CNN and the latest on Benghazi

[NineSpine]

The "actual investigation" that took 30 days to start? The "actual investigation" that involved lying to every single American, repeatedly, causing the arrest of someone, all to push an agenda? The "actual investigation" that didn't pick up until (conveniently) CNN started working on a special? The "actual investigation" that has lead to a warrant on (again, conveniently) the same guy that CNN spoke too?

The job of the media is to question our Government. The job of the media is to assume (usually correctly) that something is up. Idiots take everything the President tells them as gospel. That's what the blind do.

Of course that might explain so much. I mean only Obama could call four dead Americans a "phony scandal." Only this Administration could complain about voter ID laws while defending the IRS which, by self-admission, was targeting groups that didn't agree with Obama. Because if Bush, or any Republican, had done those sort of things the media (and these forums) would be all over him.

Right here is the problem. The IRS "scandal" was debunked weeks, if not months, ago. It turned out that the office in question hadn't denied a single application to a conservative group, but had denied one to a liberal group. On top of that, lumping the Tea Party groups together was done by a Republican for the sake of simplicity due to the number of applications, and then it turned out that organizations with a variety of political terms in their names were flagged, not just Tea Party, including words like OCCUPY. This was done because political fundraising organizations aren't supposed to be able to file for that specific type of tax exemption. This is old news, but here you are, blathering on about it.

[Felya]

1. The Feds "say" the investigation has been going on. They also said an anti-Islam video caused the attack when they knew better.
2. I know I called the "blind" "idiots." People who blindly eat anything the Government says are idiots for doing so. (Did you REALLY need me to explain that? Because it only assisted in proving my point.)
3. It's only called a "scandal," like all the other "phony scandals" Obama mentioned, because they've already proved the Administration lied. For that reason alone they aren't scandals. The Administration just doesn't like having that little fact around. They lied about Benghazi. They lied about the IRS. They lied about Rosen. And, at best, they're shown to be totally incompetent with Fast and Furious and several others.

As I said...Obama lies and it's a "phony scandal." Bush says a "Bush-ism" and the media runs with it. (Admittedly I laughed at a lot of them.)

Yes, you do need to explain why you call people blind and idiots. Considering the reason the CNN article revealing the name of the person responsible for the attack is different then this phony scandal, because you and this scandal are blaming Obama.

You do realize that the reason media ran with Bushism, is because even you admittedly found them funny. You are comparing a joke, to Benghazi. You can't make Obama say the stupid things Bush did, so you want a crate a scandal?

[Masark]

he's been to Washington...what...once? He was there long enough to have a meeting with Dems (not Republicans) and he shared a lunch with Hillary.

What's with the "Must be in Washington" business? He can sign bills just fine on AF1 (assuming both the House and Senate pass something by accident). He can go meet with people as easily as they can come meet with him (probably more easily, given he's got his own jet to move him around the country).

[Twotonsteak]

Just as an example.

The economy's been recovering this whole time. It was a runaway horse, and it takes a while to wrestle it back on track, but that was accomplished during Obama's first term.

http://portalseven.com/employment/un...nt_rate_u6.jsp

Obama took office in January of 2009. The U6 was 14.2% When he was sworn in for his second term it was 14.4%. It is now 14%. It peaked at 17.1% at the end of 2009.

Nothing from what I said changes. Obama's increased the national debt by six trillion since he took office. And for all of that the U6 is only .2% lower now than when he took office.

[NineSpine]

1. The Feds "say" the investigation has been going on. They also said an anti-Islam video caused the attack when they knew better.

It's standard procedure during an investigation to put off an announcement that an event was coordinated until the latest point possible. The same holds true for when there are serial killings or rapes in an area. Announcing that you are onto someone can compromise an investigation in numerous ways, including flooding the investigators with useless tips that can drown out legitimate ones. It can also cause the perpetrators to run or hide. This usually results in law enforcement or other government officials downplaying the investigation initially despite internally knowing that it is more complex or that they are farther along. This is really very, very basic stuff. It's only a "scandal" in the eyes of those too ignorant to see this reality beyond their own nose.

