The Benghazi Bullshit Thread: because we can't have enough

[garbon]

It's relevant to why it is still an issue.

[CountDeMoney]

Sheilbh agreed with one question the WSJ posited (though not its many others ).

That's because it was mostly a bullshit op-ed piece.  ZOMG TOTAL FAILURE
Whatever.

[garbon]

Sheilbh agreed with one question the WSJ posited (though not its many others ).

That's because it was mostly a bullshit op-ed piece.  ZOMG TOTAL FAILURE
Whatever.

I was being honest and making it not sound like he agreed with the op-ed.

[CountDeMoney]

It's all good, esse.

[Razgovory]

It's relevant to why it is still an issue.

No, it's not garbon.  The amount of media coverage is not a good indicator of relevance.  The Republicans are going all Vince Foster/Whitewater on this.  They desperately want this to be important, but there just isn't much there.

[Sheilbh]

Because the media has put out there that there are questions that still need answering. Sheilbh agreed with one question the WSJ posited (though not its many others ).

I think there are many questions - not least because it's classified - and it's justifiable for Congress or the media to look into it.  What I don't get is why it's a scandal or is supposed to reflect badly on the US government.

[garbon]

It's relevant to why it is still an issue.

No, it's not garbon.  The amount of media coverage is not a good indicator of relevance.  The Republicans are going all Vince Foster/Whitewater on this.  They desperately want this to be important, but there just isn't much there.

Joan's question was "why is this still an issue". It is still an issue because the media and elected Republicans are all over this.  That doesn't mean that it should be a relevant issue - but simply that mentioning media and Repubs are relevant to why it is still an issue.

[CountDeMoney]

What I don't get is why it's a scandal or is supposed to reflect badly on the US government.

It's a tempest in a teacup, and the GOP can't stand to see the Democrats do anything regarding foreign policy, which has traditionally been "theirs". 

Remember, this is the same party that thought Kosovo was going to be the "greatest foreign policy failure of all time", too.

[The Minsky Moment]

It's fine for the Congress to hold hearings; the violent death of a US ambassador overseas is an appropriate subject for such inquiry.

It's also fine that if Rice is appointed by the President to a cabinet level position, that the Senate ask questions about comments she made to the press as part of her job, and treat those answers as having some potential relevance to their overall evaluation of her suitability.

What is not fine, and kind of outrageous, is for a Senator to prejudge the matter, to declare Rice verboten before a single hearing has been held, and to presume to lay down ultimatums to the President of the United States concerning whom he should be permitted to appoint.  McCain of all people should know better.

Lindsay Graham OTOH I would not expect to know better, which explains why he goes even further and makes profoundly disrespectful statements about the President, one week after the President was returned to office by a majority of the voters following a campaign in which the general public rejected the premise behind these attacks on the President's conduct.

God* only knows what would happen if Obama actually did something worthy of serious criticism.


*Or Richard Dawkins

[CountDeMoney]

It's fine for the Congress to hold hearings; the violent death of a US ambassador overseas is an appropriate subject for such inquiry.

And they'll come to the same conclusion they always come to when it comes to unfortunate events like this:  that CIA doesn't talk to State who doesn't talk to DOD who doesn't talk to CIA.

[The Minsky Moment]

It's fine for the Congress to hold hearings; the violent death of a US ambassador overseas is an appropriate subject for such inquiry.

And they'll come to the same conclusion they always come to when it comes to unfortunate events like this:  that CIA doesn't talk to State who doesn't talk to DOD who doesn't talk to CIA.

And the same solution: create yet another agency to coordinate!

[garbon]

following a campaign in which the general public rejected the premise behind these attacks on the President's conduct.

What are you basing that on?

[Valmy]

What are you basing that on?

I suspect the exit polls which had concerns about foreign policy being tiny.

[Sheilbh]

What are you basing that on?

I suspect the exit polls which had concerns about foreign policy being tiny.

5% called it their most important issue.  They broke for Obama 56-33%.

[garbon]

What are you basing that on?

I suspect the exit polls which had concerns about foreign policy being tiny.

Gotcha, I thought Joan was talking about public opinion on Obama's handling on Benghazi specifically. I've no idea what public opinion is on that.