No stinkin' facts, indeed.

When in doubt, turn to Teh Classics, in this case, Treasure of the Sierra Madre.

Like Casablanca, where Fiction is stronger than Fact!

On the contrary, the far Right is intensely interested in information. Folks, you are missing the essential difference. Look at the Benghazi coverage in the Right wing Bubble. Viewers on the Right are marshalling a bewildering mountains of obscure data, facts and minutiae about what they view as an emerging Obama scandal that could bring down his presidency. What is distinguishing is not the consumption of facts and data, but their cognitive stance towards that information. The voters McCain is talking to are disinterested in empirical examination of facts that might lead to them having to modify their preconcieved notions. They are exclusively interested in confirmation of the idea that those they view as evil are doing evil things. They are interested in spectacular information that confirms their preconceptions. Adept politicians understand there can play this to their advantage. They did it with Clinton in his second term, and you can hamstring the President with independent investigations.

It didn't matter that the Whitewater investigation, the suspicious incidents and mysterious goings on with the death of aides, and finally the revelations about sex in the Oval office had no relationship to the very real challenges the country was faced with at the time. These "facts" delivered spectacle. National fixation on this spectacle immobilized the Clinton presidency. It was a devastating and effective strategy.

Benghazi is a Roman circus spectacle- a morality play between good and bad gladiators- Never mind that one of their own, the former hero of theirs Petraus will be slain for the sake of that spectacle. What McCain is interested in generating in his symbiotic relationship with the conservative entertainment complex. He delivers spectacle, the complex delivers a huge number of listeners for the Political hack, translating to votes. It doesn't matter that the Fox Newspeak about Benghazi is nonsense. It is a cudgel that McCain and other political masters on the Right can use against the President to influence public opinion.

There is nothing that says this same ecosystem of self reinforcing delusion could not grow up on the left. In this dystopic world, political lines would be divided between right wing populists with its right wing entertainment reality bubble versus left wing populists and their media bubble. The problem as Al Franken found out with his radio show, was that there was not a large number of listeners on the left who were would follow shows as do the loyal listeners of Limbaugh, Savage, or Ingraham. It doesn't matter why that is not so, there simply is a big market on the left for the kind of approach to politics and information that Fox and these radio shows sell. The most popular PBS and MSNBC draw only a fraction of that viewership. We flatter ourselves that those on the left are better educated at critical thinking, but the reality is that the differences in education levels between those who voted for Romney versus those who voted for Obama are statistically identical.

So we ought not succumb to our own tendencies to flatter and delude ourselves.

McCain is jacked into his entertainment media complex. The political theater is literally entertainment that pulls in audience share and generates advertisement revenue.

Orwell foresaw Newspeak in his book 1984, but not how it would arise as something that individual voters narcissistically wished to consume in large quantities in order to confirm their prejudices and preconceptions about the world. FoxSpeak is a lucrative product, and McCain and other Right wing politicians are the supply chain that deliver that confirmatory product.

McCain is still selling the idea that the President is feckless/ incompetent, and that we should still be in Iraq. That's the impaired an unbalanced view that many Americans struggle to fortify in the face of the assault of reality that tells them something quite different.

Ward and June peer out their windows at the gays and coloreds moving in on their street, the strange music and drugs that the Beaver brings home, and they are afraid. They rush to the television, talk radio and politicians like McCain to find someone like them who offers an explanation why everything is going to heck, and how to get things back on course.

The June and Ward Cleaver voters for Romney aren't interested in engaging or understanding the reality of what is going on outside their white picket fence RomneyWorld. They want to barricade themselves from it, and Fox, Limbaugh, Beck and McCain are only too happy to deliver them their Kool-Aid in multiple flavors and colors.

No fool like an old fool.

Wet-Start Johnny, once an incompetent bozo always an incompetent bozo. At least he's been consistent his whole life.

Maybe kid Russert could ask McCain if he should step aside and let some younger congresspeople have a turn.

Sad angry senile old man.