2. I know I called the "blind" "idiots." People who blindly eat anything the Government says are idiots for doing so. (Did you REALLY need me to explain that? Because it only assisted in proving my point.)

People who blindly accept anything aren't too bright, and that goes for people accepting everything the government says AND people accepting everything the right wing echo chamber says.

3. It's only called a "scandal," like all the other "phony scandals" Obama mentioned, because they've already proved the Administration lied. For that reason alone they aren't scandals. The Administration just doesn't like having that little fact around. They lied about Benghazi. They lied about the IRS. They lied about Rosen. And, at best, they're shown to be totally incompetent with Fast and Furious and several others.

The IRS scandal was debunked. The Fast and Furious scandal was debunked. All of this is old, old news. The fact that conservatives can't grasp that is why you are puttering your way into obscurity.

As I said...Obama lies and it's a "phony scandal." Bush says a "Bush-ism" and the media runs with it. (Admittedly I laughed at a lot of them.)

Bush also failed to prevent the worst terrorist attack in US history, and then used that attack as an excuse to start an ill-conceived, arrogant, and totally pointless war against an irrelevant country, which turned that country into Iran's best friend.

- - - Updated - - -

http://portalseven.com/employment/un...nt_rate_u6.jsp

Obama took office in January of 2009. The U6 was 14.2% When he was sworn in for his second term it was 14.4%. It is now 14%. It peaked at 17.1% at the end of 2009.

Nothing from what I said changes. Obama's increased the national debt by six trillion since he took office. And for all of that the U6 is only .2% lower now than when he took office.

The rise in unemployment caused by things that happened prior to Obama's presidency didn't stop the day he was sworn in, and the fact that you would pretend it did shows exactly how unserious you are about this whole thing.

[NYC17]

I had to stop before just posting "who is this 'we'"? The future Americans that elected Hilary Clinton president?

He doesn't know. It's a requirement of his argument to talk about things in as broad a way as possible.

[Endus]

http://portalseven.com/employment/un...nt_rate_u6.jsp

Obama took office in January of 2009. The U6 was 14.2% When he was sworn in for his second term it was 14.4%. It is now 14%. It peaked at 17.1% at the end of 2009.

You just disproved your own argument, and you don't realize why.

Particularly as you're being deliberately misleading by citing the U6, when the usual measure used when discussing unemployement is the U3. The only real reason to do that, here, is to inflate the numbers.

Your own evidence shows that Obama's administration is fixing the economy, and things are improving. And that the cause for them getting this bad in the first place was Bush's administration. That's why, on both of our graphs, you see things go off-kilter under Bush's administration, and the curve goes way off the deep end, before being corrected shortly after Obama took office, and following an improving trend thereafter. Things like unemployment and jobs growth are issues that have momentum; you can't just snap your fingers and correct them.

[mvaliz]

-snip-Nothing from what I said changes. Obama's increased the national debt by six trillion since he took office. And for all of that the U6 is only .2% lower now than when he took office.

I love how people like you lump in the Bank Bailout into that... as if somehow John McCain was elected instead in 2008 that he somehow wouldn't have signed in the exact same thing that the previous administration created.

[NineSpine]

I love how people like you lump in the Bank Bailout into that... as if John McCain was elected that he wouldn't have signed in the exact same thing that the previous administration created.

Nearly $2T of that is lost revenues due to the state of the economy inherited, and another sizable chunk is Iraq and Afghanistan, and then you have the Bush tax rates pushing it up even more.

[Grizzly Willy]

I'm still not clear who was "behind the talking points." Is that supposed to be the CIA?

[NineSpine]

I'm still not clear who was "behind the talking points." Is that supposed to be the CIA?

It was the CIA. They told her what they were willing to say publicly about the attack and that's what she went from. The original, unedited talking points by the CIA specifically said the event was caused by a spontaneous protest.

[Orbitus]

Unless they are dragged off to Golfing with Pelousy, or engage in deep constitutional reiding. ;-)

To be fair I hope Reid has a heart-attack or something that forces his retirement, and his seat is won by a Republican. He's an old man who is past his prime, and he's intentionally stonewalled everything Congress has done or sent his way because he refuses to enact any policy, hoping and praying that he can just drag the clock out and that the Democrats will retake the House. Pelosi was the same way in the Congress and I'm glad she's not the speaker any longer. She's trash through and through, and while her district will stupidly continue to send her back, at the least we can hope that she'll never gain that power again.

