The “Phony” Scandal That Just Won’t Go Away

[Conservative]

I'm surprised he hasn't quoted from "arepublicanmakingsh*tup.com" yet.

Let's put an end to this, tell us what sources are credible to you?

 

[Mustachio]

John King reported this morning that a reporter from CNN was able to interview a lead suspect in the Benghazi terror attack for two hours:

The FBI has reportedly not been able to track-down the suspect, but CNN had no problem talking to him for two hours.

"It is interesting," says King. "The FBI has put some photos up on its website of people of interest, but they haven't arrested anybody. And I'll tell you this: We've been working on a project here at CNN for a special due out later ... And Arwa Damon, our great correspondent, went back to Benghazi. She sat down with one of the people the FBI says is a lead suspect for 2 hours. He says he's never been contacted by the Libyan government, never been contacted by the FBI, so that is why you have this exasperation among some leading Republicans in the Congress."

As King notes, the Benghazi 9/11 terror attack took place almost a year ago.

Why is it assumed that the FBI has been unable to track him down? The FBI investigation which is supposedly going on right now may not require direct contact with this individual. They may be able to track him down, but are either unable to interview him or feel it isn't important. The process of acquiring information doesn't necessitate direct contact with every person of interest. Posting his picture may have been intended to get information about him from other people. Or there could be international laws preventing the interview. It is also possible that the FBI is incompetent and can't track him down because they're all morons. I don't know. But whatever the case, we need to see this interview before taking anything from this story. Hell, it's possible they've got the wrong guy. You shouldn't jump to conclusions.

It's been a long time for there to be no results, but on the other hand, this is a pretty massive investigation. Think of the 9/11 investigation. We took immediate, drastic action, yet wound up in a war with people who had nothing to do with 9/11 and Bin Laden was in hiding for the next decade before we found him. An aggressive investigation and a smart investigation are mutually exclusive.

 

[Moot]

So what you're saying is that Ambassador Steven was part of a CIA operation? I don't think so.

Yes, Stevens was there to provide "diplomatic cover" but he also spoke several dialects of Arabic and the CIA needed someone who could talk to the locals and local militias.

No one has ever made that claim.

Actually, quite a few people have.....

In November The Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. mission in Benghazi "was at its heart a CIA operation...."

Read more: The Secret CIA Mission In Benghazi - Business Insider


"..... But we now know that the C.I.A., and not the State Department or the White House, originated the talking points that Republicans (wrongly) insisted were proof of a scandal. The CIA was more central to the American presence in Benghazi than the State Department, and more responsible for security there.... read...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/opinion/the-cias-part-in-benghazi.html?_r=0

We do know that the second facility was a CIA station not connected to the Consulate.

It wasn't a consolate. The US consolate was in Tripoli. The compound in Benghazi was an "annex" to the CIA station where people could stay while in Benghazi.

The Secret CIA Mission In Benghazi - Business Insider

The personnel there responded to the original attack in order to rescue Stevens and Smith. The second attack took place hours later causing the deaths of Doherty, Woods and the wounding of Ubben.
Can you prove that Stevens was involved in a CIA operation?[/B]

Just the links I've already provided and they weren't hard to find......here's another one.....

"....The documents show that substantive changes to a set of talking points intended for use by Congress about the attacks were made by the Central Intelligence Agency.

A senior intelligence official, briefing reporters under the condition that he not be further identified, said the changes were made to avoid impeding a federal investigation into the deaths and prejudging who might have been behind the assault.....Benghazi emails show CIA deputy director did most of editing on talking points | McClatchy


To a degree, the wrangling occurred because the C.I.A. annex was a classified operation. In fact, the C.I.A. was the main American presence on the ground in Benghazi, had relationships with local groups and was supposed to have the best fix on what was going on. There are serious questions as to why the agency did not have a better handle on security and didn’t do a better job of vetting the local militia that was hired for protection.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/opinion/the-cias-part-in-benghazi.html?_r=0

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Why is it assumed that the FBI has been unable to track him down? The FBI investigation which is supposedly going on right now may not require direct contact with this individual. They may be able to track him down, but are either unable to interview him or feel it isn't important. The process of acquiring information doesn't necessitate direct contact with every person of interest. Posting his picture may have been intended to get information about him from other people. Or there could be international laws preventing the interview. It is also possible that the FBI is incompetent and can't track him down because they're all morons. I don't know. But whatever the case, we need to see this interview before taking anything from this story. Hell, it's possible they've got the wrong guy. You shouldn't jump to conclusions.

