Big Peace:
At a 60-person Democratic fundraiser Monday night, President Barack Obama told donors that debates over scandals such as Benghazi and Obamacare are pointless.
“The debate we’re having now is about what, Benghazi? Obamacare? And it becomes this endless loop. It’s not serious. It’s not speaking to the real concerns that people have,” said Obama.
The event, held at the Potomac, Maryland, home of a doctor, comes on the heels of a new Politico poll of key 2014 midterm election states that found 60% of voters say the Obamacare debate is “not over.” Furthermore, according to a new Gallup poll, Americans rate “abuse of power/corruption” as the second “most important” problem in America.
The Government Accountability Institute (GAI) released a Benghazi timeline that revealed Obama failed to attend his daily intelligence briefings (officially known as the Presidential Daily Brief, or PDB) for the five consecutive days leading up to the September 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.
Obama’s words are simple wishful thinking peppered with Straw Men.
His expression that “Benghazi? Obamacare? And it becomes this endless loop. It’s not serious. It’s not speaking to the real concerns that people have,” flies in the face of polling.
Unemployment/Jobs is #1
Abuse of Gov’t Power is #2
Bad Economy is #3
High cost healthcare #4
Federal Debt #5
Gap Rich V Poor #10
Amnesty-Illegals #11
Pollution #12
Race Relations #13
So Obama has it backwards and is pushing hard to make #’s 10-13 more popular.
It is diversion and nothing more.
I’m amazed we even heard leaked rememberances from one of these closed-door fundraising meets.
Obama may not attend intelligence briefings, but he never misses a fundraiser; priorities, man. Money is the life-blood of liberals… other people’s money. It is the answer to all problems. Even Carney said the other day when confronted with the revelations that Obama knew about the dismal conditions in the VA that all they did was throw some money at it… other people’s money. It is always “other people’s money”… and lots of it… which they have no problem flushing down the toilet in order to assuage their own guilty consciences and feel they have “done something”.
So, fundraisers are always a gold mine because they are full of guilty liberals wishing to lay down $35,000-50,000 for a tough steak in order to feel they have “done something”. Obama knows this and feels it more important to rake in a quick, cool million than worry about national security and the lives of four pawns in his game of arrogance.
@Nanny G: He already addressed 1-10 by making them much worse. Now he needs to focus his ‘talents’ on the others.
Anyone what to bet Trey Gowdy shares that opinion? When the questions Trey posed are answered, we will see just how serious Benghazi is. I’ll bet Obama is impeached.
This is true. Their scandal merry-go-round is cover for the fact that they have no meaningful input to offer. They haven’t done anything useful since they regained control of the House. Their main work has been an effort to keep the federal government from working.
@Greg:
There is a philosophy that if an administration is scandal ridden, pile them on. The more scandals, the less importance they have.
From Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the IRS persecution of conservative/Christian/Jewish groups, the release of criminal illegals back into the society (not once, but twice), Obamacare web site and now the VA scandal, any one of those scandals would have had you progressives lobbing verbal pitch forks and demanding that a Republican president resign.
In Fast and Furious, Benghazi and the VA, as well as it will eventually be revealed about the release of illegal felons, people died. And yet, the Dems brush these off as “phony” scandals. Can you tell me who died because of Watergate where the Dems were clamoring for the resignation of Richard Nixon?
You, as well as all Progressives, are nothing more than power hungry hypocrites.
@Greg:
Perhaps you can get someone to give you a civics lesson. Nothing will come out of the House that will make it past that rabid dog, Harry Reid. That is why Reid changed the Senate rules. Will you whine when the Republicans retake the Senate and apply Reid Rules?
How so? And how does the Congress get anything done with Reid the Refuser?
@retire05, #6:
Richard Nixon was shown to have been involved in the cover-up of illegal activities that led to the conviction and incarceration of 43 people, including high-placed members of his administration. They were all convicted based on evidence of their crimes, not on unsubstantiated allegations cranked out by the media. Nixon himself was named by a grand jury as an unindicted co-conspirator. The only reason he wasn’t indicted then and there was because he was immune as a sitting president. That didn’t happen later because he resigned, and was granted a presidential pardon the following month by his successor.
Surely you grasp the difference that actual crimes and real evidence makes.
@Greg:
How many people lost their lives over Watergate, Greggie?
Are you going on record to say that no one who worked for Obama, was involved in any criminal activity on his behalf in any of the scandals? Are you ready to put that claim on record?
@retire05, #9:
Fewer than were lost on 9/11, or as a result of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Incorrect judgement and human oversights can result in very unfortunate consequences. That doesn’t imply criminal wrongdoing or criminal negligence. It indicates that errors can be made, which are always far more obvious in hindsight.
In the case of Watergate, laws were broken. Felonies were committed. A carefully orchestrated cover-up took place. And this was all established to be factual with evidence.
