Liberal Forum

Dick Cheney Suggests Republicans Subpoena Hillary Clinton On BenghaziWASHINGTON -- Former Vice President Dick Cheney met with House Republicans on Thursday morning, suggesting they may need to subpoena former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to get more answers on the deadly Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi, Libya."I think Hillary (Clinton) should be subpoenaed if necessary," Cheney said during the gathering, according to Fox News.{.....}Cheney has not always been so fond of congressional subpoenas. In fact, the Bush administration cited executive privilege and routinely denied requests for officials to appear before the legislative branch to testify during the U.S. attorney firing scandal. Cheney himself described the probe into whether the Bush administration's firing of federal prosecutors was political as "a bit of a witch hunt."The Bush White House directed chief of staff Joshua Bolten, political director Karl Rove, former White House counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor all to ignore subpoenas from Congress. In 2008, a federal judge ruled that it was unconstitutional to do so.And at the end of President George W. Bush's tenure, the White House instructed top officials not to cooperate with any future congressional inquiries into alleged administration misdeeds.Ironic considering that Bush and Cheney refused to testify to the 9/11 Commission unless they could testify together, in private, and not under oath.I think a few more people died on 9-11-2001 than on 9-11-2012 in Benghazi.

Fox News Host on Benghazi: 'We're Getting a Little Lopsided' by Favoring RepublicansFox News host Megyn Kelly admitted on Wednesday that the conservative network's coverage of that day's Benghazi hearings had been a "little lopsided" after Democratic lawmakers were repeatedly cut off for commercial breaks.Following opening statements, Fox News aired all of the questions House Oversight Committee Chair Darrel Issa (R-CA) had for the witnesses he had called, but the network cut to former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton for reaction when Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MA) began presenting his questions.Users on Twitter complained as they noticed a pattern each time Fox News cut away from the hearings.(...)After over three hours of hearings, Fox News Megyn Kelly acknowledged that the coverage had not been fair and balanced."We're trying to get in our commercial breaks here and now we're getting a little lopsided in terms of the Democrats versus the Republicans, so we're going to try to rectify that for you after the break," she promised.In fact, Fox News only provided another 10 minutes of live video from the hearings during the next hour. Instead, the network asked Bolton and Fox News host Oliver North to comment.When your own hosts are admitting there is a bias, that's pretty sad.

Darrell Issa Acknowledges He Learned Nothing New From His Benghazi HearingHouse Oversight Committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) tacitly admitted on Wednesday that his hearing on the Benghazi terror attacks the same day didnt turn up any new information.Im curious, did you learn anything new today? Fox News host Greta Van Susteren asked Issa in an interview after the hearing. After meandering around for a bit, Issa finally got to the hearings grand revelation Benghazi was a terror attack:ISSA: I think the American people learned today from these brave witnesses, these whistleblowers, that the facts as we were told before during and after the attack at Benghazi just simply arent what they really were. The acting ambassador after Ambassador Stevens was murdered, told us in great detail about what happened that day and what happened in the days to follow and why we should know that he knew and everyone else in the mission knew from the moment it happened, from the get-go, as he said, that this was a terrorist attack.While indeed, former deputy chief of mission Greg Hicks testimony detailing his experiences as the attacks on the Benghazi diplomatic mission unfolded was new and riveting. But it didnt have much to do with what Issa himself said the mission of the hearing would be: expose more Obama administration failures and perhaps even some kind of cover-up (of what, is unclear exactly). Our hearing will examine new facts about what happened and significant problems with the administrations own review of Benghazi failures, Issa said previewing the hearing last month. This committee will expose what they did and hold them accountable to the public.Theres no question, Issa said two days before the hearing, that former Secretary of State Hillary Clintons staff or even Clinton herself, was involved in a Benghazi cover-up (there was no cover-up of any kind, by anyone).However, Issa's hearing didnt expose anything, except perhaps how fact-free a number of right-wing Benghazi conspiracy theories are, including the idea that Clinton personally signed off on cables denying additional security for the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi.But as far as labeling Benghazi a terror attack, that issue has been settled long ago. President Obama referred to it as an act of terror the day after the attack and directly referred to the incident as a terrorist attack two weeks later. Issa probably didnt need a hours-long hearing to get confirmation on that.Just another Republican dog and pony show.Hearings are supposed to allow you to explore the facts and reach a conclusion.The Republicans have already reached a conclusion, and now are trying to manufacture the facts to fit it.

