"We have to stop being the Stupid Party." -- Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal
Benghazi Coverup Allegations Rejected in Bipartisan House Probe
(Bloomberg) --" A two-year investigation by Republican and Democratic members of the House intelligence committee rejects allegations that the Obama administration intentionally misled the public about the deadly attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya.
Repudiating what it called “the swirl of rumors and unsupported allegations” over the Benghazi assault, the lawmakers said in a report released yesterday that there was never a “stand-down” order blocking rescue efforts and that White House officials weren’t to blame for an inaccurate initial account of the events on Sept. 11, 2012.
The committee’s report doesn’t name former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a prospective Democratic presidential candidate in 2016."
GOP panel on Benghazi finds no Obama administration wrongdoing
Seventh GOP Benghazi Investigation Finds No Criminality Or Malfeasance – Eighth Inquiry Is Underway
15 comments:
Perhaps I've been homeless too long and here is my reason why -
When someone insists on looking and looking for what others have not found it is because they put something in place to make another look bad. In homeless shelters it's usually contraband. In politics it's a smoking gun.
Saw this yesterday. Shrugged and moved on. It's partisan stupidity near it's apex. And Barnum though he had the greatest clown act.
I think in this case it is ALL politics. The GOBP wants to keep the word BENGHAZI! in the news during Hillary's candidacy.
Nothing's been found and their own Congressional committee has reinforced that there was no malfeasance on the part of the Obama administration.
The GOBP didn't get the scandal they wanted, so they'll just keep yelling BENGHAZI! for the rest of this year and into 2016.
"We have to stop being the Stupid Party." --B. Jindal
I guess they haven't made the decision to stop yet.
Done of the tenets of science is the repeatability of experiments. Clearly, the GOP does not believe in science giving the fact that they refuse to believe in the repeatability of their attempts to repeal the ACA and to link Clinton to a Benghazi coverup.
Shaw, you need to consider the starting point for all things related to Pres Obama and the Dems.
The GOP, and their partisans, truly believe Obama, Hillary, et al are always lying. That's why there was no immigration deal, [remember we can't trust them?] no good budget deals [the admin can't be trusted] and in this case, no Benghazi resolution.
But here's the problem, while the GOP has been juvenile in their pursuit of this line of logic, some of the problems have been brought on by the Admin and their staffs.
Most transparent? That was pledge. Is it true? Not of you listen to even left leaning pundits.
Armenian Genocide? Was Obama lying when he said he would acknowledge this during his campaigns? Or just uninformed and wrong?
The Clintons receiving donations and having to amend their taxes?
The list is in fact long, but I doubt it is any longer than other admins, but their claim here is that the admin is still holding back info.
How will we ever know? I am not sure, but I imagine if State Dept emails were on a government server, this would blow over a lot quicker.
This was all handed to the GOP on a silver platter this time.
Is it politics? Yes. And since the Obama became pres, the Dems have not been very good at it.
According to a friend of the Swash Zone: Hillary flat-out lied when she blamed the anti-Muhammad Movie for what happened at Benghazi. For that reason - as well as for her immature emotional outburst during her Congressional testimony (she said it wasn't important why it happened) - Hillary should be forever disqualified from the presidency.
This is why Hillary resigned from being secretary of state in disgrace - according to some (including a certain friend of the Swash Zone).
If you believe as this friend of the Swash Zone does - it is easy to see why the Republicans are releasing their latest Benghazi report just before the election.
A cousin of mine (someone who votes Republican based solely on being opposed to marriage equality and a woman's right to choose) told me Hillary is a "big liar" when I suggested she vote for her in the next election.
"Is it politics? Yes. And since the Obama became pres, the Dems have not been very good at it. "
Perhaps that is on purpose.
Jerry said: “[One] of the tenets of science is the repeatability of experiments.””
True. Repeatability is part of a process employed by scientists to confirm observed phenomenon. If the same result is observed again and again, the observation moves away from the realm of THEORY or RANDOMNESS and moves into the realm of PROVEN FACT and EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE.
Repeatability in politics is a TECHNIQUE of PROPAGANDA that serves a different purpose – to frame a talking/stalking point, to level an accusation, or label an opponent in pithy, easy-to-remember terms. If you repeat anything often enough, you can make excrement stick to the wall. Establishing truth has nothing to do with this kind of repetition. If anything, repetition is used to promote lies, deceptions, and defamations to advance a political agenda.
And of course in the discipline of SPC, statistical process control, random variation within tight control limits (UCL and LCL) confirms a process is in control.