It's been a long time for there to be no results, but on the other hand, this is a pretty massive investigation. Think of the 9/11 investigation. We took immediate, drastic action, yet wound up in a war with people who had nothing to do with 9/11 and Bin Laden was in hiding for the next decade before we found him. An aggressive investigation and a smart investigation are mutually exclusive.

How many arrested have been made in reference to the 9/11/12 incident? Why would the person considered of interest never be questioned by the FBI? In his own words.

 

[shrubnose]

I'm surprised he hasn't quoted from "arepublicanmakingsh*tup.com" yet.

Be patient, that day will come.

 

[Conservative]

Be patient, that day will come.

How about answering the question I cannot get an answer to, what is a source that you consider credible?

 

[pbrauer]

Aren't you making false assumptions by claiming I am using "all dishonest and extreme" sources, especially when I've included Huffington Post, New York Times, Washington Post and others included in my sources.

When you imply Jennifer Rubin is just another reporter who works at the Washington Post you're either being dishonest or just plain ignorant. Which is it?

 

[Wehrwolfen]

When you imply Jennifer Rubin is just another reporter who works at the Washington Post you're either being dishonest or just plain ignorant. Which is it?

You made the claim that Ms. Jennifer Rubin is not a reporter (journalist) when she certainly is. Ms. Rubin is a syndicated columnist (reporter/journalist) that writes for other papers and news organs nationally. Claiming she is not a reporter is a lie, dishonest and ignorant on your part. Not mine.

 

[Vern]

I only returned the criticism I have received many times . That fact is as you can see, I don't use just one source to post but many.

hey wolf, thanks for admitting you freely post things you know aren't true. FYI, you didn't have to tell us. We already knew

 

[pbrauer]

You made the claim that Ms. Jennifer Rubin is not a reporter (journalist) when she certainly is. Ms. Rubin is a syndicated columnist (reporter/journalist) that writes for other papers and news organs nationally. Claiming she is not a reporter is a lie, dishonest and ignorant on your part. Not mine.

Jennifer Rubin writes opinion from a conservative Point of View in her Washington Post blog. She's not an objective reporter. And you made it sound as though she was.

Jennifer Rubin Criticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia(

 

[Slyfox696]

It appears that like you, the person that questioned my source(s) cannot justify his use of dishonest, extreme and stupid sources, they would have replied on their own. Go peddle your garbage somewhere else.

That doesn't even make sense. I merely pointed out how incredibly funny I found it for you to question another person's sources, when you constantly post the most ridiculous sources possible.

Let's put an end to this, tell us what sources are credible to you?

I completely understand and accept there's really no such thing as an unbiased source. However, there are sources which are more trustworthy than others, and those are the sources which I'm more willing to accept. Hell, if he'd post articles from Fox News, it would be a dramatic step up in quality of a source.

As far as giving specific sources, it depends entirely on the subject matter. An espn.com article on economics would not be credible, but an espn.com article on sports would be far more credible than a mediamatters.com article on sports. It depends on the topic.

Be patient, that day will come.

It's almost worth registering a domain for. Create a fictitious blog, make up stuff and post it. Republicans would eat it up.

 

[head of joaquin]

You made the claim that Ms. Jennifer Rubin is not a reporter (journalist) when she certainly is. Ms. Rubin is a syndicated columnist (reporter/journalist) that writes for other papers and news organs nationally. Claiming she is not a reporter is a lie, dishonest and ignorant on your part. Not mine.

Psst: rightwing columnists aren't reporters. You seem more than usually confused.