Just another Republican dog and pony show. Hearings are supposed to allow you to explore the facts and reach a conclusion. The Republicans have already reached a conclusion, and now are trying to manufacture the facts to fit it. All the lying trolls are in agreement that there's nothing here. Well, that makes it official. This is a huge scandal. We learned that Obama and top officials lied to Americans for months. We learned that they tried to suppress witness testimony. We learned that they knew from the very first that it was a terrorist attack, not a demonstration caused by a Utube video. We learned that Obama tried to promote the most egregious liar while at least one honest government official was demoted. We learned that Hillary Clinton was never even interviewed by the supposed investigation, whose investigators are now being investigated by the State Dept. We learned that Hillary Clinton sent a Whitewater lawyer to attempt to suppress cooperation by the most important witness.

All the lying trolls are in agreement that there's nothing here. Well, that makes it official. This is a huge scandal. We learned that Obama and top officials lied to Americans for months. We learned that they tried to suppress witness testimony. We learned that they knew from the very first that it was a terrorist attack, not a demonstration caused by a Utube video. We learned that Obama tried to promote the most egregious liar while at least one honest government official was demoted. We learned that Hillary Clinton was never even interviewed by the supposed investigation, whose investigators are now being investigated by the State Dept. We learned that Hillary Clinton sent a Whitewater lawyer to attempt to suppress cooperation by the most important witness. awwwwwwwwwwwwwwww ... mister Stalker can't get any traction? waaaaaaaaaaa...

I have abandoned my Flying Monkeys thread due to the incessant rantings of a lunatic who has taken up residence there. So this will my new home.Just as I did in my other thread, I will use this thread kind of like a blog, to post about a variety of topics that interest me, and vent about them. Of course, as always, I also invite comments from other forum members.It's best to read this thread backwards, as the more recent stuff will be at the end. ******************************************************************************************** Ilyse Hogue is exactly right. Denying women access to safe and affordable abortion care will only drive the practice underground, and create more butchers like Kermit Gosnell. One thing that's wonderful about America is that people have the right to 'MIND THEIR OWN FUC-ING BUSINESS' Those who insist on sticking their nose into the affairs of others are the prime cause of why our country is so fuc-ed up lately, If you don't believe in abortion, don't get one, otherwise mind your own damned business!!!!!!!!

The New Hampshire Moms In Ad Defending Senator Kelly Ayotte's Background Check Vote Are Actually GOP ActivistsAs Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) battles public outcry over her vote to kill a bipartisan amendment expanding background checks for gun purchases, a national conservative group based in Iowa is running television ads featuring seemingly ordinary New Hampshire moms and law enforcement officials defending the one-term senator from out-of-state partisan attacks.But the American Future Fund appeared unable to find voters who agree with Ayottes position, as a cursory search of individuals in the advertisement reveals that the supposedly typical New Hampshirites are actually long-time Republican party activists and officials. Polls show that 91 percent of New Hampshire adults support expanded screenings.Jayne Millerick is billed in the ad as a "New Hampshire mom" and says "Those attack commercials are partisan and deliberately misleading." But Millerick is actually a Republican strategist who served as Chairman of the New Hampshire Republican State Committee, a New Hampshire Republican Delegate in 2008, and was a member of New Hampshire Women for Mitt coalition in 2012. She is now a professional political consultant.Judy Brown, another "New Hampshire mom" from the ad, served alongside Millerick in the Romney campaign and volunteered for Ayotte’s campaign in 2010. In 2013, she was named as the Nashua City Republican of the Year.Barbara Dutile, a "Law Enforcement official," is the wife of a Republican Sheriff in Grafton County who was Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) New Hampshire delegate in 2008, campaigned for Romney, and served as an alternate delegate. In 2012 she received an award from the Republican Party of New Hampshire.The other individuals featured in the ad Richard Crate, Russ Larry, and Christopher Connelly, are all part of a group of law enforcement officials who have backed Ayotte and are featured on her Facebook page.Since joining 45 other Republicans in opposing background checks, Ayotte has seen her approval ratings plumet and has come under withering criticism from constituents and families of gun violence victims at town halls across New Hampshire.Watch the ad at link in title.Typical GOP tactics. It's all staged.

