Hillary Leaves Goops In The Dust At Benghazi Hearings

Hillary holds her own at the Benghazi hearings. She left the GOOps looking like frustrated lap dogs.

Maybe now, after Hillary outlasting the hound dog Goopers - with grace, class and assurance - these  misfit mutts will leave her alone. If the House "Select" Banghazi Committee was hoping to score any points off Hillary they failed miserably. The front running Dem candidate faced them with courage and moments of humor that ultimately had them looking like snarling junkyard dogs desperate for a bone.

But a bone they didn't get, only a boning.

In truth, one could say Hillary prevailed at this GOP circus without saying a word. Her mere  body language conveyed the futility of these gathered imps (the Dem faction excepted) and their obvious political witch hunt. Only a hardline, hardcore GOP -er would indeed see any benefit on their side. As a salon.com piece noted::

"The fact that Hillary Clinton is often more effective when she’s cornered, and that she seems to have retained some of the poise and focus she demonstrated at the Democratic debates, pushes this even more into her column."

Here are the contrasts boiled down to the basics:

Clinton: Poised, knowledgeable, contrite, humble, clear.

Republicans: Small, petty, uninterested, disjointed, prepossessed.

Especially, the loser Trey Gowdy - presiding over the hearings, who looked more like a lost dog catcher from Dogpatch, SC than a serious inquisitor or hearings chair. His whiny, nasal redneck twang even gave him away as perhaps better fitted for chasing runaway hounds - or collecting their poop- than presiding over a serious committee. (Especially after Elijah Cummings, D- MD, got done raking him and his fellow GOOPr hoaksters over the coals!)

The real question is why this farce is still going on after already wasting $5 million of taxpayer money.

The idiot Reepos kept pressing Hillary for 'why' it happened but that's already been asked and answered.  Nearly two years ago.

In the wake of that violent 2012 incident,  the idiot media (most of them) hyped the Al Qaeda connection as assorted Repukes - especially Mittster Romney- screamed and pounded for justice. A question on possible 9/11  Benghazi connections to Al Qaeda was actually asked during the 2nd Presidential debate by Candy Crowley. Almost every Repuke and lax media nabob - to a man -asserted that saying a vile, vicious anti-Muslim video was responsible "amounted to foolishness". They insisted it was Al Qaeda, thereby providing their presumptive 9/11 analogy and confirmation bias.

Thanks to a New York Times investigative piece ('Deadly Mix In Benghazi, False Allies, Rude Video', December 29, 2013) we now know that the same American-made anti-Islamic video WAS responsible, and incited anti-American rage but it wasn't Al Qaeda involved. Rather, it was one of the militias with which the U.S. had made common cause to oust Libyan dictator Muammar el-Qaddafi.  In retrospect, this also shows the wisdom of the U.S. not compounding previous errors by making an alliance with the Syrian rebels to take down Assad, see e.g.  http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/09/if-youre-agaist-radical-jihadists-you.html

As the NY Times piece stated:

"Months of investigation centered on extensive  interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.

The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO's extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in part by anger at an American -made video denigrating Islam."

The piece went on to delve into the basis in much more detail while also noting the (usually) garrulous Darryl Issa (then committee chair)  "had no comment" and that the incident "shows the risks of expecting American aid in a time of desperation to buy durable loyalty and the difficulty of discerning friends from allies in convenience in a culture shaped by decades of anti-American sentiment."

This provides the cautionary lesson for the U.S. not to meddle in Middle East affairs or states - whether by indirect interjection (via NATO air attacks and supplying rebels, as in Libya) or direct, as was contemplated two years ago when the thought of using Syrian rebels to attack Hafez Assad was bruited in tandem with a cruise missile assault.  It also provides another domestic political lesson, of ignoring political grandstanding by known demagogues such as Darryl Issa, Peter King (R, NY), Lindsey Graham, and their assorted clones - like Trey 'Hay' Gowdy.

Btw, as far as "protection" at embassies,  let's remind ourselves it was the GOP that repeatedly cut the budget - not just for the Embassy in Benghazi, but around the world.

