I think the better description is that Obama thought this was the GOP's key to winning the white house, otherwise he wouldn't have had Rice saying it was because of a video.

Sorry, when Americans die in the manner these did no one should be able to say move on nothing to see here. Not even Obama. There's a story to tell here and I think it's going to be heard.

Hell Brad, intimidation against whistleblowers? No problem there huh? These whistleblowers arethe people I always thought you would stand up for, to support their right to speak...

Steve, Please consider changing your sign in name to Substance Free Steve.

You deal with absolutely none of the points Stewart makes. Did you watch the videos? There is nothing in your comment to suggest you did. This is all too typical of you. My guess the reason this is all too typical of you is that you are incapable of substantive debate.

The way you have "refuted" Jon Stewart in the past is to deride him as a comedian. Yeah, comedians never get anything right. Like Mark Twain, Will Rogers, Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, the Smothers Brothers, Eddie Izzard, Pat Paulsen, Stephen Colbert, etc.

You are, by and large, a substance free zone, seemingly existing only to unthinkingly spew out rightwing talking points. At THAT, you are very good.

Sorry David. A terrorist attack of an embassy safe house resulted in the death of four Americans. I want to know what happened. I want to know why Obama responded as he did blaming a video. I want to know why the people who testified before the committee say they were intimidated by an administration in an attempt to silence them. That should be an American talking point, you should care about the truth too.

I got to the point of the video where Stewart screamed in mock outrage for the death of those people. Then I turned it off, have no desire to see anything else from that asshole.

The rest of your comment is just your typical crap which you may or may not beg Brad to delete when you sober up and realize you sound like a pretentious ass.

Steve @3--
I repeat, zero substance.(Plus, the also typical, Steve Ad Hominem).

For anyone new to Substance Free Steve, you will notice that fundamental to his dysfunction and what sets him far apart from anything resembling intellectual integrity, is an inability to fairly represent the opposing viewpoint. He can't address the points in the video for two reasons. One is that he's got nothing to say, except his talking points. Two is that he can't be bothered to see what the opposing argument is. All while being obnoxiously self-righteously pedantic about it all. Looking at the videos any fool(except Steve) would see that in the one point where he acknowledges Stewart's arguments at all, he does a nice job of mangling what Stewart is saying beyond recognition.

Typically lazy incoherent substance free talking points only bullshit.

Steve Snyder @3 wrote:

Sorry David. A terrorist attack of an embassy safe house resulted in the death of four Americans. I want to know what happened.

A terrorist attack on 9/11/01 resulted in the deaths of 3,000 people, and I'm still waiting for a thorough investigation as to what really happened.

The U.S. launched an unprovoked invasion of Iraq that cost over one million Iraqis and thousands of U.S. military personnel their lives; squandered trillions of dollars. Instead of calling for extensive Congressional investigations and impeachment, Fox 'News,' the GOP and our resident wingnut stood on the sidelines and cheered.

This entire contrived "Benghazi" scandal smacks of GOP hypocrisy!

Well done Ernie. Your "Bush did it so Obama can do it too" garbage exposes you for the partisan mouthpiece that you are. Once again. Your changing the subject to Iraq and fox news does the same. Finally, your grand stroke ad hominum at the end of your rant proves that still you have nothing worthwhile to say.

You should be ashamed, not caring about the truth simply because it may somehow damage Obama is despicable. Your hero will survive this.

But, your rant perfectly illustrates the mindset of the far left demagogue

Oh, Steve. Really? Okay... (You know, you could really do this stuff all by yourself, instead of asking one of us to do it for you. But, anyway...)

Obama thought this was the GOP's key to winning the white house, otherwise he wouldn't have had Rice saying it was because of a video.

At this time, there is no evidence whatsoever that "Obama" had anybody say anything. The talking points that Rice was working from were from the CIA. They were vetted by State Dept. officials and, it seems, someone from the WH, but all such intel statements are approved before use by the Central Intelligence Agency.

Now, believe it or not, I've been doing my best to keep an eye on this faux "scandal" since it was first exploited by Mitt Romney, who falsely accused the Cairo Embassy of saying something they never did. Remember that?). All the way through the claims that "Obama watched Ambassador Stevens dying live via video and chose to do nothing" (Remember that?) All the way through the GOP claims that it took weeks for Obama to call it "terrorism", when he actually did so the immediate day (Remember that?) All the way through the claims that Obama or the military or the CIA or the State Dept. ordered a "stand down" for the military and/or special forces that might have saved the Ambassador's life (claims which have all been debunked many times over, Remember that?) All the way through what is now described by Republicans as "EXPLOSIVE whistleblower testimony!!!" and "Worse than Watergate plus IranContra times 10!" (You remember all of that too, right? Cause it's in the video you are responding to here, and you'd not be foolish enough to respond to something you didn't even examine or look into first, right?)

