There’s a Scandal Alright–Just Not Where You Think

Tags

Benghazi, Dan Burton, Darrell Issa, House committees, Jonathan Kar

I’ve long wondered at the seeming inability of the GOP to remember that we actually keep records of  “that stuff”. They continue to forget that. I give a pass to the typical TeaPotter who is so ill-informed that they are left with nothing but misspelled phrases that they either paint on cardboard signs or attempt to regurgitate from memory. They can’t be expected to actually, you know, KNOW history.

As you know doubt know, the GOP has been looking for a way for five long years now to bury this president. All of their schemes have come to naught for quite obvious reasons, but even when we thought things might, just might, return to some semblance of normalcy after their debacle of 2012, well, sadly they learned nothing.

Some of their own kind (Pat Toomey)  even admit, that their membership so hates this man that they will vote NO on legislation as publicly supported as universal background checks. So of course we expected that rottweiler of a thug, Darrell Issa to continue his determination to find SOMETHING that can bring down this administration.

Benghazi was their choice, aided and abetted by one John S. McCain, who had a personal vendetta and was more than willing to rattle the sabre of “coverup” at least as it pertained to Susan Rice, a woman we can now categorically say was unfairly maligned and mistreated by Johnny and his misogynist guy pal, Ms. Lindsey.

Let me just say this simply. The Benghazi “scandal” is nothing more than a witch hunt. And history explains it all to us.

Darrell “my brother did it” Issa is chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. That is, innocent as it sounds, a very powerful committee, and one Issa has used since 2010 when he assumed chairmanship, to conduct endless hearings into the Obama administration, hoping to find ANYTHING that can be used to harass and drive from office the Negro in the White House.

It is also the only committee that is allowed to issue subpoenas under the chairman’s signature only. However, this has seldom been the practice. Normally, given that grave power, the Chairman has sought the agreement of a full committee vote before so proceeding. This has been  the case except for only two occasions in modern times. Hint: this is where the history gets important.

The most notable occasion when the Chairman took sole control over subpoenas was under the chairmanship of Dan Burton, (R-IN). Mr. Burton had a serious case of the ass against one William J. Clinton. Like Darrell, Dan fairly lit up the committee with his constant and outlandish claims of wrongdoing.

This resulted in a scandal of course–Mr. Burton spend years, over 1,000 subpoenas, and 7 million bucks of taxpayer money, trying to prove that there was scandal to be found in the fund-raising practices of the Democratic Campaign organization. Copies of audio tapes from a “witness” were released. Later it was determined that the tapes had been severely “edited” to appear quite different from their original content. Burton fired committee staff man David Bossie, the supposed “editor”.

However, the scandal went further, and finally, there were calls for Burton to step down himself. He never did of course.

Well, here we go again.

Mr. Issa decided that Burton’s sole possessor of the subpoena was a good thing,  and re-instituted the practice again. This brought a rather lengthy and well-reasoned letter from Elijah Cummings, ranking minority leader on the committee, and a man with a memory. He pointed out that unilateral usage of the power of subpoena had gotten the GOP into serious trouble once before, and it was better to return to the normal and regular practice of bipartisan issuance of these orders.

Of course, Mr. Issa declined rational behavior and has as we all know run a one-man-show of Obama attack. And the expected result has occurred.

For weeks the GOP has harped that the Obama White House was engaged in a cover-up regarding Benghazi. That cover-up has never been spelled out well, but it seems to have revolved around the White House changing the talking points (which implicated Rice somehow), to protect the State Department (and Hillary Clinton) from being accused of malfeasance.

This claim was bolstered by information from e-mails circulated between the  parties involved. We were told this by the GOP. Jonathan Karl broke the story for ABC, claiming as the GOP had alleged, that State Department officials had participated in changing the talking points, along with the White House. Karl implied that he had seen the emails himself and “quoted” from them.

When the true emails were brought forth, they told a different story–one that indicated that neither the White House nor the State Department had played a part in the versions discussed and finally issued by the CIA for distribution (i.e. to Susan Rice).  Now of course Karl claims he never actually saw any e-mails but his “source” shared “notes” with him of what he/she read.

The fair meaning  of what Karl claimed and the actual truth leave little doubt that there was a deliberate attempt to portray the White House and State Department in a bad light and to provide proof that they had acted politically with the intent to deceive. Since the e-mails were the subject of subpoenas, the likely “source” is undoubtedly someone on Issa’s committee.