It was sad it was 4 people , But where was the concern about the 5000 dead Americans killed in Iraq for lies..not even mentioning the 100,000 Iraqis and the lives of everyone destroyed by the loss of loved ones .

They make me sick.

138,658 deaths.

... due to a war we started. Not one caused by aggression (or even the pretense of aggression) on us.

28,821–37,405** Iraqi and US-coalition combatants (including contractors and insurgents).

As of today, the documented civilian death figures are 109,837 - 120,011** There may be another 12,000 added soon from Wikileaks sources. (source)

The conservative number of documented deaths caused by our aggression on Iraq: 138,658. This figure approaches the high end of estimates of Saddam Husseins massacres.

The Right wing claims we planted the seed of democracy, yet most observers regard the Iraqi government as an authoritarian regime with institutions of a failed democracy- the most corrupt government in the Middle East. (eg Transparency International's 2012 report, and this Brown University report)

We call it a massacre when an egomaniac does it claiming he is protecting a vital national security interest. When US egomaniacs use the same language and achieve the same results, we shrug our shoulders that it is a sad cost of war or the consequences of electing a candidate from the "wrong" party. And then we quickly turn our attention to the sordid details of the most recent sex scandal.

.

- Notes -

**figure ranges given due to reliability of documentation. Low figure for highest confidence documentation, and higher figure including all credible documented deaths.

yep, that is my take. The current elections is bringing back up his big loss last time and he is raging at the first thing he can rage about.

It's amazing how easily Liberals take being lied to about the sodomizing and dragging through the streets of the Ambassador and three other Americans. And to criticize a war hero that is asking the PROPER question that the American people want to know about why they were intentionally lied to for the space of two weeks. You people are pretty much putrid for the attempt to give a free pass to a guy that sought to blame this tragedy on a YOUTUBE video.

For the love of all that's holy scott ... it's bad enough that 4 people died but to heap upon them your pathetic fantasy about sodomy et al is puerile and disgusting.

As for McCrankypants, did you not read the part where he COULD HAVE had his "proper" questions answered if he'd effing bothered to do his JOB and attend the briefing? Or did you just choose to not understand?

@Scott - do you give McCain a pass for preening before the cameras instead of actually doing some work and attending a lengthy briefing on Benghazi?

When? When BHO lied to the American people for two weeks with some kind of BS story about a "Anti Muslim" video? WHERE does this guy get the nerve to try and blame a VIDEO when he KNEW full well the Embassy had been BEGGING for added security...yet he CHOSE to lay the attack on America's doorstep? Impeachment is too good for this dirtbag.

@Scott -- your "facts" are straight out of the right-wing echo chamber that delights in playing for fools those who would rather not engage their critical thinking skills. Your misguided hysteria all over this forum is getting tired. And I note you didn't answer my question.

You do understand that the embassy that was asking for more security (it wasn't, btw--it was asking for a special security team not to be rotated out) is in Tripoli, hundreds of miles away from Benghazi, where this happened, right? And that, had that request been granted, the "added" security people would have been in Tripoli, not Benghazi, where this happened, right?

And I guess you were too overwhelmed by the emotional power of your Two Hours Hate session at Fox to hear the part where the CIA says, yes, the best information available to them is that the outrage over film did, in fact, play a role.

I was really hoping that waking up on Wednesday and finding out you'd been lied to about Romney's inevitable victory would cause at least a few of you to stop and wonder about what other things the people who tell you what to think had been lying about. Silly me.

Sooo..I should be led to believe rocket propelled grenades were brought to a protest?Just as the escape route that the Embassy staff were led down was already known and under attack in a spontaneous protest? You HAVE to be kidding.

Scott, simple question. Where is your proof that the American people were lied to?

How is it that no matter what the incident, conservative posters manage to gain so much more insight and knowledge than anyone else, and then come here to lecture "libs", lectures which pretty much boil down to pre-convicting a president they don't like, and to do it all shamelessly without the usual inconvenience of providing evidence of any kind.

Go pee on the fire hydrants somewhere else, little Scotty. Mommy wants her computer back.

