Home | About | Donate

Benghazi the Musical, or Dumb Men Yelling At Smart Women


Benghazi the Musical, or Dumb Men Yelling At Smart Women

In case you mercifully missed it: Yesterday's 11-hour, $4.6 million Benghazi grilling of Hillary Clinton was a "flaming dumpster," "grotesque partisan dumbshow," "circus of sweaty assholes" and cringeworthy glimpse of "what conservative governance (sic) looks like." Even Clinton naysayers argue it was the strongest argument yet made, even by Clinton, for her presidency. Amidst a war on women, it was also a notably "bad look." Oh yeah: And "what we learned here is nothing."


I'll leave it to others to decide what to say about Hillary, but this chump has been defined:

Meet Howdy Gowdy, everyone.


Want to hear a conspiracy -the republicans are trying to elect Hillary president.What was even worse was the interview of Clinton by Rachel Maddow. I try to believe there are actually different sides vying for power-but when I watch things like the" Benghazi hearings" and this interview by Maddow--How contrived is all this BS.---Watching the hearings you could tell she new of some of the questions in advance from the dem side.


So happy that i never watch any of this farcical crap. Not the hearings, not the "mainstream" media analysis.

And your conspiracy theory does not sound TOO far-fetched, in the incestuous world of duopoly big-wigs and the rotating White House carousel.


Gowdy made a complete fool of himself, as did every Republican there. It was an unmitigated effort to look MANLY! But it Failed miserably. What a laughing stock these particular men are. Gowdy will need a whole lot of money to be re-elected, since his grotesque efforts to look meaner than Darrel Issa. Both look like fools. And the Justice Department has found no criminal intent on the part of the IRS. What needs to be investigated and prosecuted is the all out waste of American Tax Money by the GOP over this past 8 years.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Happy to put this whole Benghazi thing behind, as it was/is distracting from the what is really at stake with the political process and elections. Sure, Clinton handled herself well (though that was a pretty easy bar to clear given the craziness she was up against). She performed so well that the pundits are calling her performance "very presidential,"

But this is exactly the kind of politics the MSM loves - lots of style, little substance. Now that her testimony is over, we can get back to the real questions that matter - what are the visions of the candidates running, what are the principles on which the candidates stand, and what (in detail) are the policy positions they propose.

Personally, at this time and situation, I think the US needs a bold transformation, which requires a people's movement which is supported and complemented by a equally bold administration. In vision, principles, and policies, Bernie comes closest to that, not the establishment's Hillary Clinton.


I couldn't care less about the hearings (though it keeps Republicans from planning worse things) but I saw in the news that the R's showed a huge stack of emails from 2011 and a much smaller stack from 2012. That's because in 2011 on the advice of a Neocon committee she set up at the State Department (Foreign Policy Advisory Board) with (among other right-wingers) Robert Kagen - who started the Project for a New American Century, Hillary went and convinced the Obama Administration (on no evidence) to attack Libya and then ultimately destroy the country - now a set of warring militias (many armed by the US). On the advice of John Negroponte - the U.S. ambassador there in the 80's who used the country to train and arm the Contra terrorists to attack Nicaragua - Hillary advised Obama to immediately recognize the right-wing coup in Honduras (the whole hemisphere said No ) - which has made that country the most violent state in the world. Again, on their advice she also signed off on the overthrow of the Ukraine government - a violent coup by right-wing forces and neo-nazis that Hillary now wants to send arms to.

Thanks, Ms. "I'm a progressive, too".

When Qadaffi was sliced to pieces and disemboweled by those who captured him, Hillary yelled "We came. We saw. He DIED - and put her fist in the air.

Anybody still think we should put this warmonger in the White House?


In a just and sane world, Hillary would be on trail for her role in destroying Libya and the death of thousands.


Exactly. Clinton had to gain some fence straddler votes. It was similar with Bill Clinton. The right wing smearing the Clintons with their barroom attacks acted as a buffer from true critiques that were warranted, giving the Clintons the empathy votes. When Obama halted leases for drilling in the Arctic it removed Arctic drilling as a campaign topic. The Dems could be given the perception of acting on the climate problem. This added a bit more distance between them and the GOP on climate issues since the latter behave as if they're mired in quick drying cement, except of course when they're slandering others, making it almost impossible from them to close that gap by moving a fraction of an inch to the left.

Ah, the results that come about with having the best government money can buy. And you can't be more American than that.


It might even be argued that such a performance/hearing was necessary to give Ms. Clinton's aura a polishing. Policy wonks know the details but the average person doesn't. They'll hear Clinton did well against the Repubs and made the loonies look like loonies and that will be the take from this. Clinton came away looking good/ Repubs looked flakey.

Odd how necessary this all was. One can almost ask did they follow an outline? Did she know the questions being asked? She certainly should have guessed what they'd be after all the time she's spent in Washington.

The Hillary campaign marches on... all right cut! That's a wrap! Let's move on to the next scene. Actors take your places! Sound check? Good! Let's roll em and ...action!


eyewitness, perhaps the most realistic response of those commenting. Over at The Smirking Chimp, a fellow progressive and Bernie supporter, as I will be in the CA primary, also notes some reality I find I agree with on this topic. No supporter of Sec. Clinton am I, but in the end given no other choice come the general election once more I will vote for the lessor of evils fearful of what is far worse with the actual possibility of any of those running under the GOP banner being elected to be POTUS.

Though my experience posting here is there are few readers even still I will share an article worthwhile in case some might pull it up.



Thank you Wereflea. Quite typically a real world statement.


I pulled it up...

... wait... Ow - I think I strained something ... in my back!

A good piece but I have to take issue with his comment about criticism of Hillary doesn't do Bernie any good either.

Admittedly priority one is to avoid a republican win.

Priority two however is to avoid a Hillary win of the nomination.

After the nomination it will either be "Bernie for president"...


Vote against the Republicans.

I think Hillary is oligarchy and while I liked her 500 million solar panels idea, I noticed that she didn't mention it during the debate. That's a bad sign coming from a politician. I fear she wants to forget she ever said it.

In any case, I will vote against the republicans. Lol.


With all respect, I think that if you wish to vote for the lesser evil do not vote for Clinton against anyone currently known to be seeking the presidency. She is not the "lesser" evil precisely because she is the more effective evil. As was and is Obama.


I want Bernie for president but if he doesn't win the nomination... then who should we vote for if we wish to avoid a republican in the White House?

The time to build a third party is not in an election year but in the years between elections to build support and introduce candidates. Virtually no one will vote to place the power of the USA in the hands of an unknown. Moreover an unknown without active political experience.

They are all governors, senators or other politicians and though we talk about anyone could be press... I doubt it (Trump being a billionaire is an example of how real is that), Americans are not electing a city mayor but the nation's president. People want the security of at least some familiarity with politics and managerial skills. Bernie's long years in congress trumps Trump and his billions. Bernie is the anyone can be press candidate because he does by being a person not a bank account or politically connected. Bernie is one of us not an oligarch.

If you say 'don't vote at all it just encourages them' as that old joke goes... the fact is that big money oligarchy will win. Bernie is the only people's candidate we have that stands a chance to win.

But if he doesn't... then the last thing we need is another republican.


Still believe there is a difference between the two parties........Really?? Wow, no wonder why things will never change.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.