foster to the Whitewater Boondoggle to Blowjob Impeachment (which came out of white water, btw) the same old chumps who peddled this kind of nonsense about the Kennedy's have continued peddling the same stuff every time a Democrat gets elected.
Comon, let's not be biased, at least not be THAT obvious about it. Lewisnky's ex-boyfiend (see what did there?) gave perjured testimony and THAT's why he should be impeached. As far as cheating on his wife, that's a contract between them.
On to the "other woman" (Hilary) - the email thing should also land her in jail. She broke the law (and it's a good law, not smoking pot, etc). Why would you want to ignore the fact they these idiots broke the law, just because they have a "D" next to their name?
Don't get me wrong, Republicans should go to jail for similar things, or if they break the law too, but let's not ignore it because some "demo-tard" (is that how it's done stephen?) did it.
But, vote for her and you deserve what you get...
(https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/451287667.jpg)
I would argue that Clinton did not commit perjury. He very carefully answered a question based on the definition of "sexual relations" that was provided by the Independent Counsel. Perhaps they should've been more explicit when they decided on the definition. Either way, he didn't commit perjury, as he was acquitted of the charge.
Beyond that, the whole reason he was put in the position to possibly commit perjury in the first place was an abuse of power and an abuse of process by the so-called "Independent Counsel". It never should've happened.
Quote from: stephendare on October 20, 2015, 05:16:57 PM
exactly.
I used to be proud to be a republican until the party got taken over by bedwetters and liars.
Neither party has been anything to brag about.
Quote from: coredumped on October 20, 2015, 05:03:40 PM
Why would you want to ignore the fact they these idiots broke the law, just because they have a "D" next to their name?
If anyone is ignoring the facts, it's you. The Republican-led House Intelligence Committee completed and released an exhaustive, nearly two year investigation that found no deliberate wrongdoing by the Administration.
This report exonerating the Administration of wrongdoing is one of many investigations into the tragedy.
There have already been seven investigations, 13 hearings, 50 briefings, and 25,000 pages of documents have been released.If a crime was committed, why is it after all these investigations has no one has been indicted or charged?
But that won't stop Republicans from re-re-re investigating Benghazi as a part of a crass partisan ploy to turn out the far-right base in November.
QuoteThe House Intelligence Committee, led by Republicans, has concluded that there was no deliberate wrongdoing by the Obama administration in the 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, said Rep. Mike Thompson of St. Helena, the second-ranking Democrat on the committee. The panel voted Thursday to declassify the report, the result of two years of investigation by the committee. U.S. intelligence agencies will have to approve making the report public. Thompson said the report "confirms that no one was deliberately misled, no military assets were withheld and no stand-down order (to U.S. forces) was given." That conflicts with accusations of administration wrongdoing voiced by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista (San Diego County), whose House Government Oversight and Reform Committee has held hearings on the Benghazi attack.
http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/House-panel-No-administration-wrongdoing-in-5663509.php
Quote from: spuwho on October 20, 2015, 05:48:37 PM
Neither party has been anything to brag about.
But the Republicans have a lot to be truly ashamed of.
Finehoe, you're fooling yourself if you think both parties aren't corrupt, bought and sold.
Quote from: finehoe on October 20, 2015, 07:20:05 PM
Quote from: coredumped on October 20, 2015, 05:03:40 PM
Why would you want to ignore the fact they these idiots broke the law, just because they have a "D" next to their name?
If anyone is ignoring the facts, it's you. The Republican-led House Intelligence Committee completed and released an exhaustive, nearly two year investigation that found no deliberate wrongdoing by the Administration.
This report exonerating the Administration of wrongdoing is one of many investigations into the tragedy. There have already been seven investigations, 13 hearings, 50 briefings, and 25,000 pages of documents have been released.
If a crime was committed, why is it after all these investigations has no one has been indicted or charged?