No. What you're being asked to believe is that a bunch of militants in Benghazi, who were heavily armed because, turns out they just had a civil war there, heard about the film, and about the protests in Egypt about the film, and decided to go blow the hell out of the U.S. consulate. In the process, a crowd gathered and then the crowd either got the hell off the streets when the attacks started or hung around and waited to loot.

That's what the evidence shows happened. That's what the CIA says, and what the Administration says, it thinks happened based upon the CIA's analysis of all the evidence that has sifted in in the days since the attack. And, remarkably, it's pretty consistent with what they first said they thought had happened, including what Susan Rice actually said (as opposed to the imaginary things you folks in the fever swamp have imagined she said) on the Sunday shows the following weekend.

Santa Clause should be really good to Liberals who believe THAT this year...*LOL*

Well, at least he didn't cite Fox as part of his evidence chain.

Tyical scotty answer. No answer. Has never answered a question. Has never presentated a fact. He's here to spread jis lies, hate and racism. That's all he's done for the last year. He has not presented one fact on over 100 comments.

Stick your fingers in your ears and hum...that way the truth won't reach YOU.

Scott. What truth? You haven't posted one word of truth. You have never answered one question. If you have all this truuth and and can give sources, why not answer questions? You have been posting for a long time and have done nothing but spread lies, hate, racism and shown your ignorance. You've been ask 2 questions on this thread and still can't answer them. Where is all this ptoof, truth you speak of? You don't have any that's where.

Yeah; Issa found nothing on Solyndra, fast and furious, and now they are chasing Libya. McCain is probably just mad because he can't find anything wrong with the president; McCain denied this morning that he had a personal vendetta, and just keeps repeating "four dead in Libya" over and over........ John is looking more sad and pathetic every day.

Nothing was found on fast and furious? Is THAT why the President HID evidence to protect the incompetent Holder as well as his own A**? What nerve....

Can we stay on topic with McCain / Libya?

His (BHO) past deceptions to the American people are directly related to the current lies.

No, the current lies are coming from McCain. Stay on topic.

Where did McCain lie? It was proven the President lied about SEVERAL issues regarding this attack and THEN sent out Rice to perpetuate the lie....

@Scott - proven where? Proven how? Please share with us the "news" sources you're getting your info from.

Little Scotty gets his "information" from the same place his presidential candidate got his. If you're willing to touch something that came from there, well, that proves you're a wingnut.

He KNEW the repeated requests for security from an Ambassador that felt under threat...He KNEW this was not a "spontaneous" protest turned violent from the rocket propelled grenades used as well as the evacuation route used by the Embassy staff that was known to the attackers that should NOT have been...an easy determination for anyone with ANY Military background. And a simple "no comment" COULD have sufficed until "he knew the facts" but instead engaged in a lie that pinned the blame on an American citizen.

I wasted .45 seconds of my life asking Scott for proof...let us all learn from my mistakes. [humbly hangs head]

Waste yet more defending this guy....

Now your talking! It seems we are not the only ones fed up with GOP utter nonsense, it looks like our Obama is fired up & ready to go! These two Sundaty morning regulars about to get Baraked.

I am truly not trying to be snarky. While I am sure that some of McCain's issues relate to jealousy that Obama not only beat him in 2008 and just now won re-election, re-opening that wound, I seriously think he is showing signs of Alzheimer's. He has lucid moments, and follows them with WTF moments. He really needs to undergo some professional evaluation.

Again...to seek the TRUTH about a Ambassador that begged REPEATEDLY for more security and was later killed shows how far Liberals will go to try and protect this President that has made a career out of suing States, hiding documents and destroying American business.

2007
Jan. 12, Athens, Greece: the U.S. embassy is fired on by an anti-tank missile causing damage but no injuries.
Dec. 11, Algeria: more than 60 people are killed, including 11 United Nations staff members, when Al Qaeda terrorists detonate two car bombs near Algeria's Constitutional Council and the United Nations offices.
2008
May 26, Iraq: a suicide bomber on a motorcycle kills six U.S. soldiers and wounds 18 others in Tarmiya.
Sept. 16, Yemen: a car bomb and a rocket strike the U.S. embassy in Yemen as staff arrived to work, killing 16 people, including 4 civilians. At least 25 suspected al-Qaeda militants are arrested for the attack.
The list goes on, but you get the idea. Don't remember hearing the outrage at these attacks.

