Skip to main content House Government Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa decided that today would be a good day to feed the GOP base a brand new #Benghazi subpoena:

Today I announced a subpoena requiring Secretary Kerry to testify at a public @GOPoversight hearing on May 21. #Benghazi
Given that John Kerry was a senator when the Benghazi attack occurred nearly two years ago, it would be fair to ask why on Earth Darrell Issa thinks it makes sense to issue him a subpoena. And if you asked a GOP flack you'd get some gobbledygook about how the state department was allegedly withholding key documents from House Republicans while House Republicans try to get to the bottom of why Benghazi shows why Americans should vote for Jeb Bush instead of Hillary Clinton in 2016. That, of course, is bunk.

But there's also another reason, and in many ways a more plausible one: Today we had a pretty good jobs report. And on days like this, if you're in the GOP leadership, you don't want your base talking about #Jobs, #Jobs, #Jobs. You want them talking about #Benghazi, #Benghazi, #Benghazi.

8:29 AM PT: Ah, in all seriousness, here's what might be the real driver of Issa's move: House Republican leadership is about to announce a House Select Committee to investigate Benghazi according to multiple reporters (Sam Stein, Chuck Todd, and Dana Bash.) This will move the focus of the Benghazi investigation away from Issa's committee, which he can't be happy with. So the Kerry move could have been his attempt to hold the spotlight.

12:01 PM PT:
State Dept aide: Kerry will be in Mexico on May 21 (day of Benghazi hearing), which Issa "would have known" if he'd reached out vs. subpoena

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I really wish (13+ / 0-)

    that someone would kick Issa'a assa to the curb. How much of the taxpayers money has that jackass wasted on pointless investigations?

  •  it's Friday anyways (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cadillac64, tekno2600, caul

    and really most people aren't paying attention anyways.

    they will feel it getting back to normal.

    -You want to change the system, run for office.

    by Deep Texan on Fri May 02, 2014 at 08:14:01 AM PDT

  •  I think Kerry should show (13+ / 0-)

    up and then proceed to lay waste to Mr. "Protected by Viper" for calling him to testify about something that happened months before he left Congress to become SecState.  

    I’ve said before, I will always work with anyone who is willing to make this law work even better. But the debate over repealing this law is over. The Affordable Care Act is here to stay. -- President Barack Obama

    by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Fri May 02, 2014 at 08:14:18 AM PDT

    •  Somebody does need to give Issa his McCarthy (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      moment for his unethical witchhunt, politicizing a tragedy that republicans themselves cause by cutting the budget for embassy protection. If Boehner weren't shielding Issa from an ethics probe, he would be well on his way to being expelled and prosecuted for his leaks of classified information (whenever the redacted classified information serves his purposes). His shameful behavior of cutting off microphones of Democrats who express dissent has further delegitimized his already questionable practices. I wish Elijah Cummings would go ahead and file an ethics complaint against Issa, even if Boehner tries to ignore it. That would further cast a cloud of Issa's shady practices.  

      Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

      by tekno2600 on Fri May 02, 2014 at 09:02:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  'Today I announced'.....who gives a shit? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RBStanfield, Cadillac64, a2nite, caul
  •  Oh Darrell. Panic is so unattractive. (4+ / 0-)

    #Benghazi, #Benghazi, #Benghazi. (If you say it thrice under a full moon, does Mister Issa appear & shower you with fairy sparkles & subpoenas? I hope so.)

    "Then why don't all girls belong to unions?" "Well, there's some that thinks it ain't fashionable; there's some that thinks it ain't no use; and there's some that never thinks at all."

    by Cadillac64 on Fri May 02, 2014 at 08:19:14 AM PDT

  •  any progress on whitelisting SoundCloud embeds? (3+ / 0-)

    i miss being able to embed the Right Wing Troll Notification System

    Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
    Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights to talk about grief.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Fri May 02, 2014 at 08:24:22 AM PDT

  •  Well... (7+ / 0-)

    They can't raise the terror alert scale from Ernie to Elmo, so this is all they got.

    “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” - John Steinbeck (Disputed)

    by RichM on Fri May 02, 2014 at 08:24:37 AM PDT

  •  I'd like to spend a few million dollars (11+ / 0-)

    holding hearings into Darrell Issa's two indictments for grand theft auto, and reopening that arson investigation. There's a greater possibility of uncovering an actual crime.