What I’m saying is that republicans keep making such irresponsible accusations, but they have yet to prove a single one of them with evidence, despite having done everything they can to come up with something. They’ve burned through enormous amounts of time and money making the effort. Either no evidence actually exists, or you’ve got some appallingly incompetent people conducting an endless series of investigations.
@Greg: Benghazi would not have been a scandal had not Obama made it one. At worst, it would have been a huge security lapse, causing the unnecessary deaths of four Americans. However, because of a long list of Obama failures, he had to hide the true nature of the attack; so, he lied. It became a scandal. He stonewalled. The scandal grew. Information leaked out confirming the worst suspicions of the accusers. The scandal festers.
The IRS abuses would not have been a scandal had not a) the White House not been directly involved and b) it had not been attempted to be covered up. But, the White House WAS involved and they DID try to cover it up. Part of the cover up was pretending to hold people accountable by “firing” people who were retiring or quitting. They have lied and covered-up; they have created the scandal.
Fast and Furious did not have to be a scandal unless, of course, the purpose of Fast and Furious was to make it appear large quantities of weapons were being sent from the U.S. to Mexico for criminal use. The stonewalling and cover-ups only gives validity to this hypothesis. There are very few other reasons to lie and stonewall the investigation.
The VA scandal does not have to be a scandal; the administration COULD make an attempt to get to the bottom of it and hold the proper parties accountable. But, they already began the misdirection by “firing” an administrator that was retiring anyway. Lies, stonewalling and ineptitude. A scandal in the making.
Honesty prevents scandals. Dishonesty assures them.
@Greg:
In the case of Fast and Furious, we also know that federal laws were broken. It is illegal to sell weapons to Mexican criminals or gun runners, yet Eric Holder’s Department of Just-us did just that. And men died, along with Mexican nationals, because of it.
It is also illegal for any administration, or its lackeys, to use the IRS as a hit squad. Yet, we know that the Obama administration did just that. Lois Lerner didn’t plead the 5th because she is innocent of any wrong doing.
I can’t understand your blindness. When even the left is beginning to look up from their sushi, and ask what they hell is the problem with this Administration, yet you continue to defend it, there seems to be some cognitive disorder in your life.
@retire05 #12:
“Cognitive disorder?” Hardly.
Both sides go on the attack when they sense weakness in their opponent. Why else would Republicans be keeping the war cry “BENGHAZI, BENGHAZI, BENGHAZI!” alive a year after a relatively insignificant handful of embassy deaths, while thousands being brutally murdered elsewhere are ignored. As if Hillary’s 2016 prospects are the determining factor in where we place our moral outrage. Why else would Democrats make such a fuss over Women’s reproductive rights? They sense weakness in the Republican position and seek to capitalize upon it. It is that simple.
“Cognitive disorder?” Hardly.
Both sides go on the defensive when they are guilty as charged or plainly losing the debate. When either Republicans OR Democrats find themselves on the defensive, they resort to either spinning logical knots to hopelessly tangle the facts and distract attention from their otherwise obvious failure, or they simply ignore the issue as if it is meaningless. Why else would “Gay Marriage” have disappeared from the active topics of Flopping Aces? Because Republicans are losing that argument in spades, and efforts to spin the losses into a respectably face-saving distortion of the truth have failed miserably. Best to close one’s eyes and sing “La-La-La-La-La” as loudly as you can until at least YOU can forget that you had championed a dreadfully bad idea.
“Cognitive disorder?” Hardly.
It’s just a survival mechanism we all use to avoid suffering excessively from our own, self-inflicted wounds. And no matter how badly our side does on one issue or another, we cannot throw our own party under the buss over it, as we would never find comfortable quarter in the enemy’s camp. Look at how badly the Log Cabin Republicans are treated by their OWN party! In a similar vein, you spend a lot of time listing the failures of your opponents, as if there is some value to the demonstration that MORE failures on one side of the isle than on the other should be a good reason to end the two-party system as we know it. I assure you that human nature being what it is, and politicians being of the ethical stripe that they generally are, a one-party system would NOT be in our collective best interest.
Working to destroy your opponent’s political party WOULD be symptomatic of a cognitive disorder.
@George Wells:
Oh, I don’t know, Georgie. Maybe because our nation, and its leaders, left four Americans hanging out to dry to protect Obama’s “Al Qaeda is on the run” campaign rhetoric?
I understand that those four lives mean little to you, nor are you interested in getting the answers that should have been answered just days after their deaths, like “What was the true purpose of the Benghazi station and why was Stevens meeting, in Benghazi, with the Turkish representative?”
How would the truth about Benghazi destroy any political party? Seems it is you that has problems linking rational thoughts.
