King: Jason Collins Undermining Civilization »« A Pointless ‘Religious Freedom’ Bill in PA

Issa Grasps at Straws

Darrell Issa is one of the more buffoonish members of the House (which is saying a lot). He’s never met an issue he couldn’t demagogue and he’s really pushing the Benghazi story in an attempt to damage Obama. Listen to his latest argument about this:

In the day following the Benghazi attacks, Obama appeared at the White House Rose Garden alongside then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In his remarks, Obama referred to the incident as an “act of terror” and used the phrase again at a campaign rally the day after in Denver, CO. “I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished,” he said.

But Issa claimed that Obama relied on the “act of terror” formulation to dissuade Americans from thinking it was a terror attack, thus improving his chances of re-election.

“The president sent a letter to the President of Libya where he didn’t call it a terrorist attack even when at the time the President of Libya was calling it pre-planned Sept. 11 terrorist attack,” Issa told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly. “The words that are being used carefully — like you just said, ‘act of terror’ — an ‘act of terror’ is different than a ‘terrorist attack.’ The truth is, this was a terrorist attack, this had Al Qaeda at it.”

Really? That’s all you’ve got? Then you’ve got nothing. There are legitimate questions about what happened in Benghazi, I think, including why the request for more security was not granted. Given the location of that facility, it should have been given heightened security over other facilities. But this is just pure demagoguery.

Comments

  1. says

    an ‘act of terror’ is different than a ‘terrorist attack’

    Where exactly do you get a wingnut dictionary anyway? Or do you need a decoder ring?

  2. says

    There are legitimate questions about what happened in Benghazi, I think, including why the request for more security was not granted.

    Limited funding maybe? There’s been a lot of that going around since Bush Jr’s tax cuts took effect. Just sayin’…

    Also, there’s LOTS of US embassies, consulates, and other agencies all over the Muslim world, and given the violence and anti-American hatred we’ve been seeing all over the Muslim world lately, I suspect the US consulate in Benghazi was far from the only place requesting extra security. Seriously, did their request stand out at all before the actual attack?

  3. Mr Ed says

    I think the American people want to know when did the president use nuanced phrasing and what did he gain by it.

  4. raven says

    Trying to make a molehill into a mountain.

    It’s likely in retrospect that some mistakes were made and cost some good people their lives.

    Stuff happens.

    IIRC, during the Bush adminstration, 4 planes were hijacked and 3 flown into the World Trade center and Pentagon, costing over 3,000 people their lives.

    It went downhill from there. Really far downhill. Among the myriads of casualties were two of my friends, dead in Iraq, the US economy, and my 401(K) plan along with tens of millions of other’s 401(k) plans.

    If we held Bush to the same standard as they want to hold Obama, we would have to invent hell for him to spend a thousand years in.

    And even Saint Reagon had his screw ups. A truck bomb hit a Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon of all places and killed a few hundred soldiers. And Reagon, the chicken (I’m being sarcastic, he made the right decision) let the terrorists win by cutting and running.

  5. Synfandel says

    President George W. Bush didn’t use the term “terrorist attack” either, because he couldn’t pronounce it. When he referred to “terrists”, we weren’t sure whether he was talking about militant radicals or visitors on vacation.

  6. twincats says

    Wow. And I don’t even get to vote against him or write him angry letters anymore since I got redistricted.

    I guess I could still write the emails; he can’t extra-double-ignore me, right?

  7. jnorris says

    A tempest in a Tea Party cup. Remember everyone, Benghazi was Caused by Roe v Wade and no PRAYER in public schools. Am I right? You bettcha!!!

  8. catbutler says

    @5 – In all fairness, he didn’t cut and run. He invaded Grenada, beginning a fine tradition of invading random countries in response to terrorism.
    And, yes, I’m being sarcastic.

  9. scienceavenger says

    @6 Don’t forget Bush’s never ending hatred towards “Tara”, who knows what she did to him.

    As for Issa, only Sarah Palin and Stuart “gobbledegoop” Varney have me lunging for the fast forward button faster. He’s self-satirizing.

