General Question

pleiades's avatar

Why are Republicans still hanging onto the Benghazi incident?

Asked by pleiades (4938 points ) 2 months ago

This seems to be the only ammo Republicans have against Obama. Why though?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

53 Answers

johnpowell's avatar

Distraction from their total lack of governance?

elbanditoroso's avatar

Two points:

As one of the old Nazis used to day – ” A lie repeated eventually is seen is the truth ”

also…. fund raising.

janbb's avatar

Because it can be used to bring Hillary Clinton down in the next election cycle.

jaytkay's avatar

Because birf certificate

MadMadMax's avatar

Congress would not pass a bill that would have provided additional security and protection for the embassy so because congress is gridlocked, because Republicans vote in tune—Benghazi was Hillary’s fault.

josie's avatar

I don’t know.
Why doesn’t everybody just forget about the murder of an Ambassador and move on?
We all know the real criminal is Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. How did he get let out of prison anyway?

tobycrabtree's avatar

Distraction from their total lack of governance is the main matter on this case.

stanleybmanly's avatar

It’s one of those non issues whipped up by FOX and presented to the brain dead faithful as legitimate proof of criminal ineptitude. The fact that no one possessing the intelligence necessary to tie their shoes is buying it, merely reinforces the certainty of the foxophiles that the mainstream media is horribly biased.

cheebdragon's avatar

The only ammo? Really?~

bolwerk's avatar

Well, it’s kind of strange they’d go there after all the disastrous military/foreign policy blunders of the Bush and Bush Beta Edition and Reagan Administration.

But to answer @cheebdragon‘s question: as far as policy outcomes go, objectively speaking the Republikans really don’t have a lot of concrete political failure to pin on Obama that doesn’t apply at least as much to them as it does to Obama. Since Benghazi was a foreign policy blunder, it’s constitutionally in the presidential administration’s court. I don’t know if what @MadMadMax said is true, but if it is might actually put more of the blame on the Republikans.

Either way, gotta milk what ya got, I guess.

Cruiser's avatar

Obama is toast. In a short 23 months he will be out of office. Plus he has provided a ton of ammo for the Republicans to use against Hilary if she is foolish enough to run. Plus more than a few vulnerable Senators who are up for re-election in November are already distancing themselves from Obama and his Benghazi, NSA, IRS, ATF Fast and Furious, Solyndra scandals to name just a few.

bolwerk's avatar

@Cruiser: The only thing listed there that rises to the level of massive policy blunder is the NSA, and the Republikan establishment doesn’t exactly seem bothered by that and even voted to continue it. How the hell is that going to hurt Hillary? The next Republikan president is going to want the same power. Yes, Hillary probably would too.

You have to delude yourself if to think any of that stuff is going to bring down Obama or have a meaningful impact on the next election. As scandals go, most of those are pretty mild compared to what the previous administration got away with, like selling out an undercover CIA agent as a political retaliation against her husband.

Of course, the NSA should bring down Obama. And anyone who supports a creeping police state should be thrown out of office, and the people who implemented this program should be put on trial for their crimes. But they won’t be.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated
Response moderated
BeenThereSaidThat's avatar

Yes, they have a heck of a nerve trying to get to the bottom of why Americans were murdered in Benghazi. After all, “what difference does it make”.

rojo's avatar

You got to the bottom of it. The results just don’t suit your particular world view.

bolwerk's avatar

@BeenThereSaidThat: that is the hollowest agitprop. Many, if not most, Republikans are fascists. They don’t care when their own people are murdered by their own police or when foreigners are murdered by the U.S. military. Suddenly a diplomat is a big deal to them?

cheebdragon's avatar

@bolwerk as if you know how every republican official thinks and feels? LMFAO…..do you ever get tired of being a hypocrite?

bolwerk's avatar

@cheebdragon, serious question: do you know even what the word hypocrite means? Where did I say anything about “every republican official”? I seem to quite clearly have said “many, if not most.”

cheebdragon's avatar

So you know all thoughts and intentions of a few then?