It is ironic in the end that all this Benghazi “scandal” has been in part to dirty the White House, but also to begin the long process of discrediting Mrs. Clinton. While nobody is all that surprised by the GOP’s doing that, it must be remembered that when all efforts were directed toward destroying the President, the GOP actually held Mrs. Clinton up as the “ray of sunshine” in the otherwise dismal Obama landscape.

Now that the President seems invincible to their machinations, Clinton, the new threat, became the new target.

It’s all so predictable.

And that is what needs be investigated it seems–why are my tax monies being used to manufacture scandals for Republican political gain?

Riddle me that Batman.

Related articles

• Benghazi Backfires on Republicans as Democrats Eviscerate Issa and the GOP (politicususa.com)
• Will a GOP aide be fired over Benghazi email changes? (salon.com)
• CBS News: Republicans Changed Benghazi Emails (themoderatevoice.com)
• CBS: Republicans were source of inaccurate Benghazi emails (dailykos.com)
• Why the GOP may regret its Obama scandal obsession (tv.msnbc.com)
• Benghazi Backfires on Republicans as Democrats Eviscerate Issa and the GOP (easyjjgrand3.newsvine.com)

The Benghazi Hustle

Tags

Benghazi, GOP, Libya, State Department, teabaggers

Here we go again. Everybody hold tight because this merry-go-round is speeding around the curve and headed for–well just about anything that the GOP imagination can dream up.

In a valiant attempt to turn a mole hill into a mountain, Republican Tea Snorters are busy twisting and feigning shock and awe at the shameful and deliberate attempt by the Obama Administration to get “brave Americans” murdered by, well, you know, their true friends.

If one reads the headlines of the extreme-stream media, here is what you will find:

“Benghazi Witness: First Time in my Career that a Diplomat Has more balls than somebody in the Military.”

“Benghazi revelations today could obliterate Obama’s Credibility and Sink Hillary’s 2016 ambitions.”

“Issa seeks more whistle blowers after dramatic Benghazi hearing.”

“Two key witnesses refuse to testify at Benghazi hearing.”

“Benghazi Makes Watergate look like kindergarten: The End of Obama”

“Hillary perjured herself on Benghazi?”

“Benghazi Whistleblower: You Should have Seen what Clinton Tried to do to us that night.”

And on and on it goes.

Here’s what I think we know at this point.

1. A YouTube video riled up Muslims around the world and demonstrations were being held in a variety of places, Egypt among them.
2. A demonstration occurred at Benghazi, that was violent.
3. Ambassador Stevens was fairly well known to favor less security rather than more in an attempt to be open to the residents of the country.
4. Republicans had steadfastly refused State Department requests for more money to beef up security around the world.
5. The Ambassador and three others were killed in the first attack.
6. Air support could not have reached the outpost for hours, a minimum of 5-7 according to the military.
7. There was no basis for suspecting a second attack.
8. There were no deaths or serious injuries sustained in the second attack.
9. A team of FOUR, a military security forces was located at Tripoli but they were concerned about security there, and even John Bolton admitted that they were unable to determine whether the four men should leave that facility for Benghazi when the deaths had already occurred and there was no reason to suspect a second attack.
10. Senator Tom Corker from Tennessee, sat on the Senate hearings on Benghazi and said that he read all the material and thought he knew what happened and was satisfied.
11. The President termed the attack a “terrorist attack” the day following the attack.
12. That Susan Rice delivered the cautionary remarks that we were unsure what happened based on material supplied her by others in the State Department or other agencies.
13. That Al Qaeda is not an organization so much as an idea, and many Islamic groups claim “affiliation” without benefit of any actual connection. To this day, we don’t know I don’t think who this group consisted of.
14. There was no reason to believe that naming it other than a terrorist attack was some how beneficial to the White House in the midst of an election. Most presidents, following some catastrophe or other see their polling improve as people tend to “rally round” the Administration. If the President had war mongered the event, the GOP would have been arguing just the opposite–that he was making it much worse than it was in order to gain sympathy.

The bottom line to me here is simply. The Benghazi outpost was under-secured. Certainly the GOP bears SOME responsibility for that fact as do congressional Democrats who agreed that they didn’t need additional funds. There was apparently not good plans in place for an emergency like this. There should have been.