  10. lorn says

    The GOP really, really needs a focus for its resentment and feelings of being martyred for being holier-than-thou. In the language of an earlier time, but not entirely unrelated cause, it needs its “bloody shirt” to point to and wave about when it spits vitriol and hate.

    Yes, they are perfectly capable of spitting vitriol and hate without a focus of wounded pride unjust treatment … but it just isn’t the same. Doing that makes them look like they are mean spirited and hateful … and as we all know … they are acting out of love and concern for the well being of the nation and its peoples.

    So they bloody well need a blood stained shirt.

  11. imthegenieicandoanything says

    Ed, this bending-over-backwards-until-you-can-see-your-own-ass sort of vague “agreement” with the patented and now openly-deceitful “Republican” attack-of-the-moment stuff really gets old – like you get your news from the TV or some such utterly untrustworthy source (when I hear “according to the AP…” or “ABC News says…” I move to the side, as if I’ve encountered a particularly messy dog turd while walking in the park.) Too often, it sounds as if that’s your source!

    Even a casual look back of the faux-attacks being made on (the in no way saintly) President Obama would lead one away from the absurdity of agreeing with someone-who-cannot-be-insulted-by-comparison-wiht-any-vile-or-smelly-thing-because-he-is-far-worse Issa.

    The only more embarrassing thing that happens here is when you talk about “rock” music, but that’s truly your own business. People love Bieber, too, and it generally harms few.

    (And may I add – – – – – – !)

  12. coryat says

    I’ve applied thought analysis forensic decoding to Obama’s words. It’s pretty clear what he’s really saying is that his speech is an act of his own tortured psyche; his speech-act is the act of terror. When he said “I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished,” he was expressing his own dread of being punished for his lies and pre-emptively trying to expose himself by announcing that he wants people around the world to hear him. The only thing stopping him was his own malignant narcissism, as expressed by the demand that people hear him.

    Hey, I’m pretty good!

  13. says

    Issa is one unhappy camper. After the 2010 election, he took over the Oversight Committee with one and only mandate: Manufacture an excuse to impeach Obama and so far, he’s come up empty.

  14. lofgren says

    Given the policy differences between “genocide” and “acts of genocide” for the Clinton administration, you never can tell where a politician is going to find a semantic escape hatch.

  15. Ichthyic says

    Benghazi was Caused by Roe v Wade and no PRAYER in public schools. Am I right?

    you forgot to add “reason”.

    reason is what caused the nazis, dontchyaknow.

  16. Ichthyic says

    Even a casual look back of the faux-attacks being made on (the in no way saintly) President Obama would lead one away from the absurdity of agreeing with someone-who-cannot-be-insulted-by-comparison-wiht-any-vile-or-smelly-thing-because-he-is-far-worse Issa.

    what in the HELL are you talking about?

  17. dan4 says

    “To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished.”

    I suspect that if Obama had substituted “terrorist attack” for “act of terror” in that sentence, then Fox News, Limbaugh, Malkin, and many others would criticize/mock him for suggesting that attacks that are aren’t “terroristic” in nature should go unpunished.

  18. dan4 says

    @17: My “imthegenieicandoanthing-to-English” translation came up with this syllogism:
    Ed feels that there are legitimate questions about what happened in Benghazi.
    Darrell Issa feels the same way.
    It’s always wrong to agree with Darell Issa on anything.
    Therefore, it’s wrong for Ed to feel that there are legitimate questions about what happened in
    Benghazi.

  19. thumper1990 says

    an ‘act of terror’ is different than a ‘terrorist attack.’

    No it isn’t.

  20. kermit. says

    thumper1990: an ‘act of terror’ is different than a ‘terrorist attack.’
    No it isn’t.

    .
    Clearly, my blue jeans are different from my jeans of blue.
    .
    (Colored people and people of color are a discussion for another day.)

  21. says

    “Ed feels that there are legitimate questions about what happened in Benghazi.
    Darrell Issa feels the same way.”

    Darrell Issa is a complete moron and has the morals of a child molesting grave robber.

    “It’s always wrong to agree with Darell Issa on anything.”

    Not as long as you don’t mind regarded as an idiot of equal stupidity to Issa.

Leave a Reply