Rush Limbaugh's Wingnut WelfareAs numerous members of the conservative movement flee from the Heritage Foundation's flawed immigration study, conservative talker Rush Limbaugh has maintained a stalwart defense of the organization.Not a surprise considering Rush Limbaugh's syndicator, Premiere Radio Networks, is the single largest independent contractor to the Heritage Foundation according to their latest 990 filing with the IRS, receiving $2,236,555 from the think tank.With advertisers fleeing his show, and as a result radio companies suffering major losses, the fiscal sponsorship of the conservative movement is now fiscally critical. A "very high ranking" official at Cumulus, the owner of Rush and Sean Hannity's flagship station WABC, told Radio Ink, "Forty-eight of the top 50 network advertisers have 'excluded Rush and Hannity' orders. Every major national ad agency has the same dictate."Without wingnut welfare, which has also included sponsorships from FreedomWorks, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity's shows would not be financially viable.The financial relationship between the conservative movement and its radio hosts has existed for years -- Heritage has been a major sponsor of Premiere Radio talent, specifically Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, according to a 2011 report by Ken Vogel of Politico -- however with Limbaugh and Hannity's recent well publicized problems attracting sponsorship to their programs the role of the conservative movement is not rightwing radios key sponsor. (Vogel also tweeted about Heritage's 990 disclosure.)Now with Heritage under attack from many on the right including the libertarian Cato Institute for a widely panned and publicized study of the costs of the Gang of Eight immigration proposal is it any surprise where Limbaugh came down in this conservative kerfuffle?Limbaugh defended the Heritage study when it first came under attack.Then later this week, he began a segment by promoting the think tanks website, telling listeners if they "go to the Heritage Foundation website . . . they were giving you the report free" as if this were a benefit and not standard for ideological organizations to want their work shared broadly with the public.Rush then proceeded to defend an author of the study, who was roundly criticized for a college thesis that suggested immigration policy decisions should be based on racial IQ disparities.Most notable was a throwaway line in which Limbaugh attacked dynamic scoring, saying it "doesn't quite wash." Kevin Drum points out that the wonky methodology is "critical to the conservative movement because it's the way they can claim that tax cuts produce higher tax revenue."Limbaugh, in defense of his sponsor, was willing to toss aside the underpinning of thirty years of conservative arguments on the economic benefits of tax cuts.We won't know, until the organization's 2012 990s are filed later this year, how much the organization spent to bolster right-wing talk radio in the wake of the advertiser boycott, but listening to the frequent on-air promotion of the Heritage Foundation, it is unlikely this significant level of support waned. And why not? They are clearly getting what they paid for.Ratings don't mean anything if you can't sell ads, and Rush can no longer sell ads.But not to worry, he is subsidized by right wing groups, and like the article said, they are getting what they paid for.More proof that it's not Sandra Fluke who is the 'prostitute'.

Ratings don't mean anything if you can't sell ads, and Rush can no longer sell ads. Thanks for again revealing the thuggish, fascistic nature of the liberal-left. Who would never, ever, EVER apply this standard to anyone on their own side. Who defend serial felons/ serial rapists, but bleat in outrage that Rush did a parody in bad taste; that he used bad words! The liberal-left isn't really angry about Rush's calling Fluke a "slut." That's just an excuse. They hate his political opinions and want to silence him forever. Liberalism is Totalitarianism-lite.