Meanwhile, look for reality to remain the casualty with this Benghazi witch hunt and the pukes to have no problem squandering tens of millions  more of your tax dollars on  a lengthy investigation that will go nowhere. Given it's all about politics, in this case trying to diminish Hillary's  presidential election chances.

But according to a recent poll, 53% of Americans want no more part of it. The GOOPs best pay attention or pay the price next year.

Benghazi Derangement Syndrome Strikes Again!

This question must be asked: Is there some Benghazi bot embedded in Republican brains that recycles every few months, triggering a monstrous electrical cascade in their amygdalas,  inducing screams of "BENGHAZI!!"    This occurred to me after the news came out yesterday that Darryl Issa plans to form a "special select committee" to further investigate....Benghazi!

According to one Issa tweet released yesterday, likely after the Benghazi bot seized control of his brain:

Today I announced a subpoena requiring Secretary Kerry to testify at a public @GOPoversight hearing on May 21. #Benghazi

Then later in the day, we were treated on the CBS Evening news to a South Carolina imp named Gomer Gowdy, yelping that the truth will out! Yessiree! "We will get to the bottom of Benghazi!" 

Issa’s subpoena is in response to the revelation of new emails sent by Obama administration officials in the hours following the attack in 2012. This, development is described by goofy Republicans as a “smoking gun” that proves the White House was misleading in its description of the causes of incident that led to four American deaths. The emails referred to 'talking points' for Susan Rice and implicated a vile video that was released days earlier, as being the real trigger.

During several cycles of "Benghazi madness" likely induced by the bots, the GOOPrs went ape shit and demanded answers. Well they finally arrived at the end of December last year when The New York Times released the results of its own extensive investigation. The Times report ('Deadly Mix In Benghazi, False Allies, Rude Video', December 29) based on multiple reliable sources, concluded the video WAS responsible, and incited anti-American rage but it wasn't Al Qaeda involved.

Rather, it was one of the militias with which the U.S. had made common cause to oust Libyan dictator Muammar el-Qaddafi.  In retrospect, this also shows the wisdom of the U.S. not compounding previous errors by making alliances with the Syrian rebels to take down Assad, see e.g.  http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/09/if-youre-agaist-radical-jihadists-you.html  I would also add that it discloses the wisdom of not making alliances with fascists and nationalists in the Ukraine - though it looks like that cow has already escaped the barn.

Anyway, as the Times piece stated:

"Months of investigation centered on extensive  interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.

The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefitted directly from NATO's extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in part by anger at an American -made video denigrating Islam."

The piece went on to delve into the basis in much more detail while also noting the (usually) garrulous Issa "had no comment" and that the incident "shows the risks of expecting American aid in a time of desperation to buy durable loyalty and the difficulty of discerning friends from allies in convenience in a culture shaped by decades of anti-American sentiment."

Meanwhile, in the wake of the report, Benghazi bots evidently triggered rage in the brain of Peter King (R- NY) who flipped out at the NY Times editorial board,  calling them "apologists for terrorists".    It didn't matter that an exhaustive investigation had proven the video was responsible, /something I already concluded in an earlier (Sept. 14, 2012)  blog post ('Getting a Grip on Reality - The Fake Film And Muslim Outrage') Therein I noted:

"Now, as 11 Muslim nations – from the Sudan, to Egypt to Yemen, Pakistan, Iran and Indonesia go up in flames and riots, and 4 Americans have been left dead in Libya (Btw, NO Marines! There were two former Navy Seals killed and a civilian USAID worker apart from Ambassador Stevens). Questions are being asked as to: Who started it?, and What was this film? – what was the nature of it?

Some deluded nabobs have posed the issue as “free speech”, and that the film maker – who until recently remained hidden – had the right to portray what he wanted, without fear of distant uprisings, bloodshed or reprisals. But that specious speech cover does not apply to a film 'maker' who lies about his identity and especially the film title itself (in misrepresenting it and the film's featured characters to the actors), as well as the origins of the financial backers.