The difference? The President KNEW the Embassy had been under siege. And the thread running through the other incidents? NOBODY LIED ABOUT THEM.

Scott you stated Sen. McCain is a hero, but making comments about Ms. Susan Rice intellegince was cowardly, since he did not know all the facts. If he was really interested in learning the truth he would have attended this hearing.

McCain is a "hero" Scotty for being a moron like you: only an idiot turns around and flies back over the target he just bombed.

I suppose he was also "heroic" when his "joke" - the one that gave him the nickname "Wet Start Johnny" - killed 177 of his fellow sailors and put a major American aircraft carrier out of action at the height of the war? He must have been a "hero" for the Navy to decide not to promote him past Lieutenant Commander due to his history of incompetence. The only way he made a "career" was as a POW after he was stupid enough to get himself shot down.

But that makes him just as big a fool as you, so no wonder a loser like you loves a loser like him.

How many Americans were "That stupid"? You are a D-bag for denigrating a guy that was offered a prisoner swap due to his Father being a commander,turned it down and spent 5 more years in captivity.

Taken from an article - link below:

After being periodically slapped around for "three or four days" by his captors who wanted military information from him, McCain called for an officer on his fourth day of captivity. He told the officer, "O.K., I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital." -U.S. News and World Report, May 14, 1973 article written by former POW John McCain

McCain was taken to Gai Lam military hospital normally unavailable to American POWS. (U.S. government documents)

"Demands for military information were accompanied by threats to terminate my medical treatment if I [McCain] did not cooperate. Eventually, I gave them my ship's name and squadron number, and confirmed that my target had been the power plant." Page 193-194, Faith of My Fathers by John McCain.

Nov. 9, 1967 (U.S. government documents) Hanoi press began quoting him giving specific military information.

One report dated read, "To a question of the correspondent, McCain answered: 'My assignment to the Oriskany, I told myself, was due to serious losses in pilots, which were sustained by this aircraft carrier (due to its raids on the North Vietnam territory - VNA) and which necessitated replacements. From 10 to 12 pilots were transferred like me from the Forrestal to the Oriskany. Before I was shot down, we had made several
sorties. Altogether, I made about 23 flights over North Vietnam.'"

In that report, McCain was quoted describing the number of aircraft in his flight, information about rescue ships, and the order of which his attack was supposed to take place.

Two Former POWs Say They Doubt McCain Was Physically Abused

1999 - March 25, 1999, The Phoenix New Times: Ted Guy and Gordon "Swede" Larson, two former POWs, who were McCain's senior ranking officers (SRO's), at the time McCain says he was tortured in solitary confinement, told the New Times that while they could not guarantee that McCain was not physically harmed, they doubted it.

"Between the two of us, it's our belief, and to the best of our knowledge, that no prisoner was beaten or harmed physically in that camp [known as "The Plantation"]," Larson says. ". . . My only contention with the McCain deal is that while he was at The Plantation, to the best of my knowledge and Ted's knowledge, he was not physically abused in any way. No one was in that camp. It was the camp that people were released from."

In 1993, during one of his many trips back to Hanoi, McCain asked the Vietnamese not to make public the records they hold pertaining to returned U.S. POWs.

http://www.usvetdsp.com/mcianhro.htm

Having not been in McCain's shoes I can not attest to any of these reports. I would note however that he did serve. Bush,no- Mitt,no- Rush,no....

I fail to see how one can judge from a distance in time and place. I also fail to see how his military record in those years can either villify or glorify his present position on policy.

That said I also found it hard to excuse his support of torture after he was subjected to torture himself(if he was or not is relevant in this one matter).