But that won't stop Republicans from re-re-re investigating Benghazi as a part of a crass partisan ploy to turn out the far-right base in November.
QuoteThe House Intelligence Committee, led by Republicans, has concluded that there was no deliberate wrongdoing by the Obama administration in the 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, said Rep. Mike Thompson of St. Helena, the second-ranking Democrat on the committee. The panel voted Thursday to declassify the report, the result of two years of investigation by the committee. U.S. intelligence agencies will have to approve making the report public. Thompson said the report "confirms that no one was deliberately misled, no military assets were withheld and no stand-down order (to U.S. forces) was given." That conflicts with accusations of administration wrongdoing voiced by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista (San Diego County), whose House Government Oversight and Reform Committee has held hearings on the Benghazi attack.
http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/House-panel-No-administration-wrongdoing-in-5663509.php
I wont deny there hasnt been a lot of political posturing with regards to Benghazi. However, just like any case, if new evidence is located on any supposed crime, they reopen, examine, and decide.
The guy running the house committee said on FTNation Sunday that Hillary wasnt in the current scope of the discussion. It was about the release of several emails by Ambassador Stevens that the committee had never examined previously.
I mean geez, they re-examined the Warren Report on Kennedy years later because new technology gave them new information that wasnt available previously.
If your son was murdered wouldnt you want the authorities to examine evidence, especially if it was new?
So yes it has that huge political eye all over it, but new evidence demands some kind of review.
(https://scontent-mia1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xta1/v/t1.0-9/12108039_1050292961670753_1051017931250160963_n.jpg?oh=2a2e3d8fd6966c5214882385059747b2&oe=56C2D78E)
Quote from: JeffreyS on October 20, 2015, 10:31:21 PM
(https://scontent-mia1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xta1/v/t1.0-9/12108039_1050292961670753_1051017931250160963_n.jpg?oh=2a2e3d8fd6966c5214882385059747b2&oe=56C2D78E)
If you truly believe this graphic........
Sorry but the graphic is accurate.
Don't forget Kevin McCarthy admitted on the Sean Hannity show that the Benghazi Hearings are completely politically motivated to wreck Hillary's campaign. It is so refreshing to watch these idiots step in their own poop. I want my tax money back. Cash or credit. No Checks!
Its inaccurate in that it fails to mention that a US Ambassador was killed during the current administration. It is inaccurate in that there were 5 attacks on US embassies not 2 during the current administration. Please tell us when 254 marines were killed during an Embassy attack. That graphic is a joke.
Spin?
Quote from: SunKing on October 21, 2015, 08:54:20 AM
Spin?
Not at all:
http://www.ibtimes.com/us-embassy-attacks-and-bombings-recent-history-782665
The problem with this from the beginning has been that the administration's sole objective has been to circle the wagons and sell the idea that nobody screwed up, while the republicans' sole objective has been to prove that the person who screwed up was Hillary Clinton. I think both may be wrong. Somebody, or a number of people, clearly screwed up and screwed up very badly. Things like this don't happen without major screw-ups.
There was, for example, the investigation that concluded that there had been "no intel failures." That's simply and clearly a lie. Things like this don't happen without intel failures. Furthermore, the whole video sidetrack was either an intel failure (intel got it wrong) or a deliberate and intentional lie (intel got it right, but politics dictated that a different spin be put on things, at least temporarily). I don't know which is the case. But I do know that one or the other is true. That's the only way you can get to that result.
I think republicans are so intent on pinning this on Hillary that they are ignoring what are surely obvious signs that should be followed up in order to determine who is really to blame. If it doesn't point to Hillary, republicans are not interested in checking it out. And democrats are perfectly willing to let them run down all those rabbit trails, because that lets them perpetuate the lie that nobody screwed the pooch on this one.
Quote from: coredumped on October 20, 2015, 07:45:32 PM
Finehoe, you're fooling yourself if you think both parties aren't corrupt, bought and sold.