 

[Conservative]

That doesn't even make sense. I merely pointed out how incredibly funny I found it for you to question another person's sources, when you constantly post the most ridiculous sources possible.
I completely understand and accept there's really no such thing as an unbiased source. However, there are sources which are more trustworthy than others, and those are the sources which I'm more willing to accept. Hell, if he'd post articles from Fox News, it would be a dramatic step up in quality of a source.

As far as giving specific sources, it depends entirely on the subject matter. An espn.com article on economics would not be credible, but an espn.com article on sports would be far more credible than a mediamatters.com article on sports. It depends on the topic.
It's almost worth registering a domain for. Create a fictitious blog, make up stuff and post it. Republicans would eat it up.

The problem is Obama has called this and all the other issues facing him to be phony scandals and only a true partisan supporter would buy that statement. This scandal may really be nothing more than incompetence but I learned a long time ago never to underestimate a liberal for most of what they do is by design. Far too many people support Obama because of his rhetoric and when he allowed Susan Rice to go on national TV and spout talking points designed to mislead that IMO was by design and his followers continue to buy the distortions.

 

[Conservative]

hey wolf, thanks for admitting you freely post things you know aren't true. FYI, you didn't have to tell us. We already knew

So what do you think, phony scandal, real scandal, or incompetence on the part of Obama?

 

[shrubnose]

Jennifer Rubin

writes opinion from a conservative Point of View in her Washington Post blog. She's not an objective reporter. And you made it sound as though she was.

Jennifer Rubin Criticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia(

After doing about five minutes of research on Jennifer Rubin it is obvious that she has a lot of problems.

 

[head of joaquin]

The problem is Obama has called this and all the other issues facing him to be phony scandals and only a true partisan supporter would buy that statement. This scandal may really be nothing more than incompetence but I learned a long time ago never to underestimate a liberal for most of what they do is by design. Far too many people support Obama because of his rhetoric and when he allowed Susan Rice to go on national TV and spout talking points designed to mislead that IMO was by design and his followers continue to buy the distortions.

What a wonderful rightwing meme! Issa and the rightwing noise machine concoct a load of discredited fake scandals, with no factual basis, and you blame Obama for discrediting them.

I love this reversomeme!

 

[Slyfox696]

The problem is Obama has called this and all the other issues facing him to be phony scandals

This is still in dispute? They were situations with the appearance of possible wrong doing which was then manipulated into manufactured outrage by the Republican party so the blind Republican voters (not all Republican voters are blind, I'm just speaking to those who are blindly loyal) would have something to get upset about.

As time and information has come and gone, we've seen these "scandals" have actually not been anything close to being scandals. Once you wade through the misinformation and outright lies spread by Republicans, you find that while things may not have been "right" or that wrong-doing did occur, they were not scandals on the Obama Administration.

and only a true partisan supporter would buy that statement.

Only a truly partisan person would look at the evidence and say they were not manufactured "scandals".

This scandal

What scandal? What exactly is the scandal? The fact the administration didn't tell you the truth for a couple weeks while they tried to assure the safety of their intelligence agents and assets? Is that the scandal? Are you really to the point where you consider a politician not telling the truth to be a scandal?

Far too many people support Obama because of his rhetoric

I support Obama for multiple reasons. The first reason is that he's our President (which, interestingly enough, used to be the way Republicans said we should support Bush...funny how quickly they got away from that when Obama was elected). The second reason is because I truly believe he believes in helping those who need it and not just throwing them to the wolves and wishing them luck. The third reason I support Obama is because he very much seems to be a champion for equality under the law. And I support Obama because it truly disturbs me the lies Republicans will tell and the historic measures they'll take to make sure nothing happens in this country, even as our country obviously needs progress in certain areas.

There are things Obama has done I haven't liked. I do not like the way he has constantly thrown teachers under the bus when touting education reform. I do not like his signing of the NDAA, even as he recognized the dangers in it. I do not like how many of the programs Americans complained about (I'm speaking of the NSA actions now) have not seemed to be curtailed in any way. There are other things, but these are just off the top of my head.

But at the end of the day, I support Obama because of the reasons I mentioned (as well as others).

and when he allowed Susan Rice to go on national TV and spout talking points designed to mislead that IMO was by design and his followers continue to buy the distortions.