In the wake of the investigation by Brian Ross of ABC News, e.g.http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/anti-islam-film-producer-guilty-drug-fraud-charges-17231542

we now know this "movie" and its dubious maker were the ones that triggered Benghazi.

Did the Repukes ever accept this? No, they did not. They didn't accept it for the same reason most of them don't accept human caused global warming. Facts and reality are too painful for them, so they have to invent their own reasons.

With reality the casualty on Benghazi too, look for these goofballs to have no problem squandering tens of millions of your tax dollars on  a lengthy investigation that will go nowhere. Given it's all about politics, in this case trying to diminish Hillary's chances, they will likely stretch it all out until 2016.

Do the Repukes ever feel any shame regarding their insane actions and costly paranoia, as on Benghazi? How can they when bots are running their brains? Let us also recall Einstein's famous words defining insanity:

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."

See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-johnson/55721/benghazi-wtf

Impeachment: The Worst Mistake the GOP Could Ever Make

Condi Rice: Wasn’t held to account, nor was Bush Jr. impeached, when it was discovered there were no WMD in Iraq and she had “misrepresented” Saddam’s link to al Qaeda. Susan Rice, therefore, is even less to blame given she wasn’t even at State during the Benghazi incident but the UN Ambassador, merely relaying the info she had at the time. Reeps need to lay off Susan and Obama, and drop their feverish impeachment bullshit.

As "the Benghazi brain fever" seems to have infected the Beltway and particularly found a life of its own in the Reeper -led House (aided and abetted by an always distracted corporate media hungry for conflicts), the I-word has indeed come up, as Ed Schulz pointed out last night. A group calling itself  'The Conservative Majority' is actually robo-calling reep imps...errrr...voters across the land (those not taken up by secession) and asking them to harass their GOOpr reps into initiating impeachment proceedings for "high crimes and misdemeanors"  against newly re-elected Barack Obama, starting after his inauguration.

Well, as Ed said, if you can't beat Obama fairly in the election, use dirty tricks and impeachment to try to retroactively repeal the will of the voters, like they tried to do with Bill Clinton.

But this time, the Reepos are making a capital, grade A mistake. Bear in mind this is the same President-elect that tens of millions of Latinos chose, as well as Asian -Americans (as Chris Hayes pointed out on his 'UP' program two weeks ago) as well as young women and African-Americans. These are the same demographics the GOP would LIKE to grab, but which even their most solid supporters have admitted they won't unless they alter their approach. (Former MS governor Hayley Barber yesterday actually suggested the Gooprs submit to a "proctology exam". Hey, Hayley! I don't think any such exam could go 'deep enough' to remove all the backed up shit in Goopr-land!)

Now just days ago we beheld all these constituencies thoroughly dissed by 'Sore Loser in Chief' Mitt Romney when he blamed his defeat to Barack on the federal government "gifts" doled out to young women (contraceptives), young people overall (forgiven interest on college debt), Latinos (allowing young people 18 and under to remain in the U.S., and go on track for citizenship) and African-Americans (provisions of 'Obamacare' so they are not denied health insurance because of pre-existing conditions).

Romney was evidently too dumb to grasp (as many complaining Reepos, e.g. Bobby Jindal,  are in response to his brain fart) that when you dismiss all your potential voters as "takers" you are essentially showing them you have zero respect for them, period. So why the hell would they vote for your sorry lot in the next election cycle?  They'd have to be stupid to even think of wasting a vote on the GOP brand!

Now, with insane Reepos fomenting impeachment, these Teepee Reepo idiots are going one howler further, by alienating the Obama constituencies not only as "takers" but de-legitimizing their choice overall!  How much more will these frothing freaks pile it on? Don't they know when to quit? Don't they know that merely disabling the Obama administration by impeachment proceedings will forever put the GOP in the sights of the Obama constituencies forever?  As consummate sore losers who can't get along, if nothing else? Even if they don't succeed in impeaching Barack, the GOP pursuers will make themselves totally foul to all the Obama constituencies. They will treat the GOP forever as lepers, or harboring some kind of transmittable brain parasites!  Those constituencies will also grasp that any such impeachment is merely a cover for removal of a President they couldn't beat outright in a fair election.

