Benghazi Hearings Cancelled After Clinton Drops Out of Race

[fsquid]

stupid party v. evil party.

[SunKing]

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.

[Tacachale]

stupid party

v. evil party.

[Adam White]

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.

[finehoe]

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.

[finehoe]

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.

[SunKing]

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.

[finehoe]

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.

[Adam White]

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.

[SunKing]

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.

[finehoe]

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."

[Adam White]

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.

[finehoe]

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.

[Adam White]

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.

[finehoe]

I cannot accept something solely on the basis that the President said it.

Your missing my point.