Bitching about people who are bitching about other people. You are doing exactly what you want them to stop doing. Fits the definition of Hypocrite.

bolwerk's avatar

@cheebdragon: uh, are you just trying to top yourself with each unsubstantiated comment? What is this about bitching? I want them to stop murdering other people. Where did I claim to definitively know anyone’s intentions? If the intent of things like the Reichstag Fire or Patriot Act or the War on Drugs are not clear to you, the outcomes should be.

Hell, they can bitch all they want. About abortion, gays, drug users, poor people, libruls, commies, immigrants, women, atheists, welfare, whatever. They just shouldn’t be in a position to oppress other people.

Cruiser's avatar

”“Where did I claim to definitively know anyone’s intentions?”” @bolwerk You made it pretty clear the high degree of your hypocrisy here… ” Many, if not most, Republikans are fascists.”

You could not be further from the truth and merely expose yourself as the well oiled liberal extremist you really are

bolwerk's avatar

@Cruiser: Uh, Patriot Act? Unilateral wars? Secret tribunals? The war on drugs? The prison-industrial complex? The chipping away at civil liberties? Calling a duck a duck isn’t hypocrisy. Unless you think their authoritarian thuggery is an innocent accident born of ignorance, I can’t see much debate about intent. But I hardly see why discussions of their intentions need to be belabored.

Cruiser's avatar

@bolwerk the same can be said about the lies and deceit about the IRS, NSA, Benghazi, Obamacare, and the war on our deficit that all Dems and you rallied around. You and the Dems define hypocrisy and your ride is soon to be over.

bolwerk's avatar

@Cruiser: um, what makes you think I am a conservative Democrat?

However, you are mostly conflating examples of ineptitude, policies you disagree with, or at worst pretty mundane corruption with flagrant disregard for rule of law. With the NSA, the one case you mention that had Obama unambiguously disregarding rule of law too, House Republikans voted against reining it in by a significantly larger margin than Democrats.

And it’s not like I never complain about Obama doing the same things Republikans do. This is from a few hours ago. So, you care to retract that shit about me being a hypocrite, or are you too much of one?

Pretty sure Bush started that NSA program anyway. Still against it?

cheebdragon's avatar

The NSA can be traced back to 1917 but didn’t get the official name until 1952. You might want to double check that kind of info before adding it to your list.

jaytkay's avatar

“that NSA progam” does not mean “the NSA”.

You might want to double check what people write before “refuting” them.

cheebdragon's avatar

The only thing that changed was technology, they’ve been spying on people for decades.

bolwerk's avatar

@jaytkay: or maybe I’m so bad at reading rightwingese that @Cruiser really is blaming Obama for initiating a program for spying on Germans during World War I. But I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Or we can add “context” to the list of concepts @cheebdragon struggles with.

@cheebdragon: they used to spy on foreign states, other spies, or at worst political activists. The program @Cruiser is talking about was for spying on everyone. He was against it until he learned George W. Bush started it.

Cruiser's avatar

@bolwerk The FISA program Bush started was a sound program necessetated byt the obvious terrorist threats and attacks of 9/11 and that program was limited in scope…” the authorization covers telephone calls originating overseas from or to a person suspected of having links to terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda or its affiliates even when the other party to the call is within the US.”

It was not until Obama took over that NSA spy program IMO started over stepping it Congressional approved boundaries….During the Obama Administration, the NSA has officially continued operating under the new FISA guidelines.[3] However, in April 2009 officials at the United States Department of Justice acknowledged that the NSA had engaged in “overcollection” of domestic communications in excess of the FISA court’s authority,

Either way @bolwerk I have NEVER been against the program Bush initiated NSA spy program and hope they continue it only if they can keep it under control and within the scope of it’s role as an intelligence gathering and counter terrorist tool.

bolwerk's avatar

@Cruiser: think about this for a second. Even if every rationalization you make turned out to be true, your own party implicitly endorsed the NSA program more than the Democrats did in that House vote. I think the NSA program is crap, but there is no way Republikans can hold it against Obama when they refused to stop it.

