Thursday, May 9, 2013


Here's a twofer that covers it. First, The Rude Pundit:

The reason the Rude Pundit can't count the number of fucks he doesn't give about Benghazi is because there is not a goddamned thing that anyone has said that could have prevented the attack from happening (other than the hindsight observation that security in Benghazi should have been beefed up. Yep, and having flying monkeys drop grenades would have been cool, too). And the only possible scandal is that, after the fact, some people said some shit that might not be true. That's it. That's all there is. So, please understand, House GOP members and noted panty-wearer Lindsey Graham, we don't care about Benghazi, no matter how much you want us to. You can bring out every self-aggrandizing State Department employee you want, but, sorry, you have not been able to fluff the flaccid prick of this into a proud, erect Libyagate.

So that's the deal: Obama's Benghazi "lies" for Bush's Iraq lies. And then let the chips fall where they may with guilt and prosecution. Then we can swap again. Say Fast and Furious for approval of torture. You might think it's mutually assured destruction, but, dear, dumb GOP, like when you overplayed the Bill Clinton blow job perjury charge, you seem to think that possible lies to cover-up fuck-ups are the same as lies that lead directly to thousands of people dying. You seem to think that low-level incompetence is the same as giving the orders to commit war crimes.

But, no, really, continue with the Hillary Clinton bashing, which is all this actually is. It's just so retro-charming at this point. Make sure that no Republicans even thinks about voting for her in 2016. That's a valuable way to spend your time. And if this one doesn't stick, well, the Rude Pundit's pretty sure you'll just move on to a new fake scandal rather than actually governing.

And the must-see by Jon Stewart who nails it better than the non-comedic media once again:

Notable quote from this next one:

"IF?! IF?! If dingleberries were diamonds I could open a Kay's Jewellers in my pants!"

Note to the Repugs: Stick to trying to undo Obamacare. It's not going to happen just like drumming up "Benghazigate" isn't working and you don't have to waste as much time and money. Hillary's going to be a two term Prez so suck it in silence, bitchez.


Andrew Sullivan:

Which is the only reason we haven’t covered this much. Because what is worth covering has largely been covered; because some in government have already lost their jobs for the incompetence; because we have had nine separate Congressional investigations, while attacks on embassies and consulates in the past have been far less likely to be controversial. In other words: this is now a function entirely of factionalism. It’s a test of how far one cable news channel can go in creating something big out of something tragic, regrettable, well worth looking into, but in the end scarcely scandalous.

Update the twoth:

Addicting Info:

This Benghazi thing is making the right insane. Literally. You know the saying about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result? That’s where the GOP is right now. They are so invested in this fantasy that they have lost any ability to see reality. And Fox News feeds the fire, complaining that no other news outlets are covering this. Could it be because it’s utter and complete bullshit? Of course not, not to these modern-day inquisitors. They hate our president that much. It’s sickening.



Grung_e_Gene said...

Oh pish-tosh The Right isn't Insane! It's not as if they are, ummm, voting to Destroy the ACA again!!!

I would like, and this would be a one-time somewhat risky gambit for someone to ask one of these REMFpublican Benghazi Birds to name the 4 Americans they are constantly invoking.

wkmaier said...

Something about Obama drives the mouthbreathers crazy. They just hate hi so much. I can't for the life of me imagine what it could be about him... ;-)

casey said...

Hello Grung_e_Gene,

I haven't seen REMF in a long time. It brought a smile to me. I am sure "Miss Lindsey" is included.

Gordon said...

REMFpublican is good!

BadTux said...

I keep waiting for a tighty righty to mention one -- ONE -- law broken by the Obama Administration when it comes to Benghazi. They just sputter and spew. Look, even if everything the Repukes said was true -- that Obama was warned and did nothing, that Obama kept the Special Forces from swooping to the rescue, that Obama didn't send in F-16 fighter jets when he could have, Obama lied to the media afterwards -- NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THOSE THINGS IS ILLEGAL! Crap, if they were, the Chimperor himself would be in jail for ignoring the warnings prior to 9/11, then lying about WMD to get us to go to war against Iraq!

Somebody, somewhere, tell me what law was broken by Obama and/or Madame Secretary. Because even if the right is correct about the Obama administration being incompetent, lazy, or lying, that ain't a crime, or all of Fox News would be in jail. Just sayin' :).

- Badtux the Baffled Penguin

Ghoulardi said...

So Badtux, you are ok with the administration falsifying documents that even ABC News says happened? Or how about Hillary Clinton lying to congress?