    From Wikipedia:

    But early in the morning of September 7, 1982, the offices and factory of Quantum and Steal Stopper in the Cleveland suburb of Maple Heights caught fire. The fire took three hours to put out. The buildings and almost all the inventory within were destroyed. An investigation of the cause of the fire noted "suspicious burn patterns" with fires starting in two places aided by an accelerant such as gasoline.[10]

    Adkins said Issa appeared to prepare for a fire by increasing the fire insurance policy by 462% three weeks previously, and by removing computer equipment holding accounting and customer information. St. Paul Insurance, suspicious of arson and insurance fraud, initially paid only $25,000, according to Issa.[10]

    “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

    by ivorybill on Fri May 02, 2014 at 08:26:30 AM PDT

    •  Complete coincidence, I assure you. (4+ / 0-)
    •  why wasn't he prosecuted??? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      did the insurance company pay?

      •  They were never able to prove a case against him (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jplanner, TKO333

        He was a sleazy cheat and thief as a young adult - forging his brother's name on a bill of sale, twice being accused of stealing cars, and convicted once... later expunged.  It is highly probable that he was an arsonist and that he committed insurance fraud.  The insurance company apparently refused to pay at first.  But, for a criminal conviction, you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  I'm not sure what eventually happened - he might have bullied the insurance company into paying, and there was no way to tie him to the crime and convict him even though suspicions remain to this day.

        Darrell Issa is quite intelligent and quite capable of committing crimes without leaving enough proof for a conviction.

        He's still a sleaze who would prey on others given the chance.  But now that he's worth $450,00,000 he can insulate himself and no longer needs to steal vehicles or commit insurance fraud.  But he's the sort of guy who rises to a leadership position in the GOP.

        “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

        by ivorybill on Fri May 02, 2014 at 09:05:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Who in the hell... (6+ / 0-)

    are these guys political advisors? Seriously, outside of the "really old white guys email network" nobody gives a shit about Benghazi.

    No one knows what it's like, To be the bad man, To be the sad man, behind blue eyes....

    by blueyedace2 on Fri May 02, 2014 at 08:27:40 AM PDT

    •  Benghazi is all they've got (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Well, that and the Obamacare fetish which they seem to still be delusionally convinced will keep them relevant.

      We're witnessing the (long overdue) implosion of the rightwing "crazy" portion of the Republican party... which may well take them that entire party down.

      "Inequality is the root of social evil." ― Pope Francis

      by GoodGod on Fri May 02, 2014 at 08:44:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Shorter Issa tweet (5+ / 0-)

    "Here's a pic of the shit I just took in my own hand."

  •  Kerry could put Issa down. He may choose ... (9+ / 0-)

    ... not to, because that's rarely a good tactic for a ranking Executive Branch official before a Congressional hearing, but ...

    ... Secretary Kerry was an accomplished Senator and foreign policy expert before Issa ever got to Congress. On foreign policy, like many other matters, Issa may be glib and prepared, but he is no where close to being an expert, not even on the same landscape as John Kerry! Moreover, although Issa is able to set the stage with bullying questions (and he will surely try), I am confident that a long-term US Senator with considerable gravitas can put down the, er, chairman of the generic House Government Oversight committee.

    In fact, if he wanted to, Secretary Kerry could pull Darrell Issa along by his tail.

    2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

    by TRPChicago on Fri May 02, 2014 at 08:32:59 AM PDT

    •  Umm.. really? Kerry hasn't done too well lately.. (0+ / 0-)

      I wouldn't defend Issa's foreign policy creds, but Kerry has had his foot in his mouth for several months..

      There's his stupid apartheid comment that led Barbara Boxer to label his gaffe as "nonsensical and ridiculous".

      And he has basically given up on Middle East peace talks as deadlines expire.

      He is at odds with Congress.. pleading with them to pass a use-of-force authorization in Iran, then never using it even after Assad continues apace at killing his own people.  The White House and Kerry's  policy on Syria is incoherent at best.

      Kerry is at odds with the Foreign Relations Committee over Iran deals and how the Russia-Ukraine business is being handled.