And yet, throughout ALL of that yet, over the eight months since this "scandal" was first imagined, I've yet to find any evidence of any criminal wrong-doing. Have you? If so, I hope you'll be kind enough to point me to it, so I can take a look at it!

As to the question about the video, there has been no substantive change in the elements of that story since they were originally reported. Here's a pretty good primer on that, as published way back in October 2012. And, since you often refuse to even look at things that aren't at Wingnut-approved sites, I'll say up front that it was published by Mother Jones, by one of their pretty square shooters who even leans to the Right every now again. Much more importantly, however, it is very well sourced so you don't have to simply choose to believe him or not. You can actually look into the sourcing he is working from and decide if he is accurately reporting the facts or not.

Those facts have been there for MONTHS. There has been no substantive change in those facts. If you are aware of any substantive change in those facts, please be so kind to point me to it, so I can take a look! Again, I have found no evidence of criminal wrong-doing. Have you? Point me to it. Thanks!

Hell Brad, intimidation against whistleblowers? No problem there huh? These whistleblowers arethe people I always thought you would stand up for, to support their right to speak...

For the record, the Obama administration has been terrible in their assault on whistleblowers. I've discussed this both here and on the radio many times. That said, let's who are the whistleblowers here? Of the three "whistleblowers" promised to offer "EXPLOSIVE!" testimony on Wednesday --- testimony that would "make Watergate seem like child's play" (according to Sen. Lindsay Graham) --- one had already testified to Congress. And the other two, as far as anybody knows, were neither restricted from doing so, nor were they punished for their interest in doing so. As is par for the course for government officials speaking to Congress on behalf of a government agency, the State Dept. says Mr. Hicks (the main "whistleblower", it seems, in this case) was asked to have a State Dept. lawyer present during his testimony to Congress. They say that he asked to be reassigned back home after the tragic events, and is now working stateside for the State Dept. making the same salary he had made previously.

Now I haven't personally confirmed if the State Dept. is telling the truth about those things, but I am unaware of anybody who has disputed those facts. Are you? If so, can you point me to it?

If, in fact, there were political machinations in order to downplay mistakes by the State Dept. (or even the Administration itself), particularly in an election year, that information should be highlighted and, if there were improprieties --- or, more importantly, criminal wrong doing --- those responsible should be held accountable for it. Some of them already have been, as I understand it. Not for any criminal wrong doing or even for impropriety, but, rather, for failure.

As to those "whistleblowers" you reference, the ones who spoke on Wednesday publicly before Congress, of course, I "support their right to speak". I am unaware of anybody who doesn't, frankly. Are you? If so, could you point me to it?

Well done Ernie. Your "Bush did it so Obama can do it too" garbage exposes you for the partisan mouthpiece that you are.

Actually, Ernie didn't say "Bush did it so Obama can do it too", or anything like that. He was trying to explain the hypocrisy --- just as Jon Stewart did, with actual verifiable numbers --- in the pretend GOP "outrage" about this incident that you, apparently, have been gullible enough to buy into.

That point was that the GOP had absolutely no interest in holding the Bush Administration accountable for anything, including for tragedies FAR WORSE than anything that has occurred on Obama's watch. And that, by the way, is true even if you remove BOTH the 9/11 attacks that Bush, though warned many times, failed to do anything about, AND the Iraq and Afghanistan wars which resulted in the needless deaths of many thousands of Americans as well.

If you focus ONLY on "terrorist" attacks on state department outposts (embassies, consulates, other operations) there were FAR more attacks on them during the Bush Administration, with a MUCH higher death toll.

So were is the "outrage" by these same Republicans about that? Where is the outrage and/or curiosity about "what really happened" from you about those events? Do you even know about them? Do you know how many U.S. personnel where attacked and/or killed in those events? Stewart discussed them somewhat, so I hope you tuned in to watch at least that much. If so, why are you not yelling and screaming for accountability there?

Are you really unable to see that this is not about the attack at Benghazi but first about trying to use it to unseat Obama and now about attempting to keep Hillary from winning in 2016? Do you really believe that Darrel Issa and Linsday Graham and James Inhofe (who is now charging that Obama could be impeached over Benghazi) are simply on a fact-finding mission, attempting to route out criminal wrong doing here? Seriously? Are you that gullible? Or do you have evidence to support those charges? If so, can you point me to to it?