IRS Tea Party Targeting Came After Court Rulings Upended Agency RoleWASHINGTON -- As the Internal Revenue Service began to use broad search terms like "tea party," "patriot" and "9/12" to target groups seeking tax-exempt status in March 2010, the agency was already facing a major crush of applications for exemption under section 501{c}(4) of the tax code.As Lois Lerner, director of the IRS' exempt organizations division, explained to a Washington crowd of tax lawyers on May 10 during her initial apology for inappropriately focusing on conservative groups, "between 2010 and 2012, we started seeing a very big uptick in the number of 501 {c}(4) applications we were receiving." The number, she said, "more than doubled -- about 1,500 in 2010 and over 3,400 in 2012."This increase came after two major Supreme Court decisions -- Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life in 2007 and Citizens United v. FEC in 2010 -- opened the door for 501 {c}(4) groups to engage in increasing amounts of political activity."There's a pretty direct link between the Citizens United line of cases and why the IRS is put in this position," said Rick Hasen, an election law professor at the University of California-Irvine, "although it does nothing to explain how the IRS decided to deal with this problem."The Supreme Court rulings undid a string of campaign finance regulations and opened up loopholes for groups to avoid disclosure. The tax-exempt 501 {c}(4) nonprofit, which can accept unlimited contributions from any source and whose donors can be kept secret, became the primary vehicle for operatives looking to engage in politics with "dark" money. The number of applications for 501 {c}(4) status spiked, thrusting the IRS into a precarious position of overseeing partisan politics in a way that it had never done before."It's just another example of just the inability of the IRS to really enforce what are really political election campaign regulations," said Ofer Lion, a lawyer who works with tax-exempt organizations at Hunton & Williams. "These are career civil servants down in the IRS basement somewhere without adult supervision trying to deal with problems they don't know how to deal with."The main problem is the need for the IRS to review partisan political activity, which has been strictly limited for tax-exempt organizations since 1954. While 501 {c}(4) groups are allowed to engage in some political activity, including running partisan advertising, it cannot be their primary purpose. In its review process, the IRS examines whether a group is seeking tax exemption for inappropriate reasons like personal gain or, the current concern, improperly engaging in politics.Ever since the Citizens United decision, IRS officials in Washington have been under pressure from both Congress and campaign finance reform groups to step up their regulation of 501 {c}(4) groups. Nonprofit groups spent more than $100 million on political activities in the 2010 election and more than $300 million in the 2012 election, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.Democratic lawmakers sent letters demanding action from the IRS in reviewing groups like Crossroads GPS, a 501 {c}(4) nonprofit founded by Karl Rove that engages in a large amount of political activity, including running so-called issue ads that it claims are not electoral advocacy. Campaign finance reform groups asked the IRS to reject the 501 {c}(4) applications of Crossroads GPS, the Democratic group Priorities USA and the independent Americans Elect. The agency's review of these larger organizations appears to be ongoing.The IRS dealt with the bulge in 501 {c}(4) applications by deploying a number of routine tools it uses for issues that it deems worth more attention. Reviews were centralized in one office, increasing efficiency and allowing the agency to give the groups broader scrutiny. This practice has been used for other entities seeking tax exemption, Lion noted, including charter schools and carbon tax credit trading associations.The IRS also used search terms to quickly identify applications that appeared to come from the type of organization that might be inappropriately political in nature. Such shortcuts are a common agency practice to sweep up groups for review where a large number of them might not meet an exemption test. The best-known use of shortcuts came when the IRS used broad search terms to identify credit and mortgage counseling nonprofits that were potentially fronts for banks.The problem appears to be in how those tools were deployed to get a handle on the flood of applications for 501 {c](4) status."Lois Lerner left me with the impression that the agency, at least at the lower staff level, was at least overwhelmed by the number of applications that they had to process, and they came up with some shortcuts to handle the processing of these applications and made some pretty big mistakes in how they developed those shortcuts," said Paul S. Ryan, a lawyer at the Campaign Legal Center, a campaign finance watchdog group."They can be very useful tools, but they're only tools and they're not perfect tools," Charles Watkins, a tax lawyer at Webster, Chamberlain & Bean, said. "But more to the point, in this particular context, it was an unfortunate choice of terms because it suggests that the IRS was only looking for a certain kind of conservative organizations, even though it was pretty clear to everyone that there are liberal organizations that seem to be doing pretty much the same thing."What is not immediately clear is the reason the IRS used search terms like "tea party" and later changed its search to groups advocating for "limiting/expanding government" and "social economic reform/movement." Were these groups targeted for explicitly political reasons, or was this political tone-deafness from an agency thrust into policing electoral activity?"If that was political tone-deafness downstairs, people upstairs should have been acutely aware of that," Lion said.Now, campaign finance watchdogs are worried that outrage over how the IRS handled past reviews of groups applying for 501 {c}(4) status could stymie any further review of those improperly seeking or acting under 501 {c}(4) status."The politics of this incident will seemingly make it more difficult for the IRS to do that job, and that is truly unfortunate," Ryan said.The bigger a deal that Republicans make over this, the harder they will make it for the IRS to do their job and draw a distinction between political groups and 'social welfare' groups applying for 501{c}(4) status.Does anyone really believe that all of these Tea Party non-profits (taxpayer subsidized) groups or Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS are just 'social welfare' groups whose main purpose is NOT engaging in political activities?Republicans should be careful what they wish for, because the same chilling effect will take place in the vetting of Liberal/Democratic groups when they are using secret dark money against Republican candidates.