Oh, wait. Both of those are against the law. Nevermind.

BadTux said...

Ghoul, falsifying documents is not a crime. Otherwise half the Bush Administration would be in jail for falsifying "proof" that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Hilary Clinton lying to Congress is a crime only if she was under oath. No administration official since the days of Richard Nixon has agreed to testify under oath to Congress.

So let me repeat what I said, *EVEN IF WHAT YOU SAID WAS TRUE* (which is in some dispute), nobody has pointed out to me any statute that the Obama administration violated. Lying is *NOT* a crime. Otherwise George W. Bush and the entire Fox News cast (and several pundits and "reporters" for the New York Times) would be doing time for lying us into an unnecessary war in Iran West (oops, "Iraq", well, it *used* to be an independent country until we handed it to Iran on a platter), rather than being fat and happy on the wingnut welfare.

- Badtux the "Lying is deplorable, but not a crime" Penguin

Ghoulardi said...


From US Code, Title 18 part 1:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

Game, set, match.

BadTux said...

Err, Title 18 part 1 is the entire criminal code. Care to be more specific? From what I can tell you are quoting from the section about *TESTIMONY UNDER OATH*. Which has nothing to do with anything to deal with Benghazi, since the Obama Administration has made no -- zero -- testimony under oath about the situation.

Ghoulardi said...

Lower ranking officials did testify under oath, Hillary did not take an oath and there is a big difference. Under oath opens one up to perjury charges. Panels usually do not swear in higher ranking officials in deference to their position.

However even if not sworn in you are legally obligated to tell the truth. This is in the code 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which I quoted which deals with testimony not taken under oath. So, do I think based on what she said and what we know she broke the law, yeah.

Regardless I'm sure you and I will agree that "Some pigs are more equal than others" and nothing will come of this, just as some think Cheney or Bush or some other repub should have been brought to trial.

Do I think she should be tried? No. I think she is a liar. I think both sides are gunning for political points. I'd rather just have the truth acknowledged, learn from mistakes and let Americans know we will make every effort to protect them.

Ghoulardi said...

Sorry, full title for the code is:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 > § 1001

§ 1001. Statements or entries generally

BadTux said...

Thank you. Perhaps you wish to look up the definition of "Material Statement"? Hint: It isn't what you think (material statements are those which would have the effect of changing the actions or conclusions of the committee if misrepresented or inaccurate, which is not an issue here since Chairweasel Issa has already decided his conclusions beforehand in this political soap opera), and furthermore omissions such as redacting out classified CIA operations in the public version of documents is specifically enabled elsewhere by the National Security Act of 1947. The only Congressmen cleared to get unredacted information about CIA operations are the respective Intelligence committees, and Issa knows this quite well, but he's grandstanding.

In short, *if* Issa had the power to take this to court, a) materiality would likely cause the case to be dismissed, and b) the National Security Act of 1947 would likely be used as a defense. The combination of the two would likely lead to the court dismissing the case.

Of course, Issa doesn't have the power to take this to court, only the Attorney General has that power. Somehow I cannot see Attorney General Eric Holder doing anything of the sort... meaning that it's all just political grandstanding in the first place. Which is pointless. Obama already done well been electorated and Issa don't got the votes in the Senate to get him dis-electorated, so it's just so much noise about nothing.

Ghoulardi said...

Ad-hominem attacks aside, if Hillary and Rice and Jones et al had not lied, would Basseley Nakoula be in jail? Would the FBI had to cool it's heels for over two weeks before being admitted into the compound?

The Libyan prime minister knew it was a terror attack and our admin's blaming it on a video embarrassed him to the point he held the FBI at bay.

The memos that went under 11 revisions were not secret cables that had redactions. Redactions are evidenced by the black magic marker like lines obscuring things. These were wholesale changes, omitting some things and putting in others in a big game of CYA.

If you don't think lying to a federal entity is illegal, tell a huge whopper on your next tax filing and see what happens.

It's not the crime, it's the coverup. That this administration lies so blatantly and you don't see it but are totally convinced that the Bush administration lied about everything is hypocrisy at it's finest.

BadTux said...

Again, only lying about a *material fact* is covered by that law. And, BTW, by the Internal Revenue Code. You can lie and tell the IRS that your profession is "professional blogger", because that's not a material fact. But you can't lie about your income, because that *is* a material fact -- it changes how the IRS assesses taxes against you.