They were meant to mislead. I don't think many people argue that at this point, and I really think you are arguing against an imaginary audience. But if that's what you consider to be a scandal, then you obviously don't pay much attention to politics, because politicians misleading the public is a tale as old as time. Is it the right thing to do? It depends. In this case, I truly believe the deception was intended for purposes of intelligence and if it saved lives, American or otherwise, then it was absolutely worth it.

 

[Conservative]

What a wonderful rightwing meme! Issa and the rightwing noise machine concoct a load of discredited fake scandals, with no factual basis, and you blame Obama for discrediting them.

I love this reversomeme!

I love how you run from the other threads when challenged with tough questions and actual facts that refute your partisan rhetoric. I expect the same here because in your liberal world Obama can do no wrong and the economic numbers generated really don't matter because he talks well and confuses you with rhetoric. Didn't see an apology for your claim that BLS didn't have the chart I posted. So many facts that simply confuse you yet you continue to buy the rhetoric. Obama loves having people like you supporting him. Think he really gives a damn about you?

 

[Conservative]

Slyfox696;1062129994]This is still in dispute? They were situations with the appearance of possible wrong doing which was then manipulated into manufactured outrage by the Republican party so the blind Republican voters (not all Republican voters are blind, I'm just speaking to those who are blindly loyal) would have something to get upset about.

Manufactured outrage over the death of a U.S. Ambassador and a UN Ambassador on National TV lying? Voters have already proven they are blind by re-electing Obama with the economic numbers he has generated. We have a popularity contest where results don't matter but appearance and rhetoric do

As time and information has come and gone, we've seen these "scandals" have actually not been anything close to being scandals. Once you wade through the misinformation and outright lies spread by Republicans, you find that while things may not have been "right" or that wrong-doing did occur, they were not scandals on the Obama Administration.

So you have no problem with a President going to a campaign event in Vegas while our U.S. interest in Libya is being attacked, an ambassador killed, the perpetrator of the crimes unpunished, and a UN Ambassador going on TV claiming it was a spontaneous protest? If it isn't a scandal it is gross incompetence and probably a little of both.

Only a truly partisan person would look at the evidence and say they were not manufactured "scandals".

Actually only a true partisan would allow "their" President to act like this in the face of Benghazi, the IRS, and other violations of the public trust.

What scandal? What exactly is the scandal? The fact the administration didn't tell you the truth for a couple weeks while they tried to assure the safety of their intelligence agents and assets? Is that the scandal? Are you really to the point where you consider a politician not telling the truth to be a scandal?

The scandal is allowing the UN Ambassador to go on TV five days later and mislead the American people when it has been proven that the Administration new within hours it was a terrorist attack. That violates the public trust, is an attempt to cover up the truth. What would you call it if not a scandal?

I support Obama for multiple reasons. The first reason is that he's our President (which, interestingly enough, used to be the way Republicans said we should support Bush...funny how quickly they got away from that when Obama was elected). The second reason is because I truly believe he believes in helping those who need it and not just throwing them to the wolves and wishing them luck. The third reason I support Obama is because he very much seems to be a champion for equality under the law. And I support Obama because it truly disturbs me the lies Republicans will tell and the historic measures they'll take to make sure nothing happens in this country, even as our country obviously needs progress in certain areas.

I understand, you gave him a chance, he had four years to show improvement, what exactly is that improvement and why did he deserve four more years. The experiment of putting a community organizer in an executive position failed. Do you realize he has issued more executive orders than any other President so how is that champion under the law? You claim Republicans have lied about Obama. Do the economic numbers lie? What economic or foreign policy success has Obama had since taking office? He does have a great smile and certainly campaigns well. Where is the leadership?

There are things Obama has done I haven't liked. I do not like the way he has constantly thrown teachers under the bus when touting education reform. I do not like his signing of the NDAA, even as he recognized the dangers in it. I do not like how many of the programs Americans complained about (I'm speaking of the NSA actions now) have not seemed to be curtailed in any way. There are other things, but these are just off the top of my head.