The bigger a deal that Republicans make over this, the harder they will make it for the IRS to do their job and draw a distinction between political groups and 'social welfare' groups applying for 501{c}(4) status. Does anyone really believe that all of these Tea Party non-profits (taxpayer subsidized) groups or Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS are just 'social welfare' groups whose main purpose is NOT engaging in political activities? Republicans should be careful what they wish for, because the same chilling effect will take place in the vetting of Liberal/Democratic groups when they are using secret dark money against Republican candidates. Ignoring the IRS's repeated violations of conservative Americans' Constitutional rights. That the IRS specifically targeted groups that opposed Obama-care, promoted the Constitution, advocate small government or oppose homosexual marriage. And the fact that Obama is Chief Law Enforcement Officer whose legal obligation is to oversee and prevent abuses like this. This was no accident. Even if it is never connected to the White House, it's Obama's thuggish Chicago style of politics and was what he wanted. Impeach! Impeach! Impeach!

The Coming Attempt to Impeach ObamaThe idea of impeaching Obama is industrial-strength insane. Republicans will probably try anyway, predicts Michael Tomasky. When the histories of this administration are written, I hope fervently that last Friday, May 10, does not figure prominently in them. But I fear that it might: the double-barrel revelations that the White House hasn't quite been telling the whole story on Benghazi and that some mid-level IRS people targeted some Tea Party groups for scrutiny are guaranteed to ramp up the crazy. But to what extent? I fear it could be considerable, and the people in the White House damn well better fear the same, or were going to be contemplating an extremely ugly situation come 2015, especially if the Republicans have held the House and captured the Senate in the by-elections.Let me clarify a point that's been going around. On MSNBC Friday, I broached the I-word. You know the one. Three syllables. Links Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton. I said something like: I have little doubt the Republicans would try to pursue it-something I've written dozens of times without readers really batting an eye. But I guess saying it on TV, and on a fateful day, is different. I was on the business end of a small number of angry tweets from liberal readers, and I see that the UK Daily Mail trotted out my statement in a way that made it sound as if I thought it was legitimate.I didn't get to finish my thought on television for one reason or another, but here on my home field, as it were, permit me to finish it: I think the notion of impeachment is industrial-strength insane. There is utterly no proof that the President Obama even knew anything directly about the shifting Benghazi responses, let alone did something about them (yes, folks; under the Constitution, the President must do something). And as for the Internal Revenue Service story, from what we now know, those transgressions were committed by IRS staffers in Cincinnati who have never been closer to Obama than their television sets. I always held a squishy spot in my breast for the Daily Mail because of the "Paperback Writer" mention, but as of this weekend they can go stick it up their punter, or whatever it is they say. Impeachment is crazy, the Daily Mail is crazy, and the idea that Obama has any direct culpability in either of these matters is, given what we know today, utter madness. Okay?But this is my point: utter madness is what today's Republicans do. You can present to me every logical argument you desire. Benghazi at the end of the day was a terrible tragedy in which mistakes, bad mistakes, were certainly made, and in which confusion and the CYA reflex led to some bad information going out to the public initially, but none of this remotely rises to the level of high crime. The IRS cock-up was just that, a mistake by a regional office. I get all this, and I agree with you.But what we think doesn't matter. I can assure you that already in the Pavlovian swamps of the nutso right, the glands are swelling. Theirs is a different planet from the one you and I inhabit. Most Republican members of the House live in districts where it is a given (among the white constituents, anyway) that Obama is a socialist; that he's bent on bringing the United States of America down, or at least that he definitely doesn't love the country and the Constitution (nudge nudge) the way they do; that he's not a legitimate occupant of the Oval Office to start with. At the time he was sworn in to his second term, 64 percent of Republicans agreed that Obama was "hiding important information" about his background. Half thought in December 2012 that he stole the election.At this point some of you may be protesting: but at least Clinton did commit a crime, however lame a crime it was. Obama has done no such thing. Again, in reality-land, no, he hasn't. In their land, however, he has committed a string of them; he just hasn't been caught yet. And that's what Darrell Issa and his committee are there to unearth. Besides, he need commit no conventional crime. A high crime or misdemeanor is whatever the House majority decides it is. Remember, in January 1998, impeachment talk started before Clinton had perjured himself.There is no end to it. And there is no end to Republican figures-and to a distressing extent, the mainstream media-feeding the crazy. When Lindsey Graham calls Benghazi "Obamas Watergate," he knows exactly what he's saying, and so do Republicans in South Carolina, and across the country. And observe over the next few days-it's already happening-how quickly journalistic shorthand, certainly in the right-wing media, converts the Cincinnati IRS office into "Obamas IRS," as if he were sitting around like Nixon personally targeting these groups. You and I know that's absurd. But on the right, it's a given that he was doing exactly that.Okay, but surely, you say, if facts don't matter, then public opinion does? Think again, my friend. In 1998, support for impeachment of Bill Clinton was rarely above 30 percent. Here's a little sampling of surveys from August and September of that year, during the heat of battle-the release of Clintons grand-jury testimony and of the Starr Report. Levels of support for impeachment were 26 percent, 25, 18, 27, 17, and so on. There was one poll where it hit 40 percent, but most were far lower. And remember, in political terms, 40 is the butt end of a massive landslide. The public hated the idea.Did that stop anyone? No. And it won't stop them now. They do their base's bidding, not America's. How many times do you need to see them do this before you accept that it is the reality? And now there's an added element. They want to gin up turnout among their base for next year's elections. And if they gin it up enough, and the Democratic base stays home, they could end up holding the House and taking the Senate. And if they have both houses, meaning that the vote in the House would not be certain to hit a Senate dead-end, well, look out.I hope the White House knows this. I hope they understand, I hope the President himself understands, that the fever has not broken and will not break. It might crescendo right up to his very last day in office. And yes, a lot of this Benghazi stuff is about Hillary Clinton. But not all of it. And the IRS thing, which Drudge led with for two days in a row and may yet be bigger than Benghazi, isnt about her at all. If my worst fears are never realizedwell, good, obviously. But it will only be because they couldnt identify even a flimsy pretext on which to proceed. Never put the most extreme behavior past them. It is who they are, and it is what they do.In 2011 former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough warned GOPers of the danger of overreaching as they took over the House and gained more numbers in the Senate."If Republicans overreach in 2011, they will re-elect Barack Obama in 2012," he said. "They need to focus but make sure they don't scare little kids and pets. This is the Republican Party's last chance-not just for me but for the American voters. They will either mean what they say or be swept aside."They never listen.