And what exactly is the putative basis for these  "high crimes and misdemeanors"? Evidently it's all about Benghazi and who knew what when. Even former Bushie Condoleeza Rice is getting into the act, commenting on the situation and Susan Rice. This is nothing short of incredible given that Condi was at the very center of the 'Saddam has WMD" and "Saddam is linked to al Qaeda" lies. Which were subsequently found to be all hogwash. Yet was Condi pulled up by her thumbs, as the GOOPS are doing with Susan Rice (who didn't even hold Condi's equivalent post, but rather was UN Ambassador.) Was Condi's boss Bush Dumbya pulled up and over for impeachment proceedings, for lying to Condi, or telling her to sow misinformation on Saddam? No, how could he be, when the REEPs controllled the House which would have been charged with bringing such proceedings!

Rice has apparently chimed in on several fronts, undoubtedly seeking to provide fodder for the investigative morons in the House. A segment of transcript of her remarks reads as follows:

“When you have the ambassador walking off to talk to the Turkish [consul general] in the courtyard on 9/11– something doesn’t seem quite right to me about the level of security preparations at the consulate.

“When you hear Secretary Clinton talk about an Accountability Review Board, that’s what they will look at. It is headed by five retired officers…I think they’ll do a good job, but we need to know, and those decisions– it’s not clear where they were made in the State Department…The regional security officer is the head diplomatic security officer in the consulate. This one had come back in July, he had reportedly asked that some additional security be kept on the ground, so something didn’t get right in terms of the decisions about security on the ground prior to the attack.”

  Of course, all of this is pure speculation, since Condi - not being in any formal loop anymore, has nothing whatever to go by.  It's also incredible she'd read anything sinister into a UN Ambassador talking to the Turkish General Consul. So what? Do you have a worthwhile conspiracy theory? If so, let's hear it.   As far as her babble about the "decisions concerning security" - obviously questioning them, maybe she needs to ask the Reep House why they cut $300 m  for Embassy funding and security across the globe, including in Barbados.

The GOP House budget cuts, however, forced all embassies to cut back, and security is one of the recurring expenses. Don't ask for whom the cuts toll, they toll for thee!  

Condi rambles on:  

"The second big issue is what happened during that eight or nine hours.  And there I think the proper place to understand that has to be the congressional intelligence committees, in Senate and Congress.  There is a lot that has to be understood about what is the role of the CIA was in all of this.  "  

At least here she displays some ballast and sense, although I personally would have preferred a congressional intel committee not headed by a Reepo witch hunter. I am sure Petraeus will be a 'good soldier' and do his duty, even if no longer in any official capacity. Its the Reepo wolves with whom we must concern ourselves and how they will use anything as ammo against our Prez!  

Finally, Condi says: 

 "And the third thing is, okay, so the administration kept shifting its story.  One day it was apparently terror…Susan Rice says it was the video.."  

But this "shifting the story" is the media-REEP byline, and bear in mind they all exhibit the attention span of gnats. 'Shfiting of story' is more likely due to shifting, rapidly paced events happening almost in concert. In logic we refer to a 'disjunctive plurality of causes". In other words, multiple causes at almost the same time as opposed to a linear one-cause to one effect, more agreeable to the simpleton brain.   For example, most genuine conspiracies hitherto exposed (e.g. BCCI, JFK assassination, Iran-Contra) have invariably been molded from a 'disjunctive plurality of causes'. Constructed more as a kind of parallel architecture - or unfolding of parallel and simultaneous operations. This is why most are so difficult to unravel, because they're approached by people -media seeking linear, one cause- to- one effect  connections.  

This Benghazi thing will continue to play out, but the Reeps are well advised not to jump to conclusions, or try to use the impeachment gambit to grab the validity they whiffed on in the recent election.  

Political Debates with GOOPrs: Gotta Keep ‘Em “on the Reservation” First!

The image shows how the USA ought to act and WOULD act if only the Repukes had the power.


