Wanna know of a sure-fire way to get everybody at a party drunk? Play a game I like to call "Getting Foxed with Benghazi." Here's how you play. First, you grab a bunch of shot glasses, bottles of liquor, and pass them around. Next, turn on the Fox News channel. Lastly, whenever someone on Fox News utters the word "Benghazi," you take a shot. This will guarantee that everyone is drunk and passed out within 15 minutes. You're welcome.
In all seriousness, however, talk of Benghazi has been floating about Congress and the airwaves at a greater clip than Gerard Butler, Katherine Heigl, and Nicolas Cage star in bad movies. Congressional Republicans and conservative talking heads have compared Benghazi to Watergate and Iran-Contra more than I've been compared to Tom Hanks by drunks. As a result, the right and left are pointing fingers more than Hugh Hefner's gotten laid.
The right's general talking point is that four Americans died in the attacks and the Obama Administration was involved in a cover-up over the attacks for political purposes. The left's general counter is that over 50 such incidents occurred under then President George W. Bush's watch and Congressional Republicans didn't even contemplate investigating matters further, yet, for some strange reason, they're hell-bent on doing so this time around. The right then typically responds with, "Well, none of those incidents were cover-ups! Benghazi was! Major difference!" ...and so it goes...
I'm not going to deny the fact mistakes were made in the run up to the Benghazi attacks or how it was handled. However, post-investigation reports have consistently shown "incompetence," but no hard evidence of a cover-up. If liberals want a counter against the altering of talking points and alleged cover-up over four Americans' lives, all they have to do is point to the WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction) claim, which led us to war with Iraq and ended up costing 4,000+ soldiers their lives. Bush then continually altered our "reason" for invading Iraq. If some truly feel his initial reason was to "spread democracy," they obviously have quite a selective memory.
Benghazi: 4 American lives lost
Iraq War: 4,000+ American lives lost
This honestly isn't about lives lost, however. It's also not an attempt to target President Obama and get the man impeached from office. Like I wrote in an earlier blog, two-thirds of the Democratic-controlled Senate would have to approve of the measure to impeach Obama, and call me crazy, but 22 of the 55 Democratic Senators are not going to vote that way. No, this is about the 2016 election and trying to win back the White House. It's an attempt to place blame on Hillary Clinton for the attacks and make her unelectable come 2016, because the GOP (and most others) feel their biggest threat to another election day defeat is Hillary Clinton. Her poll numbers are excellent and it appears that at this time, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie would be the only Republican candidate whom could potentially defeat Clinton. The Democrats don't really have a solid #2 option at this point. Joe Biden's name has been mentioned here and there, but in terms of electability, he's definitely a notch or two below Hillary Clinton. So, if Congressional Republicans can discredit Clinton due to the Benghazi attacks, they'll feel much more confident about their chances of re-taking the White House come January of 2017. The reports coming in, however, aren't looking good for the GOP on that front, and I feel that it's unlikely Clinton's electability will be hindered much due to the attacks.
While Congressional Republicans have been laying claim that the Obama Administration was involved in a cover-up due to political reasons over the Benghazi attacks, it appears painfully obvious that these same Congressional Republicans are hell-bent on the attacks due to political reasons. Hopefully the two parties can put this childishness behind them and start working for the American people whom elected them into office, for reasons other than just politics.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/libya-consulate-embassy-attacks-obama-romney
In all seriousness, however, talk of Benghazi has been floating about Congress and the airwaves at a greater clip than Gerard Butler, Katherine Heigl, and Nicolas Cage star in bad movies. Congressional Republicans and conservative talking heads have compared Benghazi to Watergate and Iran-Contra more than I've been compared to Tom Hanks by drunks. As a result, the right and left are pointing fingers more than Hugh Hefner's gotten laid.
The right's general talking point is that four Americans died in the attacks and the Obama Administration was involved in a cover-up over the attacks for political purposes. The left's general counter is that over 50 such incidents occurred under then President George W. Bush's watch and Congressional Republicans didn't even contemplate investigating matters further, yet, for some strange reason, they're hell-bent on doing so this time around. The right then typically responds with, "Well, none of those incidents were cover-ups! Benghazi was! Major difference!" ...and so it goes...
I'm not going to deny the fact mistakes were made in the run up to the Benghazi attacks or how it was handled. However, post-investigation reports have consistently shown "incompetence," but no hard evidence of a cover-up. If liberals want a counter against the altering of talking points and alleged cover-up over four Americans' lives, all they have to do is point to the WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction) claim, which led us to war with Iraq and ended up costing 4,000+ soldiers their lives. Bush then continually altered our "reason" for invading Iraq. If some truly feel his initial reason was to "spread democracy," they obviously have quite a selective memory.
Benghazi: 4 American lives lost
Iraq War: 4,000+ American lives lost
This honestly isn't about lives lost, however. It's also not an attempt to target President Obama and get the man impeached from office. Like I wrote in an earlier blog, two-thirds of the Democratic-controlled Senate would have to approve of the measure to impeach Obama, and call me crazy, but 22 of the 55 Democratic Senators are not going to vote that way. No, this is about the 2016 election and trying to win back the White House. It's an attempt to place blame on Hillary Clinton for the attacks and make her unelectable come 2016, because the GOP (and most others) feel their biggest threat to another election day defeat is Hillary Clinton. Her poll numbers are excellent and it appears that at this time, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie would be the only Republican candidate whom could potentially defeat Clinton. The Democrats don't really have a solid #2 option at this point. Joe Biden's name has been mentioned here and there, but in terms of electability, he's definitely a notch or two below Hillary Clinton. So, if Congressional Republicans can discredit Clinton due to the Benghazi attacks, they'll feel much more confident about their chances of re-taking the White House come January of 2017. The reports coming in, however, aren't looking good for the GOP on that front, and I feel that it's unlikely Clinton's electability will be hindered much due to the attacks.
While Congressional Republicans have been laying claim that the Obama Administration was involved in a cover-up due to political reasons over the Benghazi attacks, it appears painfully obvious that these same Congressional Republicans are hell-bent on the attacks due to political reasons. Hopefully the two parties can put this childishness behind them and start working for the American people whom elected them into office, for reasons other than just politics.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/libya-consulate-embassy-attacks-obama-romney
Comments
Post a Comment