Hey misty You get my email??

Issa Smears His Former Blackwater Shield, David Petraeus As his performance over the past week suggests, Rep. Darrell Issa's response to the tragic deaths of American citizens in the Middle East apparently depends on which party controls the White House. After all, in February 2007 Issa mocked the families of four Blackwater contractors slaughtered in Fallujah. Now, the Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has accused former CIA Director David Petraeus of carrying water for the Obama administration's supposed Benghazi cover-up. That would be the same General David Petraeus Issa charged six years ago was being targeted by Democrats "as part of an ongoing partisan smear campaign against U.S. efforts in Iraq." Appearing on Meet the Press with host David Gregory on Sunday, John Boehner's Benghazi Grand Inquisitor suggested that Petraeus and the members of the independent Accountability Review Board did President Obama's bidding on the Benghazi probe: GREGORY: Chairman, my reporting of the immediate aftermath of this talking to administration officials is that CIA Director David Petraeus made it clear when he briefed top officials that there-- that there was a spontaneous element to this, that it was not completely known that this was a terrorist attack right away. You don't give any credence to the notion that there was some fog of war, that there were-- there were conflicting circumstances about what went on here. REP. ISSA: David Petraeus said what the administration wanted him to say is the indication. Ambassador Pickering heard what the administration wanted to hear. The only under oath people I know about who have said what happened on the ground that day was, in fact, before our committee just on Wednesday. But when Gregory asked him if he was accusing the Obama administration of having "bullied the CIA into saying what the political advisors in the White House wanted him to say," Chairman Issa responded simply, "David, we're not making charges." Of course, Darrell Issa is making a very serious charge against David Petraeus. As it turns out, it's almost the complete opposite of the slander Issa put forth during Congressional hearings about Blackwater and other private security firms hired by the United States. On October 2, 2007, Issa blasted then Chairman Henry Waxman and committee Democrats for their inquiry which occurred just days after an incident in which 11 Iraqi civilians were killed by Blackwater employees: I think it's been made incredibly clear by the previous statements on the Democrats side that this is not about Blackwater. [...]What we're hearing today is in fact a repeat of the MoveOn.org attack on General Petraeus' patriotism. What we're seeing is that, except for the 79 members who voted against denouncing MoveOn.org, eight of whom are on the dais here today, what we're seeing is what they couldn't do to our men and women in uniform, they'll simply switch targets. The bodies were not cold in Iraq before this became a story worth going after here in committee. I'm not here to defend Blackwater. But I am here to defend General Petraeus and the men and women in uniform who do their job, who were first denounced by MoveOn.org, then not denounced by members of Congress, many of whom are on the dais today, speaking as though they don't support attacking every possible way the administration's war in Iraq. But that was then and this is now. And now, Democrat Barack Obama, not Republican George W. Bush, sits in the Oval Office. All of which means Darrell Issa is no longer here to defend General Petraeus, but to slander him. There is no loyalty in the Republican Party. These phonies who pretend to support the military will throw one of their heroes under the bus in a heartbeat.

