As more information surfaces on the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi that left four Americans dead, news organizations are starting to question whether it will impact the president’s chances for re-election.
Even before Fox News released a story Friday that the CIA was denied two requests to send in reinforcements during the attack and eventually told to stand down, The Huffington Post asked whether all this is the smoking gun - or will it be attributed to the fog of war?
The Huffington Post acknowledges that an investigation is definitely required, but is urging that the investigation be bi-partisan. But are any investigations bi-partisan anymore?
Although The Huffington Post makes reference to “the usual spin from news sources such as Fox News and Breitbart,” even it acknowledges that some of the facts emerging could be troubling for the White House and the president. And that was before the latest information emerging about the CIA.
What do you think? Could Benghazi be the straw that breaks the camels back in the president’s re-election efforts? Or will it be regarded more as the fog of war than any smoking gun?
Sandy-Starved New Yorkers Dumpster Dive Where is Obama???????????????????????????????? Why Jim, the PHOTO-OP is over! Didn't you know that's more important than making sure people are not starving and that the federal government does its job? He's back doing what he does best. Drawing attention to himself. Compare him to Bush now.
So what is the CURRENT president's military record? Did he by chance serve as a corpseman in one of the branches? Don't expect an answer. You are dealing with hypocrites. Obama never served a day, nor did he even WANT to. He sat across the table with communists and radicals. YET, they want to criticize Romney for being a missionary. Telling. Very telling.
"And there was never a supermajority in the House as Romney claims. The balance at the start of the Congress was 257 - 178, which is a Democratic share of only 59 percent, not 67. So again, Romney simply lied. Obama never had a super majority in both Houses, let alone for two years. In the Senate, his super-majority lasted seven weeks." By the time Al Franken was sworn in on July 7, 2009, Ted Kennedy had not cast a Senate vote for about four months because he was terminally ill with brain cancer. (He died on August 25, 2009.) Robert Byrd was also hospitalized from May 18 through June 30, 2009 and may not have been well enough to attend Congress and vote for some time afterward. Thus the Democrats did not really have the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster until Kirk took office. Byrd (who died in June 2010) was also periodically too ill to attend and vote during the September 2009-February 2010 period" http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/06/the-big-lies-of-mitt-romney-v-obama-had-a-super-majority-in-congress-for-two-years.html
"In their new book, "It's Even Worse Than It Looks," Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein -- two of the most prominent talking heads in Washington, known for their balanced view and proclivity toward moderation -- say that the Republican Party is to blame. "The GOP," they wrote in a Washington Post op-ed based on the book, "has become an insurgent outlier in American politics." Mann and Ornstein trace the partisan style back to the emergence of Newt Gingrich and Grover Norquist in the 1970s, when the two men promoted a style of slash-and-burn, take-no-prisoners politics that has remained integral to the strategy of congressional Republicans. But the number of filibusters by Republicans has escalated, and they have been far more willing to use the tactic than their opponents. Since 2007, the Senate Historical Office has shown, Democrats have had to end Republican filibusters more than 360 times, a historic record. Finally, there has been a much sharper shift to the right within the Republican Party than there has been to the left in the Democratic Party. Here, too, the data is rather clear." http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/21/opinion/zelizer-congress-polarization/index.html
From the above linked article, a little something on the filibuster: "But the number of filibusters by Republicans has escalated, and they have been far more willing to use the tactic than their opponents. Since 2007, the Senate Historical Office has shown, Democrats have had to end Republican filibusters more than 360 times, a historic record. Finally, there has been a much sharper shift to the right within the Republican Party than there has been to the left in the Democratic Party. Here, too, the data is rather clear. In January, political scientists Kenneth Poole and Christopher Hare concluded, based on their close analysis of the roll call vote, that "in the last few Congresses, the overlap has vanished; that is, the most liberal Republican is to the right of the most conservative Democrat."