Friday, May 09, 2014

seriously, more of this???

A NY Times editorial on the Republican desire to use the Benghazi tragedy to waste government time, get lying propaganda and feed red meat to their farthest right constituents, says pretty well what is going on. 

Republicans already know what happened that day. They aren't really concerned about the loss of four American lives. If they were, they'd be investigating Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld for lying us into a war where thousands died or okaying torture when it not only doesn't work but goes against the policies of every civilized nation.

Republicans aren't doing this to find out what happened-- they want rhetoric to go after the Democrats in 2014 and if they can stretch out their total waste of time, as they did years back with a blow job, they will be doing this, instead of any real work, clear 'til '16.

The truth is the riots inspired by the YouTube video probably did play into the hands of terrorists who used it to get closer to their goal of destruction than they might have under other circumstances. Most think now it was al Qaeda that night but there are plenty of other terrorist groups; so that's still not proven.

Righties want to say it was murder, but three mercenaries, men paid as warriors were killed in what was a firefight-- i.e. war. Two by a rocket. The Ambassador was killed by smoke inhalation in what was supposed to be a safe room. Libyans tried to get him help, but it was too late. 

What this Republican birther element, and most of them are just that, want to do is what cost Congress doing anything about bin Laden. Remember when Clinton tried to get him before his term was up and they called it wag the dog. Today they will ignore climate change, infrastructure crumbling, tax inequities, fixing the ACA, meaningful immigration reform that doesn't end up with a flood of people coming across the border, and voting fairness (which is not about IDs but about making sure everybody can get to a fair and technically proper voting place).

Half the Republican House wanted to be on this select trial committee hoping to find a scandal; and if they can't find one, they can make one up. The ones on this committee know how this appeals to their extreme base. Waste taxpayer's money but get lots of time on Fox-- win/win for them. If you are one who favors doing this, don't bother saying you are against government waste. You are perfectly willing to pay for this dog and pony show.
The Times said, "They won’t pass a serious jobs bill, or raise the minimum wage, or reform immigration, but House Republicans think they can earn their pay for the rest of the year by exposing nonexistent malfeasance on the part of the Obama administration. On Thursday, they voted to create a committee to spend “such sums as may be necessary” to conduct an investigation of the 2012 attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya."

We all know what this is all about-- that is those of us who read about what happened, who can use logic when putting together facts. It's purely driven by a partisan desire to blame Obama, Hillary or both. We know what their conclusion will be when it's over-- right before the elections in November. Obama and Hillary did it in the library with the pipe wrench!

As the Times said, the right wing hate mongering pundits have been pounding Benghazi since it happened. They never gave it up. IF you listened to any of them on the radio for longer then ten minutes, you know they'll get it in somewhere. 

Previous investigations, including one run by Republicans, have never found any evidence of anything more than how things happen when you have terrorist groups out there. There was no conspiracy except maybe the right wing hope they can make something into one. It's ironic that a much greater loss of life in the Marine barracks in Lebanon under Reagan never called for an investigation or even blaming him. Logic was more a factor back then. Things happen when you have hate groups. We know about that in the United States too.

Issa uses his power to head this committee like a brute, and we have seen it time and again. What I'd like to know is what the heck are Republican voters thinking to keep a blowhard and time waster like him in office. He's a Representative, can't Democrats run anybody reasonable against him in California or do Democrats like him being there? 

Last I heard Democrats were trying to decide whether to serve on the committee. I can't imagine one good reason any of them should-- given it has two more Republicans than Democrats, hand picked to be predisposed to say what the right wants said. 

Now and again I foolishly try to respond in comments in other blogs or news sites to give the other side of issues like Benghazi. It is always a waste of time. 

But I just hope Democrats realize how much rides on November. If Republicans really take back the Senate, look for two years of impeachment threats and more of what the House is doing. Seriously, that's what Americans want in a time like this with such critical problems facing us. Seriously???

14 comments:

Ingineer66 said...