Beyond that, it was a sad tragedy. But let us remember. Americans are dying around the world every day. They are dying in service to the country, and as employees of corporations doing business in dangerous places. These four were doing their jobs. They perhaps did not receive the full support they should have, but such is life in dangerous occupations. I don’t mean to minimize it, but it should not be overstated either.

The GOP tried to make this into some scandal during the fall of 2012 to hurt the chances of the President to be re-elected, and enhance their candidates chances. That didn’t happen. Now they see polling that suggests that Hillary Clinton, if the nominee will beat any Republican so far put forth, easily and soundly.

Is it hard to see why this is happening now? Of course not. This is just an attempt to dirty up Clinton and force her to not run.

That’s my take on it.

And what is yours?

Republicans are united in their insanity that this will lead to impeachment.

Do you?

Related articles

• Republicans continue to press for answers on Benghazi (nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com)
• Yet Another Benghazi Nothingburger Today (motherjones.com)

To Drone Or Not to Drone

Tags

drones, foreign policy, warfare

Let’s just start out by saying: I’m conflicted here.

So don’t expect answers, just a lot of questions.

Under the Obama Administration, drone attacks of a lethal nature have increased from something less than fifty under Bush to something over 350 under President Obama. Some of this undoubtedly has to do with better technology, but more has to do with an increasing willingness to use predator drones as a means of assassinating so-called “enemy combatants.”

My moral sense, informed by my faith, tells me that drones are simply wrong, because war in general is wrong, and killing people deliberately is wrong. I find nothing in the teachings of Christ which can make war appropriate; indeed his life and death suggest that it is never appropriate. That said, my own church, and most Christian denominations support the concept of war in limited circumstances–something called “justified” warfare. That includes, but is not limited to wars of self-defense to repel an invader. The trouble is, the term just is pretty broad, and although there are a series of elements to it, in the end, each is big enough to drive a truck through. It ends up meaning, war is acceptable when we think it is.

Still, I could go much further than the Church and stick to my basic belief that the way to stop wars is to stop warring.

Yet, I live in a real world with real threats. Innocents around the world are dying by the hundreds each day due to the evil of lethal aggression from a variety of sources. There seems to be a duty to intervene to stop it. When and how and for whom tend to be the stumbling blocks. Sadly our intervention seems more determined by how “strategic” the country involved is. Do we want or need something from it? If we do, we are inclined to do what’s necessary to bring it to stability.

That stability, sadly, has little to do with what is morally right or wrong. It is the main reason we find ourselves hated by large numbers of people throughout the globe today. That is true of every continent. We have supported vile dictatorships in the name of that stability and the consequent protection of our “interests”. The people have not forgotten. Some, perhaps most, recognize that the American people at large don’t make these decisions–they hate our government but not necessarily us.

So, if we life in a world where war is going to go on regardless of our moral objections, where do drones fit in?

First, let’s set the record clear. There is nothing wrong with using drones on the actual battlefield. It is no different from a large cannon or a tank. Nobody argues that the use of drones should be prohibited here.

The area of contention is the use of lethal drone strikes in otherwise “neutral” territory. Best estimates suggest that the number of people killed by drones issued by the US, amount to somewhere between 2,000 and 3200, give or take. Somewhere between 18-23% of those killed were non-combatants or as we like to cleanly call them, “collateral damage”. This should give pause by itself.

There seem to be several points of inquiry about their use in general:

1. Who decides?
2. What are the standards by which decisions are made to identify a target?
3. Should Americans be subjects of attack?

Some argue that it is unseemly or somehow wrong that the President signs off apparently on each of these targets. They claim he should be more divorced from the action. Since he is undeniably accountable for the program and what it does or doesn’t do, I find this argument specious. In fact,  am slightly comforted that I can trust that a sane head is making the ultimate decision.

By the way, the very fact that President Obama has expanded the drone program so dramatically during his tenure in office, suggests that the Tea Party reactionaries who claim that Obama is in love with Muslims and is secretly working for them, are as we would expect, crazy as loons. Yet of course the Tea Party does not laud the President either for his actions, suggesting that their motives as we always suspect are more racial than rational.

The standards, we understand are largely revealed in documents released. They suggest that the following must be met:

1. The target must be an imminent threat to US citizens safety and lives.
2. There must be no reasonable way to capture the target alive.
3. There must be no other rational alternative.

