Benghazi?
Why do we cover it?
We opposed the Libyan War. Check the archives. As with Syria, the people the US government backed were the same who were al Qaeda in Iraq.
We also called out the Iraq War and called for an immediate end to it.
That puts us far ahead of Rachel Maddow.
I'm not linking to her show. I'll link to Towel Road about it (which is the same as what an e-mail in the public account was about).
But understand, I don't give a damn what Rachel Maddow says. A lot of people are stupid enough to watch her -- well, not that many. But a small group of people watch her. That's their mistake. If you're on the left, Rachel's got nothing for you. Her sexuality just means MSNBC is always trying to make her 'lipstick' so she has to wear a lot of cheek make up and a lot of lipstick and false eye lashes. But her sexuality has some people wrongly believing she's left.
She's not. She wasn't against the Iraq War. And she also, after she went on Air America Radio, spent all of Unfiltered (it aired for a year) insisting that the US could not leave Iraq. She cited Colin Powell's Pottery Barn 'rule' of you break it, you bought it. (The Pottery Barn has no such rule.) That's a voice of war. It's also an egotist and a xenophobe who thinks Iraq -- and its people -- could be purchased.
Rachel's a lesbian, she's not a leftist. I believe we were the ones who explained what was going on after Rachel was solo. She'd just started and she was making a controversial move. While everyone was decrying Time magazine, in April 2005, putting Ann Coulter on the cover, Rachel was defending it and the idiotic copy.
The idiotic copy we noted. We noted it because the man who wrote the article was drooling over Ann's looks and sex appeal. We noted it because I'm not really sure that Ann's sexy or that a gay man is the best judge of what's sexy in a woman.
Yeah, the author was a gay conservative.
And we're the ones, not Rachel Maddow, who outed him as Rachel's dear friend. (He called, at that time, Rachel his "angel.") Rachel spent the whole week, multiple episodes, defending the article and insisting it was being wrongly slammed. But she never revealed that she was friends with the author.
So when Rachel forgets to reveal today, you need to realize it's not an accident, she's got a long pattern of omissions and lies. (She also backstabs. And we could go way back on that but let's just note, I don't care for Keith Olbermann but I don't owe my career to him. Isn't it funny how he's a stranger to Rachel, after all he did for her?)
On Unfiltered and her various shows that followed, she refused to allow anti-war veterans to come on the program and war resisters didn't exist at all.
So I have no idea why people are stupid enough to believe that she's left.
I can understand conservatives making that mistake. To them, she probably looks like one just because she repeats Democratic Party talking points.
But if people really knew her history -- the information I had about her and Cloud wasn't the only personal information I had on Rachel -- and knew the various groups she used to belong to, they wouldn't consider her left.
Rachel Maddow declares that Benghazi's all about impeaching Obama.
No, even she doesn't believe that.
But a whore says what its paid to say.
Benghazi is part of the Libyan War. As we understand it currently, 4 Americans were killed -- Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, Chris Stevens and Tyrone Woods. They were killed in a terrorist attack and the goal was to kill Americans.
I believe that makes it an American issue worthy of discussion.
What happened in Benghazi?
Pat Smith is the mother of Sean Smith and as she told Jake Tapper (The Lead with Jake Tapper, CNN), she doesn't feel that she's gotten any answers.
I supported Cindy Sheehan's right to ask for answers. We supported Cindy completely. We didn't lie like a lot of left and 'left' sites that insisted Cindy was apolitical or she wasn't against the war or she wasn't this or that. We defended her and we stood up for her.
We've noted Pat Smith before this week. I've been asked to note her more than we have. When I'm asked by a friend, I say, "Well what do you have." They never have anything. With Cindy, I knew of Cindy before Camp Crawford. She had been on Pacifica speaking out. But when someone is able to say, "We've got Pat Smith coverage," I say, "Great, e-mail it to me and we'll highlight it."
I'm very lucky that my children are alive. Hopefully, they will out live me by many, many years. But there are many times that I worry that won't be the case and, as such, I have a small inkling of what it would be like to miss them the way Cindy or Pat miss their sons.
So we've got the fact that four Americans died. We've got the belief that they were killed in Libya because they were Americans. We've got a mother who wants answers.
Those are three solid reasons right there.
Some people like to pretend that they really care about Iraq and, you know, over 4,000 Americans died in Iraq.
Actually, I know the government's actual number for US military personnel and we note it still twice every week. So when someone writes on a website that "over 4,000 Americans died in Iraq" and they want us to believe that boom they care.
Screw that. You don't give a damn. If you gave a damn you'd know the number or have the sense to look it up. It's not a hidden number. (And this is one of the two entries in which we note it every week so you can scroll to the bottom or find out as your read along to the end.)
We noted earlier this week that it's nonsense to stomp your feet and say incident A or B or both didn't get the attention you wanted so it's not fair for Benghazi to get attention.
That's nonsense. That's not rational thinking, it's the sour grapes of a snotty nosed little brat who refuses to grow up.