Darrell Issa: "The president sent a letter to the President of Libya where he didn't call it a terrorist attack even when at the time the President of Libya was calling it pre-planned Sept. 11 terrorist attack," Issa told Fox News' Megyn Kelly. "The words that are being used carefully - like you just said, 'act of terror' - an 'act of terror' is different than a 'terrorist attack.'"During a visit to Washington Hospital Center on Sep. 13, 2001 just two days after the attacks on the World Trade Center President George W. Bush described the incident as an "unbelievable act of terror."So I guess that what we thought was a terrorist attack on 9/11 really wasn't, because Bush didn't call it that.

I have abandoned my Flying Monkeys thread due to the incessant rantings of a lunatic who has taken up residence there. So this will my new home.Just as I did in my other thread, I will use this thread kind of like a blog, to post about a variety of topics that interest me, and vent about them. Of course, as always, I also invite comments from other forum members.It's best to read this thread backwards, as the more recent stuff will be at the end. ******************************************************************************************** Ilyse Hogue is exactly right. Denying women access to safe and affordable abortion care will only drive the practice underground, and create more butchers like Kermit Gosnell. "incessant rantings of a lunatic" Then avoid the "Liberals Only" forum.

Did Someone Leak Doctored Benghazi Email?In a bizarre twist in the non-scandal known as Benghazi, it appears that someone doctored an email from Ben Rhodes to make it appear that he was more interested in protecting the State Department than telling the truth of what happened during the Benghazi attacks.Ben Rhodes is a hard target of the right wing over the whole Benghazi invention. A search on the terms CBS and Ben Rhodes shows page after page of efforts to smear Rhodes by making hay out of the fact that his brother is a top CBS executive.Rhodes is a target because of leaked emails reported by ABC and the Weekly Standard which seemed to indicate Rhodes was more interested in protecting the State Department than he was in telling the truth about what happened. This is why the right is so focused on the talking points now. They're sure they were filled with lies.It turns out the only real lie was one told by whoever leaked those emails. Jake Tapper has the story:In the email sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, at 9:34 p.m., obtained by CNN from a U.S. government source, Rhodes wrote:"All"Sorry to be late to this discussion. We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain from Congress and people who are not particularly informed. Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that don't compromise intel or the investigation, we need to have the capability to correct the record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened mis-impression."We can take this up tomorrow morning at deputies."What was reported:ABC News reported that Rhodes wrote: "We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don't want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting." The Weekly Standard reported that Rhodes "responded to the group, explaining that Nuland had raised valid concerns and advising that the issues would be resolved at a meeting of the National Security Council's Deputies Committee the following morning."Whoever provided those quotes and paraphrases did so inaccurately, seemingly inventing the notion that Rhodes wanted the concerns of the State Department specifically addressed. Nuland, particularly, had expressed a desire to remove mentions of specific terrorist groups and CIA warnings about the increasingly dangerous assignment. Rhodes put no emphasis at all in his email on the State Department's concerns.If we assume that ABC and the Weekly Standard were given paraphrases of the emails rather than the actual text, it would appear as though the leaker took great pains to alter the meaning and words Rhodes actually wrote in order to invent scandal where none existed.Gosh, who would do a thing like that?Hmmmmmm......Why, it's almost as if someone is trying to put forth a false narrative to make the administration look bad.Jake Tapper blows a hole in Benghazi ‘scandal’.