Since most if not all of those killed by drones have occurred in foreign countries, it is hard to explain how the first standard is ever met. One can only conjure up claims that this target was the one to give the “go” to a plot ready to be employed but for the target’s okay. I suspect that such a situation is rare.

The second standard would seem to be regularly ignored as well, since we know that special ops alternatives can and are used on occasion, and it is unclear when they cannot be used as opposed to when they can.

The third standard seems redundant.

The third issue, regarding Americas being targets seems to be the one that causes all the wringing of hands and hysterics. I find the claim that American citizens are citizens and therefore “different” completely bogus. If we contend that American citizens should not be subject to drone attack because it violates their constitutional rights to life and liberty absent due process efforts to remove them, than I think the same applies to foreign targets.

We claim that our “rights” are nothing less than human rights. We tell the world that they too should give their citizens nothing less, because it is simply morally right. We often attempt to interfere in other countries precisely in an effort to help the people there “obtain” their human rights. We maintain sanctions against countries that we find in violation of “human rights.”

Given all that, how can we treat those we capture and claim to be “enemy combatants” anything less than the right to be charged as such, and to be afforded due process. Guantanamo is a hideous example of the ugliness of American policy toward non-citizens. Before somebody suggests that it is no different from a POW camp, think again. Most  all POW’s wore UNIFORMS. Their ACTIVE engagement in warfare against us was not in dispute.

Many at Guantanamo dispute their designation. Some have been released years later because it was determined they were arrested in error. We have held some of these people for nearly 14 years not. It is immoral, period. To suggest that they are not entitled to  the basic right of having an impartial judicial determination of their “guilt” is inhumane in its narrowest sense. To suggest that we cannot “safely” conduct trials in this country is ludicrous and makes Timothy McVeigh and other terrorists who were tried here, some kind of “special case” which they were not.

At present, polling in the US suggests that 83% of the country approves of the drone program. Close to 2/3 believe that it is appropriately used against American citizens. There seems to be no real divide between Democrats and Republicans; this is one area where partisanship apparently does not play.

That is what I know. I’m sure there is much I don’t know. If you can assist me in my quandary, please do. I’m still not sure where I come out with all this.

You may way to take a look at the following:

The American People Love Drones

The International Law of Drones

Related articles

• US Government Says Drone Striking Americans Is Legal (earththreats.com)
• Watch: License to Kill: Government Authorizes Drone Strikes on US Citizens (abcnews.go.com)
• Leaked Memo: How Obama Justifies Drone Killing of Americans (atlantablackstar.com)
• The Debate on Drones: Away from the Politics, the Nameless Dead Remain (world.time.com)
• 10 Questions Congress Should Ask Killer Drone Policy Architect John Brennan (alternet.org)
• Predator Drone Hypocrisy (uscapostasy.wordpress.com)
• Drone strikes legal case revealed (bbc.co.uk)
• Attack of the Drones – USA (aworldchaos.wordpress.com)
• UN inquiry into drone killings (bbc.co.uk)
• Scarborough Rips ‘Double Standard’ On Obama’s Drones: ‘Self-Righteous’ Bush Critics Should Apologize (mediaite.com)

Share this:

Tags

Chuck Hagel, GOP, Neo-cons, Politics, teabaggers, Ted Cruz

It appears that the President will be placing Chuck Hagel’s name up for nomination as the next Secretary of Defense.

Now, I’ve been burned once or twice by making knee-jerk reactions to who is on board and who isn’t. Pretty much I conclude that if Lindsey Graham is against something, I am pretty much for it. Nobody is kissing more ultra-conservative butt these days than Lindsey who is up for re-election in 2014. It explains his half-hysterical response to all things Obama certainly.

I also tend to trust my President on most things. He has proven himself to be a wily politician and usually has a good reason for what he does. It is not always apparent at the beginning, but in the end, his decisions are more right than wrong.

So, I’m inclined to support the nomination of Mr. Hagel, even though on most any other issue but foreign policy, we are in pretty clear disagreement.

And it is just not the likes of silly Lindsey that convinces me either. Hagel is despised by the neo-con community largely based on his pretty quick spin around on the Iraq war. Although he was initially for it, claiming that he believed the Bush folks that a war would be the LAST resort after ALL diplomatic avenues had been traveled, he was against the so-called “surge” and began holding the Administration’s feet to the fire.