I've never said otherwise; clearly both parties are more interested in carrying water for their wealthy patrons than they are in the average citizen. The problem is that the Republicans are several magnitudes more corrupt, bought and sold than the Democrats are. It's intellectually lazy to mindless repeat "both parties are the same", "there's no difference in the parties", "they are equally to blame" when anyone who has paid the least bit of attention over the last twenty years knows that isn't the case.
If this were one of Trey Gowdy's murder prosecutions, it would be declared a mistrial.
For 17 months, the former prosecutor who leads the House Benghazi committee has labored to give the appearance of diligence and impartiality. But, in an inexplicable and ruinous outbreak of honesty in recent weeks, the thing is unraveling just in time for Gowdy's moment in the spotlight: Hillary Clinton's testimony Thursday.
Dana Milbank writes about political theater in the nation's capital. He joined the Post as a political reporter in 2000.
First came House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy's admission that the committee was empaneled for the purpose of hurting Clinton's poll numbers.
This was followed by Rep. Richard Hanna, a New York Republican, voicing his view that "there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people and an individual, Hillary Clinton."
Then there was Bradley Podliska, an Air Force Reserve intelligence officer and a self-described conservative, who was fired as a Republican staffer on the committee – in part, he said, because he resisted pressure to focus on Clinton. Podliska called it "a partisan investigation" with a "hyper-focus on Hillary Clinton." He said the "victims' families are not going to get the truth."
Prosecutor Gowdy is most displeased. "I have told my own Republican colleagues and friends: Shut up talking about things that you don't know anything about," he said on CBS's Face the Nation Sunday. "And unless you're on the committee, you have no idea what we've done."
But it appears some on the committee, more than $4.5 million into the investigation, have no idea what they're doing, either. Various Keystone-Cops moments performed by the committee have Gowdy looking less like Jack McCoy and more like Jacques Clouseau as he goes after the likely Democratic presidential nominee.
Gowdy this month made the sensational allegation that one of the emails on Clinton's private server contained the name of a CIA source, "some of the most protected information in our intelligence community." But the CIA said the name to which Gowdy referred was not classified. The State Department asked that the name be redacted – not for security reasons but for the individual's privacy. Gowdy, completing the comedy of errors, then released the email publicly on Sunday with the person's name – apparently unaware that the State Department had failed to redact it.
As that mess was being cleaned up, Gowdy was dealing with another, courtesy of my Washington Post colleague Mike DeBonis. Gowdy has spoken piously about keeping his investigation above politics and about refusing to raise money from it. But DeBonis reported that Gowdy's campaign had returned three donations after the Post inquired about the money's ties to a political action committee that ran an incendiary ad during last week's Democratic presidential debate. Three $2,000 contributions had been made to Gowdy by groups affiliated with the treasurer of Stop Hillary PAC. Stop Hillary PAC had spent $10,000 on robocalls last month to boost Gowdy in his district, and its treasurer had been involved with Gowdy's former leadership PAC.
Perhaps alcohol is to blame for the clumsy pursuit of Clinton. Podliska told the New York Times that committee members had started a "Wine Wednesdays" club and drank out of glasses imprinted with the words "Glacial Pace," a reference to complaints about the leisurely investigation from Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.), the panel's top Democrat. GOP staffers also formed a gun-buying club. The slow pace leaves the strong impression that the panel is trying to extend its probe as far as possible into the 2016 election cycle.
The ham-handed targeting of Clinton predates the Gowdy panel. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who led an earlier Benghazi investigation, suggested, falsely, that Clinton had issued a "stand-down" order to block a military response the night of the Benghazi attack. Issa also alleged, falsely, that Clinton personally authorized security reductions in Libya with her "signature" on a cable.
The contretemps have continued under Gowdy. The chairman claimed that he had "zero interest" in the Clinton Foundation and hadn't issued a subpoena related to it or interviewed a "single person" about it other than the staffer who set up Clinton's private email server. But Gowdy had armed marshals serve a subpoena at the home of Clinton adviser Sidney Blumenthal, and Gowdy and others asked Blumenthal numerous questions about the foundation.