Paul I was just responding to Scott because he is defending McCain's current actions because he states he is a "hero". I was not there when he was a POW, I do not know from first hand knowledge. The purpose was just showing that there are always other sides that have to be heard before any judgement is made and McCain more than anyone should know that.

We all do it. But is that not just seeking the lowest common denominator? Why do we allow ourselves to roll in the mud with pigs? Answer -because it's fun!

Don't know if anyone will read this but, all members of the U.S. military, since Eisenhower was President, have been instructed, if captured, to not consider providing information to the enemy rather than being tortured as "treason" or a failing in some way on their part. Volunteering information is another thing entirely. At any rate, that's what we were instructed when I served from1975-95 and I doubt it's changed since.

What I hold against McCain is that, having suffered what he did, he was avid to risk countless numbers of his fellow citizens running the risk of going through what he had. To me, that was disgusting.

Oh, and Scott is pathetic and ranks right up there with that nut from "Dr. Strangelove" and his fears about "precious bodily fluids".

Except the General wasn't as funny...

Dr Strangelove great movie. Brig Gen Jack D. Ripper (Sterling Hayden) I got to say he reminds me of Allen West.

I don't think Weeman would approve.

The only thing Lindsey is posturing for is RuPaul's Drag Race.

omg what an awful thought!!

Would that make him Queen of De-Nial?

Amazing..wanting to find the truth about why this President Lied about the death of 4 Americans.....Liberals can be such D-bags.

Scott w/bazillion numbers - you are confusing the issues!

Are you daft?

Everyone is behind the need to investigate the circumstances behind the consulate attack and the tragic deaths of our service people, but McCain and Graham are belittling their institution by their canard against Ambassador Rice!

Don't be tagging my post if you don't understand it next time! -Kevo

Hardly...Rice went to the UN KNOWING the whole time that the "video" was nothing but a sham story and yet STILL went to the UN and blamed the attack on an American citizen and <the posting of a video>

Wow, Scott w/bazillion - you know more about the circumstances than the Senators who got a classified briefing this morning! Wow you seem to know more than those with security clearances. Wow, you must watch Murdochland FOXNEWS! Wow, you are daft! -Kevo

False outrage is a dishonor to the memories of these heroes that died; this is not watergate or iran/contra. How many soldiers were we supposed to have at the consulate? Would one hundred have been able to stop what happened? Why didn't the Libyan government protect us better, which was their responsibility? Would we have killed hundreds of Libyans on camera? Why did the republicants cut the diplomatic security budget? Yes, let's have the truth, but please cut the false outrage over something where you don't have the facts.

Look at what the wingnuts did to that poor father of one of the ex-Seal CIA Agents. They filled him up with lies about supposedly not sending in reinforcements, when the fact is that resources were not available and that you don't send in bombers to countries you are not at war with. When you are CIA, you know these facts. When you are in Congress, you know these facts. Shame on the liars who have the gall to try to make hay out of dead Americans...

Being as they KNEW an attack was planned....MAYBE they could have reinforced the consulate.This guy has been the least honorable C-I-C since perhaps his clone Jimmuh Carter.

Scott: Does the CIA routinely "reinforce" their outposts? Kind of hard to keep it secret when you build moats and guard towers, huh. Does the CIA routinely look to the POTUS to make field decisions about resources? You wingnuts need to decide which completely fact-free accusation you are making, either the POTUS is incompetant or Manchurian... which one...

In a country that still has openly hostile factions and a fledgling Government...and where the Ambassador had sent REPEATED requests for added security HOW was there not enough security to begin with? And so POTUS decides OUT OF HAND to lie to the American people ESPECIALLY with a story blaming the attacks ON an American citizen when he OBVIOUSLY knew different?.

@Scott -- Why don't you ask Paul Ryan and the Tea Party House why they cut the State Dept. budget by $300M? If you really want to know 'why', start looking in your own backyard:

"....Issa seems unaware of the irony that diplomatic security is inadequate partly because of budget cuts forced by his fellow Republicans in Congress.

