Finally, his last State of the Union Address

[tallguy]

Fox News has gone silent on Benghazi amid reports that the House Intelligence Committee concluded that there was no intentional wrongdoing in the Obama administration's response to the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported on August 1 that the Republican-led House Intelligence Committee voted to declassify findings from its investigation into the 2012 attacks on U.S diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, and "concluded that there was no deliberate wrongdoing by the Obama administration in the 2012 attack," according to committee member Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA).

The intelligence community "did not have specific tactical warning of an attack before it happened," the process used to create administration talking points was "flawed" but "reflected the conflicting intelligence assessments in the days immediately following the crisis, and "there was no 'stand-down order' given to American personnel," Ranking Member Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-CA) said in a statement laying out the committee's findings.

It's a clinical, point-by-point refutation of the Benghazi hoax Fox has pushed for nearly 2 years.

Yet Fox News made no mention of the report on Monday.* In sharp contrast to its current silence, when House Speaker John Boehner announced the formation of a select committee to investigate Benghazi in June, Fox devoted at least 225 segments to the topic over just two weeks, an estimated publicity value of more than $124 million.

Fox's sudden lack of interest in congressional investigations into Benghazi comes less then one week after Rep. Trey Gowdy, head of the select committee, announced - in what Fox News billed as an "exclusive" interview - that he would hold more public hearings on the attacks in September.

"The American people have not been given clear answers to things like Benghazi," Bill O'Reilly said Friday night on Fox. Monday night, O'Reilly's audience didn't learn the answers that the House Intelligence Committee declassified last week.

link

There have been seven completed investigations.  None of them showed any intentional wrongdoing.  None showed any evidence of a "stand-down" order.  That is of course why we have an eighth investigation in which even involved Republicans have admitted is a political witch-hunt to tar Former Secretary of State Clinton. 

[Deleted]

Jan 16, 2016 20:02:53 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jan 16, 2016 19:04:07 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Really?

So you are saying he didn't do the following:
> Craft and sign Obamacare
> Go on an "apology" tour
> Create the biggest overall deficit in US history
> Double the existing debt
> Trade 5 known terrorists for one deserter


That's just the first 5 off the top of my head...

1.  Obamacare could be better, and likely would be if the President and Congress could have worked together rather than not, but it is still for many, many people better than what we had.  I don't pretend that it is perfect, or even what we most need.  Still, though, I could at least have a minimal respect for the other side if they had even once in seven years come up with an actual plan themselves. 

2.  No.  That is a ridiculous "talking point."  Rebuilding diplomatic ties that were basically destroyed during the previous administration was the goal, and it did not involve "apologizing" to anybody. 

3.  Not necessarily so.  Most of that deficit is more attributable to automatic increases in entitlement spending that would have happened under any president, along with two illegitimate wars begun by the Bush Administration, the effects of the recession begun while Bush was president, and the monstrously ill-advised Bush tax cuts which Obama was denied the ability to revoke.

4.  No.  (At least not yet.)  Bush II doubled the debt.  Reagan tripled it.  It has not to this point doubled under Obama.   

5.  Didn't particularly care for that one, and won't defend it, but there is still the idea that we don't leave our own behind.  Arguable whether he is in fact "one of our own."  I intentionally have not kept informed on that particular subject so will leave it alone.     

You missed the point.

You said "The only thing that this President has done to "divide" the country was to be elected.". I wasn't asking were they good or not... I was pointing out that there are indeed many other divisive things that Obama has done. So...

Defending Obamacare wasn't necessary... Did it divide the country... yes or no?
Calling the "apology tour" a "ridiculous talking point" isn't necessary... did he go, and did it divide the country... yes or no?
Arguing against the deficit is irrelevant, it's attributed to HIS presidency and HIS policies... does it exist and is it divisive... yes or no?
Bush II didn't "double the debt", he "doubled the debt of his immediate predecessor". Obama (by the time he leaves office, it's projected that he will have {debt at inauguration of 10.1T, expected debt by end of term 2 20.1T}) doubled the debt of ALL PREVIOUS DEBT PRESIDENTS COMBINED... and has that fact divided the country... yes or no?
Doesn't matter if you will defend it or not... did he do it... yes or no?

[djAdvocate]

Jan 16, 2016 22:49:26 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 16, 2016 20:02:53 GMT -5 tallguy said:

1.  Obamacare could be better, and likely would be if the President and Congress could have worked together rather than not, but it is still for many, many people better than what we had.  I don't pretend that it is perfect, or even what we most need.  Still, though, I could at least have a minimal respect for the other side if they had even once in seven years come up with an actual plan themselves. 

2.  No.  That is a ridiculous "talking point."  Rebuilding diplomatic ties that were basically destroyed during the previous administration was the goal, and it did not involve "apologizing" to anybody. 