If you truly were appalled and felt that Iraq should have been investigated more or 9-11 or whatever, if you feel that your incident suffered from a lack of attention, you don't whine that someone else is getting attention, you have the maturity to say, "Yes, let's investigate this."
Right now there are families calling for gun control who have lost family members to gun violence. Now let's imagine someone who lost a child in 2006 to gun violence declared publicly, "Oh, I'm not going to help the families of Newton because nobody helped me when my child died!"
That's immaturity.
In any administration -- Democrat or Republican -- I can usually find out what's going on in the State Dept -- in general terms. And the reason for that is because I have friends in the State Dept. Career diplomats. In a Democratic administration, I usually know a few appointees.
That's why we could and did talk about the low morale under Condi Rice, for example.
But it's also another reason why Benghazi matters.
I care about my friends, obviously. But I do care about all the people the government stations at embassies and consulates around the world. Before Benhghazi, we were talking here about how nervous career diplomats were about safety in Iraq for US employees.
Benghazi needs to be a closed book when everthing's been explored so that it doesn't happen again. (I'm especially interested in RT's speculation regarding the attack.)
Forces couldn't be deployed. Really? Okay. Well then let's establish that and let's establish how long it takes to respond and then let's figure out what needs to be done to be prepared to protect the people the US government stations around the world.
All Rachel Maddow cares about is Barack Obama. I've noted before, he has the Secret Service to protect him. I think they're far better at that job than Rachel.
I believe I made clear Friday that when asked by a White House friend that morning, I said throw Hillary to the wolves if the administration isn't involved. As far as we know by what's public, the White House itself isn't involved. If that's true, throw Hillary to the wolves. Because clearly the State Dept manipulated the talking points. Among other things.
We were on the phone for about 20 minutes gaming this out. I noted that I'm sure I wasn't the only call. Why was I called? Because I'm good at seeing the angles and I understand the beast that is the press. And because I'm not inclined to cut the truth to favor Barack. I was also assumed to be pro-Hillary (I supported her in 2008). But the reality is if the White House isn't involved in any way, they need to throw Hillary to the wolves because what Victoria Nuland has done is outrageous.
Throw Hillary to the wolves, it then lowers the volume and we can get back to what happened. I also stated that if there was anything with the White House, throwing Hillary to the wolves also helped in that it would take a lot for people to want to go after anyone in the White House including Barack. When you've given the public a victim, if there's no other huge scandal, that's it. A month or so later, they're pointing to Hillary being punished and saying, "It's been addressed." That's human nature.
We went through many different angles.
I think Barack should have been impeached on the Libyan War. I think Dennis Kucinich was right about that. I also think the time for that long ago passed. If I thought Benghazi was an impeachable offense in any way, I would be calling for Barack's impeachment here.
Rachel Maddow wants to lie that only Republicans care about this. I"m not a Republican. She wants you to believe that it's about impeaching Barack. I have no desire to see him impeached currently. (Again, I would have supported Kucinich and the House impeaching him over Libya. That ship sailed long ago.) I'm not pleased that he's keeping Guantanamo open but I haven't called for his impeachment over that.
Honestly, he doesn't matter. Ava and I pointed that out the day after the election, see "Let the fun begin (Ava and C.I.)."
Maybe Rachel's focus on Barack is about the fact that the White House is distancing itself from Hillary.
In terms of her, the January appearances before the Congress were appalling. I've gone over that three times already here. But she was warned about Victoria Nuland repeatedly. She chose to keep her and Nuland is the one who's embarrassed the administration. Hillary was her supervisor so that's on Hillary. (Nuland's comments in the e-mails also indicate upper level involvement at the State Dept.)
Feminism doesn't give Hillary a pass on responsibility. It demands that she be held as accountable as anyone else would be in that position. The reporting of Jonathan Karl (Good Morning America, ABC News -- link is text and video) and all the reporting that followed makes it clear Victoria Nuland made political considerations more important than telling the American people the truth. If Hillary wants to call out Nuland now, that might be something. But I know she won't. And she was Nuland's supervisor so Nuland's actions are on her.
If I were a Barack fan, I'd actually be thrilled with the week's events. A former member of his cabinet is on the hot seat. Not a current member and not him. I said throw her to the wolves and I stand by that. If the White House has nothing to hide then that's what they should do. I'd say it's a have-to, in fact. The American people have learned that a State Dept employee under Hillary placed political considerations over telling Americans the truth. That's something that needs to be condemned -- needs to be condemned by the White House. It goes against democracy and an informed people. So the White House should actually be moving quickly to say, "This was wrong. It should not have happened. It is a stain." And they should leave Hillary to fend for herself.
It's over, I'm done writing songs about love
There's a war going on
So I'm holding my gun with a strap and a glove
And I'm writing a song about war
And it goes
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Oh oh oh oh
-- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!)
The number of US service members the Dept of Defense states died in the Iraq War is [PDF format warning] 4488.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
i hate the war
the ballet