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department's Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration's request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans' proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" — a charge Republicans rejected.

Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions."

I look forward to an equal expression of outrage from you about the above facts.

spare me the BS...as IF you do not have proper security in a war torn country that has a fledgling Government that has NO security to provide for the Embassy in a proper fashion....And with the American Military under his command...Is he THAT inept that he could not delegate military in a war zone?

Provide any evidence that The Innocence of Muslims played no role in this situation

Provide any evidence that the requests made were for more security in Benghazi from US personnel and not from the local government

Provide any evidence that there was pre-existent knowledge that the attack was going to happen

Provide any evidence that had more security been present the attack would have been thwarted

that has NO security to provide for the Embassy in a proper fashion

This was not an embassy that was attacked, do you understand that? The US can, at any time in any country, send in more marines or other military personnel to protect a US embassy because it is considered sovereign US territory. This was a building hosted by the Libyan government- meaning that it was on Libyan territory. You cannot, without declaring war, send troops into another country without the host country's permission. It is illegal. Libya has not been considered a "war zone" for US ground troops since 3 months after the bombing began. You do understand how crucial these differences are, yes?

Gee...tough decision...protect American personnel...or Not. Only for a Liberal,perhaps.

So let me get this straight. You would have preferred that the US government break international law without concern to what precedent that would set for future wars, break international treaties and agreements we have, have our actions be considered borderline crimes against humanity, and spark a third trillion dollar counter-insurgency war that would cost hundreds of thousands of lives in terms of injuries and death (including US lives), all so that we could knee-jerk respond to what we thought at the time was probably a civilian protest taking place? Has it ever occurred to you what would have happened if these had been civilians who were protesting and we had responded with special forces?

Still waiting for you to back up your claims with evidence.

Scott, Just like how Pres. Reagan let the Marines in Beirut protect themselves? Did you ever look into that situation? Feel outrage knowing that they had to ask for permision to shoot back? What good is a Mag full ammo that Isn't loaded in your Wpn? I hope you had as much outrage then as you do now. Are these 4 American's any different than the ones killed on 9/11, What about that Intel.? Outrage??

Scott did you feel the same after the following or does your hatred only apply to Democrats. We all agree that we need to know what happened, but for very different reasons. We want to know so we can find where we made mistakes, were and are our policies flawed, do we need to institute different policies. You and McCain and other Republicans just want to blame the President directly for the tragic deaths of 4 Americans. Did you blame Bush and Republicans for the following deaths?

(Thank you sic-n-effin-tired for the embassy data)

Bush Administration had a few security issues: 2002: U.S. Consulate In Karachi, Pakistan, Attacked; 10 Killed, 51 Injured 2004: U.S. Embassy Bombed In Uzbekistan 2004: Gunmen Stormed U.S. Consulate In Saudi Arabia. 2006: Armed Men Attacked U.S. Embassy In Syria 2007: Grenade Launched Into U.S. Embassy In Athens 2008: Ten People Killed In Bombings At U.S. Embassy In Yemen 2008: Rioters Set Fire To U.S. Embassy In Serbiahttp://mediamatters.org/research/2012/09/14/krauthammer-whitewashes-bushs-history-to-bash-o/189890

‘He Kept Us Safe’: Bush Ignored Repeated Warnings Of Terrorist AttackSeptember 11th, 2012 12:52 am Joe Conason “New documents uncovered by investigative journalist Kurt Eichenwald show that despite repeated, urgent warnings from intelligence officials about an impending Al Qaeda attack, Bush did nothing because his neoconservative advisers told him that the threats were merely a “ruse” and a distraction.” http://www.nationalmemo.com/he-kept-us-safe-bush-ignored-repeated-warnings-of-terrorist-attack/2/

Oh, it's definitely time for McCain to retire (and Graham, too). It's the best service he could give the country.

As if Scott Brown could beat Leval Patrick?

Kerry is already heading to SecDef so his seat would already be open regardless of the Rice/SoS outcome.

I'm not positive McCain / Graham could be that Machiavellian. But then again, he's an unrepentant Republican politician.....