3.  Not necessarily so.  Most of that deficit is more attributable to automatic increases in entitlement spending that would have happened under any president, along with two illegitimate wars begun by the Bush Administration, the effects of the recession begun while Bush was president, and the monstrously ill-advised Bush tax cuts which Obama was denied the ability to revoke.

4.  No.  (At least not yet.)  Bush II doubled the debt.  Reagan tripled it.  It has not to this point doubled under Obama.   

5.  Didn't particularly care for that one, and won't defend it, but there is still the idea that we don't leave our own behind.  Arguable whether he is in fact "one of our own."  I intentionally have not kept informed on that particular subject so will leave it alone.     

You missed the point.

You said "The only thing that this President has done to "divide" the country was to be elected.". I wasn't asking were they good or not... I was pointing out that there are indeed many other divisive things that Obama has done. So...

Defending Obamacare wasn't necessary... Did it divide the country... yes or no?
Calling the "apology tour" a "ridiculous talking point" isn't necessary... did he go, and did it divide the country... yes or no?
Arguing against the deficit is irrelevant, it's attributed to HIS presidency and HIS policies... does it exist and is it divisive... yes or no?
Bush II didn't "double the debt", he "doubled the debt of his immediate predecessor". Obama (by the time he leaves office, it's projected that he will have {debt at inauguration of 10.1T, expected debt by end of term 2 20.1T}) doubled the debt of ALL PREVIOUS DEBT PRESIDENTS COMBINED... and has that fact divided the country... yes or no?
Doesn't matter if you will defend it or not... did he do it... yes or no?

i don't think that first question is as easy to answer as you seem to think it is.

did he divide the country, or was the country divided, and he exposed that division by just being himself?

i can't actually answer that question.  if you can, bully for you.

[tallguy]

Jan 16, 2016 22:49:26 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

You missed the point.

...
Doesn't matter if you will defend it or not... did he do it... yes or no?

And you missed mine.  It is not valid to claim that the country was divided BY an action if the claim about the action is untrue.  Perception does not equal reality here.  The country would be divided regardless, and was even before he took office as indicated by the "one-term" pledge.   

[djAdvocate]

Jan 16, 2016 22:11:00 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Fox News has gone silent on Benghazi amid reports that the House Intelligence Committee concluded that there was no intentional wrongdoing in the Obama administration's response to the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported on August 1 that the Republican-led House Intelligence Committee voted to declassify findings from its investigation into the 2012 attacks on U.S diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, and "concluded that there was no deliberate wrongdoing by the Obama administration in the 2012 attack," according to committee member Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA).

The intelligence community "did not have specific tactical warning of an attack before it happened," the process used to create administration talking points was "flawed" but "reflected the conflicting intelligence assessments in the days immediately following the crisis, and "there was no 'stand-down order' given to American personnel," Ranking Member Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-CA) said in a statement laying out the committee's findings.

It's a clinical, point-by-point refutation of the Benghazi hoax Fox has pushed for nearly 2 years.

Yet Fox News made no mention of the report on Monday.* In sharp contrast to its current silence, when House Speaker John Boehner announced the formation of a select committee to investigate Benghazi in June, Fox devoted at least 225 segments to the topic over just two weeks, an estimated publicity value of more than $124 million.

Fox's sudden lack of interest in congressional investigations into Benghazi comes less then one week after Rep. Trey Gowdy, head of the select committee, announced - in what Fox News billed as an "exclusive" interview - that he would hold more public hearings on the attacks in September.

"The American people have not been given clear answers to things like Benghazi," Bill O'Reilly said Friday night on Fox. Monday night, O'Reilly's audience didn't learn the answers that the House Intelligence Committee declassified last week.

link

There have been seven completed investigations.  None of them showed any intentional wrongdoing.  None showed any evidence of a "stand-down" order.  That is of course why we have an eighth investigation in which even involved Republicans have admitted is a political witch-hunt to tar Former Secretary of State Clinton. 

Whitewater, Benghazi.................if there is one thing that the GOP can be counted on it is wild goose chases that spend millions, waste huge amounts of time and human resources, and turn up absolutely nothing.

i am wondering if they will ever get back to governing.  then again, considering how they did under Bush, maybe we are all better off having them go all Birther on us.

[tallguy]

i am wondering if they will ever get back to governing.

It's been a long time since they were even INTERESTED in governing....

[fishy999]

[Deleted]

Jan 16, 2016 23:58:31 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

Well... that meme got the part about gas right (more or less... it's actually $1.65 where I live). The rest of "Obama's comment", it's not even close on.

(I'm not arguing about the Republican response though... if the rest WAS accurate, that IS how they would reply... LOL)