And it’s really hard for me to be against anybody the neo-cons are against because I find them rather blood-thirsty in their desire to remold the entire world to suit their vision of American’s playground. And of course, a whole lot of these folks have never pulled on a combat boot either. Hagel, I believe loathes war and thinks that it is the very last choice when all other methods have failed. He’s a believer in talking with as opposed to talking to adversaries.

But don’t take my word for it. There is an excellent story about Hagel that was written in 2007 when some thought Hagel was pondering a run for President as an Independent. It documents he feelings about Vietnam, how that ultimately shaped his political philosophy and how he now stands in line with people like Colin Powell, Zbigniew Brzezinski and others who would be termed moderate and internationalist in their outlook.

In my view Republicans continue to pick the wrong fights. If one recalls, it has been, until recently, the general rule that  a president gets his choices for cabinet positions without little or no opposition. After all, he’s the one who as to work with the cabinet and he has the right to have people he can work with and feels comfortable with. Of my importance is the fact that cabinet members don’t initiate policy, they carry it out. So the nominee’s opinions on matters of policy are not particularly important. The fact of the matter is, the Democrats have engaged in some of this stuff too, but I would argue, not nearly to the extent that the GOP does now. They view every nomination as a chance for them to stick it to Obama.

«

Well, it is Texas after all. Newly elected Texas Senator, Ted Cruz, apparently didn’t get the memo that new folks should keep their mouths zipped most of the time and LISTEN.

He’s already babbling about things he has almost no experience with.

For instance, he’s ready to “shut the government down” when the time comes to debate AGAIN about taxes and spending cuts. He was probably in junior high when the GOP pulled it before, and it worked then, sooooo, why not this time?

Oh I dunno Theodore, maybe because we are just inches away from a terrible recession and trying VERY DAMN HARD not to fall back into that black hole.

He of course is of the Tea People persuasion and says, “what Washington doesn’t need is more compromise.” Yeah Theodore, that’s how government should work–by hostage taking minorities forcing the majority to go along with harebrained ill-thought out ( what am I talking about–thought out–they can’t think!) schemes that threaten the good of the country.

Theodore also has an opinion on Chuck Hagel–he will make war with Iran almost certain. And I thought Gohmert cornered the market on stupid in Texas. And then there is Perry. Is there something wrong with the water in the Rio Grande? Somebody ought to test that stuff for stupid.

«

Proving there is more than enough stupid to go around, an assemblyman in Virginia is introducing more stringent voter ID requirements in that state. The standard as Mark Cole understands it is this:

If Obama can win the state, then the state’s voter ID requirements are too lax.

Now I like a man who says what he means. Translation: Republicans can win in states where they cheat people out of voting. Yes, and so can Bactrian camels. I know Mark, that went right over your head didn’t it?

«

You know of the Heritage foundation? New toy box for crazy Jim DeMitt? Well he just got himself a new sandbox playmate, one David Addington. I hadn’t heard this before, but apparently Paul Krugman coined the phrase “wingnut welfare” for the concept that all the idiots who failed so miserably in the Bush Administration, are “taken care of” when they ooze away in shame for their public service behavior.

This explains Addington’s new job surely. Addington, you remember worked for Dick “the dick” Cheney during the Bush years and was instrumental in defining the broad ranging powers that Bush grabbed as Presidential prerogatives. Once the touter of extra legal powers for the president, in an ironic twist (and the GOP is all about irony ain’t it?), Addington will investigate the degree to which President Obama may have overstepped his presidential authority.

Yes you read that right. You don’t have to reread it. Trust me. These folks are crazy.

Related articles

• The fight Obama is picking (salon.com)
• The Ever-Shrinking Republican Foreign Policy Tent (theamericanconservative.com)
• Obama taps Hagel for Pentagon, Brennan for CIA (cnsnews.com)
• Why Obama picked Hagel (politico.com)

Politics Trumps Logic and Good Once Again

Tags

John McCain, Politics, Susan Rice, teabaggers

There is not a lot to say that hasn’t been said.

I am simply sickened about losing what would have been a brilliant Secretary of State to the evil machinations of an old angry man who cannot get past the fact that the country rejected him and his silly girl Sarah to run the country back in 2008.