@retire05 #14:
“Maybe because our nation, and its leaders, left four Americans hanging out to dry to protect Obama’s “Al Qaeda is on the run” campaign rhetoric?”
I would suggest that it is YOU who have “problems linking rational thoughts.” Your above conspiracy theory fails to find dots to connect, so it invents them. You have no smoking gun, no glove that fits. You simply hope that if you make wild speculations loud and often enough, some people will think that there must be something to it, else why would you bother so. It is an empty charge, but with nothing better to attack Hillary on (brain damage, really?) I understand why you try.
Hillary IS the Republican’s biggest nightmare, not global starvation, not ethnic cleansing, not climate change (man-made or otherwise), not gay marriage, not a failing arsenal of increasingly ineffective antibiotics, not THOUSANDS of preventable alcohol-related deaths annually, etc. etc. Hillary MUST be kept out of the White House, because if she DOES win the Presidency, she will get to load up the SCOTUS with liberals, and there will go the game, lock, stock and barrel. So the Republican strategy HAS to be “BENGHAZI, BENGHAZI, BENGHAZI!!!”, “BRAIN DAMAGE!” “LOOK AT WHAT HER STUPID HUSBAND DID WITH MONICA!”
We will squander the opportunity to make ANY progress on ANYTHING for the next two and a half years because Republicans will be obsessed with this one, single goal: STOP HILLARY!
Now THAT is symptomatic of a cognitive disorder.
Pathetic.
@George Wells:
Here are the questions that you want to ignore in your attempt to discount the deaths of four Americans:
Why was Stevens in Benghazi that night, on a date that holds great importance to jihadists, to begin with?
What was the purpose of the “station” in Benghazi?
Why did Stevens meet with the Turkish representative at Benghazi?
Why did the U.S. not pull out of Benghazi although every other nation, including the Red Cross, did because of the threat there?
Knowing the enhanced threat in Benghazi, why did the State Department not beef up security although multiple requests had been made for additional security?
Where was Obama during the attack?
Where was Hillary during the attack?
Why were rapid response forces not sent from Sigonella?
On what did Hillary base her comment about “an internet video” while the attack was still going on and two Americans were still alive?
Who ordered reduced security in Benghazi?
What was the true purpose of the “station” in Benghazi?
I understand that you are quite content to be governed by those who subscribe to Frankfurt Marxism and Saul Alinsky rules. I am not. Hillary Clinton was a lousy SoS doing nothing more than racking up frequent flyer miles and using the American taxpayer for a travel agent.
But four Americans died that did not need to, and you and your progressive ilk don’t seem to care. You ascribe other reasons to the demand for the truth about Benghazi to some thing else in order to seek the truth because the truth will not make Obama, or Hillary, look good.
You are a disgusting person, George.
@retire05 #16:
You posed a few select questions, not eleven, as you tried to inflate:
#1. “What was the purpose of the “station” in Benghazi?” and
#2. “What was the true purpose of the “station” in Benghazi?”
are not really two different questions, are they?
Similarly,
#1. “Knowing the enhanced threat in Benghazi, why did the State Department not beef up security although multiple requests had been made for additional security?” and –
#2. “Who ordered reduced security in Benghazi?” and –
#3. “Why were rapid response forces not sent from Sigonella?”
are all iterations of the same question.
You forgot to mention that Republicans cut funding for embassy security. And while some of the questions you asked ARE legitimate, asking them doesn’t prove that there was a conspiracy. Where was Obama? Where was Hillary? Can’t YOU figure out where they were? What bearing does their location have?
You have no smoking gun.
No glove that fits.
I’m just pointing out the obvious truth: that YOU have no case.
When I point out the obvious, you become frustrated, and as a result, you find me disgusting. That is how the dots are connected. In the end, you always finish with being disgusted, because you having nothing else.
@George Wells: “You forgot to mention that Republicans cut funding for embassy security.” YOU forgot that Cheryl Lamb, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State already stated funding was NOT the issue in regards to security.
““The Department of State’s base requests for security funding have increased by 38 percent since Fiscal Year (FY) 2007, and base budget appropriations have increased by 27 percent in the same time period,” said the bipartisan Senate Homeland Security Committee report on the Benghazi attack.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/barbara-boxers-claim-that-gop-budgets-hampered-benghazi-security/2013/05/15/d1e295cc-bdb0-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html
Maybe the money they spent on electric cars could have been better spent on security.
$2.4 billion on electric car development. What a waste!
Around $30 billion spent on crop insurance and assorted farm subsidy programs, guaranteeing the profit stream of fat cat farm operations. That’s $30 billion in a single year.
@Greg: I believe that there was an independent investigation into that matter. Both parties voted to impeach, not just the left. It is called getting the facts through approved processes. Now the left doesn’t want any facts revealed to include you because it may tarnish your image of your gods!