Do you realize it isn't the Federal Government's responsibility to deal with teachers? That is a state and local responsibility. Do you realize that recess appointments and executive orders bypass the Congress and that isn't the way our Founders created this country

But at the end of the day, I support Obama because of the reasons I mentioned (as well as others)

.

In the real world people are judged by economic results and no matter how someone spins it, Obama has been a failure. Supporters can only blame Bush for so long but there is little doubt that a good leader plays the hand he is dealt and turns that hand into a winner. Obama has failed at every level and the results show it.

They were meant to mislead. I don't think many people argue that at this point, and I really think you are arguing against an imaginary audience. But if that's what you consider to be a scandal, then you obviously don't pay much attention to politics, because politicians misleading the public is a tale as old as time. Is it the right thing to do? It depends. In this case, I truly believe the deception was intended for purposes of intelligence and if it saved lives, American or otherwise, then it was absolutely worth it.

If you have such low standards then we really do have a mess in this country. The liberal spin is national security when here we are almost a year after the event and no one has been prosecuted and survivors of the incident haven't even been interviewed and are in hiding.

 

[head of joaquin]

I love how you run from the other threads when challenged with tough questions and actual facts that refute your partisan rhetoric. I expect the same here because in your liberal world Obama can do no wrong and the economic numbers generated really don't matter because he talks well and confuses you with rhetoric. Didn't see an apology for your claim that BLS didn't have the chart I posted. So many facts that simply confuse you yet you continue to buy the rhetoric. Obama loves having people like you supporting him. Think he really gives a damn about you?

It's almost touching that you track my movements.

Meanwhile, you didn't respond and can't: Obama (not to mention every reputable news source) has rebutted the fake, concocted "scandals" cooked up by Issa and his henchmen. So now you blame him for having to rebut a bunch of fake concocted "scandals".


The reversomeme!

 

[Slyfox696]

Manufactured outrage over the death of a U.S. Ambassador and a UN Ambassador on National TV lying?

Yes. Most of those Republicans haven't given a damn about the fact their leadership sent thousands of Americans to their death in Iraq based on the outright lies they told right there in Congress and on every news station in the country.

Manufactured and hypocritical outrage. They don't really care that someone died (maybe certain individuals do, but as a party they do not), they just wanted to turn what happened in Benghazi into an attack on Obama's advantage in foreign policy before the election.

Voters have already proven they are blind by re-electing Obama with the economic numbers he has generated.

I think voters proved they most certainly not blind and were able to comprehend the fact our economy was better when Obama was re-elected than when he took office and they were also able to comprehend the Republican party did everything they could to prevent the economy from getting better under a Democrat's presidency.

But I'm not going to discuss economics with you, because you've already proven you have no scruples in that debate. You constantly ignore relevant information which disagrees with your position, even as you post irrelevant information of your own and claim it to be proof of your argument. So if you want to discuss the economy, take it to that other thread you posted in constantly. Let's focus just on the so-called scandal situation.

So you have no problem with a President going to a campaign event in Vegas while our U.S. interest in Libya is being attacked

First of all, what exactly is the President supposed to do, fly to Benghazi himself, pick up an automatic rifle and fight the terrorists off?

an ambassador killed

The ambassador was dead before any reasonable response could have been initiated. What Obama did was irrelevant to the fact Stevens was dead.

the perpetrator of the crimes unpunished

What does Obama being in Vegas have to do with the investigation? Does Obama investigate this personally?

Like I said, Republicans have heaped lie after misleading statement on top of one another and people have actually believed it. That is how this situation turned into a "scandal".

and a UN Ambassador going on TV claiming it was a spontaneous protest?

Obama was not in Vegas when Rice went on TV, I do not believe.

Furthermore, what does Obama being in Vegas have to do with anything? You do realize we don't live in the 1800s anymore, correct? It's not like Obama is incapable of leading just because he's not in DC.

If it isn't a scandal it is gross incompetence and probably a little of both.

Or it's neither. But that doesn't fit what Republicans want people to believe, so they lie and mislead the public into thinking it's a scandal.

