Rand Paul (R TX) says “This [Bengazi] is the worst tragedy since 9/11.” and suggests Clinton should have been fired.
I’m sure there is going to be criticism on Paul for the “The worst tragedy since 9/1″ statement.
All cable news channels are broadcasting the hearing along with ABC News Now and CNNi simulcasting CNNs coverage.
The Libertarian demanding more federal involvement in foreign lands was pretty bizarre.
Is anyone going to ask Hillary why she blamed the Benghazi murders on the YouTube filmmaker?
I agree, ice.
Many on the left will try to use semantics to distract and deflect from what actually happened. And at some point, someone will probably scream “racism!” or “sexism!” as a way of shutting down any further talk of Clinton or Obama’s responsibility and reaction to the matter.
But if you alter your words, simply to make sure the left doesn’t do that… there wouldn’t be much to say, other than “Obama is great!” while smiling and nodding.
Bengazi was a major mistake by the Obama administration and it would be bad if MSNBC decides to concentrate mostly on Ron Paul’s 9/11 comment and not the actual reason for the hearing today.
Jeanine Pirro better do at least one segment on Hillary Clinton’s appearance at the Bengazi hearing on her next show since Pirro made it the main issue on her show even rebranding it as “Justice for America” then she dropped the story for almost a month.
Is there any doubt that MSNBC will find something to babble about, other than the actual testimony or something relevant? Certainly not.
What are y’all barking about? MSNBC’s been running the hearing, live.
Reading is fundamental.
Andy, what I’m saying is,
when MSNBC discusses the hearings on their shows the are going to talk about more Ron Paul’s 9/11 comment then they do about Bengazi?
On an unrelated note CNBC is copying FBN’s “After The Closing Bell” as “Street Signs” is now being done with the hosts standing at a desk.
As for the 9/11 remark – that’s how A LOT of Republicans feel.
Carol, if the “blaming the video” thing is still the only thing you care about, then y’all have issues.
I wonder when the investigations in to Pat Tillman’s death will begin.
I’m so glad Congress is forcing the Secretary of State to outline, in detail, and broadcast to the world all our security problems, live, on international television. I mean, let’s just tell everyone where we have problems and where American diplomats and American citizens are easy hunting. Morons.
I seem to remember Republicans not liking the 9/11 Commission because it was all in hindsight.
I want a fair and impartial hearing in to the Benghazi attack. I have concerns. But this is a hatchet job.
They don’t know if it was planned or fueled by a video? Seriously? Are you effing kidding me?! Holy ……….
It took no time for Chris Matthews to go in to stupid mode.
“Hillary kicks butt, let’s play Hardball”
This is entertaining. Howard Fineman just called out Chris Tinglelegs over calling Congressmen “clowns” and “piss ants”.
Even after Matthews began his transformation into a hard leftist, I still managed to enjoy his program and hold respect for him. But, he’s just a clown now. A sideshow. A punchline. He claims to be a political history junkie. He claims to hold respect for those in Washington. But, he obviously only respects one side of the aisle. He’s jumped on the MSNBC crazy train and hasn’t looked back.
Tinglelegs forgot to take his medication today. Ridiculous.
It’s time for Chris, Big Ed and Reverend Al to go.
I hope the media focuses on something else that Rand Paul said – that if he were president and he knew that Hillary did not read the cables from Amb. Stevens, he would have relieved her of her duties.
Terry Moran already has. By mocking him over his lack of military service or overseas business experience. You know the same way Terry did with Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and every other Democrat….oops.
Lonestar, I just read Moran’s tweet mocking Rand Paul. Yeah, I’m sure he had the same foreign policy concerns in 2007 and 2008 about Sen. Obama. Not.
Rand Paul made a fool of himself. “If I had been President..” He looked like a little boy talking bull to a grownup. It was a bizarre performance.
^ That’s because of your political leanings. I don’t think non-liberals see it that way.
I don’t think non-liberals can win elections these days. “Non-liberals” in Congress need to snap out of it and stop saying stupid stuff to a base that seems content to be angry and irrelevant.
Ok. Neat analysis. It’s comical when liberals accuse conservatives of being angry.
The difference between far left and far right is that right now, far left is in charge. The left has one leader who looks good on television, where we have a bunch of angry media-types and substandard political leaders. That being the case, the advice of an actual conservative like Erick Erickson might be somewhat useful.
“FOX News: Fair and Balanced.”
I saw a promo on CNN which called Soledad O’Brien either “Fair” or “Balanced” – can’t remember which one. Anyway, I laughed out loud.
Erick Erickson? Bleh.
O’Reilly doing a segment on a poll showing liberals are more intolerant in on-line forums than conservatives. Noooooooooooooooooooo! And, water is wet.
O’Reilly used the word “ghetto”. Up next, faux outrage from lefty newsers/bloggers/basement living losers.
How DARE FOX mock Clinton on an opinion show!
Now, I’ll defend MSNBC for doing far worse.