Could such a skilled prosecutor and his experienced staff really be so hapless? Or are the mistakes more purposeful? Consider the damaging New York Times story this summer that initially reported, incorrectly, that federal inspectors general had requested a "criminal investigation" into whether Clinton "mishandled sensitive government information."
The "senior government officials" responsible for the two false allegations were anonymous. But there are some likely suspects.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-house-benghazi-committee-unravels/2015/10/20/ad6101c4-7763-11e5-a958-d889faf561dc_story.html
Quote from: fsquid on October 21, 2015, 09:14:09 AM
The problem with this from the beginning has been that the administration's sole objective has been to circle the wagons and sell the idea that nobody screwed up, while the republicans' sole objective has been to prove that the person who screwed up was Hillary Clinton. I think both may be wrong. Somebody, or a number of people, clearly screwed up and screwed up very badly. Things like this don't happen without major screw-ups.
There was, for example, the investigation that concluded that there had been "no intel failures." That's simply and clearly a lie. Things like this don't happen without intel failures. Furthermore, the whole video sidetrack was either an intel failure (intel got it wrong) or a deliberate and intentional lie (intel got it right, but politics dictated that a different spin be put on things, at least temporarily). I don't know which is the case. But I do know that one or the other is true. That's the only way you can get to that result.
I think republicans are so intent on pinning this on Hillary that they are ignoring what are surely obvious signs that should be followed up in order to determine who is really to blame. If it doesn't point to Hillary, republicans are not interested in checking it out. And democrats are perfectly willing to let them run down all those rabbit trails, because that lets them perpetuate the lie that nobody screwed the pooch on this one.
Yeah, pretty much.
Quote from: finehoe on October 21, 2015, 09:42:44 AM
Quote from: coredumped on October 20, 2015, 07:45:32 PM
Finehoe, you're fooling yourself if you think both parties aren't corrupt, bought and sold.
I've never said otherwise; clearly both parties are more interested in carrying water for their wealthy patrons than they are in the average citizen. The problem is that the Republicans are several magnitudes more corrupt, bought and sold than the Democrats are. It's intellectually lazy to mindless repeat "both parties are the same", "there's no difference in the parties", "they are equally to blame" when anyone who has paid the least bit of attention over the last twenty years knows that isn't the case.
I'll thank you for questioning my lazy intellect, but please tell me how the parties are different?
Obama, the nobel peace prize winning president, has more blood on his hands than Bush, after he said he would end the war, like all democrats.
Republicans tout how they'll cut spending, yet they keep expanding the government (Homeland security thanks to Bush).
So please, tell me the difference in corruption, and how the democrats are so much better? Better for whom? The poor? The minorities? Corrine has been in her district what seems like a lifetime, how has she really helped the poor there? Have their lives improved, or are they still on welfare?
You can wave your democrat flag all you want, but you've got blinders on to think they're any good, or have done any good.
Quote from: coredumped on October 21, 2015, 11:13:51 AM
[You can wave your democrat flag all you want, but you've got blinders on to think they're any good, or have done any good.
Again, it's not how 'good' the Democrats are, but how bad the Republicans are.
How many wars did the D's start under false pretenses?
How many torture regimes have the D's instituted?
Which minority groups have the D's demonized like the R's have done with gays?
How many Terri Schiavo's have the D's exploited?
How many times have the D's threatened to default on the USA's obligations over faked videos?
That's just off the top of my head, the list goes on and on.
Quote from: SunKing on October 21, 2015, 08:54:20 AM
Its inaccurate in that it fails to mention that a US Ambassador was killed during the current administration. It is inaccurate in that there were 5 attacks on US embassies not 2 during the current administration. Please tell us when 254 marines were killed during an Embassy attack. That graphic is a joke.