They can also "swiftboat" Kerry if he's nominated, and bring up all the wonderful wingnut wackiness of 2004, their last good year.

I think you need to go read the actual history of John McCain (I posted it yesterday on the McCain thread). He has NEVER been other than the incompetent idiot he is, since birth. Depended on his father's and grandfather's reputations during his Navy career and even that wasn't enough to keep the Navy from wanting to give him the boot for incompetence till his incompetence got him shot down and put on the "POW promotion track," the only way he could make it. The only job he ever did well in the Navy was pimp to Congressmen who would vote for toys the Navy wanted.

Talking smack to reporters in a bus and giving them donuts with sprinkles does not make a man "great," other than in the eyes of idiots.

Scott -- your last reply tells me all I need to know. Your allergy to facts is like that of McCain and Graham -- you'd rather revel in false indignation than gain an understanding of the truth. And not for nothing, Pres. Obama took out more of Al Qaeda in one term than did Bush in two. So your railing against the President seems especially disconnected from reality.

that would be Collins all by herself

Debacle? Freed from a dictator? You are unbelievably ignorant as are most Liberals when it comes to Military matters as seen by BHO leaving Afghanistan with an obvious "L" pinned to his big ears. And this President is not fit to Hold Mccain's jockstrap.

Yes , ol Rummy ran that war efficient and sound , that is why he was fired .. But not until after Bush was re elected of course , we have to put politics in front of the troops on the ground being killed after all

So, How did BHO's "surge" work out? And then to advertise to your enemy WHEN you are leaving...The ignorance displayed by this Administration is epic.

And then to advertise to your enemy WHEN you are leaving

Yup cause the enemy totally won't know when you're leaving they're backyard.

How did BHO's "surge" work out

According to his military leadership it did what it was intended to do. What are you even talking about here?

The "L" another liberal is putting on the US military,genius.

As a veteran with some experience of how the military functions, may I ask - what the FSM are you gabbling about?

Or do you have to post a set number of entries to qualify for your bonus?

How about telling the failure in Chief NOT to lie to the American people and then blame them for the attack all the while he KNEW the Embassy had been under duress for MONTHS. Anything to cover for this failure. Lemmings...the lot of you.

He graduated at the bottom of his class. I would guess there's a lot he didn't learn.

So..the performance of this Failure-in-chief gives you leeway to criticize an American war hero for trying to force the truth out of him?

Scotty, your "hero" is a perfect example of an idiot getting by on the achievements of his ancestors, in this case his father and grandfather. He graduated at the bottom of his class, yet managed an assignment to Naval Aviation (which is supposedly limited to the top 20%), then managed to demonstrate incompetence in every assignment he got, blacking out southern Spain by pulling down a main transmission wire when "flat hatting" in 1961, killing 177 of his fellow sailors and putting the USS Forrestal out of action for 18 months at the height of the war in 1967, and the final incompetence, getting himself shot down in November 1967. He only got promoted past LCDR because he was on the "POW fast track list", and when he got out and was given the assignment of a Captain, he failed at it. The only job he ever did well for the Navy was when he was assigned as a pimp for Congressmen, to get their votes for the toys the Navy wanted.

But you keep on believing the wingnut mythology, you pathetic LOSER.

Again the embassy in Libya was never attacked. Do you understand the difference here?

Hey..I know...let's mince words in the fashion of what "was" was...Compound,outpost..screw your jousting with verbiage.

.....that's about the stupidest rebuttal you could've came up with. An embassy is NOT the same as a consulate. This isn't a semantics game: it's not you call it an embassy, I call it a consulate. They are entirely TWO DIFFERENT things that serve two fundamentally different purposes that have entirely two different sets of laws that apply to them. Your ignorance on this matter is just shocking.

I'm certain...just as defending Americans put their by their own Government seems to have been beyond this Administration even after REPEATED warnings. And then to COMPOUND the problem by deceiving the American people...to what end?

Your ignorance on this matter is just shocking

And yet, not at all surprising.

