US embassies in Egypt and Libya swarmed

I guess this as good a place as any to put this:

IMAGE(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/s480x480/552389_248955948566208_1771015167_n.jpg)

Nothing we didn't already know about him.

It wasn't just McCain who didn't show.

Apparently it was "Most of the Republican members of a Senate committee investigating the terrorist attack at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, skipped a classified briefing by administration officials on the incident Wednesday, CNN has learned."

If true this is the kind of stuff that pisses me off to no end. Don't complain about something if you're not going to show up to deal with it. Completely inexcusable.

They have already learned everything there is to know about the cicrumstances.. From FOX News.

IMAGE(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/62270_416013191803710_1275249748_n.jpg)

I heard an analyst on NPR the other day say that he felt Benghazi was going to become the centerpiece of Republican attacks on Obama for the foreseeable future as they felt this is his big weakness right now and they were going to hit him with everything they had as they're trying to get back to the basics of "Democrat = can't defend the US" versus "Republican = strong on defense".

It appears to be working as well since I've seen more than a few random Joes calling for Obama's impeachement and they always say "Benghazi" when asked for a reason why. I don't think a lot of people even understand what happened at the embassy, they just know it's bad. As my brother-in-law put it, Obama lied about what happened over there and that's the same as him spitting on the graves of fallen soldiers. A complex issue has once again been boiled down to "Obama hates the troops and doesn't listen to the military". It's an old line but it seems to still have some legs left.

Kehama wrote:

I heard an analyst on NPR the other day say that he felt Benghazi was going to become the centerpiece of Republican attacks on Obama for the foreseeable future as they felt this is his big weakness right now and they were going to hit him with everything they had as they're trying to get back to the basics of "Democrat = can't defend the US" versus "Republican = strong on defense".

It appears to be working as well since I've seen more than a few random Joes calling for Obama's impeachement and they always say "Benghazi" when asked for a reason why. I don't think a lot of people even understand what happened at the embassy, they just know it's bad. As my brother-in-law put it, Obama lied about what happened over there and that's the same as him spitting on the graves of fallen soldiers. A complex issue has once again been boiled down to "Obama hates the troops and doesn't listen to the military". It's an old line but it seems to still have some legs left.

I just find it predictably disheartening that they are attacking Susan Rice for "misleading" the country despite the fact that there were very good reasons to protect what we knew and how we knew it and yet the same folks screaming the loudest were perfectly willing to give a complete and total pass to Condoleeza Rice for outright lying to the nation for the cynical purpose of sending thousands of Americans to their deaths.

Sigh.

Paleocon wrote:
Kehama wrote:

I heard an analyst on NPR the other day say that he felt Benghazi was going to become the centerpiece of Republican attacks on Obama for the foreseeable future as they felt this is his big weakness right now and they were going to hit him with everything they had as they're trying to get back to the basics of "Democrat = can't defend the US" versus "Republican = strong on defense".

It appears to be working as well since I've seen more than a few random Joes calling for Obama's impeachement and they always say "Benghazi" when asked for a reason why. I don't think a lot of people even understand what happened at the embassy, they just know it's bad. As my brother-in-law put it, Obama lied about what happened over there and that's the same as him spitting on the graves of fallen soldiers. A complex issue has once again been boiled down to "Obama hates the troops and doesn't listen to the military". It's an old line but it seems to still have some legs left.

I just find it predictably disheartening that they are attacking Susan Rice for "misleading" the country despite the fact that there were very good reasons to protect what we knew and how we knew it and yet the same folks screaming the loudest were perfectly willing to give a complete and total pass to Condoleeza Rice for outright lying to the nation for the cynical purpose of sending thousands of Americans to their deaths.

Sigh.

This gambit only works if the Obama administration actually did something significantly wrong. If they didn't, or if somebody just made a tactical error, then this becomes Romney in the Libya debate again, an outsider playing politics with national security. Even Wiley Coyote ordered different products from ACME before they blew up in his face.

kazooka wrote:

This gambit only works if the Obama administration actually did something significantly wrong. If they didn't, or if somebody just made a tactical error, then this becomes Romney in the Libya debate again, an outsider playing politics with national security.

The same analyst on NPR also pointed out that numerous Republicans were still expressing their disappointment that Romney didn't hammer this point harder and that they felt it was one of the major reasons he lost. At the time wasn't Romney catching a lot of flack for trying to politicize the attack?

The news media already had sources saying it was an al Qaeda group behind the attack the very next day (Sep 12). This was long before the Republicans began their election facade of demanding answers. So I'm a little confused about how Republicans are somehow responsible for terrorists knowing we're eavesdropping on them.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

The news media already had sources saying it was an al Qaeda group behind the attack the very next day (Sep 12). This was long before the Republicans began their election facade of demanding answers. So I'm a little confused about how Republicans are somehow responsible for terrorists knowing we're eavesdropping on them.

My take away is that we now know a second group of insane people taking the Republicans seriously. I think it is because the two groups share the same stance on women's rights.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

The news media already had sources saying it was an al Qaeda group behind the attack the very next day (Sep 12). This was long before the Republicans began their election facade of demanding answers. So I'm a little confused about how Republicans are somehow responsible for terrorists knowing we're eavesdropping on them.

Because they were the idiots that held Congressional hearings for the sole purpose of scoring political points only to have their questioning reveal that the CIA has a massive presence in the Libyan consulate.

That an anonymous government source said it might have been al Qaeda the following day wasn't the issue. That could have come from anywhere or just been speculation since the attack happened on 9/11 and al Qaeda tends to like anniversaries. The issue was that House Republicans revealed a large CIA intelligence operation in an area in which the CIA never operated before.

OG_slinger wrote:

Because they were the idiots that held Congressional hearings for the sole purpose of scoring political points only to have their questioning reveal that the CIA has a massive presence in the Libyan consulate.

That an anonymous government source said it might have been al Qaeda the following day wasn't the issue. That could have come from anywhere or just been speculation since the attack happened on 9/11 and al Qaeda tends to like anniversaries. The issue was that House Republicans revealed a large CIA intelligence operation in an area in which the CIA never operated before.

But if Obama wasn't president, that leak would never have happened. Checkmate, liberals.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/07...

An Egyptian-American man behind the inflammatory film "Innocence of Muslims" on Wednesday was sentenced to one year in federal prison after admitting to violating the terms of his probation from a 2010 bank fraud case.

So this guy came up on Popehat yesterday:
http://www.popehat.com/2013/05/09/na...

It seems that in some circles, he's being called a political prisoner. IMAGE(http://rps.net/QS/Images/Smilies/confused-smiley-001.gif)