Actually only a true partisan would allow "their" President to act like this in the face of Benghazi, the IRS, and other violations of the public trust.

Except Obama didn't violate anyone's trust. And despite Republicans' best attempts to make people believe he did, he simply did not.

The scandal is allowing the UN Ambassador to go on TV five days later and mislead the American people when it has been proven that the Administration new within hours it was a terrorist attack. That violates the public trust, is an attempt to cover up the truth. What would you call it if not a scandal?

Politics. We also know Republicans have blatantly lied about what happened that night in Benghazi for purely political gain. We know Issa outed intelligence assets during the investigation.

Why aren't you talking about those "scandals"? They very much were about misleading the American people. The reason you're not is because it's politics.

I understand, you gave him a chance

And I felt he lived up to what I wanted in a President more than he didn't. And I felt he was a far better leader than Romney would have been.

Do you realize he has issued more executive orders than any other President so how is that champion under the law?

More lies.

snopes.com: President Obama's 923 Executive Orders
Executive Orders

Again, you're not interested in truth. At least not enough to ever actually discover the real truth.

You claim Republicans have lied about Obama.

They have. Many times.

Do the economic numbers lie?

No, but you insist on ignoring them or distorting them anyways. I already told you I'm not discussing economics with you due to your complete lack of honesty in such a debate.

Do you realize it isn't the Federal Government's responsibility to deal with teachers?

Yes. What are you talking about?

If you have such low standards then we really do have a mess in this country.

It's not about my standards, it's just a truth. Politicians lie and mislead all the time. It's as traditional to politicians as sex is to prostitutes. Calling it a scandal when someone does is beyond absurd.

The fact of the matter is these were made up "phony" scandals. Only blind Republican sheep actually think there is any real scandal to be found, at least based on all the evidence we currently have.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

What difference, at this point, does it make? We can blame Bush for 5 years... but when it comes to our Ambassador being slain a year ago along with three other Americans..... “YAWN”

 

[Conservative]

It's almost touching that you track my movements.

Meanwhile, you didn't respond and can't: Obama (not to mention every reputable news source) has rebutted the fake, concocted "scandals" cooked up by Issa and his henchmen. So now you blame him for having to rebut a bunch of fake concocted "scandals".


The reversomeme!

You are right, no scandal here and Obama is working hard to bring those involved in the Benghazi murders of our Ambassador and others to justice. Just like his Laser focus on jobs he has the same focus on bringing those terrorists to justice. Guess CNN hasn't told him where they are yet. What is Obama hiding?

Lawmaker: If CNN can interview Benghazi suspect, why can't FBI? - CNN.com

 

[Slyfox696]

You are right, no scandal here and Obama is working hard to bring those involved in the Benghazi murders of our Ambassador and others to justice. Just like his Laser focus on jobs he has the same focus on bringing those terrorists to justice. Guess CNN hasn't told him where they are yet. What is Obama hiding?

Lawmaker: If CNN can interview Benghazi suspect, why can't FBI? - CNN.com

The Republican mindset never ceases to amuse me. Apparently now Obama is hiding the truth by not having the FBI publicly interview someone who is freely going around telling people everything he knows. No, clearly the way for Obama to show an open investigation of this situation would be to kidnap this man, throw him in a CIA detention facility and interrogate him in secrecy. That's how you show you're not hiding anything.

:lamo It's amazing Republicans possess the capability of walking and chewing gum at the same time.

 

[Conservative]

Slyfox696;1062131214]Yes. Most of those Republicans haven't given a damn about the fact their leadership sent thousands of Americans to their death in Iraq based on the outright lies they told right there in Congress and on every news station in the country.

Outright lies? If Bush lied why don't you ask yourself why the Democrats who controlled the House didn't bring impeachment charges against Bush? Lying to Congress and the American people should be an impeachable offense yet they didn't bring charges. Any idea why? Let me help you because they wanted the issue and minions like to promoting that hatred over and over again and not their own words prior to Bush taking office about Saddam Hussein and his WMD. They knew their words would haunt them and they knew you and others would perpetuate the lies.