Spin?
I don't think the graphic necessarily states 254 Marines were killed in an embassy attack. It states that 254 Marines were killed whilst Reagan was in power. But it can be confusing, given how the info is presented. Whether that is deliberate or just lazy is up for debate.
I think embassy or not, you'd be hard-pressed to say that 254 Marines killed at once was anything less than an intelligence failure by the US gov't. Certainly so if Benghazi was.
Quote from: fsquid on October 21, 2015, 09:14:09 AM
I think republicans are so intent on pinning this on Hillary that they are ignoring what are surely obvious signs that should be followed up in order to determine who is really to blame. If it doesn't point to Hillary, republicans are not interested in checking it out.
No shit. And it's ridiculous that Republicans' have the gall to hold Hillary Clinton personally responsible for the deaths of four Americans in in a remote building in war-torn North Africa, 400 miles from the capital of that country, while ignoring a concerted, highly coordinated attack using our commercial airliners and our training, in order to give George W. Bush a pass.
Quote from: stephendare on October 21, 2015, 11:39:33 AM
and lets talk about the scale of lying about torture that went all the way up to the Vice President
Torture is wrong, no doubt. But we know republicans love war. The democrats run on "peace, love and ponies" yet Obama is droning the crap out of everyone, including doctors without borders...oh, and he also drones American citizens. So much for that pesky constitution and fair trial business.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/04/23/the-u-s-keeps-killing-americans-in-drone-strikes-mostly-by-accident/
So yes, both parties suck, and are evil, and don't give a damn about you. But if placing a checkbox next to "D" regardless of who is running, by all means continue to do so...it's going so well now.
stupid party v. evil party.
Quote from: finehoe on October 21, 2015, 09:13:38 AM
Quote from: SunKing on October 21, 2015, 08:54:20 AM
Spin?
Not at all:
http://www.ibtimes.com/us-embassy-attacks-and-bombings-recent-history-782665
I'm sorry, was this supposed to validate the graphic? Did you even read it? It doesn't mention anything about 254 marines? All it does is confirm what I said.
Quote from: fsquid on October 21, 2015, 02:40:28 PM
stupid party
(http://neoavatara.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/democratic-party-convention-simpsons.png)
Quote from: fsquid on October 21, 2015, 02:40:28 PM
v. evil party.
(http://36.media.tumblr.com/3450af8c21a427731d3d383a84d77648/tumblr_mfw7lpbFbL1qcpthfo1_500.jpg)
Quote from: coredumped on October 21, 2015, 12:44:14 PM
Quote from: stephendare on October 21, 2015, 11:39:33 AM
and lets talk about the scale of lying about torture that went all the way up to the Vice President
Torture is wrong, no doubt. But we know republicans love war.
Americans love war. They can't get enough of it - until it goes badly and then they suddenly change their tune. Until enough time passes and they forget it and rabidly support taking military action against some far-flung country for some supposed offense.
Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (x2), Grenada, Panama, etc. The list goes on and on. It's sickening.
Quote from: coredumped on October 21, 2015, 12:44:14 PM
Obama is droning the crap out of everyone, including doctors without borders...
Except it wasn't a drone that bombed the DWB hospital, it was our beloved military, a AC-130 gunship. But you know, don't let that disrupt your narrative.
Quote from: SunQueen on October 21, 2015, 03:14:54 PM
I'm sorry, was this supposed to validate the graphic? Did you even read it? It doesn't mention anything about 254 marines? All it does is confirm what I said.
You said "that graphic is a joke". But the link I posted pretty much corroborates the graphic. So no, it doesn't confirm what you said at all. And as far as reading goes, it doesn't say 254 marines were killed during an embassy attack (Benghazi wasn't an embassy either, btw). It is clearly a reference to the worst terrorist attack on Americans prior to 9/11, the Lebanon Marine Barracks bombing.
