Charles Krauthammer: 'The Clock Has Run Out On Benghazi'

Well no . . . because -- ah -- look, a squirrel!

 

You mean the lies, deceit and nonsense propagated by the left before Bush even ran for President? Those lies, deceits and nonsense?

- - - Updated - - -

Occam's Razor would suggest that with full control of the government, the only reason this did not happen was that there was no there there for the ******* moonbats.

 

Which will most likely be the reason she doesn't enter the race.

 

Which is ironic considering that the liberals here continue to lambaste Christie for the same endeavor over a bridge closure.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh hell, that's easy. Obama has lowered the bar so anyone who was in the Senate for more than a year and could vote "Present" is qualified now.

 

Even when it's all about politics and honesty and ethics be damned on their side our leftwingers want to BELIEVE that their motivations and THEIR political leadership are as pure as the driven snow. I on the other hand KNOW that all national level politicians of either party are scum to one degree or another and that when it comes to politics . . . purity or ethics plays no meaningful part in the thought processes or actions of either party's leadership or of their operatives.

Conservatives tend to get this when push comes to shove -- even though most of them would like to think otherwise; but I see no indication that our liberals or other types of leftwingers grasp that about their own side.

 

It'll be one of many tools to eviscerate her candidacy. I don't care who runs on the Democratic side. There is no explaining away ObamaCare, nor the economy.

 

Well as always things go back to the Iraq War, and I fundamentally disagree about every aspect of it with you and many others here. Ridicule Bush and his team's message of establishing democracy in the Middle East, but 10 years later, the peoples of the Middle East have overthrown, or are in the process of overthrowing their dictators, just as he and his team repeatedly predicted would happen. Libya and Egypt overthrew their dictators, and the people are demanding democracy. There is a democratic movement in Syria, attempting to overthrow Assad. Saudi had to help Bahrain put down an uprising. Signs in Iran of upset youth. Iraq and Afghanistan holding elections. Something going on in Tunisia. If this wasn't what Bush was talking about, then what the heck was he talking about when speaking of a wave of peoples in the ME demanding democracy after Saddam fell?

 

nope.

the questions have been asked and answered. REPEATEDLY. there isnt anything left to flog to death. From the very start this was a partisan witchhunt as witnessed when candidate romney had a presser in the wee hours of 9/12 to denounce the obama administration for allowing the attack. Or did you forget that little gem? the damn bodies weren't cold and the right was trying to score political points.

 

In terms of justice for the four dead Amerindian they should avoided getting killed during a presidential campaign and making Obama look bad.

Der Fuhrer let them die because he a spineless (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) who hates America.

But he covered it up because he didn't want it to hurt him politically.

 

There isn't much truth to your last paragraph at all.

Conservatives routinely try to ignore thier movement's love for fat cat secret campaign contributions, or try and pretend that buying government in secret with big cash is a problem.

They also try and deny the fact that the current tea party movement was actually created in Washington, by lobbyists,

They rush to support fake candidates like Herman Cain, Sarah Palin and Donald Trump who are doing nothing more than punking the right wing crowd in order to push their speaking fees or get on Murdoch's payroll. Consevatives will routinely deny that that's the true motive of people like these, when the evidence is clear that it is.

Go to pretty much any right wing "news" blog, and they don't let you see anything until after they've asked for money.

And a lot of conservatives seem to fork over, because there are plenty of stories of shadowy "consultants" who are getting rich off these campaigns, and the associated money laundering that accompanies it.

The "when push comes to shove" aspect is the only part that's honest.

Conservatives live in denial of all of this, until confronted with overwhelming evidence.

They they either run away from the thred, or bluster and actually brag about being conned.

 

Bush and Cheney didn't give a good damm about democracy anywhere, and we didn't invade Iraq for that purpose. The Bush adminstration did practically nothing to promote democracy anywhere else.

We went there to try and steal the oil and set up a permanent land based military occupations. The Bush adminstration tried its level best to get Iraq agree to a permanent military presence right up till inauguation day in 2009. They spent the same amount of time trying to negotiate "production sharing agreements" of the two big US oil companies that would have given most of the oil revenue to us and the British.

Iraq is a democracy in name only. Right now, it's barely a country, and there are real concerns that it may break up, in the face of the Syrian civil war. That war was also a product of Bush's Iraq war, as the Iraq war created a flood of refugees all through the region (at one point, nearly 1/3 of the population of Iraq had been displaced by the American invasion). Regional instability in northern and western Iraq was one of the catylists of the Syrian civil war.