Just out of curiosity, Scott: are you actually capable of quoting a fact that is backed up by evidence? An official transcript of one of these lies you keep talking about, a video clip of Susan Rice or the president telling a lie? And you actually identifying what the lie is, backed up by another source which you clearly identify, and is verifiable by someone outside your own head?

I try to keep an open mind, and while I am an unabashed progressive who voted for Obama (twice), I don't have any illusions that he's free from defect. But here's the thing: I also try to base my opinions on verifiable evidence.

Can you make one posting that

1) Contains a verifiable fact?

2) Doesn't resort to ad hominem attacks?

We know you don't like the president. We know you think he lied about Benghazi. Where's your evidence? Present me with facts and I'll listen. But if all you're going to do all day every day is just spout the same reality-divorced rhetoric, then it's not possible to take you seriously.

My assumption is that you will not respond to this, or if you do it will be with another fact-free reiteration of the things you've already said a thousand times. This is me suspending my opinion on the kind of person you are and reaching out with no animosity to have a rational conversation with someone far from my own political viewpoint.

Prove me wrong, dude. Show me that you can engage in rational debate. Show us all that you're a man and not a boy. I give you my solemn word that I will respond in kind. Wouldn't it be cool to actually understand where someone else is coming from? Wouldn't it strengthen your own beliefs if you're able to subject them to scrutiny and still win the argument? Think of the bragging rights you'll earn for taking down a smarty-pants liberal at his own game! Be a man.

Gee Meg...I hate that being interned and beaten as a POW doesn't "work for you". And No, The President receives these briefings and NOT John Boehner...Duh.

It seems the Libyans told the TRUTH while Obama told a unmitigated lie...KNOWING an attack was being planned on the compound. Liberals will spit on war heroes to protect the a guy that was shown to be KNOWINGLY deceiving the American people.

bflynch, GWB said it for the Republicans as a whole: "I don't do nuance" and "you're either with us or against us". They live in an either-or world and seem incapable of recognizing that events can be multidetermined or that solutions can be a mixture of approaches. Ambassador Rice's comments are filtered through their all-or-nothing, black-or-white cognitive lenses with the resulting distortion that fuels their outrage.

Again..they held an AMERICAN Citizen under severe scrutiny all the while they KNEW he held no role in as they carried on this charade. So stow that crap.

You're getting really pathetic, little boy. But thanks ever so much for demonstrating how low one has to fail the IQ test to be one of you.

I'd tell you to go to he**...But apparently, you live there.

This is outrageous for a President to blame an American citizen for an attack he KNEW to be pre -planned and carry this charade on for TWO WEEKS.

Notice how scott-3860658 isn't on any other threads today.

Wrong....

People can view your comment history, Scott. Every comment that you've posted today is right here on this thread.

See:

http://scott813.newsvine.com/_more/users/comments

Bring back the smart trolls.

so is it not apparent this was NOT the only thread I was on today? Remove your head from your third point of contact.

You have not a clue. When you can bring SUBSTANTIVE evidence forward...chirp away, and I would support it. Until you do have the evidence as is on the table now...know your role and shut your mouth.

What war crimes Kim? If your referring to Iraq, that was authorized by Congress, including Joe Biden.

Nobody acknowledges that the current administration put boots on the ground in Libya without authorization of the congress.

The only time we put boots on the ground in Libya was to retrieve a downed F18 pilot whose plane had crashed. Such a retrieval is authorized under our war powers agreement. Other than that no ground troops were put into Libya. Now we did send in security force trainers and civilian personnel to work with the Libyan rebels, but those people were sent in through the State Department and did not need congressional pre-approval to be sent in.

Just like Reagan was "real concerned" about putting a missile in Ghaddafi's tent...you so funny....

What the hell are you even responding to?

You have not a clue. When you can bring SUBSTANTIVE evidence forward...chirp away, and I would support it. Until you do have the evidence as is on the table now...know your role and shut your mouth.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaa...

Exactly what, besides your opinion, have you shown here as evidence for your claims?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha............omg.