Over decades people of similar liberal bent have asked me why it’s so difficult to have a rational debate with GOP –ers, or GOOPrs. I always reply in the same way: Because they are (for the most part, ignorant and uninformed), hence create their own pseudo-realities, and don’t even know the most basic rules of logic – which is why they never adhere to them – though they accuse US of this, again because they’re not cognizant of the rules or fallacies themselves!

The recent brouhaha over the attack on the U.S. Libyan Consulate is a perfect example, and the narrative that exploded in the wake of the attacks offers an instructive insight into the sort of regressive mode of thought GOOPrs invoke, as well as the “Obama Derangement Syndrome” which now infects most of them.

First, look at the spectacle of Mitt Romney making a politically expedient attack on the president even as the U.S. Embassy in Cairo was still under attack! Talk about unseemly! But though most reasonable observers construed it as a miscalculation, and many voters did too, what did the Reeps do? They ‘doubled down’ by assassinating Obama’s character. As Rachel Maddow showed last night, all manner of sludge and tommyrot and just plain rot has emptied from their mouths.

Some of the crap they’ve spewed:

- Obama commands no respect from the Arab street ‘cause he’s too “apologetic” and deferential. If only their man Mitt was in there, HE’D have commanded respect and demonstrated “Resolve” and no AY-rab would have dared to so much has flung a single stone at an Embassy. BULL, fucking shit! Romney – who demonstrates little or no foreign policy acumen, would likely have invited even worse reprisals by adopting an aggressive pose.

As Exhibit A look at the “Decider” GeeDubya Bush, who once demonstrated so much ‘resolve’ to his own countrymen that he once opined: “The Constitution is just a piece of paper”. Also: “It would be so much easier if this was a dictatorship!” Indeed! And what transpired during Bush’s reign? Why, more radical attacks than under any other president’s, including 9/11, where as I showed in a previous blog Bush ignored more than 40 presidential briefings on Bin Ladin from January through August, 2001.

- One Rachel showed last night, which shows how fucking deranged the pukes are: that whenever Obama puts his hand over his heart to say the Pledge of Allegiance, he’s “really praying to Allah”. Are you shitting me? How is it these assholes are walking around and not strapped into couches to receive electro-shock therapy?

Oh, another Whacko - Steve Klein, compliments of Salon.com and Southern Poverty Law Center:

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/14/steve_kleins_anti_muslim_crusade/

It’s also no easier to find a semblance of reason and perspective with the GOOPr “street” or their bloggers, pundits. The volume of crap spewed out boggles the mind, and makes one’s head spin. The search for reasoned, logical counterpoints are essentially no where to be found. For example, one Reepo blogger attacking my blog yesterday on several fallacious and spurious fronts.

He primarly took issue with my assertion that the lying filth and 2-time felon (meth maker) Nakoula who created the 14 minute specious film on Mohammed, had the “right” to free speech, while I compared his form of speech to yelling ‘FIRE!” in a crowded theater when there was no fire. The guy actually tried to cite precedent and case law for the ‘Fire’ in the theater comparison when I wasn’t invoking it in that context – but as an ANALOGY! A-N-A-L-O-G-Y.

He referred to my use as a “red herring” but clearly can’t tell the difference between a red herring and a false analogy – which would be the only serious way my rejection of free speech could be justified. But was it a false analogy?

Consider: The film (at 14 minutes, not even a real film but more a PR piece) was produced under false pretenses. It was presented to the actors and crew as a film called ‘Desert Warrior’ and they bought in and played those roles based on that representation. Indeed, the names of the characters (e.g. “George”) bore NO similarity to anything Muslim. Only later did Nakoula alter the basis of the film, trailer and dub in new (Muslim) names for characters not in the original script. He then renamed it, to be a film about Mohammed.