They say when John McCain decides against you, you have an enemy for life, and truth, facts, logic and common sense be damned.

A huge part of all this is in my estimation nothing more than pay back by McCain for the 2008 loss and his inability no matter how hard he tries, to cast dirt upon the President. He finally settled on an easier target–Susan Rice. Some will suggest that it is because Rice is African-American. There are claims that Rice took a few shots at McCain during the 2008 race, mostly to do with his criticisms of Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience. Rice claimed that McCain “shot from the hip, and fired first and asked questions later”. She certainly pulled no punches in indicating that his knee-jerk reactions were not the measured thoughtful response expected and need in the Chief Executive of the United States.

In the crisis in Georgia (Russia), in 2008, Rice had this to say about McCain:

SUSAN RICE: Here’s the thing David, we cannot shoot from the hip. We cannot act on the basis of ideology or preconceived notions. When this crisis began, Barack Obama, the administration indeed and all of our NATO allies took a measured and reasoned approach because we were dealing with the facts as we knew them. John McCain shot from the hip, very aggressive, very belligerent statement. He may or may not have complicated the situation.

As I said, once angered, McCain never forgives or forgets.

In addition, there is this history: I believe, that  McCain doesn’t respond well to women who are opinionated and out-spoken, something Rice certainly is. A man McCain’s age and white to boot, has difficulty dealing with a woman of color who chooses to go nose-to-nose with him. This I think resulted in the extremely nasty remarks that McCain lodged against Rice, referring to her as “not very bright” and sycophant Lindsey Graham’s remark, “I just don’t trust her.” These are white men who are not used to being set back on their heels by women in general, let alone a Black woman.

But, in the end, Susan Rice is merely the vehicle used to stick it to Obama. That has been the almost constant activity of one John Sidney McCain since 2008. Before that, his attention was focused on making George Bush look back, hence his “maverick” status. One should recall that the whole mavericky thing did not start until after the 2000 election after Bush and his Rovian campaign machine had implied that McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child.

I could let a good deal of this go as “politics” were it not for the meanness, and outright villany laid at Rice’s door. For a man who graduated nearly at the rock bottom of his class as the Naval Academy to call a Rhode’s Scholar “not very bright” is a slap in the face that is both ludicrous and laughable at the same time. It is beneath the dignity of the office of Senator.

The trouble is, nothing much seems below the dignity of a whole lot of Republicans these days, as they threaten the country with hateful legislation and dubious economic “red lines”. We hear that old Turtle, Mitch McConnell is even claiming that the recent PPP poll that found him having the lowest approval rating of any senator in Congress, to be nothing more than a “put-up-job” by the White House to make him look bad.

Meanwhile, in state houses across the country that are Republican controlled, at least until January, every attempt is being made to make life more difficult for women, unions and God knows what else. The fact is that the only base the GOP has are white folks, and that is a shrinking demographic if there ever was one. The only way that Republicans have maintained their majority in the House is because far too many of their districts have been gerrymandered to the point that no Democrat could ever win in them.

For all that has happened, it seems that the GOP is determined to, in large part,  learn not a damn thing from the fiasco they  fell victim to in 2012. The crazy right seems fully in control at this point and dictates the same crazy responses to every rational proposal. The grifting GOP media operation continues to reap millions praying upon and exploiting the fears of people who frankly just aren’t very bright as noted by any number of studies.

It’s an awful mess, and it is to the credit of the Administration that they have been able to do as much as they have. While John Kerry will make a great Secretary of State, Rice has been greatly maligned for no good reason other than that an old white man and his brown-nosing “boy” wanted to do a hit and run on Barack Obama.

I rather think that when the definitive history is written, Mr. Obama will find himself standing head and shoulders above the likes the of very very senior and very marginalized  senator from Arizona.