Lastly, while I am, frankly, always happy to see legitimate government oversight, and accountability for failure and/or wrong-doing, I might otherwise be very happy to see folks outed for any political machinations they might have attempted in order to protect themselves. That is, partly, what the Congressional Oversight Comm is supposedly for, after all. (Though this would be the first time the absurd Issa has ever used it towards that end.) I would still be happy if that is what occurs here. But that is decidedly not what the GOP is doing, else there would have been a parade of claims of "EXPLOSIVE WHISTLEBLOWER TESTIMONY!!!" promised on all of the Sunday shows this past week and then beyond, up until Wednesday's testimony where we found there was no such "EXPLOSIVE" testimony whatsoever.

I think Conservative former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough may have described it best this morning when he said: "You talk about overplaying your hand. If a lot of people on the far right hadn’t overplayed their hand on Benghazi and were screaming before they knew what they were screaming about, I think we would all be much harder on the administration right now."

That might even be true. Though it is the closest thing to true that I've heard from pretty much any Republican to date in this entire faux "scandal".

I'd still like to think you are smarter than the wingnuts from whence you come, otherwise, you wouldn't be a reader/commenter here for the long time that you have. But you seem to keep disproving that theory over and over and over as you continue to fall for the most absurdly transparent political bullshit that the GOP keeps spoonfeeding to folks like yourself in hopes that you will fall for it. That's why I keep beginning replies like this with "Really?!", because I can't believe you'd fall so easy, with SO MUCH independently verifiable information out there to help keep you from doing so.

That's your cue, Substance Free, to come back with a response to Brad, after he has once again gone to the time and trouble to thoroughly debunk you every which way and back. Don't forget to make sure your response either completely ignores every single point he's made or twists beyond recognition the one or two you pretend to be responding to.

C'mon, now Stevie. Don't keep us waiting.

By the way, when you call Obama, Ernie's hero, it really, really sounds like maybe you just don't understand anything that is being said here.

Of course Brad. Obama had nothing to do with what his UN Ambassador, speaking for the administration, two months before an election with the outcome still in doubt, went on TV to say. Its all the CIA's fault even though ABC news reported today that senior people within his command revised the CIA comments 12 times prior to those words being spoken by Rice including scrubbing out references to al Quaida and terrorism. Yes, Obama is just a victim here.....

Yes I do remember a lot of those things and no, I don't have any proof, which is why I want to here the testimony of those who were there. ABC for one is maybe starting to regret ignoring this story for so long. But, if this is just a
faux story, a made up scandal, why the intimidation? Why the lies? As Scarborough says it doesn't pass the sniff test. As I told Ernie, there's nothing there so you shouldn't worry about Obama.

Steve is convinced something is wrong, but he just can't put his finger on what it actually is. If Steve had managed to get through the entire clip he might have seen Stewbeef refer to that particular psychosis quite specifically.

Just to add to Brad's excellent and thorough post, diGenova, the lawyer for Mark Thompson, was asked "...[Thompson] was the target of threats and intimidation?" diGenova explcity answered "[Thompson]...actually hasn't said that." Steve's assertion that Thompson, or anyone else, was intimated is COMPLETELY debunked by Thompson's own lawyer. Oops.

One person said he wasn't so that, of course, means no one was.

http://security.blogs.cn...intimidated-lawyer-says/

Steve -

Good lord. The reason I haven't written about this stuff on the blog proper is because finding details on it is so remedial. I've had nothing to add, because all the debunkery, to date, has long been published (over and over again.) Somehow, you either didn't see it, or didn't actually bother to go and find it.

But, it seems you need hand holding and that there are no other websites in the world between The BRAD BLOG and whatever wingnut sources you seem to rely on (the one(s) which play you for a fool constantly.)

So...hold my hand...That link you posted from CNN? The one that quotes Victoria Toensing from a little over a week ago, claiming that her client was threatened by someone, somehow, and not allowed to testify? First, Toensing is the wife of Joe diGenova, the attorney quoted in the comment by Matt @ 11 posted over yours, about 40 minutes before you posted your comments. DiGenova is the guy quoted saying above that his client "actually hasn't said" that he is the target of threats or intimidation.

So, we have the attorneys for the client saying he was not targeted and that he was targeted. It seems they need to get their stories straight, especially since they have offered no evidence of either that I am aware of, to date.