Manufactured and hypocritical outrage. They don't really care that someone died (maybe certain individuals do, but as a party they do not), they just wanted to turn what happened in Benghazi into an attack on Obama's advantage in foreign policy before the election.

When will you hold Obama accountable for the lies. Just like the laser focus on jobs, he was going to leave no stone unturned to bring those to justice that were involved in the attack. Wonder why it is CNN can locate those people but Obama can't?

Lawmaker: If CNN can interview Benghazi suspect, why can't FBI? - CNN.com

I think voters proved they most certainly not blind and were able to comprehend the fact our economy was better when Obama was re-elected than when he took office and they were also able to comprehend the Republican party did everything they could to prevent the economy from getting better under a Democrat's presidency.

No, what voters proved is that you can buy votes by creating dependence and telling the people what they want to hear. It does seem that results don't matter so tell me exactly what Obama's economic successes have been, lower debt? a labor force keeping up with population growth? More people working than when the recession began? Booming economic growth? Here we are four years after the end of the recession that Obama had nothing to do with ending and we still have over 21 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers, trillion dollar deficits, stagnant economic growth, and massive debt. Those your idea of things getting better?

But I'm not going to discuss economics with you, because you've already proven you have no scruples in that debate. You constantly ignore relevant information which disagrees with your position, even as you post irrelevant information of your own and claim it to be proof of your argument. So if you want to discuss the economy, take it to that other thread you posted in constantly. Let's focus just on the so-called scandal situation.

Your sources are suspect whereas bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury aren't. When do verifiable results matter to you?

First of all, what exactly is the President supposed to do, fly to Benghazi himself, pick up an automatic rifle and fight the terrorists off?

Maybe he should ask CNN

Lawmaker: If CNN can interview Benghazi suspect, why can't FBI? - CNN.com

The ambassador was dead before any reasonable response could have been initiated. What Obama did was irrelevant to the fact Stevens was dead.

Do you realize that an attack on our Embassy and Consulate is an attack on this country? His priority was fund raising not doing his job. He is the best campaigner ever and that is all that seems to matter to you and other supporters.

What does Obama being in Vegas have to do with the investigation? Does Obama investigate this personally?

The United States was under attack and the President was fund raising. See if you can figure it out?

Like I said, Republicans have heaped lie after misleading statement on top of one another and people have actually believed it. That is how this situation turned into a "scandal".

I see, to it was a spontaneous reaction to a video which of course wasn't misleading

Obama was not in Vegas when Rice went on TV, I do not believe.

No he wasn't because that was five days later long after the Administration knew it was a terrorist attack. Now this was either a scandal or incompetence. Either way Obama should be fired.

Furthermore, what does Obama being in Vegas have to do with anything? You do realize we don't live in the 1800s anymore, correct? It's not like Obama is incapable of leading just because he's not in DC.

Oh, absolutely nothing as fund raising is a major responsibility of the President of the United States especially when the country is under attack

Or it's neither. But that doesn't fit what Republicans want people to believe, so they lie and mislead the public into thinking it's a scandal.

Vs what you want the country to believe? There is a disconnect here and "your" President is either incompetent or violated the trust of the office. He has no business holding that office.

Except Obama didn't violate anyone's trust. And despite Republicans' best attempts to make people believe he did, he simply did not.

Of course not, he has left no stone unturned to capture those involved. When were they caught and brought to justice

Lawmaker: If CNN can interview Benghazi suspect, why can't FBI? - CNN.com

Politics. We also know Republicans have blatantly lied about what happened that night in Benghazi for purely political gain. We know Issa outed intelligence assets during the investigation.

Since no one but CNN has talked to the suspects how do you know the Republicans lied?

Why aren't you talking about those "scandals"? They very much were about misleading the American people. The reason you're not is because it's politics.

Would be happy to discuss any scandal that is relevant but you haven't offered any

And I felt he lived up to what I wanted in a President more than he didn't. And I felt he was a far better leader than Romney would have been.
More lies.

snopes.com: President Obama's 923 Executive Orders
Executive Orders

Yes, we all know executive orders are the way to govern in a free democratic govt