      An oil for goods deal between Russia and Iran that will undermine the nuclear talks and violates agreements gets a stern warning from Kerry.. Russia flips us the bird.

      •  I disagree. Perhaps it's policy. (0+ / 0-)

        "Apartheid" is a very appropriate term, particularly given that Middle East talks were doomed by absolutist leaders in the region who want to appear to talk, but get points back home only by being tough and refusing to concede ANYthing. Kerry was sorry he said it because it allowed Senators without significant responsibility for anything to please their pro-Israel constituencies. I think it's time to talk plain truth to Israel and its detractors.

        Who "gave up" on the talks? The parties shot their MAD torpedoes and the US walked. Made sense to me not to foster a charade any longer.

        As for use-of-force, I think it makes great sense to have the authority but it must be the last alternative in a very long list. You want us to use military force in Syria? I'd love to hear Darrell Issa favor that! As the slogan goes, "I'm against the next war."

        As for Russia, sure it flips off at us. As President Obama said so well, Putin wants us to be the bugbear. He needs us to do Something Important so he can be more against us than the rising tide of European disdain. Is ignoring a bird flip like wearing Mom jeans?

        I have no concern for Kerry before Issa. Issa is a ass. Kerry probably needn't underscore that point and he may choose not to take him on. But I wish he'd pull the guy's tail a little.

        2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

        by TRPChicago on Fri May 02, 2014 at 10:34:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  What really annoys me is that Dems refuse (0+ / 0-)

    to call Issa's bluff on this one by putting on record what really was going on wrt Benghazi.

    And maybe rightly so, it doesn't reflect so well on them either, quite frankly.

    •  What do you mean? (2+ / 0-)

      Everything's on record. What's missing?

      "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

      by raptavio on Fri May 02, 2014 at 08:40:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JML9999, JJ In Illinois

        as this diary describes, the purpose of having an embassy in Benghazi at all was simply for the CIA to funnel weapons to Syrian rebels.

        IOW, to enable yet another covert US war that - in this case - a Democratic POTUS was itching to have.

        But now for some reason (wonder what it could be??) the Obama administration is shy to own up to.  But if they cared to do so, would put Issa in the mighty awkward position of opposing covert CIA operations . .. ..

        •  Benghazi (5+ / 0-)

          was never an embassy. It was a consulate, at most. Which is why it didn't have the embassy-level security.

          (Is it time for the pitchforks and torches yet?)

          by PJEvans on Fri May 02, 2014 at 08:49:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  What PJEvans said. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          It wasn't an embassy, nor technically a consulate.

          Hersh claims it was a facility for getting arms funneled out, but it's scant on evidence. And if Hersh is right, the information upon which he based his conclusions must be out there too.

          "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

          by raptavio on Fri May 02, 2014 at 08:52:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So if you don't agree with Hersh, just (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JML9999, JJ In Illinois

            what * was * the purpose of the facility?

            •  Argumentem ad ignorantiam (0+ / 0-)

              doesn't mean Hersh was right.

              "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

              by raptavio on Fri May 02, 2014 at 10:12:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And using obscure latin terms doesn't mean (0+ / 0-)

                that he was wrong.

                By contrast, I suspect that if that is all you have in the way or rebuttal, he very well might not have been all that far off-base as the typical Obama-apologist would have one believe.

                •  Let me say it in English: (0+ / 0-)

                  "Argument from ignorance" doesn't mean Hersh was right.

                  It means just because we don't know what the purpose of the facility was doesn't mean that whatever Hersh claims about it must be true.

                  This is a classic informal fallacy.

                  If Hersh has evidence to support his contention (and I gave only a cursory search, but found none), then great, there's evidence, and we can increase our confidence that he's accurate.

                  But lacking evidence, the null hypothesis is that he's incorrect.

                  This is what it means to live in the reality based community. We draw conclusions based on evidence, not supposition.

                  Obama apologists or progressive purists or whatever other argumentem ad hominem (that means "argument at the man", or attacking the argument by attacking the person making the argument, another classic informal fallacy) terms you might want to use -- we are supposed to be the reality-based community. Asking for evidence, and presuming a claim false that lacks evidence, is part and parcel of that. Are you comfortable with that?

                  "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                  by raptavio on Fri May 02, 2014 at 11:33:30 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What I am totally 100% comfortable with (0+ / 0-)

                    is watching administration apologists crash and burn over time.

                    I'm old enough to have seen it happen multiple times over the decades for POTUS's and their minions from both parties.   And by "both parties" I of course mean the artificial divide that the Powers That Be have in place to convince persons like myself that we actually have a meaningful choice in place when we go to vote .. . . .

                    •  You didn't answer the question. (0+ / 0-)

                      Again, I ask: Are you comfortable with presuming false claims presented without evidence?

                      "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                      by raptavio on Fri May 02, 2014 at 01:11:24 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  What I'm comfortable with is believing (0+ / 0-)

                        Mr. Hersh on matters like this.

                        As compared to his antagonists who offer absolutely NO argument.

                        Such as yourself.  Seriously, if you can provide a credible counterpoint why the US had a non-embassy, non-consulate operation (as testified by other DailyKos posters in this discussion) set up in Benghazi (other than for CIA arms-running purposes), I'm all ears.

                        •  If you trust Mr. Hersh (0+ / 0-)

                          with bare assertions because you've come to believe Mr. Hersh based on past experience, that's legitimate. Trust earned by a record of reliable reporting (as opposed to a trust earned by a record of saying things you want to hear -- hint, hint) is perfectly valid.

                          I've got no such past record with Mr. Hersh (though I know of him and I know he's got a decent reputation, but he has on his record some very shaky claims, such as his claim that that the 2013 Ghouta chemical weapons attack was launched by the Syrian opposition rather than the Syrian government) so I ask for evidence to back up his claims. That's also perfectly valid.

                          It is disappointing that you treat a request for evidence as being his "antagonist" -- but it tells me that we're not going to get anywhere constructive if you drop into such a defensive position at the request.

                          I don't know what the full purpose of the diplomatic compound in Benghazi is -- but then I don't have that much knowledge of what differentiates a consulate from an embassy (except that an embassy is considered sovereign territory of the sending, rather than host, nation). I've been trying to dig up information on this, but it's sketchy. There are a few credible sources that say  that there was a CIA facility at the diplomatic compound, and there seems to be very credible evidence the CIA was actively involved in defending the compound during the 9/11/2012 attack. Occam's Razor suggests that the CIA's function in Benghazi had more to do with American interests in Libya than Seymour Hersh's claims that it was a vector for funnelling arms to Syria (given that it was a significant distance from the Egyptian border, Tubruq and the El Adam airbase are much closer, and it would require funnelling the arms through both Egypt and Israel to get them there -- why start in Libya rather than going directly through Israel?). Hersh has misfired on Syria before, so I need more evidence than his word to accept his claim as factual.

                          Or, you know, you can write me off as an 'antagonist' or an 'Obama apologist' (like what does one's opinion of Obama have to do with whether one believes the CIA presence in Benghazi is about Syria or about Libya?), that's cool too. But it's definitely NOT living in the reality based community.

                          "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                          by raptavio on Fri May 02, 2014 at 01:52:21 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  He's had numerous articles in the New Yorker (0+ / 0-)

                            which I'm a long time subscriber to, over the years.

                            Many of which were accepted as "gospel truth" here at DailyKos when George W Bush was POTUS, on topics such as Rumsfeld's "stovepiping" of intelligence, OBL's "escape" from Tora Bora, torture at Abu Ghraib, etc etc.

                            A list of this body of work is given here (note that only one page out of 8 is shown).

                            Based on this track record, and in the absence of any other explanation (which you admit you don't have wrt Benghazi), I'm going with his account, which is by far the most credible I have yet to hear.

                          •  I see. (0+ / 0-)

                            So you didn't read the alternate (and much more plausible) explanation I provided, ignored Hersh's previous misfire wrt Syria, and just ended it there, citing a list of Hersh's other claims from the Bush era, which were all supported by strong supporting evidence (Abu Ghraib had effing photographs, man!).

                            So you weren't telling the truth when you said you were "all ears." Disappointing.

                            I guess we're done here.

                            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                            by raptavio on Fri May 02, 2014 at 02:18:53 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

          •  OK, but why would an ambassador go there (0+ / 0-)

            if there wasn't some diplomatic purpose (like trying to build relationships with the fighters we helped get rid of Qaddafi).  So, there was a credible purpose for having that consulate and certainly lots of motivation to have a CIA presence there to build a strong network of operatives inside Libya.

            They don't trust Issa not to blab it (which he's done in the past), so they are limited by the risk of exposure while trying to shut this asshole down.  

            West. No further west. All sea. --Robert Grenier

            by Nicolas Fouquet on Fri May 02, 2014 at 09:05:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Your POV is profoundly anti-democratic (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JJ In Illinois

              in the sense that we peons are much to dense to have and evaluate this information on our own.

              Which IMHO is the charitable explanation, I tend to side with Mr. Hersh 's POV (which traditionally has been discounted at this site because he has been too tightly linked to the CIA, but in this particular instance by contrast enhances his credibility)

              •  I'd argue that it is Issa who is anti-democratic (0+ / 0-)

                How are we allowed to ferret it out on our own when the investigation is highly manipulated and politicized and presented in false context?

                There is a point where one has to trust people in diplomatic situations.  

                I'd like to be talking not about what we knew that night or the following weeks but rather what we know about who did this and why.  And, what are we going to do differently in the future.

                He prevents this from happening.

                West. No further west. All sea. --Robert Grenier

                by Nicolas Fouquet on Fri May 02, 2014 at 11:34:04 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  "another covert US war that (0+ / 0-)

          - in this case - a Democratic POTUS was itching to have" ???

          Now that you've pulled that one out of your exhaust port, care to elaborate on Obama's "itching" for "covert war"?

          Any thoughts on Junior's Iraq thingy that lit up the whole, already-unstable Middle East in the first place... or just co-inky-dinky?

          •  It's in the link I gave above, not in my ass (0+ / 0-)

            (and I won't bother to speculate on why you're interested in the latter option . . .. )

            •  In the diary you linked, (0+ / 0-)

              this observation by 'MsTribble':

              "But we didn't go to war. Obama stalled. He is sometimes jockied around by the endless war crowd, but I'm grateful he acts slowly." (my emphases)

              So much for your assertion of Obama's "itch"... and your obliviousness to the 'turnkey' CIA and other surreptitious operations with a life of their own, operations for whom a new administration is little more than a minor distraction.

              Nice of you to check your colon for foreign objects.

              •  Obama stalled because his GOP adversies (0+ / 0-)

                forced his to do so. No more and no less

                And despite that fact that they are usually a complete bunch of fuckwads, in this case they did the right thing (albeit undoubtably for the wrong reason).

                I and take note that you are unable to offer any explanation for exactly why the USA was compelled to have personnel stationed at Benghazi at that point in time other than to enable covert CIA operations .. . .. .

    •  The only thing we may not have access to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TKO333 what the CIA was doing in Benghazi and what their sources were saying (because revealing some of this might expose operatives).  There are probably some things the administration can't talk about and perhaps that may be part of what you see as obfuscation.

      The NYT report, based on interviewing people in Benghazi, was that it DID take quite a bit of time to understand what happened because a lot of different issues came together that night.

      The new "smoking gun" is an email expressing that the administration still looked at Benghazi and all the other protests as related - because it turns out they were in parts.

      Bottom line, though...the premise that they orchestrated a lie because they were afraid of the political implications in September 2012 indicates that the Obama team thought having Al Qaeda "on the run" was a significant message upon which the election could turn.  To me, that's absurd because Obama had built sufficient cred over the issue of going after terrorist organizations (if anything, he's being criticized for over doing it).  Are we to believe that a terrorist attack in Benghazi debunks all that other evidence?  Did people really believe we could ever stop all attacks, especially in a place as dangerous and charged as Libya?  

      The whole argument is absurd because there is no logical risk/reward scenario that makes sense.  There was simply not enough motivation to conduct such a ruse.

      West. No further west. All sea. --Robert Grenier

      by Nicolas Fouquet on Fri May 02, 2014 at 08:54:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, spoken very eloquently (0+ / 0-)

        from the perspective of a "manufacturing plant owner"!!

      •  If Libya was so "dangerous and charged", (0+ / 0-)

        why didn't Ambassador Stevens have protection?

        Ignoring the kerfluffle about whether the White House tried to spin an apparent attack into being a movie protest gone wrong, there is still the argument that the State Dept dropped the ball in protecting its own people.

        The push to make it look like a protest about a movie helps to also deflect this incompetence by putting the blame on an incensed Islamic populace, rather than an organized (if only loosely) group of Al Quaeda affiliated terrorists.

        •  people forget that on that day in that part of the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JJ In Illinois

          world there were emotional, angry protests going on about that movie at many US embassies and consulates. To think this was more of the same at first is natural. I thought it must be even before any admin official spoke. Republicans speak as if the admin pulled the movie scenario from thin air. It seemed realistic to me that at least at first the admin thought it was a protest about the movie. I didn't notice a "push" to make it look like it was the movie..instead their messaging was vague and unsure and preliminary.

        •  I don't think people have a problem critizing that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JJ In Illinois

          The State Dept. had some failure, here, but I think it's fair to say that protection is also a nuanced affair because protecting diplomats makes it harder for them to really do their job.  Fortresses and security detail discourage communication - certainly the informal type.

          Ambassador Stevens has some responsibility for how that balance was carried out.  Sometimes what seems like incompetence is an attempt at maintaining a very delicate balance.

          THIS is the discussion Benghazi deserves, not what's happening now.  Republicans are fashioning a narrative to the event that fits what they want, not what necessarily is.  Their methods prevent honest discussion, just as they always seem to do, for example, creating "Death Panels" meme to kill discussion of end of life care in the ACA (to try kill the ACA itself).

          It's highly dishonest.

          West. No further west. All sea. --Robert Grenier

          by Nicolas Fouquet on Fri May 02, 2014 at 11:27:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  So (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Benghazi is too important for the Republicans to leave in Issa's hands?

    The Republicans are going to start a new investigation into Benghazi?

    Republicans: Taking the country back ... to the 19th century

    by yet another liberal on Fri May 02, 2014 at 08:41:08 AM PDT

  •  How about Issa issuing a subpoena on himself (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dylanfan, TKO333

    investigating how his business burned down years ago.
    Seems there was something about insurance......

    "The soil under the grass is dreaming of a young forest, and under the pavement the soil is dreaming of grass."--Wendell Berry

    by Wildthumb on Fri May 02, 2014 at 08:41:35 AM PDT

  •  Benghazi!!! will be supplemented by (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    "They cooked the books" in 5...4...3...

    "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

    by raptavio on Fri May 02, 2014 at 08:41:41 AM PDT

  •  I have to admit, even after a year of BENGHAZZEEEE (2+ / 0-)

    I still really don't have the slightest clue about what the 'scandal' is that the Rs are all wound up about. As nearly as I can figure, it's down to 'the White House told Susan Rice to follow CIA talking points about the incident on a Sunday morning talk show'. Yes/no??

    Pistachios are like our politics - when the two sides are divided, that's when the nuts come out! - Stephen Colbert

    by Fordmandalay on Fri May 02, 2014 at 08:50:27 AM PDT

    •  The scandal as far as they are concerned (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      is that it wasn't turned into a "Desert One" moment.  That means that the President must have done something wrong.

      I'll always be...King of Bain...I'll always be...King of Bain

      by AZphilosopher on Fri May 02, 2014 at 08:57:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No.. the White House told Susan Rice to (0+ / 0-)

      use the CIA's Cairo talking points in falsely describing the Benghazi attack.  The two events had nothing to do with each other.

      •  thought CIA made Benghazi talking points (0+ / 0-)

        that they had her use.

        •  There were two CIA offices involved (0+ / 0-)

          The original CIA memo did indeed mention the protests.. the other office told the White House that that was unsupported.

          To me, the White House simply chose to use the narrative more politically favorable.  There is enough wiggle room in the evidence that supports either theory.

          I would have released this stuff a year ago, however.. hanging on to this for over a year and a half and being forced to provide it by a court order makes the White House look guilty.

  •  At least he's being honest here... (0+ / 0-)

    its a "@GOPoversight" hearing. Not anything the dems need to show up to, sounds a little like an invite to a necktie party.

    "Change is inevitable, growth is optional."

    by Suicide Arsonist on Fri May 02, 2014 at 08:54:56 AM PDT

  •  McCain and Graham were doing what looked like (0+ / 0-)

    a Magic act on the senate floor regarding Benghazi

    I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

    by JML9999 on Fri May 02, 2014 at 08:55:27 AM PDT

  •  Let a thousand committees bloom! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Why just this one, Select Committee, to compete with The Darrell Show?  I thought the Rs believed in free market competition.  Why not let every member of their caucus chair his or her own personal Benghazi investigation committee?

    The states must be abolished.

    by gtomkins on Fri May 02, 2014 at 08:57:01 AM PDT

  •  A select committee is getting it out of Issa's (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    hands, but can't it also be seen as an escalation?

    I'll always be...King of Bain...I'll always be...King of Bain

    by AZphilosopher on Fri May 02, 2014 at 08:58:33 AM PDT

  •  Joe Biden famously said of Rudy Giuliani (0+ / 0-)

    "There's only three things he mentions in a sentence --
    a noun, a verb, and 9/11.

    The same thing could be said of Eric Cantor and Darrell Issa,  

    "There's only three things they mention in a sentence

    a noun, a verb, and Benghazi.

  •  Dems should disregard these subpoenas. (0+ / 0-)

    enough waste of time and resource.  Let the Rs try to enforce using capitol hill police.

  •  Benghazi is all they have to attack Hillary 2016 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Major Kong, FindingMyVoice

    and they are holding onto it like a pitbull even if it makes them look like fools.  

  •  Alleged insurance fraud, (0+ / 0-)

    arson, auto theft and illegal handgun possession.


    ... 'cause "Ben — GAHH — Zee!"

  •  amazing.. (0+ / 0-)

    there is no there there. As Hillary said ... What difference does it make what was said afterwards... it has nothing to do with the actual event.

  •  Wait, so Issa is STILL going at it, AND Boehner?? (0+ / 0-)

    Oh god, they now have TWO committees investigating this, when one of them has been at it for so long and couldn't do shit?????

    Please know I am not rude. I cannot rec anything from this browser. When I rec or post diaries I am a guest at some exotic locale's computer. Ayn is the bane!

    by Floyd Blue on Fri May 02, 2014 at 09:21:45 AM PDT

  •  #JOBS #DEFICIT (0+ / 0-)

    I know they're full of shit.

    Please know I am not rude. I cannot rec anything from this browser. When I rec or post diaries I am a guest at some exotic locale's computer. Ayn is the bane!

    by Floyd Blue on Fri May 02, 2014 at 09:22:07 AM PDT

  •  The "Job Killing" Talking Point Takes a Beating (0+ / 0-)

    Ted Cruz, February 2014:

    “It's clear that President Obama's agenda is dragging our economy down. Obamacare is killing jobs, his energy regulations are killing jobs, and his ideas to mandate a higher minimum wage will kill even more jobs."
    Reality, Today:
    Since the President signed the Affordable Care Act, our businesses have created more than 9 million jobs, and the unemployment rate has dropped more than 3 percentage points:
    Chart: 3.6 million private-sector jobs lost in the decade before Obamacare compared to 9.1 million created since Obamacare enacted.


    A closer look at the monthly jobs numbers shows how America went from losing nearly 800,000 private-sector jobs a month at the end of the last Republican Administration to gaining jobs again within a year of President Obama signing the 2009 Recovery Act (the Stimulus). And since the President signed the 2010 Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), the economy has been creating an average of more than 185,000 private-sector jobs a month:

    Chart: Average Monthly Private Sector Jobs: From losing nearly 800,000 jobs per month in January 2009 to gaining jobs by early 2010 to averaging more than 185,000 per month since Obamacare enacted.
  •  Screw 'em! (0+ / 0-)

    Secretary Kerry should issue a statement that he will not comply and will not waste his time or the taxpayers' money playing this game.  If the Lynch Mob doesn't like it, they have impeachment power; let them use it.  Remember how well political impeachment worked out for them the last time they tried it?

    "The test of our progress is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much. It is whether we provide enough to those who have little. " --Franklin D. Roosevelt

    by jg6544 on Fri May 02, 2014 at 10:59:22 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site