Related articles

• A tale of two Rices: For McCain, it’s personal (tv.msnbc.com)
• “Debilitated, Angry And Envious”: John McCain Descends Further Into Incoherence (mykeystrokes.com)
• Susan Rice battle not worth it for Obama (appeal-democrat.com)
• Oops! McCain Once Offered Identical Assessment As Susan Rice On Benghazi Attack (kaystreet.wordpress.com)
• Jon Stewart Outs John McCain as a Bitter Old F**k Who Can’t Let 2008 Go (politicususa.com)
• OPINION: SHAME ON YOU JOHN McCAIN! (lifeofafemalebiblewarrior.wordpress.com)
• Geoffrey Dunn: The Unhinging of John McCain (huffingtonpost.com)

And Three Makes a Bowl of Stupid

Tags

Benghazi, humor and satire, John McCain, Kelly Ayotte, Lindsey Graham, Susan Rice, United States Naval Academy

What do an old bitter man and a closeted sycophant need? Why they need a Kelly Ayotte, a literal nobody from pretty much nowhere who can be womanly, albeit white, but at least she protects the dynamic duds from being charged with sexism!

In the ongoing attempt to make  mountains from mole hills or pretty up a pig, the John Sidney and his sidekick nasal Linda, err Lindsey, are blubbering that they are *stamp* *stamp* still not happy with Ms. Rice and well heck, they are just not happy.

Among the things they are not happy about are:

1. John is still not happy that he lost the election in 2008.
2. John is still not happy that he let his super staff choose Sarah (I just wanna be somebody or make a couple of million–either one) Palin as his running mate.
3. John is still not happy that he was a relatively stupid Naval Academy student and graduated bout sixth from LAST, and drove more than one plane into the ground, managed to get captured and spilled his guts relatively soon thereafter and has never been properly rewarded by his country from his point of view.
4. John is still not happy that his father never felt he met expectations.
5. John is still not happy that he has to pretend to be a happily married man when all he really wanted was the money.
6. John is still not happy that he is old, has little hair left, and can’t get even a middle-aged woman to look at him more than once.
7. Lindsey is still not happy that he is unable to accept the fact that he likes men over women, which he definitely doesn’t call homosexuality, but knows that he doesn’t like it one bit.
8. Lindsey is still not happy that everyone knows that he kisses John’s ass for reasons that nobody wants to even guess at because it makes one’s brain hurt and makes anyone to shudder uncontrollable at the mind picture of what that might entail.
9. Lindsey is still not happy that he finds himself not sufficiently conservative enough to stave off a primary challenge in his state in 2014.
10. Lindsey is still not happy that he is named Lindsey–whether he blames his mother or his father is up for grabs.
11. Lindsey is still not happy that he keeps getting personal invitations to speak before the Log Cabin Republicans and all are hand delivered with a *wink* *wink* *nudge* nudge*-know what I mean?
12. Lindsey is still not happy when Joe Lieberman snickers at his straight out of Tennessee Williams, A Streetcar Named Desire’s Blanche DuBois voice.
13. Kelly is still not happy that they chose her to make up the new Three Amigos.
14. Kelly is still not happy that she is from such a dreary state as New Hampshire which has its own issues with silly accents.
15. Kelly is still not happy that she has to ask John what a “hold” is and why she has to threaten to do it.
16. Kelly is still not happy that she isn’t quite sure who Susan Rice is or why the two men are so mad at her.
17. Kelly is still not happy that Mitch McConnell just laughs uncontrollably when she calls him on the phone.

This is not, never was, and never will be about Susan Rice.

This is about John’s anger, Lindsey’s fear, and Kelly’s new-found idea that she might be able to run for President someday if she gets some name recognition. As you would expect, their behavior is despicable, and the GOP is ill-served by their misdirection. But they, like the lunatics that call themselves Tea People, are too lock-jawed stupid to see beyond their own personal whines.

And so the Democrats need only sit back and watch the circus and call for a soda and some popcorn.

Bring on the clowns!

Related articles

• Lindsey Graham suggests Susan Rice opposition is payback for John Bolton (rawstory.com)
• GOP Senators ‘Disturbed’ After Susan Rice Admits To Lying (freedomoutpost.com)
• GOP Senators ‘More Disturbed’ After Meeting With Susan Rice (huffingtonpost.com)
• Kelly Ayotte’s Death Wish (boomantribune.com)
• What GOP senators could do to block Rice (firstread.nbcnews.com)

 

We Were Right All Along

Tags

Benghazi, Election 2012, GOP, John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Mitt Romney, Susan Rice

We knew this man, maybe not from the start, but pretty soon thereafter. Many, like the Contrarian, who is not so quick to judge, resisted, but in the end, most of them came to the same realization–Mitt Romney truly is the entitled, aristocratic, I’m-better-than-you-because-I-worked-harder-than-you piece of work we believed him to be.