Predictable patterns of variation or predictable trends indicates the process is out of control. Such is the state of politics in present reality.
Dervish Sanders: “ According to a friend of the Swash Zone: Hillary flat-out lied … [skip] … If you believe as this friend of the Swash Zone does …” [April 25, 2015 at 2:27 PM].
The purpose of this comment is unclear to me. Does subject commenter have a bone to pick with Hillary, the Swash Zone, or some ‘unnamed’ friend of the Swash Zone? What is the implication or message here?
Does subject commenter mean to imply that you are judged by the company you keep? Must two friends always agree on every point in order to remain friends, or is some wiggle-room allowed here? Is the implication one of guilt by association? Has this ‘unnamed’ friend sullied the reputation of the Swash Zone; or has our association with this ‘unnamed’ friend made Shaw or me less credible?
Curiously, on the SAME afternoon of the SAME day (please note similar timestamps), this anonymous comment appeared in the Swash Zone email box:
Anon: “Twisting, spinning, and turning in your perverse desire to be foolish are ya s. Shaw? … [skip] … Your naivete is so transparent it is amusing Ms. Shaw … [skip] … Do not confuse self defense with aggression Ms.Shaw nor underestimate the ties between ourselves and the only true democracy … [skip] … Have a wonderful evening Ms. Shaw, and thanks for stopping by … [skip] … What a shit blog” [12:32 PM, April 25, 2015].
Here’s the truly stupid part. The comment appeared under this post: “Deeply Troubling.” This post was NOT authored by Shaw but by another writer. The above comment was OFF TOPIC and irrelevant to the subject of the post. Shaw was NOT even a participant in the discussion thread that followed the post. How does one explain the seemingly random harassment of Shaw for no apparent reason?
For the past year, an anonymous troll has accused an ‘unnamed’ friend of the Swash Zone of Anti-Semitism. No evidence, no links, no citations, NOTHING! In other words, this anonymous troll has prosecuted a person in the Kangaroo Court of Cyberspace. How unethical and cowardly! Every few weeks without fail, the same message in my email box! Clearly, the troll is OCD with a character disorder.
So what is my point here? Am I accusing Dervish Sanders and two seemingly anonymous trolls of being one and the same person? Not necessarily. A coincidence of timestamps is neither evidence nor proof. But I do condemn comments that smack of guilt by innuendo, i.e. the Internet analogue of lynch mob tactics. This is the kind of crap that has turned Cyberspace into an ugly place.
@Dave -- The GOP, and their partisans, truly believe Obama, Hillary, et al are always lying.
---------
True enough but these jokers aren't going to quit regardless of how many times they come up empty.
Right now the right is strictly pathological.
This election is going to be a big smear job and I expect it will backfire on them and especially with women voters.
Check out the recent article in the New Yorker on the Clintons and the Uranium issue. There are valid concerns that likely will be problematic for Clinton. Her probity certainly should be questioned. IMHO.
The 2016 election will not be about who is best for the country, but about who will not be the worst. And right now, I cannot imagine anything worst than the republicans controlling the House, the Senate, and the presidency all at the same time. I don't care who the democratic candidate is.
Octo: Shaw was NOT even a participant in the discussion thread that followed the post. How does one explain the seemingly random harassment of Shaw for no apparent reason?
Looks like complete gibberish to me. I surely cannot explain it or make any sense of it at all.
To answer the other questions posed by Octo: The answer to all of them is "no". I was only pointing out that the topic currently under discussion - namely the riduculous conspiracy theories of the Right concerning Benghazi - are held and espoused frequently by Octo's friend.
Octo: Am I accusing Dervish Sanders and two seemingly anonymous trolls of being one and the same person?
If you were it would be an accusation that makes no sense. I have nothing against Shaw. I like her blog and her commentaries. FYI, I stopped visiting the Swash Zone quite awhile ago. Not because I have anything against it, but because I didn't feel welcome after my last exchange with Octo. I would never refer to it as a "shit blog". If I had any criticisms to offer I would attempt to do so in a non-gibberish form.
he 2016 election will not be about who is best for the country, but about who will not be the worst. And right now, I cannot imagine anything worst than the republicans controlling the House, the Senate, and the presidency all at the same time. I don't care who the democratic candidate is.
You are actually correct Jerry. A sad statement nonetheless on what Americans are willing to accept in their elected leaders.
One thing we can be certain of, as this trend continues and accelerates, and it will, we will continue to progress down the path of decline.
Post a Comment