Then we have the State Dept. saying he wasn't threatened, which may or may not be true, but as there appears to be no evidence of a threat, it kinda seems like there wasn't one at this time. And, as wife Toensing says he's not being allowed to testify, but then he did (after State Dept. said nobody had been kept from testifying) and after she claimed she was not being given security clearance as an attorney by State (but State says nobody applied for clearance, so she was forced to admit in the same story that she didn't actually apply for clearance!), and after the other "whistleblowers" had already either testified or been interviewed by the independent investigators, you are still pretending that you can't figure out who is full of shit here and that this still appears to be little more than a political witch hunt?!

Okay, then I'll add one more easy-to-discover point (that has been mentioned in a thousand other news sites): Victoria Toensing is the same RW scam artist who is on record saying, over and over during the Bush years, that Valerie Plame Wilson --- the covert CIA operative who oversaw WMD use/movement/sales in the Middle East until being outed by the Bush Administration (for the first time in history) --- was never covert and that she was little more than a "desk jockey" at the CIA.

Hopefully you have learned by now that Toensing was either 100% wrong and/or 100% a liar by now on that point. She is as historically discredited a RW operative as Judith Miller, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney or John Bolton for cripesakes. And that's your evidence in response to Matt's point? Really?

Again, this requires such remedial debunkery that it's not even worth posting as an article here at The BRAD BLOG. And yet, you seem completely unaware of these things, and actually believe there is some outrageous "scandal" here?? Seriously??

As to this...

I don't think anybody even suggested that "Obama is...a victim here." As I believed I referenced in my mile long response above, yes, the talking points were vetted before use by folks at both state and WH before being APPROVED FOR USE BY THE CIA. There is nothing particularly unusual about that, in and of itself.

But let's pretend for a second that there is something insidious about "scrubbing out references to al Quaida and terrorism" as you charge. If so, what in god's name is even possibly be insidious about that??? In other words, in your worst case scenario why is that even scandalous in any way, shape or form? Obama had already described it as an act of terror days earlier, and there was conflicting reports (if you bothered to read the more contemporaneous report from Mother Jones in October 2012 that I linked for you earlier) that al Qaeda (actually, Ansal al Islam) had anything to do with the attack. They had even said they didn't do it at that point, whereas they usually take credit for such attacks when they do them.

So, what was the problem with the final talking points approved by the CIA? I assume you've read them, right? If so, please tell me the problem you have with them, and why. Thanks!

I don't have any proof, which is why I want to here the testimony of those who were there.

Good. Me too. And now we got to hear the testimony. Stewart's piece was done after that testimony. So now that you've heard it, where is the "EXPLOSIVE!!!" and "way worse than Watergate" part???

Seriously, please quote to me the "EXPLOSIVE" part that has you so concerned right now, because I really do want to know!

But, if this is just a faux story, a made up scandal, why the intimidation? Why the lies?

What "intimidation"??? What "lies"??? I'm not challenging you by saying there were none. I'm literally asking: What "intimidation"??? What "lies"??? Do you have evidence of any? If so, yet again, I ask you, I beg you, PLEASE POINT ME TO IT!!!

Might as well be talking to a brick wall, guys...

SUFFOCATION POLICIES
The Job Growth is fine but more than 11 million work seekers cannot find a job.
There is no growth in manufacturing. Misguided tax and spending policies As the sequester cuts are just beginning. The only good news is Housing is up, measures to control inflation by the Fed and stock market rise.
Some Republicans believe reducing government spending is the key to economic stimulation.
The CBO projects Sequester will lose 700,000 jobs. The Republicans have lost the popular vote in five
of six presidential elections. The GOP is represented in Congress by conservative,, whites meaning a minority constituent. The Koch 50 in the House have been a disaster with their cut government cut taxes and policy of fight everything offered by the President.
The House is a divided mess out of control by Republican leadership.

It is just starting to become very silly. I'd like to be fair, but nothing coming from the GOP's side on this particular issue seems to have any substance. There is too much time being wasted on this issue, clearly as they are not getting anywhere with it. It makes them look desperate. The comparison to Watergate is a joke! And these are our leaders? What a shame!

I agree, the comparison to Watergate is a joke. No one died in a terrorist attack during Watergate.

I'll give you that you are 100% correct on everything you say Brad. Nothing to see here, move on.

Have a great weekend!

Sorry, forgot to update my name...

Steve, do the letters FOS mean anything to you?

Steve wrote @6

Well done Ernie. Your "Bush did it so Obama can do it too" garbage exposes you for the partisan mouthpiece that you are.