Unwilling to present himself even in defeat as a gracious loser who maintains good wishes for all Americans, he recently showed that he his what we thought, and now what he would have us believe.

Also, Willard refuses to believe that his conversations with others (a conference call to donors) might be recorded, so we have his own words.

The Bain Baron reported that the President used the “old playbook” of rewarding his constituents with “gifts” of medical care, tuition grants, Dream Acts, and so forth to buy their votes. Women were “gifted” with contraceptive care, while presumably African-Americans were given the present of the fictitious reduction of work requirements for assistance.

Sound a lot like the 47% remarks?

Steve Benen makes a huge point about how Romney, the quintessential abuser of big gifts–wealth, education, connections and so forth, who used massive amounts of government aid in his Olympics leadership and in his Romney Care, still finds it “outrageous” that the President would use the government to “improve the lives of working class people.”

Is that outrageous to say, when of course, as Benen points out, his intent was to “gift” the wealthy with even more tax cuts.

What an absolute horses ass this man truly is. He deserves nothing but our contempt.

≡

While I’m on the soapbox, let me say this about that.

Benghazi.

I admit that I have not read a lot about this tragedy, no more than I receive on PBS and a few other media outlets. I’ve not read deeply into the event. What I have gleaned leads me to believe that this was largely a failure (if indeed there was a failure) at the state department intelligence level. I am willing to concede that. I believe that it was at a level that might not even reach the ears of the Secretary of State, let alone the White House. Should Mrs. Clinton have been informed? I’m not sure it rose to that level. But I would think that there is probably a flaw in the intelligence end of things that allowed the growing danger to go unacted upon.

I am also under the impression that the intelligence network which has been faulty since before 9/11 in the sense of its ability to successfully integrate itself with all its various arms in the CIA, FBI, Homeland, military, etc., failed to have a coherent understanding of what happened for days after the event. No doubt parts of it did have the right tracking, while others did not. This apparently produced a rather tentative analysis that nobody felt comfortable in laying out as the “cause”.

This leads, in my opinion, to the rather tepid statements made by the White House and the State Department in the days and first couple of weeks. This is what Susan Rice, UN Ambassador, reported.

Given all that, I find John McCain and Lindsay Graham’s bombast unconscionable and basically nothing but self-serving rhetoric. Most of McCain’s crap comes from his inability to get over his being thrashed by President Obama in 2008. If you remember, it was not until Mr. McCain was beaten in a rather bloody battle with then Governor George W. Bush, for the 2000 nomination, that he became the “maverick” who became against almost anything that Dubya for was for (except for military bluster which Johnny adores above all). He has repeated that unfortunate personality flaw with Obama, going out of his way to attack at every juncture in a show of macho swagger.

Lindsay, the sycophant of McCain, and perennial brown-noser, and perennial bachelor with no personal life apparently, has a more pressing problem–he’s up for re-election in 2014 and he is anything but the darling of his local TeaBuggery crew. He supported the bank bail-outs and at least at one juncture, supported climate change legislation. He is considered a RINO by those on the far right and may well be challenged by Joe (you lie!) Wilson. His opposition to Susan Rice as the next Secretary of State (should the President nominate her) is held to be by some at least a mere chance to appear tough with the President.

Oh and lets not forget that McCain had no problem with presenting all that faulty information about WMD’s in Iraq a few years back. I have not looked it up, but I have little doubt that Mr. Graham also blew that horn. And of course McCain came to the defense of Condi Rice over her little faux pas over WMD’s as well.

So please, don’t tell me you are doing this for the good of the country and for those four dead men in Benghazi. I am not buying it.

Politics as usual from the right.

That’s the way I see things from here in the Foothills.

And what about you?

Related articles

• Lawrence O’Donnell Tears Into McCain And Lindsay Graham For McCarthy-Like Opposition To Susan Rice (mediaite.com)
• The sore losers club (salon.com)
• McCain and Graham attack Susan Rice. Hypocrisy? (tv.msnbc.com)
• McCain And Graham Defended Condoleeza Rice Over Iraq WMD Testimony (buzzfeed.com)
• Video| John McCain Insults UN Ambassador Susan Rice As the GOP Continues Their ATTACKS On Women (3chicspolitico.com)
• Obama Defends Susan Rice in First Press Conference After Re-Election (theatlanticwire.com)