If you were really seeking the truth you would stop defending this completely flawed argument. What the graphic is clearly attempting to show is a correlation between attacks on US diplomatic stations, presidential administrations and subsequent investigations. There is very little distinction between an Embassy and a consulate building, which I am sure that you know and the graphic uses Embassy without distinction when referring to prior administrations. So put into that context, the reality is that there have been more attacks on US Embassy's and consulates under Obama than either Reagan or Bush. The graphic doesn't apply the same logic.
A Marine Barracks is not a diplomatic station. It is a military installation. Big difference there but the graphic doesn't make that distinction. If you want to compare those apples, let's start with number of KIA in Afghanistan under Bush vs. Obama. Staggering difference really.
And if you were really seeking the truth, you'd admit there is nothing about Benghazi that warrants the outsized amount of investigations lavished on it when compared to similar incidents in the past.
Quote from: finehoe on October 21, 2015, 08:24:55 PM
Quote from: SunQueen on October 21, 2015, 03:14:54 PM
I'm sorry, was this supposed to validate the graphic? Did you even read it? It doesn't mention anything about 254 marines? All it does is confirm what I said.
You said "that graphic is a joke". But the link I posted pretty much corroborates the graphic. So no, it doesn't confirm what you said at all. And as far as reading goes, it doesn't say 254 marines were killed during an embassy attack (Benghazi wasn't an embassy either, btw). It is clearly a reference to the worst terrorist attack on Americans prior to 9/11, the Lebanon Marine Barracks bombing.
One minor point: it wasn't a terrorist attack, it was a military action against US forces who had compromised their neutrality and had taken sides in the civil war. You reap what you sow.
Except that it was on her watch, there are new developments relating to communications that were purposely kept from prior investigations, on an illegal and unsecured email server, which she lied about, and then there is that bit about she is running for President of the United States. Those are all true statements. So no I don't think its overkill at all. Politically if nothing comes out of it-could be a disaster for the Republicans. That is politics.
Personally I would vote for the truth over a political stance any day. Sometimes you just have to get real.
Quote from: Adam White on October 22, 2015, 11:18:20 AM
it wasn't a terrorist attack, it was a military action against US forces who had compromised their neutrality and had taken sides in the civil war.
A suicide bomber drove a dump truck into the barracks; many would see that as "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes."
Quote from: finehoe on October 22, 2015, 11:31:09 AM
Quote from: Adam White on October 22, 2015, 11:18:20 AM
it wasn't a terrorist attack, it was a military action against US forces who had compromised their neutrality and had taken sides in the civil war.
A suicide bomber drove a dump truck into the barracks; many would see that as "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes."
No more than the Dresden bombing or Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Except the targets in those cases were civilians, not military (as in Beirut).
Edit: calling it "terrorism" is just the USA's way of making itself look like an innocent victim.
Quote from: Adam White on October 22, 2015, 11:41:17 AM
calling it "terrorism" is just the USA's way of making itself look like an innocent victim.
Be that as it may, the President at the time called it "terrorism" (http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1983/102783b.htm)
and since this thread is mostly about Congressional reactions to how a given administration handled such violence, we should follow their lead.
Quote from: finehoe on October 22, 2015, 12:08:42 PM
Quote from: Adam White on October 22, 2015, 11:41:17 AM
calling it "terrorism" is just the USA's way of making itself look like an innocent victim.
Be that as it may, the President at the time called it "terrorism" (http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1983/102783b.htm)
and since this thread is mostly about Congressional reactions to how a given administration handled such violence, we should follow their lead.
So, I suppose you then agree with that administration's classification of ketchup as a vegetable. And accept their trickle-down economic policies as truth? I cannot accept something solely on the basis that the President said it.
Quote from: Adam White on October 22, 2015, 12:58:42 PM
I cannot accept something solely on the basis that the President said it.
Your missing my point.
Quote from: finehoe on October 22, 2015, 01:13:39 PM
Quote from: Adam White on October 22, 2015, 12:58:42 PM
I cannot accept something solely on the basis that the President said it.