Cruiser's avatar

@bolwerk First of IMHO PRISM is not crap it is an effective tool for collecting foreign intelligence we need to stay ahead of the spy vs spy game we play to keep our citizens and foreign interests safe. Even Obama recently stated…“On June 19, 2013, U.S. President Barack Obama, during a visit to Germany, stated that the NSA’s data gathering practices constitute “a circumscribed, narrow system directed at us being able to protect our people.”[23]”

That said Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008 was introduced by the Republicans but passed with a very bipartisan vote in both the house and the senate. Then in 2012–09-12: The House of Representatives voted, 301 to 118, to extend the FISA Amendments Act for five years the the kicker is in 2012–12-28: By a vote of 73 to 23, the U.S. Democratically led Senate voted to extend the FISA Amendments Act for five years until December 31, 2017. So I think even you are smart enough to see this NSA spy program has plenty of Bi-partisan support in Congress and is not going away any time soon or IMO ever.

What we need to debate and be ever watchful of is the abuses of this program that has and continues to happen. Whether you like it or not Big Brother is here to stay.

bolwerk's avatar

@Cruiser: Uh, since you hold your own intellect in such high esteem, how did you miss that I’m the one who pointed out it has “bi-partisan” support in the first place? That was the very point I made when you tried to pin the NSA program on Obama. When given the chance to do right by the American people (let alone the world) and stick it to Obama in the process, most of the Republikan caucus couldn’t bring themselves to do the right thing and vote against the program. The allure of fascism is stronger for them than scoring points against Obama – that really says something.

Re “Whether you like it or not Big Brother is here to stay”: I remember when self-professed conservatives at least believed in following their own rules. The rules they wanted to enact might have weighed in their favor, but at least they believed in following them. Foreign spying is another debate, but under the U.S. constitution, any warrantless spying on the citizenry is indefensible.

Cruiser's avatar

@bolwerk I was referring to the spying on John Q Public. The NSA did not become a scandal of the magnitude it is today until Obama took over and gave the green light to mining personal data of ordinary citizens through Verizon, Google et al. and you can add in the directives given to the IRS to harass key conservative opponents.

The FISA program was all about spying on foreign terrorist activity only and yes allowed for warrantless spying in the process again all which received and continues to receive Bi-partisan support and was the crux of all of my points in this current debate.

You simply continue to conveniently ignore the reality that Obama has taken the reins of this NSA spying program and defiantly ignores and abuses the Constitutional components of the FISA program.

bolwerk's avatar

@Cruiser: do me a fucking favor, okay? When you accuse me of something, please cite an example of me doing what I’m being accused of. Where did I ignore or deny Obama’s NSA program expansion? Where did I say he didn’t expand the program? Where was I hypocritical? You unapologetically vomit unsubstantiated comments and pugnacious personal attacks at the speed of a goose shitting.

And has the IRS scandal been definitively tied to Obama personally, in the form of a directive, or are you just making that up too?

cheebdragon's avatar

Maybe the IRS was denying republican applications right before the election year because Romney didnt want to win…..sounds legit.~

“Many, if not most, Republikans are fascists. They don’t care when their own people are murdered by their own police or when foreigners are murdered by the U.S. military.” There is no way you could possibly know this or prove it as a fact, so much like the republicans you wish would stop pointing at Obama, you are pointing at republicans with the same unsubstantiated “facts”.

“Where did I ignore or deny obamas expantion of the program?” Where the fuck did you admit or acknowledge it? At the point where you then blamed republicans for not voting against it “because the draw of fascism was so alluring”?

If something bad is done by one party, and then a 2nd party makes it infinitely worse, no one gets to point fingers at the other. IMHO, I dont think its being blamed on obama, Benghazi seems to fall on Clinton, who placed her in that position? Obama. So he will get a little backlash for not choosing someone more capable of doing their job. That’s just how it works sometimes.

The war on drugs has been continued by both parties for decades, both had opportunities to end it yet they never chose to do so.

It’s hypocritical to bitch about republicans bitching about the same shit democrats were bitching about when they weren’t in office. It’s all hypocritical bullshit.

Blame who ever you want I really don’t care, but you need to realize that no matter how much CNN, msnbc, or cspan you watch, you will never know more than they want you to know and you will never know the full story.

Yetanotheruser's avatar

@cheebdragon Was foxnews absent from your last sentence by design or oversight?

rojo's avatar

“Why are Republicans still hanging onto the Benghazi incident” like dingleberries on a poodles ass?

bolwerk's avatar

@cheebdragon: it’s perfectly easy to know many Republikans are fascists based on their actions. You don’t need direct personal access to their thoughts. The Democrats, OTOH, are not fascists. They are milquetoasts. They’re afraid of the fascists and usually roll over for them. Obama is an excellent example of this phenomenon. .