In other words, the film was created in BAD FAITH. But such an entity in the context, which any reasonable person would have to know would create fury in the Muslim world (as much as Terry Jones burning of the Qu’uran) confers no “rights” for use. The reason is that it is known (again by sane and rational people before hand) of the serious harm it will cause, including to the U.S. interests these paper patriots profess to hold dear to their hearts. Indeed, during Jones’ burning of Qu’urans in Florida this was acknowledged by them, since they stopped doing it after several soldiers were killed in Afghanistan, and a General pleaded for them to cease and desist.

Hence, the bollocks that the reacting Muslims are “thin skinned” doesn’t hold! If that were valid, then the General who pleaded with Jones & Co. to stop burning the Muslim holy book also had to be “thin skinned”, though he was actually looking out after his soldiers’ welfare, which is what these Reeps claim to be doing.

But let’s get back to the “free speech” analogy, with another example .

If we are at a restaurant and you leave to go to the rest room, and return to drink your diet coke and I later tell you I put strychnine in it, though I didn’t, is that “free speech”? Do I have the right to say that and jibe you to cause much anxiety and consternation. (Even after I tell you I didn’t “really” do it, you may still not be convinced)

This is similar to what Nakoula did. He DIDN’T really create a real film based on the fake script he used to engage a set of actors. He had to lie to them to involve their cooperation. He then altered what THEY had contributed to, in order to engender a product that he knew would cause immense psychological distress and even rage to devout Muslims. Is this just a ruse or excuse to defend the rioters, or killers? Of course not! It’s using an analogy to show the basis for bad faith in two forms of specious speech: telling someone you put strychnine in their drink to elicit a fear-paranoia reaction, or producing a fake film that is laden with anti-Islamic poison. There is no difference, and in each case the speech is not protected, no matter what whacko reepos claim.

However, the most disgusting form of attacks on any argument arrive via the use of baseless, vicious insinuations and claims to question one’s American standards, or sincerity. Thus, arguing that you reject an argument as insincere or “evil” or whatever because the proponent (in this case me) “never served in the military” is both nonsense and irrelevant. It seeks to create the illusion or belief that only military servers are “real citizens” whose arguments merit consideration. But in fact, this is a capital way to dispose of the claimant’s case since we know the valuable trait of critical questioning (which makes a REAL patriot, see e.g. Carl Sagan’s essay, ‘Real Patriots Ask Questions’) is violently discouraged in the military – which values following orders over all else. Hence, military servers are the very group whose arguments must be most scrutinized. (This is also why "military intelligence" is an oxyomoron.)

The other pseudo-claim is that we “libos” – who make such a case as I did in my blog yesterday, “never really worked a day in our lives” or “never raised a family”. What the fuck do those have to do with the price of tea? And how the fuck do YOU know I “never really worked a day in my life”? Because I didn’t sweep floors for 40 years? Because I didn’t work as a cop? As a security guard? As a janitor? Those are choices that were made, perhaps on the basis of limited education or other circumstances, but have nada to do with the issues at hand and to bring up the insinuation that one person is more entitled to his views because he did more manual or other work – say than a teacher- is just plain nuts.

For anyone who’s never taught, I have news for you, it’s one of the hardest jobs you will ever do. And it doesn’t end when you clock out at 3 p.m. or so, because you then have to grade dozens of papers or labs, and also set test questions, as well as develop and set up new labs for the next day! Not real work? Give me a fucking break! But this is the sort of chirp we behold from the Reepos and their lot, because they have no REAL arguments to make to counter our own. They are livid we defend Obama - calling us “Obamanites” and are livid we choose a path that doesn’t support unproductive saber rattling and aggression. So, we are wimps, or “never worked a day in our lives”

As for “never raising a family” that’s also a true red herring, as it’s got nothing whatsoever to do with the basis of the arguments I made yesterday. Disagree with me? Fine! Then make your case based on solid argument not on whether I raised a family! Raising a family, while noble to be sure, is not for everyone. Some of us realized early on we were not cut out for the task, so rather than make a choice we’d regret we opted not to have kids. That choice doesn’t make us any less citizens than it does you for making such choice.

One hopes that one of these days, decent and sober arguments, debates can be expected with the other side. But, so long as they keep wandering “off the reservation”, i.e. wallowing in irrelevancies, this will never be the case.