Regarding the FBI, the CIA was there on site, and usually conducts investigations regarding CIA operations -- which Benghazi was. The FBI is not allowed on site until the CIA "scrubs" any classified installations for which the FBI has no "need to know", such as removing surveillance gear and records. You're just pulling shit out of your ass about why the FBI wasn't on site until two weeks later, because you don't know, and, more importantly, will never know, because that would divulge classified information. Which, BTW, some of the white wing Congressmen have already done, in violation of their security clearances. Are you proposing that they be prosecuted under the National Security Act?

Ghoulardi said...

Material facts are those that will affect the outcome. You believe all the lies and changes to the cause of the attack are not material because *in your OPINION* the committee had already made up it's mind. Now who is pulling things out of thin air?

The job of the FBI is to investigate international terrorism. It does not take anyone over two weeks to collect any sensitive data.

Greg Hicks (voted for Obama twice) said in testimony, "President Magariaf was insulted in front of his own people, in front of the world. His credibility was reduced." He said the president was "still steamed" two weeks later.

The FBI was in Tripoli cooling it's heels all this time due to this face slap.

BadTux said...

Oh give me a break, Ghoul. Issa's Bhenghazi crusade was all about politics from day one, and if you don't think so, you're an utter cretin and moron. The reality is that the Obama administration broke no laws with their actions in Libya and it's dubious that dueling agencies' attempts to spin the facts point the finger at each other has any significance at all.

Watergate this ain't -- there was an actual crime being covered up by Watergate, while we already know what's being covered up by Benghazi-"gate" -- the fact that the CIA is a buncha retards who got an ambassador killed, then tried to spin it that it was State's fault. The fact that the CIA's presence in Benghazi is classified information and that if asked about it the Administration will pre-censor or spin the information in a way that keeps methods and sources secret may annoy Issa, but if he wants to discuss classified information in an open forum he's shit outta luck and can go fuck a duck. He already got one of our assets in Libya killed, what, he wants to get more of'em killed? What a fucking asshole.

- Badtux the "The only crime is in your head" Penguin

Ghoulardi said...

Again, because you believe the committee had a conclusion before the fact does not make it true.

If Benghazi was political from day one it was the dems that made it so. They decided to blame a mob/video. They decided to scrub the talking points of the truth. They decided to put the screws to the guys on the ground to avoid talking to congressmen. They decided what message would be put out on the Sunday talk shows, et cetera, et cetera.

It appears that your argument is that as long as no laws are broken, then whatever the government does is fine.

Nixon committed no crime, and was never indited. All he did was lie so by your metric, that was ok.

Also, you stated on May 11, "...
falsifying documents is not a crime." No, it is a crime.

If the desire was not to influence everyone, why did the talking points on the attack morph from terrorist attack to spontaneous mob upset with never seen video?

The ambassador requested more security assets and was rebuffed by state. During the attack military assets were denied. These were not CIA directed denials of service.

Here is the main point, I hope you and I can agree on; Assets of the United States were attacked and there was no effort to protect them. Every attempt should be made to protect our interests the world over, even if the attempt fails (Iran) it should be made.

BadTux said...

Dude, what the fuck? None of what you say happened is a crime, *IF* it happened. Which 99% of what you just said above is pure unadulterated bullshit that didn't happen -- put down the Fox Nooz, dude, and step away, it's turning your brain into mush (and btw we have proof of that -- watchers of Fox News know less about world events when surveyed than people who watch no TV news at all!).

Like I said, this whole thing's been political bullshit from day one (and yes, Obama is playing politics too -- he's a politician, DUH!) and if you think otherwise you're either a moron or a liar. I'm starting to think the latter. Good day, I think this discussion is over since you're repeating the same talking points over and over again without ever, like, actually answering my question and pointing out a CRIME that the Obama administration is supposedly trying to cover up (not even a fucking THIRD RATE BURGLARY, for cryin' out loud!).

And BTW, when the committee supposedly investigating an attack upon an embassy DOESN'T EVEN INVITE THE STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL WHO WROTE THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S REPORT ON THE ATTACK and instead invites some Republican-appointed "whistleblowers" who had nothing to do with the investigation to testify... dude. Like I said. Political bullshit from day one.

Anonymous said...

bad tux, whatever brilliance you think you have is blunted by your sujectivity, blatant bias and foul mouth. i'll say it for Ghoulardi - YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE.


Ghoulardi said...

BadTux claims 99% of what I said didn't happen. Hyperbole aside, show me one fact (not opinion)I said that was a lie.

Or are you going to lob that bomb and run away?