Your missing my point.
I am not sure I am. But maybe I am.
I think sometimes the red mist descends for you when someone appears to disagree with you and then you go on the defensive. I wasn't taking exception to your graphic or your post. I was just - in general - criticizing the notion that the Beirut bombing was terrorism. That doesn't mean that - using the current Republican logic - that an investigation wasn't warranted or that Reagan shouldn't have been vilified for "allowing it to happen" on his watch.
Quote from: stephendare on October 22, 2015, 04:48:44 PM
To be honest Adam, back when the beirut bombing happened, I was very politically aware already. There wasn't anyone who didn't think it was terrorism in this country.
Lebanon had been such a peaceful beautiful country prior to that, it didn't seem possible.
All of the news broadcasts labelled it as terrorism. And you've got to keep in mind that this was before the word 'terrorism' started meaning so much more terrible stuff. Back then a Plane HiJacking was considered an act of terrorism, instead of just a hijacking.
Of course. But that doesn't mean it was terrorism. Lockerbie was terrorism (as an example). Hijacking a plane was terrorism.
But driving a truck filled with explosives into the barracks of the enemy is an act of war. The US was painting itself out as a peacekeeper when it had taken sides in the conflict. Similarly, the bombing of the USS Cole during the Clinton administration was not an act of terrorism - it was a military strike that caught the US off-guard.
When American soldiers (or sailors, marines, etc) are killed by non-state actors, the US likes to call it terrorism. But when American warplanes bomb the shit out of a hospital it's a mistake. And don't get me started on the cruise missiles that destroyed a pharmaceutical factory.
The media called it terrorism - but the media is so biased towards the government that it would've been shocking if they had said anything else.
Interesting argument but I don't recall anywhere in the Middle East being peaceful growing up. Especially Lebanon-that's what the Marines were there for in the first place. Keep those folks from killing each other.
There was a shock factor because we weren't used to dealing with that type of fanaticism. So put into the context of the time, a surprise attack on any installation whether civilian or military at that time would be considered cowardly. Like 9/11, it was a completely outrageous act, so terrorism was an easy label.
Agree it gets overused and but sort of grey area there given the times.
Quote from: SunKing on October 22, 2015, 05:59:13 PM
Interesting argument but I don't recall anywhere in the Middle East being peaceful growing up. Especially Lebanon-that's what the Marines were there for in the first place. Keep those folks from killing each other.
There was a shock factor because we weren't used to dealing with that type of fanaticism. So put into the context of the time, a surprise attack on any installation whether civilian or military at that time would be considered cowardly. Like 9/11, it was a completely outrageous act, so terrorism was an easy label.
Agree it gets overused and but sort of grey area there given the times.
I think the reason it happened in Lebanon was that the Marines (well, US forces) were seen as having taken sides in the conflict. Then there was the issue of the Israeli invasion which the US did not oppose.
Whether or not the attack was justified (not saying that killing people is justified, but whether or not the attackers were correct in their assessment of US actions or policy), it was a military action.
Lee Rigby getting his head cut off in a London street = terrorism. A USMC barracks in a war zone being destroyed by a truck bomb = not terrorism.
I think Reagan (and others since) have labeled these sorts of actions as terrorism in an effort to delegitimize the attackers and to play the victim card. If you do that, you don't have to look at how your actions might've helped precipitate the event.
QuoteTHE HOUSE Select Committee on Benghazi further discredited itself on Thursday as its Republican members attempted to fuel largely insubstantial suspicions about Hillary Clinton's role in the 2012 Benghazi attacks. Grilling Ms. Clinton all day, they elicited little new information and offered little hope that their inquiry would find anything significant that seven previous investigations didn't.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/benghazi-business-as-usual/2015/10/22/5a09b31e-7901-11e5-a958-d889faf561dc_story.html
More taxpayer dollars wasted.