Just saw the ratings from Monday when looking at TVNewser and it appears that whatever CNN did covering the Inaugural was viewer enticing. They near tripled FOX in total viewers at 9pm, nearly 6x in the demo during that hour, and that’s not even considering the other hours.
CNN covered the Inaugural like it was cool to witness the peaceful transition of power. They enjoyed the parade, and made it enjoyable for the viewers. I loved it.
I always love the Inauguration… FOX and MSNBC were disappointing. Chris Matthews was all tingly. FOX was busy telling us all how evil BO was (hence why nobody watched them). CNN did a classy job.
I’ve gotten more information watching CBS News Up To The Minute in 30 minutes than I got from six hours of MSNBC and FOX Noise.
Get back to the basics, people.
Diane Feinstein will introduce a new assault weapons limiting the number of COSMETIC features from 2 (like the previous ban) to 1. Yippee. What does that accomplish? Nothing. And, she’s going to surround herself with scary, scary, dangerous looking weapons at her big event.
Liberal politics 101. Accomplish nothing except stripping people of a right by using emotion when facts don’t work. And, enlist the help of a corrupt, compliant national media.
Thank God for the good Senator. No one will ever be killed again. We should name a national holiday after her.
And apropos of nothing, Obama is still talking about “lowering healthcare costs”. Because we’re all supposed to be stupid, and not remember that that’s what ObamaCare was supposed to do.
I prefer LaPierre’s approach, which is opposition to universal background checks (with 93% of public support) because The Evil Guvment with have your name on record, then come to take All The Guns and throw you in the Gulag. Fcking quack.
LaPierre boogeyman or not, none of it accomplishes anything. And Carolyn McCarthy is an idiot, regardless of her ‘history’.
I’ll side with someone against the government restricting freedoms over someone restricting my freedoms any day. The left bases everything on emotion. They rarely accomplish squat.
You have to love how the media chooses its narrative. Poor Hillary had to answer questions. And, she may not have been forthcoming but she showed very good political skills – cuz, you know, that’s what the hearings were about. And, how many tough questions were asked from Democrats? Does the media care that the Dems don’t care about learning the facts?
Contrast that with how they’d have portrayed a Republican facing questions from Dems. Pathetic.
You have conservatives on FNC like Hannity and others suggesting Clinton was acting when she got mad during comments from Senator Johnson. They really believe she had someone prepping her on when get angry and how to act? That’s stupid.
I would pay money to see Krystal Ball reach across the table and smack that smirk off SE Cupp’s face.
I would pay money to see SE Cupp reach over and smack the racism out of Toure. That would take more than a smack, though. He’s definitely one of the most racist figures ever to appear on a news network.
So, SE Cupp beats the crap out of Touré and Krystal Ball beats the crap out of SE Cupp. Now that’s a show that would get some nice ratings.
And yeah, Touré drives me insane. Everything’s a “race” thing with him. Speaking of a race thing, is it time for the drive to Daytona yet?
I guess the news that CNN will hire on Rachel Nichols of ESPN to do a weekend sports program is a sign of that expanding scope of “news” Zucker wanted to do.
“LaPierre boogeyman”? Don’t patronize me with that condescending crap. Wayne LaPierre is the leader of the gun lobby in this country; wields an obscene amount of power on Capitol Hill; and the position I dilineated is exactly what he claims. Your “boogeyman” supports a civilian population which can meet the military might of our own government in the event of an imagined war against it. Which makes him a threat to this country. Now go BS someone who hasn’t actually listen to the man speak, or knows his power.
Regarding Touré, I can’t any host on a cable news channel seriously when they only go by their first name.
A weekend sports program? There are six cable sports networks………..
Liberal Democrats are even more irrational than Republicans. I’ve been trying to explain, all day, why going the distance on filibuster reform would’ve been a horrible idea. They don’t want to hear it. They’re just cutting off their nose to spite their face.
^ Gee, ya think? Juvenile insult aside, all they know is “We won. It benefits us.” They believe the BS about being a permanent majority, and can’t conceive of a time when they’ll need a filibuster to block some evil, awful, barely conservative measure. Republicans tried to do that same around ’05, except we were badgered into backing down. Not much chance of the press calling it “nuclear” these days.
They’re too emotional. They’re not thinking about long term implications of filibuster reform. Stopping personhood, blocking repeals of bank/oil regs and gun laws, stopping repeals of Obama-era legislation should all be more important to progressive Democrats. But they think they’ll never lose another election.
But, they want to “do something” every time they get butthurt instead of realizing that, sometimes, doing nothing is the best course of action.
I’m gonna send some of them some Kleenex and Prep H. It’s ridiculous.
You should never trust one namers….cher, Rosie…Hillary :)
Each side intermittently deludes itself into thinking that they’ve finally won it all, and if only the opposition would just get out of the way, The People would see how great things could be.
We’ll see how that works in California. :mrgreen:
But, that’s the thing, laura, there are enough “takers” in this country to continually vote for Democrats no matter what happens to the country. And, the Dems have been successful at playing identity politics. I, like most conservatives, think everybody should be treated the same. The Dems, in a quest for power, have spent their lives telling large groups of people that they suck at life and can only succeed with the help of the government because the evil powers that be (the white man) won’t give them a chance.