Come on Rain. Even the Obama Administration is now admitting that the attack was not spontaneous nor inspired by the you-tube video. It was a preplanned coordinated attack. If only we could have had a coordinated response to the attack, maybe the results would have been less deadly for the US personnel.

Rain Trueax said...

you come on, ingineer. Since they didn't catch them, how do you know what their motives were? What I said though was the riots made anybody in the compound at the time uncertain and they were motivated by the video. i mean things like that have led to murders in Europe too by fanatics. Not being sure what was going on could have contributed to the confusion in reaction in Libya.

There is nobody responsible saying lives could have been saved. And the men who were killed all were professionals who knew the risks. So you don't mind lying us into Iraq but something that is just part of the reality is worth the Congress doing even more investigations of purely to make political hay? Then despite what you say, you are a right winger.

We lose people all the time and certainly not as many as we did in Lebanon. Want an investigation into whether Reagan did enough to fight back? Oh wait, he got the men to hell out of there!

Rain Trueax said...

The Obama administration didn't know right away more than the CIA did. Their only mistake was trying to give answers they did not yet have. Otherwise putting more money into this witch hunt has only one purpose-- knock down Hillary or harass Obama-- a favorite game of right wingers.

Rain Trueax said...

Did you want Bush investigated over going into Iraq over not getting bin Laden at Tora Bora or about torture?

Ingineer66 said...

I was not a fan of going into Iraq even though Congress and the UN approved going to war. I would like to know exactly why we did not get Bin Ladin in Tora Bora other than we were trying to let our supposed partners help since the left was attacking W for going it alone as a cowboy. I don't see water boarding as practiced by the US as torture.

Ingineer66 said...

As a former Secretary of State once said, what difference does it make?

Rain Trueax said...

have you seen videos of the practice as someone is nearly drowned, cannot breathe and are tied down for the process as well as often naked? If I remember right some did die when it went wrong. The bigger point though is it does not work anyway. When 'tortured' (and yes, if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it's likely a duck holds true here) people will say anything to get it to stop. That means lie which has happened. There are better ways to get information. Water boarding is illegal for a local sheriff to use. It's torture.

Obama blocked going after Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld likely to preserve the fraternity (i.e. image) of ex-presidents which soon enough he will also be one with big speaking fees supporting his future lavish life-- like Clinton does.

Ingineer66 said...

The way the Japanese did it in WWII where most people died was torture. The way we do it to our own forces in survival school and to prisoners is considered harsh interrogation but I would say is not torture. It is nasty business to be sure, but war is not pretty.

Rain Trueax said...

It is defined as torture by the civilized world. BUT even more-- it doesn't work. I think some get off on doing that kind of thing. That so totally fits Cheney. But it does not work. So why do something that everybody else in the civilized world considers torture? They did a lot besides that like putting men naked in boxes outside where some died. Whether you love waterboarding, it wasn't all they did.
Why didn't it get investigated? I know Obama wanted to protect himself in the future but what about Congress?

Rain Trueax said...

This was a good piece on why the Dems should not be part of the Bullghazi farce

Ingineer66 said...

I am pretty sure that Cheney never water-boarded anybody and likely never even witnessed anybody being water-boarded. Unless it was one of our own to see the process. And I agree, it may not even be effective.
And it probably was not investigated by Congress because Nancy Pelosi would have been front and center as having approved it and she didn't want that as Speaker of the House.

Rain Trueax said...

you know the goal of this bengazhi deal is another impeachment. I was looking at drudge today and saw impeach goes mainstream. Seriously it's all that group cares about even though they have to see their last attempt to impeach a president led to ignoring the build up of al Qaeda. Republicans better pay attention to the real goal of all this. It's those who cannot stand the idea of a black or a democrat as president!

Ingineer66 said...

I would hope impeachment is a dead issue.

Rain Trueax said...

But you are a reasonable Republican. A lot of those already in the House are eager to impeach because it's red meat to the radical right. The just need the Senate to find some feeble excuse to do it.