@7 he added:

You should be ashamed, not caring about the truth...

What is the "it" that Bush did that you think Obama did as well?

So far, the GOP argument is along the lines, everyone would be rightly upset if the President blew up the Empire State building. That no one, including the President, has blown up the Empire State building doesn't seem to matter. Why let the details get in the way of trumped up outrage?

Like Jon Stewart, I remain singularly unimpressed by a faux "scandal" which has no basis in fact. Like Stewart, I find it extraordinarily amusing that utterly dishonest partisans, like our resident wingnut, would continue to accuse anyone (be it the President or the humblest citizen) based on no evidence whatsoever.

But dishonest Wingnut Steve Snyder can't leave it there. He has the gall to project his own partisan dishonesty onto anyone who doesn't buy into his fact-free mumblings.

Of course, there's a possibility that Snyder is not intentionally being dishonest. He may actually believe the crap the GOP has beem shoveling. If that is the case, it raises serious questions about Steve Snyder's sanity.

When all else fails them, you can expect the Republicans to beat a dead horse!

Wingnut Steve belongs to the FOX news cult and everyone knows how hard it to convince them of anything that their leaders don't agree with. They just like to throw a bucket of S#it at the wall and hope someone will find something. Like one commenter said it is like talking to a brick wall. We run into them every day. Electing Sanford tells us that nothing a republican does matters. He will fit right in with the rest of the Republican Offenders.com Check them out.

The absolute worst case scenario for the president:

In response to an an upcoming election president Obama attempted to minimize the effects of a terrorist attack by claiming that it was less organized and connected to Muslim outrage and not Al Qaeda. It could not be claimed that he lied; even now the facts are unclear.

In other words a politician attempted to control the message; GASP!

WORRY
The latest National Journal Heartland Monitor Poll shows the Middle Class is pessimistic
about falling behind as they feel the Middle Class enjoys less opportunity, job insecurity,
and less disposable income and will not be able to meet Basic financial goals as paying for children's college, retiring comfortably or afford health emergencies.
I recall the “good old days” of Bill Clinton in the last decade of the past century.
Unemployment low as 3.9%. Minimum wage increase. No big foreign conflict involvement.
Then, our jobs started big transfer to cheap labor. If we were go on big “Buy America only”
Wal-Mart would close. Since 80% of their non produce revenue is from made in China.
Before you say it “Clinton had a GOP Congress in 6 of 8 years”. Yes! It was Clinton-Newt.
Yet! Bush had GOP Congress for six of 8 years. The 3 bad bills signed by Bill. Repeal of Glass Steagall. Modernization of Commodities market. Open trade with China. Redistribution of our wealth to top 10%. Just concerned. How to create industries made in America?

I'm waiting for the bi-semi-annual impeachment hearings.
These fucking block heads have had a hard on ever since Nixon.
Something snapped in their pea sized brains after that one.

Brad 1 Steve 0

Yellowdog @23 wrote:

In response to an an upcoming election president Obama attempted to minimize the effects of a terrorist attack by claiming that it was less organized and connected to Muslim outrage and not Al Qaeda.

And your evidence that the President "attempted to minimize the effects of a terrorist attack" is?

You picked the right handle, Yellowdog. You've published a comment that fits right into the annals of "yellow journalism."

Ernie @ 6 -

I believe you misread Yellowdog's comment. Or read it too quickly. I believe the point he was trying to make was that in the absolute worst-case scenario that could possibly be made here, the worst that could possibly be said is that "a politician attempted to control the message; GASP!"

I don't think he was saying that was actually true or the case, but that, if it were (and that's largely the worst reading one could come up with based on the "scandalous" changes made to the CIA talking points before they were used) that's still all there is here, at very worst.

In light of that, I think your shot at him was unwarranted in this particular case.

You may be right, Brad. If so, mea culpa and my humblest apologies to Yellowdog.

Nicely done Brad. It's funny how ernie flies off the handle so quickly with insulting personal attacks at any indication someone may disagree with him.

Its also funny how he compares a random comment from a random person on a blog page to journalism....

And it's funny, Steve, how oblivious you seem to be of how often you project your own shit when you comment.(see comment #3)

Steve--And I might add, one of the many admirable differences between Ernie and you, is that when Ernie is made aware of a possible mistake, he invariably stops, takes a deeper look, and acknowledges the possibility in a direct honest way. The number of times I can remember you doing that approaches zero(was there maybe once?).

Steve admit error? I don't think it would be healthy for you or I to hold our breath waiting for that to happen, David.