Re “Where the fuck did you admit or acknowledge it?” As the question is about Republikans hanging onto the Benghazi incident, and it wasn’t relevant to anything I said, there was no need to “admit or acknowledge it.” I’m not obligated to play into this myth of partisan equivalence to soothe your hert butt.

It’s a safe bet that, had I criticized Democrats and not Republikans, neither @cheebdragon nor @Cruiser would be complaining. What’s the word for that? Oh, yeah, hypocrisy.

cheebdragon's avatar

@bolwerk Actually my only real question to you was “Do you ever get tired of being a hypocrite?”....A simple “No, I do not” would have ended this debate a long time ago. I appreciate the effort you put into answering my question though.

bolwerk's avatar

@cheebdragon: all we’ve established is you’re probably projecting your own hypocrisy onto me. You were unable to offer an iota of evidence attesting to my supposed hypocrisy when pressed about it. @Cruiser at least ran away with his tail between his legs when exposed rather than press the issue.

Though, I still suspect @cheebdragon is bandying a word about she doesn’t actually grasp the meaning of.

Cruiser's avatar

@bolwerk “The chipping away at civil liberties? Calling a duck a duck isn’t hypocrisy.”

Uhhhh…it is hypocrisy when you do not acknowledge the bulldozing of our civil liberties that has occurred in the last 6 years at the hands of Obama and the Democratically controlled Congress.

bolwerk's avatar

@Cruiser: uhhhh, how so? Do you apply that logic to everything? Does every comment on the excesses of the Soviet Union need to be accompanied by one on the excesses of the USA? Every little comment on the Romans requires giving equal time to the Chinese or Incas?

The fact is, I probably like the Democrats less than you do. They’re a petty, corrupt right-wing party worthy of permanent minority status representing the dregs of petite bourgeois priggery. But they are nowhere near as fascistic as the Republikans and, even if they were, they’re too bumblefuck to accomplish much of anything.

But, unlike you and cheeb, I don’t do double standards.

Cruiser's avatar

@bolwerk I had to laugh with your characterization of the Dems and as much as I don’t like them without them though the Republicans would get away with bloody murder politically. That said you exposed yourself to your double standards by calling the Republicans Fascists when no one including Boehner or the whole lot combined can hold a candle to the Fascist Elitism of Obama, Biden, Pilosi and Reid.

bolwerk's avatar

@Cruiser: Okay, so what you’re basically saying is, I’m not allowed to do what you just did. If you do it, it’s fine. But, if I do it, I’m a hypocrite. Got it! You’re a blatant hypocrite.

rojo's avatar

Uh, you guys are arguing around the question without addressing it.

May be time to lighten up a little.

Just sayin’.

bolwerk's avatar

@rojo: I did address it. You’ll note that I haven’t bothered with this character assassination nonsense others have attempted against me. Maybe I should I have said “you’re being blatantly hypocritical” instead of addressing the point to the person, but @Cruiser‘s double standard was pretty naked that time.

Cruiser's avatar

@bolwerk your Ad Hominem attacks towards me and cheebdragon here merely expose your insecurities and inability to allow for others opinions that don’t agree with yours. I will be floored if I read where you actually contribute constructive helpful comments to a thread.

bolwerk's avatar

@Cruiser: are you of all people really accusing someone of ad hominem attacks? I mean, right off the top of my head you have gratuitously accused me of being stupid and falsely accused me of being a hypocrite.

The closest I might have come was calling you a hypocrite. Of course, that’s not anything you didn’t do to me, and I at least have concrete evidence of double standards when I did it.

Cruiser's avatar

@bolwerk I did not accuse you of being stupid at any time here and you yourself have more than adequately provided proof of your hypocritical nature.

rojo's avatar

ok, so that didn’t work

bolwerk's avatar

@Cruiser: yet you’re still batting a zero coming up with a single example of hypocrisy on my part. All you can do is keep asserting it without evidence. Just in case your short-term memory is bad, I have you dead to rights on hypocrisy. About the gratuitous accusation of stupidity too.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther