#BENGHAZI: Dozens of CIA on the ground; Survivors being hidden?

On Thursday, Jake Tapper dropped a not so subtle story at the end of the day. The CIA had dozens of operatives on the ground in Benghazi the night of the attack.

Midnight call from my CIA source. ‘This is the one.’ Said the real question is why all those agents were in Benghazi. http://t.co/4ELMQMffRE

— Joseph Curl (@josephcurl) August 2, 2013

Tapper’s story Via CNN:

CNN has uncovered exclusive new information about what is allegedly happening at the CIA, in the wake of the deadly Benghazi terror attack.

Four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in the assault by armed militants last September 11 in eastern Libya.

Sources now tell CNN dozens of people working for the CIA were on the ground that night, and that the agency is going to great lengths to make sure whatever it was doing, remains a secret.

CNN has learned the CIA is involved in what one source calls an unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency’s Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out.

The article makes mention there might be implications that perhaps the theory gun running was going on might be correct. As for my opinion, it’s either weapons running to Syria or that many CIA agents might denote a black site operation? UPDATE: CIA ‘running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was attacked’

The story goes on to say that these operatives are being subjected to very frequent polygraph examinations in order to determine if they had spoken to the press or not and that intimidation tactics were being employed to maintain their silence.  The CIA, of course, denies attempting to silence or intimidate anyone.

So the CIA is giving agents lie detector tests to make sure agents aren’t telling the truth. MIND=BLOWN — David Burge (@iowahawkblog) August 2, 2013

Just the day before Tapper filed this story, Rep. Darrell Issa shot off subpoenas to the State Department for documents regarding the ARB and Benghazi.

#BENGHAZI UPDATE: I just subpoenaed @StateDept for docs related to @GOPoversight investigation they refuse to hand over.

— Darrell Issa (@DarrellIssa) August 1, 2013

It wouldn’t be shocking to see Issa issue more subpoenas in light of the CNN story. As to the subpoena’s issued this week, the details are in the Oversight Committee’s press release:

Subpoena 1

  1. All documents provided by the Department of State to the Accountability Review Board (“ARB” or “the ARB”) convened to examine the facts and circumstances surrounding the September 11-12, 2012 attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya.
  1. All documents and communications referring or relating to ARB interviews or meetings, including, but not limited to, notes or summaries prepared during and after any ARB interview or meeting.

Subpoena 2

  1. All documents that have been made available to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform for in camera review, including, but not limited to, the approximately 25,000 pages of documents referenced in the March 29, 2013 letter from Acting Assistant Secretary Thomas B. Gibbons to House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa.

Access To Survivors, Witnesses and Suspects

Probably not many buy the CIA’s line about intimidation as just this past week FOX news landed an interview with a Benghazi ‘Survivor’. David Ubben, a diplomatic security agent, was severely wounded that night as he assisted Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods defending the compound. Ubben was responsible for retrieving the body of Sean Smith. FOX news’ Catherine Herridge reported:


The Oversight Committee leveled accusations that the Obama administration is blocking access to witnesses and survivors. In light of this recent information and this administrations love loss for whistleblowers, the committee is likely right. This week, after Tapper’s report came out, Rep. Trey Gowdy repeated the stonewalling accusations in an interview with Greta VanSusteren, adding that the administration was hiding the survivors. Via GatewayPundit, who also has video of interview with Gowdy:

Gowdy told Greta the Obama Administration is hiding the survivors, dispersing them around the country, AND changing their names.

Including changing names, creating aliases. Stop and think what things are most calculated to get at the truth? Talk to people with first-hand knowledge. What creates the appearance and perhaps the reality of a cover-up? Not letting us talk with people who have the most amount of information, dispersing them around the country and changing their names.”

And, at the same time Obama is hiding the survivors around the country he’s calling Benghazi a ‘phony’ scandal.

On a related note, President Obama’s position that he would find who was responsible and bring them to justice seems to have stalled out as well.  CNN was also on hand for an interview with Ahmed Abdu Khattala, a man thought to be involved with the attack on the mission in Benghazi. Khattala denies involvement in the attack, stating he arrived after it started and told CNN that no one from the U.S. government had contacted him whatsoever. More on Ahmed Abdu Khattala at The Blaze.

CBS’ Sharyl Attkisson’s story, predating the CNN interview with Khatalla, verifies his claim:

Four Americans including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens were killed in the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. compounds in Benghazi. No suspects have been arrested. Republicans have raised persistent questions about the Obama administration’s handling of the crisis.

Graham tells CBS News that his office is now hearing from frustrated officials within military special forces and intelligence communities who say they have good leads on the whereabouts of suspects in the attacks but can’t get approval to take action.


Focus Returns to CIA, Clinton

Tapper went one further on Twitter, referring back to Hillary Clinton’s testimony. Via Twitchy:

Recall H Clinton answer when Sen Paul asked about gun-running: “you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex.”

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) August 1, 2013

We know Hillary Clinton’s answer to all of this:


P.S. CNN? Nakoula is still in jail. Where’s that interview?

Facebook Removes GOP Texas Attorney General's New Campaign Ad
TN Newspaper Editor Fired for 'Take Your Jobs Plan and Shove it, Mr. President' Headline
  • jim_m

    Dead people in the name of pursuing the president’s agenda are “suboptimal”, but they are hardly a problem or even a negative in the eyes of the left.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    Benghazi raises more and more questions. First, our government told us it was a spontaneous reaction to an obscure u-tube video, going so far as to put ads on Pakistani television apologizing to uncivilized savages for our First Amendment – and yes, as Prof Reynolds says, Nakoula is still in jail.
    When that lie went down in flames, it appeared that Al Qaeda [you know, the terrorist outfit that Obama single-handily defeated] was to blame, and that it was merely part of its on-going war against the US.

    Now, it appears that the Benghazi attack may have been “push back” for the US government’s attempt to run arms/personnel into Syria. If so, it means that Obama lied, not to cover-up the fact that Al Qaeda was back and better than ever, but to cover-up the fact that the attack was in response to a specific policy of his administration. Not only that, it’s entirely unclear whether the sponsors of the attack were Al Qaeda with its local franchisees, or whether it was Syrian sponsored, with Russian/Iranian backing, as “push back” against an attempt to supply the Syrian rebels with arms – which wouldn’t mean that Islamist terrorist groups wouldn’t have joined in, you know, just for the fun of it.
    Where the hell is that RE-SET button?

    PS – Be prepared to be mocked by Brucehenry – you cited a report that was recapped on Gateway Pundit, so you must be stupid and/or confused.

    • jim_m

      The first resort of the left is to attack and defame the messenger because they cannot address the facts. And the reason they cannot address the facts is that all to often they simply do not know them and in the rare event that they do they want to avoid having to admit that their policies suck.

  • How many times does it have to be repeated before people in government learn?

    It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up. This, because they wanted to take the ‘easy way’ out by blaming it on some obscure video, is getting worse and worse for the administration. Like the IRS scandal, it’s expanding despite efforts to cover it up – and as more and more comes to light the administration’s Teflon coating is getting more and more scratched up… to the point where everything is going to stick.

    But hey, maybe they can find another Martin-Zimmerman style distraction to shift attention again… or was that just a one-shot that won’t work a second time?

    • LiberalNightmare

      Its not the cover-up. Its who is running the cover up.

      Thee thing to take away from watergate, is that republican cover ups lead to scandals. Not democratic cover ups. Democratic cover ups lead to phony scandals.

      • jim_m

        Dem coverups lead to lucrative promotions and post administration lobbying contracts.

        • As long as they can be covered. That isn’t a guaranteed thing any more, I think.

          • jim_m

            Meh. Dem malfeasance is like using PED’s in baseball. Even if I get caught I make millions. Just ask Jaime Garelik.

          • But what about the next folks who try that? When people know what to look for, they tend to find it if it’s there.

      • But the ‘phony’ only lasts for so long. And there’s more and more pressure accumulating on Obama’s administration, and fewer and fewer people willing to be thrown under the bus to make sure he’s got a smooth ride.

        Even the media’s starting, slowly, to come to the realization that he ain’t all that, and never was in the first place. Once one dares to speak, others will gather courage. I think the rest of this year and next is not going to go well for the administration.

    • Walter_Cronanty

      “But hey, maybe they can find another Martin-Zimmerman style distraction
      to shift attention again… or was that just a one-shot that won’t work
      a second time?”
      To a leftist, the race card is never out of style, especially to shut someone up.

      • Yeah, but it’s getting much weaker. When you’ve got black commentators criticizing the likes of Sharpton, Jackson and Rangel for their inability to get beyond the ’60s, even though they get castigated for it, I think it’s inspiring people to think and realize that it’s NOT 1965 any more.


        When the race-baiting poverty pimps pass on, I think we’ll see real improvements. But until the ones for whom color is the most important thing are out of the picture, progress will be slow.

        • Walter_Cronanty

          When the most prominent, current “race-baiting poverty pimps” are the President and Attorney General, I can’t share in your optimism.

          • I have to be optimistic. The alternative is despair. Obama won’t be President forever, and Holder knows the bottom of the bus is waiting once Obama figures he’s no longer useful.

            And once those two aren’t in office, a lot of things that ‘don’t matter’ now are going to take on a lot more relevance…

          • And to expand on Holder’s ‘usefulness’ – I think he’ll push things MUCH further into the “Oh, hell. You did WHAT?!” zone than otherwise. He’s digging his hole really deep to prove (in the best Chicago tradition) that he’s loyal.

            But he’s not in Chicago. And Obama won’t be President forever – so I’d bet he’s hoping like anything for a pardon when Obama leaves.

          • jim_m

            And Obama won’t be President forever

            There are those on the left that would like it otherwise, including obama.

          • I know. It’ll be interesting to see their justifications.

          • Brucehenry

            LOL, I don’t know about Obama, but if I could wish away that one pesky amendment, and it was up to me, Bill Clinton would be in his 5th term.

          • I think he might have gotten a third term, but the recession that was already starting in 2000 and 9/11 would have spelled the end for him.

            But we’ll never know.

          • jim_m

            Bill Clinton would not be in his 5th term seeing as how his first term would have become Reagan’s 4th.

            [edit]And since Reagan would have been tragically diagnosed with Alzheimer’s during that 4th term Bush 41 would have sailed to victory and at the very best we would be looking at a 3rd term for Clinton assuming that he hadn’t been put in prison for sexual assault in the interim.

      • LiberalNightmare

        Heh, Zimmerman style distraction, one shot.

      • LiberalNightmare

        Heh, Zimmerman style distraction, one shot.

    • Commander_Chico

      CIA operations, all classified operations, are by definition cover-ups. Isn’t that why Manning and Kirakou are in jail and Snowden had to flee?

      • LiberalNightmare

        I’d say that the definition of a cover-up is when the people ask “what the hell happened here?” and the govt refuses to answer truthfully.

        Some examples would be –
        What happened in Benghazi?
        Spontaneous demonstration caused by a you tube video.

  • Porkopolis

    This theory, with supporting evidence, was developed back in February and is worthy of food for thought. It’s prompted by the question: ‘If the President was against a policy of arming the Syrians, why do we have a report that arms were being shipped from Benghazi to Syria by way of Turkey?’.

    If you’re a film buff, the question may sound familiar to the climatic question in ‘A Few Good Men’ where Kaffee asks Jessep to clear up the inconsistency for two orders…the ‘You Can’t Handle the Truth!’ moment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk

    The ‘You Break It, You Own It’ Theory on Benghazi: http://porkopolis.blogspot.com/2013/05/repost-you-break-it-you-own-it-theory.html :

    President Obama was not intimately involved/engaged with the
    operational defense of the Benghazi Consulate because he was upset that key
    members of his National Security Council had circumvented his policy against
    arming the Syrian rebels. His disengagement was his way of disassociating
    himself from a policy gone wrong; a policy he originally opposed…

  • Commander_Chico

    Chico told you a long time ago that this was a CIA post.

    Keep trying to make that meth dealer and credit card scammer Nakoula into a hero.

    • Remind us again why any sane person would pay attention to the opinions of a soi disant cognoscenti who refers to himself in the third person?

      • Commander_Chico

        Because Bob Dole says so.

    • jim_m

      Nobody is claiming that he is a hero. Quit lying about that fact. Quit obfuscating the fact that you are completely fine with obama lying abut the video and blaming the 4 dead Americans on someone who had nothing to do with it.

      Tell us genius, what Nakoula’s criminal history has to do with obama choosing him as a scapegoat.

      Tell us at what point you think it is no longer OK to lie to the public and persecute people falsely for your mistakes.

      Tell us the truth that you think it is OK to lie and blame and throw innocent people into prison in order to cover up the mistakes of obama. Because the obvious truth is that if Nakoula had no criminal past you would still be advocating to keep him in jail.

  • Brucehenry

    Huge scandal!!!!!

    Why is this a huge scandal? Because an article on CNN (a source you guys trust implicitly I assume) MAKES MENTION that there MIGHT be IMPLICATIONS that PERHAPS the THEORY that gun running was going on MIGHT be correct.


    • jim_m

      It’s a huge scandal because the obama admin has covered up what happened. They deliberately deceived the American public by blaming a stupid video, something that they knew was false and that was intended to deflect attention from their incompetence. They have further covered this up by refusing to come clean about the sequence of events and now we find that they are hiding witnesses.

      Let’s take for a moment your assertion that nothing wrong happened here as true. Why then the need to cover this up? Given that they decided to cover up the events why should we believe you or anyone else that there is nothing to see here? Would you do the same if this were Bush? (Of course not because you only support criminal activity in a presidency when it furthers your own agenda. You would be screaming from the rafters if this were done by a GOP president. Hypocrite.)

      • Brucehenry

        Where do you see an assertion that “nothing wrong happened”?

        My point is the hyperventilation and acceptance as Gospel the supposition that there is a huge scandal here based on CNN *making mention* that there *might* be *implications* that *perhaps* a *theory* about US gun running *might* be correct. Did you not get that from my use of cap locks above?

        It’s about boys crying wolf as usual. When everything is a scandal nothing is, and it’s your own fault you can’t get traction on this.

        When a massive giveaway to private insurance companies is “socialism”; when a series of speeches denoting a tone more conciliatory to the Muslim world viewpoint is an “apology tour”; when a coffee klatsch in a former radical’s living room is “palling around with terrorists”; when a gift of CDs to a queen is “dissing our allies”; when supporting democratic movements in the Middle East is “abandoning Israel” and “supporting radical Islamists”; when presidential travel is “taking $600 million vacations”; when restrictions on gun magazines is unconstitutional “gun-grabbing”; then the public can be forgiven for assuming your latest sky-is-falling rhetoric is more bloviation and Obama-bashing propaganda.

        BTW you don’t find here that “they are hiding witnesses.” What you find here is some partisan GOP backbenchers ASSERTING that “they” are hiding witnesses. Given that virtually everything any Republican says the last 5 years has been exaggerated hyperbolic doom-and-gloom, why should we believe you or anyone in the GOP that there IS something to see here?

        • jim_m

          Where do you see an assertion that “nothing wrong happened”?

          From your insistence that this is not a huge scandal. Once you have people thinking that it is not a big deal then you will move to arguing how it is not a problem at all. Everything you do is an attempt to minimize the malfeasance of this admin.

          There is evidence that the CIA is giving people new identities or aliases in order to make them impossible for investigators and the media to find. Your suggestion that this is just being made up is false.

          Did you even bother to read that Jake Tapper story? When the CIA is telling people that if they talk to the media “You don’t jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well.” Based on your minimization of this issue I assume that you are OK with threats and intimidation by this administration to cover up a scandal. As I have said before, you are perfectly OK wiith fascism implemented in the name of advancing your ideology.

          • Brucehenry

            It’s true that my sarcasm can be interpreted as minimizing the possibility, but I don’t necessarily mean that there was NO misfeasance or incompetence or misjudgment involved here. Just that, as usual, GOP is making a mountain out of what might be a molehill, and that that’s the reason the “scandal” isn’t getting much traction.

            Folks can only stay alarmed at hair-on-fire alarmism for so long before they start dismissing it. Do you think a car is being stolen every time you hear a car alarm these days?

          • jim_m

            While I agree that people can only stay alarmed for so long, you car alarm analogy is inapt. I cannot recall any time at which I was concerned about the sound of a car alarm but then maybe that is part of the experience in growing up in the suburbs where car alarms went off primarily because the basketball hit the car or the 4th of July fireworks set it off.

            [edit] But the problem is that if someone does not sound any concern then nothing gets investigated. the obama admin will never allow the law to be a barrier to getting its way. We have already seen multiple instances of illegal activity with the IRS the EPA and other agencies. The DOJ regularly is shown taking sides ideologically and determining who will be prosecuted not by whether they broke the law but by the color of their skin.

            What I find alarming is the presumption that the admin is not doing anything wrong. One would think that we have gotten beyond that by now.

          • LiberalNightmare

            Yeah – just because its starting look like the president is illegally arming Syrian rebels, then abandoning embassy personal to their deaths, and blaming the whole thing on a you tube video, in order to hide information from the public that might influence his election chances doesn’t really amount to anything.

            And the fact that the cover up apparently continues even today as the administration hides witnesses and changes identities probably doesn’t mean anything.

            In fact, this is all just a fake scandal.

          • jim_m

            I like how you characterize this as either “misfeasance or incompetence or misjudgment”. At no time does it every enter your consciousness that there could have been a careless disregard for the lives of Americans or that after the incident in an attempt to cover up their own failure they chose to deliberately smear a man with false allegations and blame these deaths on him when they knew is was false. To you this is just an honest mistake.

            It’s amazing that you see no problem with deliberately lying to the American public to cover up their mistakes. You see nothing wrong with smearing a man and blaming him for 4 deaths that he had nothing to do with. Apparently, this behavior is to you as “suboptimal” as the deaths are to obama.

          • Commander_Chico

            I love this scandal, because it makes every right-winger like Jim sound like Noam Chomsky.

          • While our soi disant cognoscenti starts sounding more like tarbabyhenry

          • Brucehenry

            There you go again blaming the Jooooos. LOL.

          • jim_m

            No, he doesn’t blame the Jews but he does choose a Jew to serve as a negative example. Good catch.

          • Commander_Chico

            Not at all – most of what Noam Chomsky says nowadays is true.

          • Brucehenry

            There you go again blaming the Jooooos. LOL.

          • LiberalNightmare

            Only if we are wrong.

          • LiberalNightmare

            Only if we are wrong.

      • Commander_Chico

        The government deceives the American people all of the time on foreign operations. It’s an unavoidable consequence of deceiving the rest of the world, too. Can’t tell the American people the truth, when we are blowing bullshit everywhere else. That’s what happens when you’re meddling everywhere.

        For example, the assertion that the invasion of Grenada was to rescue medical students – that was bullshit. The real reason was to remove a hard-line Leninist regime in that country that was going to give a base to the USSR. Which was actually a damn good reason.

        Another example – “smoking gun to become a mushroom cloud,” “aluminum tubes,” etc. wrt to Iraq, when they wanted regime change for multiple reasons involving oil, politics, etc. Not so good reasons.

        This looks something like Iran-contra, getting arms to people we want to have them through clandestine means. At least we didn’t sell HAWK missiles to Iran this time.

        • jim_m

          Shorter Chico: I’m OK with the government deceiving the public in order to advance fascism.

          The Grenada example shows a legitimate foreign policy purpose. Your second example is incoherent.

          Demonstrate where there was a legitimate foreign policy interest in blaming a video and stoking islamist violence in the middle east.

          • Brucehenry

            Many Republicans want to arm the Syrian rebels, so, if this indeed IS the case here, pretty much the same degree of foreign policy legitimacy applies per Grenada. And it’s hilarious that you give Reagan a pass for what you want to crucify Obama for allegedly doing, in Chico’s Iran-Contra example.

            WRT the video, that video HAD caused rioting elsewhere in the Muslim world in the 48 hours leading up to this tragedy. People WERE killed (just not Americans, so to you, I guess no matter.) Saying the administration clung to the video as an explanation too long is fair. To say that this indicates a nefarious scandal is not.

          • jim_m

            Nope. The video had not caused rioting until after the obama admin brought it to the world’s attention so if we are to blame anyone for the rioting it should be the State Dept and obama.

            The obama admin knew at the time it advanced the excuse of the video that it was a lie. It was never a case of being misinformed and “clinging too long to an explanation”. Jeez, you will never give up that obama screwed this up.

          • Brucehenry

            Not how I remember it. I live in Raleigh, NC, though, not Wingnutistan.

          • jim_m

            You cannot find a single report of rioting about this video until AFTER the Sept 11 Benghazi attack and AFTER obama blaming it on the video. But be my guest and furnish one for us.

            And EVEN if you can it does not invalidate the fact that obama knew that the Benghazi attack had nothing to do with the video. You have done nothing to excuse the obama admins deliberate deception.

          • Brucehenry

            Here you go Mr Selective Memory:


            Who you gonna believe, actual events or Jim’s Version Of History?

          • jim_m

            Your link says that the violence started on Sept 11 and does not offer any evidence that there were attacks before the ones on Sept 11 just as I said and the Benghazi attack we know was totally unrelated. It could reasonably be argued that had obama not linked the successful al qaeda attack in Benghazi to the video that none of the following riots would ever have occurred and certainly if they had that they would not have been nearly as violent. By linking the two unrelated issues he gave impetus for more attacks.

            And once again you avoid addressing the fact that we knew that the Benghazi attack was unrelated to the video. Once again we see you excusing the criminal actions of the obama admin. Is there a single thing that obama could do that you would ever object to? I sincerely doubt it.

          • Brucehenry

            There were reports of the rioting in Cairo hours before the reports of the Benghazi attack. The link I cited didn’t mention them, but there were disturbances in Indonesia on the 11th as well. Hours before.

            It was your First Amendment hero “Pastor” Terry Jones, not President Obama, who really brought “Innocence of Muslims” to the world’s attention

          • jim_m

            Yeah, because the world just waits to hear every pronouncement from Terry Jones and no one pays any attention to obama. What crap. You know damned well that obama brought far more pub to this video than anyone else.

            You still have not addressed the fact that obama knew that the video had nothing to do with the attack. We knew immediately that this was not a demonstration but that is was a coordinated military attack on the consulate. obama deliberately lied to the American public and instead of addressing the issue you continue to spin other bullshit to distract from the fact that you cannot and will not condemn obama for lying

          • Brucehenry

            Many Islamist provocateurs indeed await with bated breath every utterance from “Pastor” Terry Jones, so they can whip up, through social media, more anti-Western and anti-Christian frenzy, since he plays stupidly right into their hands every fucking time he opens his ignorant, bigoted piehole.

            Which is why it was a good idea for the administration, and Obama personally, to condemn this video. It’s not that hard to see why it was done.

            It WASN’T clear in the first hours that the video wasn’t partly to blame, or at least used as cover for the attacks. Romney assumed it was, for example. But after the first 24 hours or so, I agree, it should have been dropped as an explanation. The fact that it wasn’t, though, isn’t proof of gun running or any other nefarious activity.

          • jim_m

            Yes, it was. We now have sworn testimony in Congress that tells us that we knew that the attack was not some disorganized protest but was a coordinated military attack from the start. DO try to keep up.

            As for what the obama admin is trying to cover up (other than gross ineptitude) I have not speculated. Not once.

          • Brucehenry

            Others have, which is what this post is about.

          • jim_m

            Another lie. The article was about the admin concealing the location and identities of witnesses and survivors.

          • Brucehenry

            And that the reason for that was gun running or black sites, according to the “author” of this piece.

            In either case, it’s likely BS.



          • jim_m

            Fine. But those issues were not brought up in the article. They may be related but your claim that they were the subject of the article when they do not appear in the article is pure fantasy on your part.

            What they were doing there is a legitimate topic of discussion, it just wasn’t the subject above.

          • jim_m

            Tell us, Mr fascist, that you do not support the suppression of free speech in the instances that islamic fascists might be upset by what someone says. It seems to me that your argument is that if there had not been a legitimate reason to revoke Nakoula’s parole that we should have thrown him in jail for offending muslims.

          • Brucehenry

            Of course it seems that way to you, Jim. You often are able to read words written by others that they did not write. You’re amazing that way.

          • [citation required]

          • Brucehenry
          • Many is now less than a half dozen named?


            In a bipartisan rebuke of the Obama administration’s Syria policy, almost all the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted Tuesday to authorize arming moderate elements of the Syrian opposition.

            is “the Republicans…”

            Only in a tarbaby’s eye.

          • Brucehenry

            Well, hairsplittin’ is better than your usual potshots. At least you’re making an effort to talk substance for once. But still…



            Of course, many Republicans are also changing their mind about arming the rebels. They were for it only as long as they thought Obama was against it.

          • Commander_Chico

            Bush, Rice, Powell, etc, bullshitted the world, and the U.S. people, about the Iraqi nuclear, bio, chemical threat. Got it?

            The government has been deceiving the people for years – that’s what the Pentagon Papers showed, for another example.

            If they were collecting up Libyan weapons and sending them to the “freedom fighters” in Syria, this would be another example of bullshitting in the service of some ulterior motives of meddling in another country.

            I’m not OK with it, these wars are leading to fascism, but you’ve been the one arguing for intervention in Syria, along with your neocon friends, McCain and Graham.

          • jim_m

            Do you get that if Bush etc were bullshitting everyone then so was Clinton and his whole admin too? Funny how you people who constantly blame Bush forget that most of the intel that the Bush admin had to rely upon in 2001 was gathered under the Clinton admin. And the fact is that they really believed it too.

          • Commander_Chico

            Yeah but Clinton did not invade Iraq. Simple?

          • Jwb10001

            Yeah and Clinton wasn’t president on 9/11/2001.

          • Commander_Chico

            Yeah and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

          • Jwb10001

            If you don’t think 9/11 changed everything you’re not thinking at all.

          • Logic and consistency are virtues unknown to our soi disanant cognoscenti and his tarbaby acolyte.

  • Constitution First

    Here is a hypothetical question:
    How many innocent people have to die to prop-up a SockPuppet?