^ Stupidest post ever.
And that’s why the Republicans keep losing — telling the majority of Americans that they’re “takers”, “freeloaders” and so on takes the discourse nowhere. First of all, there are very few “takers”. The “wealthy” benefit much more from the tax system than I do. Not to mention that Congress just raised taxes on the “takers” exponentially.
So are you arguing that the Dems don’t essentially buy votes from people in exchange for handouts? Are you arguing that Dems haven’t created a class of people who will never be successful because they either:
a) rely on the government
b) think the whole world is racist
c) don’t know any better because the left won’t tell them truth.
Buying votes through “welfare” is exactly the same as buying votes by promising to “cut taxes”.
Buying votes by cutting taxes…AKA letting you keep a larger share of YOUR OWN FREAKING MONEY. Those evil rich people that you’re so jealous of pay about half their income to the government to support the lazy a$$ people we all knew in school who didn’t do sh!t.
That’s awesome though that you think letting people keep their own money is buying their votes.
Speaking of dumbest post ever.
Adios. I’m off on a jet plane.
Paying taxes is part of the deal of being an adult in the United States. Elements of society think that, since they’re “successful”, they should be “rewarded” by having their share reduced. That’s your entitlement society right there.
The 9pm shows on CNN and FNC are getting really stale.
Piers has the same arguments on gun control talking over his guests.
Hannity has the same anti Obama and media bias segments.
No wonder Rachel Maddow is in second and sometimes first pace in the demo.
There was a surprising amount of agreement on Special Report about women being allowed in combat. It’s kind of an amazing thing, and even more so because it’s kind of not that big of a deal. 30, 32 years ago, the Equal Rights Amendment was defeated, based upon the notion of g@y marriage, women in combat, and unisex bathrooms. I am not even kidding.
I’m ok with women in combat if they pass the same physical tests. Currently, to become a Marine, the standards are much lower.
There simply aren’t that many women in the world that can perform at the physical level of the average man. Much less an infantryman. That’s not a slam, its the truth. If it weren’t, women would compete with men in sports.
That’s the catch, the perhaps inevitable lowering of standards. One can only hope that’s not the case.
I have to wonder if there isn’t another reason why they’re doing it. Is it possible that so many young men are overweight, undereducated, had brushes with the law and/or use of psychiatric medication that the military needed to expand the pool of eligible applicants?
I doubt it. I tried to get in to officers candidate school about ten yrs ago and got denied. I passed the physical tests. I suppose I could have enlisted. But, I don’t think there’s a current shortage. The father of my godchild is a drill instructor and he says there’s no shortage. Sounds like another political play to me. cuz, if you come out against or for the same standards, you’re obviously anti woman
“That’s not a slam, its the truth. If it weren’t, women would compete with men in sports.”
What I gleaned from Sec Clinton’s non-testimony is that the hearings were designed to be theatre from the get-go, and I suspect more than a couple senators of both sides of the aisle were in-the-know about that. My bet is that Amb. Stevens was the point man in a CIA op that had something to do with interference of ongoing weapons transfers and, for that, he was targeted and ambushed.
- No other country maintained an embassy because Libya was too dangerous. We had an embassy and a consulate. America “going it alone” under Obama?
- That lack of security for the ambassador never sounded legit, and “lack of funding” as a reason is ridiculous.
- The attack was monitored in real time, so that “movie protest” administration line was contrived and orchestrated… not to cover up for the American public but for foreign eyes and ears. Why? Because it can’t ever be admitted that an American ambassador-level diplomat is primarily doing CIA duty.
- The ‘annex’ that was attacked was a CIA location.
- Amb Susan Rice has the security clearance level and had plenty of time to allow her all of the facts surrounding Benghazi before going on Sunday talk shows, but she did not use that ability. That had to be on purpose.
- It was deemed “too dangerous” for the FBI to get a team on site to conduct an investigation and no US team had entered the site for two weeks. A CNN reporter “finds” the ambassador’s … ahem… diary amongst the ruins. Bunk.
- Candidates Romney & Ryan did criticise the president’s Middle East policies but from some quarters, anyway, were themselves criticised for not hammering hard enough on him over the Libya fiasco. It was also reported at the time that they had both been given their first presidential national security briefing.
That’s what I think. It was a cover-up by the administration but not one with the primary purpose of covering their own bee-hinds.
Benghazi only got an opening commentary segment from Pirro then she went back to ignoring as they switched to the topic of the U.S. government giving F16′s to Egypt then two pro gun segments.
Where’s the Benghazi coverage Judge?
Maybe Judge Pirro watched the hearing and realised she was barking up the wrong tree. I don’t think Stevens was working for Clinton. For past situations involving the State Department is was usually the State Department that took responsibility for what was said publicly and to the press. This time, though, the approved talking points came from NSA. Odd.