Symptoms of Benghazi Syndrome - Richard CohenThe American Psychiatric Associations latest handbook the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) is about to be published. It is the handbook of mental health, and if youre not in it, you are among the fortunate few. Even though the hour is late, I beseech the DSMs publishers to consider one additional entry, the seriousness of which will be apparent to anyone who watches Fox News: Benghazi Syndrome.Benghazi Syndrome is a grave malady of the noggin, the symptoms of which are a compulsion to grossly exaggerate matters and to compare almost anything to Watergate (see Watergate Syndrome, DSM-IV). Patient Zero in this regard is Sen. Lindsey Graham, a usually affable Republican from South Carolina who has suggested that the Benghazi episode warrants an investigation by a special congressional committee, just like Iran-contra and drum roll, please Watergate.Others have gone even further. Sen. James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma and a man who once suggested the Environmental Protective Agency has something in common with the Gestapo, called the Benghazi whatchamacallit the most egregious cover-up in American history and possibly an impeachable offense. These charges are so serious we can only conclude that laffaire Benghazi has the potential to bring down the Obama administration the proverbial thread that, if pulled, could unravel the entire garment. Such drama!So what is Benghazi? It is the place in Libya where the United States maintained two installations a consulate and a much larger CIA outpost. Both of these were attacked on Sept. 11, 2012, a date of some significance. The assaults, we all now know, were conducted by a jihadist group and were not as the Obama administration initially maintained a spur-of-the-moment thing precipitated by the airing of an anti-Muslim video. We also know that the administration either was unsure of the facts or simply didnt like them. So it knitted together the infamous talking points that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice repeated on all the Sunday talk shows. Aside from good morning, little of what she said was true.President Obama was then really Candidate Obama and he surely did not want the words terrorist attack uttered during the presidential campaign. In addition, the CIA and the State Department were in a cat fight and could not agree on the wording of the talking points or even, from a fair reading of their clashing e-mails, who the fanatical enemy was: al-Qaeda or members of Congress?In all this, its almost possible to forget that four Americans died in Benghazi. The event was a tragedy and it hardly matters, as then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton vociferously maintained, if the attack occurred spontaneously or was planned. Either way, it was a success for the terrorists and a debacle for the United States.It is good to find out how this happened whos responsible for the inadequate security, etc. and it is also good to hold the Obama administration accountable for putting out a misleading statement. But the record will show that a thorough report was, in fact, compiled. Its authors were Thomas Pickering, an esteemed retired diplomat, and Adm. Mike Mullen, an equally esteemed retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They found the standard mistakes and snafus but no crime.Watergate, though, was a crime. Iran-contra was a crime. Government officials were convicted and some of them went to jail. Fudging a press release is not a crime. Compromising on wording is not a crime. Making a decision even if wrong that there was no time to call in the cavalry is not a crime. And having inadequate security is not only not a crime but partly a consequence of congressional budget cuts.It is not a crime either to make a mountain out of a molehill, but this particular one is constructed of a fetid combination of bad taste and poisonous politics. Dig down a bit and it becomes clear that some many? Republicans suspect that Barack Obama and-or Hillary Clinton are capable of letting people die to cover up a terrorist attack. Either that, or this is what they want us to think.In the end, it all comes down to an irrational and absolutely rabid dislike of Obama that so clouds judgment that utterly preposterous statements are uttered, usually within the precincts of the Fox News studios. This, as you might have guessed, is classic Benghazi Syndrome. There is no known cure.One commenter on this article wrote the following:If Republicans are wondering why everyone's shrugging their shoulders at this month's "explosive" Benghazi revelations, they have only themselves to blame. Republicans have spent the last five years saying that every email, handshake, statement and speech is a scandal that will bring down the President. It's pretty hard not to dismiss Republican claims of a conspiracy out of hand after Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, the "apology tour," Obama "bowing" to foreign leaders, Obamaphones, etc., etc., etc.

Hmmmmmm......Why, it's almost as if someone is trying to put forth a false narrative to make the administration look bad.Jake Tapper blows a hole in Benghazi ‘scandal’. "False narrative." There were 12 revisions to the CIA's talking points, to the degree that Petraeus called them "useless." The Obama administration knew from the very first that an attack had taken place, and no mention was made by anyone at the scene about any demonstration. If Republicans are wondering why everyone's shrugging their shoulders at this month's "explosive" Benghazi revelations, they have only themselves to blame. Republicans have spent the last five years saying that every email, handshake, statement and speech is a scandal that will bring down the President. It's pretty hard not to dismiss Republican claims of a conspiracy out of hand after Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, the "apology tour," Obama "bowing" to foreign leaders, Obamaphones, etc., etc., etc. "Shrugging their shoulders?" Figures a liar like you would pretend there's nothing to Obama's corrupt association with Rezko. That he didn't make a virulently racist, anti-semitic, anti-American Marxist/Communist his spiritual adviser. That he wasn't friends and associates with an unrepentant terrorist bomber like Ayers. What's next, you're going to blame the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, moonbat?