Adding Obama as President was like making the stars align, and that's the only reason Obama-Care was passed. Because Howdy Doody would of signed a law to legalize anything if it came from the Democrats. He knows damned well most of the things proposed are good ideas. But for the sake of his party and praying he can make the Republican Party break he, Pelosi and Obama continue on.

Ironically, most people are very well aware of this, and I wager that the 1% margin that won it for Obama wouldn't of occured if the IRS hadn't stacked the decks, or if the Job Numbers had not been delayed in 2012. I'm thinking 2016 may be a nasty year for Dems since they didnt get the hint with Scott Brown, or the Congressional Elections. Thank god Obama can't run for President again. He's beyond worthless, and made George Bush who I equally disliked look like a saint.

But then again as old man Palpatine said, Those who have power are usually afraid of losing it.

I'm sorry, who's stonewalling congress? How many filibusters has the republicans used since Obama got into office? Something like 400? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ibuster-fight/

[NYC17]

I'm still not clear who was "behind the talking points." Is that supposed to be the CIA?

Are you referring to who was actually behind them(CIA)? Or who was behind them according to Oblivionx's conspiracy?

[Grizzly Willy]

Are you referring to who was actually behind them(CIA)? Or who was behind them according to Oblivionx's conspiracy?

The latter.

[NYC17]

The latter.

Who knows? Some amalgam of government boogeymen, probly.

[Felya]

http://portalseven.com/employment/un...nt_rate_u6.jsp

Obama took office in January of 2009. The U6 was 14.2% When he was sworn in for his second term it was 14.4%. It is now 14%. It peaked at 17.1% at the end of 2009.

Nothing from what I said changes. Obama's increased the national debt by six trillion since he took office. And for all of that the U6 is only .2% lower now than when he took office.

The difference between his link and yours, is the increase in private jobs versus Obama making government smaller. Unless you want to claim that despite the Dow being over twice what it was at it's lowest point during the recession, the private sector is still not hiring.

[frumper]

Many of the new jobs created have been jobs that many posters will tell you aren't meant to raise a family on, they're for teenagers and uneducated people(as if uneducated people shouldn't be able to raise a family on a hard days work). Its a crock of phooey.

[Grizzly Willy]

Many of the new jobs created have been jobs that many posters will tell you aren't meant to raise a family on, they're for teenagers and uneducated people(as if uneducated people shouldn't be able to raise a family on a hard days work). Its a crock of phooey.

To be fair, I'm sure you'll get posters here that would say that the uneducated shouldn't be able to reproduce period.

[Felya]

I love how people like you lump in the Bank Bailout into that... as if somehow John McCain was elected instead in 2008 that he somehow wouldn't have signed in the exact same thing that the previous administration created.

Bush passed TARP at the end of his term, so the price tag gets blamed on Obama. When in fact, cutting TARP in nearly half, was part if Obama signed Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

[Vongimi]

Yeah, "Obama lied and 4 died", right.

How about "the Republican choice for President failed, and over three thousand people died in what will forever be known as the most infamous day in the history of the United States."

Yeah, 9/11 was Bush's fault. His people knew of the attack long before. They did nothing. No... But... Benghazi. Yeah, well, 9/11 could've been prevented. But Benghazi!

< insert republican and fox news talking point here >

You can make the argument that they knew at attack was coming, I'll give you that. But the nature of the attack was so fast that by the time people knew what was going on the damage was already done. It was over in a matter of minutes. There really was no way to stop that unless you had amazing intelligence that knew exactly what planes those men were going to board, and who those men were in the first place. Benghazi was over the course of several hours with REPEATED denials of support. With the WTC attacks fighters were scrambled right away and a no-fly-zone was enforced to prevent any more attacks (ended up being no more anyways). In Benghazi several cries for help were blatantly denied over the course of hours. Completely different and not comparable.