The fact taht the United States removed a brutal but stable Suunni regieme in Iraq and replaced it with a Shia one with close ties to Tehran also played a role in the uprising in Bahrain, which was a Sunni/Shia conflict.

I notice that there no conservatives here condemming what is going on in Egypt right now. Far from "establishing democracy", a military junta has removed the elected government and is in the process of murdering most of its leaders and installing itself in power.

 

Obama skipped 5 straight intelligence briefings leading to Benghazi.
During 5 days leading to Benghazi, Obama called Romney novice in foreign politics and announced Al Queda on the run.
On Benghazi day, Obama received intelligence breeding, promised to punish these responsible, and flew to Las Vegas to mingle.

I sure missed the days when this country was run by adults....

 

I'll concede some of that. So let me put it this way. After G.W., Bush's presidency I encountered many GOP posters who were willing to admit that some bad things happened and that G.W. was not a good president in many ways. So perhaps once Barack Obama's presidency is history a significant number of current supporters will also grow a sense of perspective and balance after the fact. I look forward to finding out.

My main worry is that when (probably not if) a GOP candidate wins the presidency in 2016, will a certain percentage of Right of Center posters remain clear-eyed thinkers or will they immediately return to being closed-minded partisans where THEIR new president and his or her administration's activities are concerned? I mean the Left learned absolutely nothing of meaningful value from the Bush years. So I want to see if the Right will have learned something meaningful from the Obama years regarding being genuinely fair an balanced in their perspectives.

 

If Hillary runs, imagine how devastating the 3-O'clock commercial may be with photos of four dead bodies included? If Republicans will have the balls, that is. Will probably decide to be nice and civil to the old lady.

 

That seems a bit more reasonable.

In fairness, you cound't find a conservative who would even admit that they'd voted for Bush back in 2011 to 2013.

Now all the old neo cons are doing stand ups on Fox, extolling their foreign policy expertise after having started an unnecessary war in the wrong country.

None the less, one hopes that people will take a more reasonable, less partisan view in the future.

Lord knows, we need to!

 

That is wholey false.

There most definitely is a motive, but the motive is a CIA operation, and designated "Secret".

That CIA operation was to arm Al Queda terrorists, to overthrow libya and syria.

Its a scandal, but the truth is too inconvenient to see the light of day....

 

No matter what evidence is presented you still cling to this inane partisan position.

After all this time, effort, money and mountains of testimony there has been NOTHING to support this stupid "cover up" story, yet some die hard partisans can't let it go. Its approaching "birther" inanity.

 

Nice misinterpretation.
The president is given a Presidential Daily Brief which includes the intelligence brief. He doesn't have to physically attend any meeting.
Yes, he was right about romney, and partially right about AQ.

At least obama has a track record of actually being relentless in tracking down bad guys. You think he has given up finding the perps like Bush did with Binnie?

 

He does not have to, eh? Then why did the schmuck physically attended one after Benghazi attack while skipping five leading to? Hmm?

Partially right about AQ? Which part was he right on?

As for Obama's relentless pursuit of bad guys, spare me. Obama was playing with Mr. Love, all the time Usama raid was going on. How's that for the pursuit?

 

Jonas is right.

The Presidential Daily Brief is a document, not a meeting. Generally, the only time the President actually meets is when there is a crisis, and then usually only if he is in the White House.

I always thought this particular talking point was especially silly.

But then right wing media always plays in the ignorance of its audience.

 

Is it any wonder then that Obama knows (*)(*)(*)(*)? Here, my friend, have a laugh with me:

[video=youtube;yZvP7E1lu4s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZvP7E1lu4s[/video]

 

That John Kerry bit cracks me up every time I see it.

 

No-one holds candle to Obama, Kerry is just a poor imitator. But yea, he's funny. Not as funny as ole Joe... as Ralph Kramden would have said, the whole (*)(*)(*)(*)ing administration needs to be sent to the moon.

 

No I don't accept the story that Obama and his flunkies in the lib news media are telling.

From the beginning Obama has treated the attack as nothing more than a threat to his presidential approval rating and he responded with lies and half lies.

 

Ever heard of a schedule? I take it you haven't any experience with being a chief executive.

The part where the original AQ leadership has been decimated.

Again, it seems you have no clue as to what had to happen in order for Binnie to be put down and who had to make the call. (hint: the guy bet his presidency on nailing the scumbag).