Rand needs to revive and offer to spearhead Benghazi investigation and Hillary's role

[devil21]

The media has moved on and Benghazi is being buried. Benghazi is still VERY important to conservatives considering Hillary's frontrunner status!!!

Rand fired a big shot with his interview here:


What Rand brought up has turned out to be true! Now the left media is moving on hoping it doesn't damage Hillary too much. Rand needs to be a voice for bringing this back to the forefront and hounding Hillary. Do NOT let Benghazi become a forgotten scandal!

Let's play Hardball.

 

[Mr.NoSmile]

If Benghazi didn't seriously hamper her before, why would it now? It'd just be seen as adding to this idea that Republicans are, again, grasping wildly at any and every accusation that floats past.

 

[jbauer]

Rand needs to talk someone who isn't running for president in 16 into spearheading this. I he did it, it would look like he's only doing it to hurt Billary's chances.

 

[specsaregood]

I think rand has made it clear he wants more done, but it would require a congressman to spearhead it.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

I think rand has made it clear he wants more done, but it would require a congressman to spearhead it.

During his campaign, Bentivolio acted all high and mighty saying he wanted to get to the bottom of Benghazi. I'd say he'd redeem himself if he actually followed through on this.

 

[mit26chell]

I don't think most people really care about Benghazi, tbh. I personally have no sympathy for a bunch of CIA agents who were meddling in others' affairs getting killed - they should have known the dangers they faced before butting into another country's business. As bad as that sounds, it's honestly how I feel.

I would, however, love to see Clinton pay politically for it. That won't happen though. People will vote for Clinton not based on policy, but because she's a woman. Same thing with Obama.

 

[devil21]

I think rand has made it clear he wants more done, but it would require a congressman to spearhead it.

Did you mean a Rep? Wolf gave some good floor speeches on it so hopefully he'll continue. The media has stopped talking about it. Congress has stopped talking about it (no scheduled hearings that Im aware of). Looks like they're giving Hillary a pass, even though she was directly involved and Benghazi could dwarf past scandals like Iran Contra.

I don't think most people really care about Benghazi, tbh. I personally have no sympathy for a bunch of CIA agents who were meddling in others' affairs getting killed - they should have known the dangers they faced before butting into another country's business. As bad as that sounds, it's honestly how I feel.

That's because the media is barely covering it and the msm rarely even mentions what really was going on there. CIA didn't just "meddle". They committed war crimes. Running weapons, money, missiles. Rendition and torture. The stand down order. Etc. All things that Hillary was aware of and lied about in committee.

I would, however, love to see Clinton pay politically for it. That won't happen though. People will vote for Clinton not based on policy, but because she's a woman. Same thing with Obama.

I have no sympathy either and Rand can really strike some blows on Hillary, looking toward 2016, if he can keep Benghazi in the news cycle. That whole incident was a microcosm of why our foreign policy sucks.

 

[devil21]

Rand needs to talk someone who isn't running for president in 16 into spearheading this. I he did it, it would look like he's only doing it to hurt Billary's chances.

I don't see why this is a bad thing? If we're trying to win then damaging her 2016 chances is exactly what needs to be done.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

I don't think most people really care about Benghazi, tbh. I personally have no sympathy for a bunch of CIA agents who were meddling in others' affairs getting killed - they should have known the dangers they faced before butting into another country's business. As bad as that sounds, it's honestly how I feel.

This. I would only care about an investigation if it were centered on what the CIA was doing there, not about why Obama didn't send fighter jets, tanks, and marines into the country to drop death from the sky.

 

[Anti-Neocon]

I'd rather just save it for the general election campaign and maybe the primaries if he wants to make the case that he's the best option against Hillary.

 

[anaconda]

If Benghazi didn't seriously hamper her before, why would it now? It'd just be seen as adding to this idea that Republicans are, again, grasping wildly at any and every accusation that floats past.

Because the CIA gun running issue was only recently confirmed. Whole new ball game.

 

[devil21]

I'd rather just save it for the general election campaign and maybe the primaries if he wants to make the case that he's the best option against Hillary.

It'll be ancient news by then.

 

[Saint Vitus]

Or he should just drop the entire issue. We shouldn't have been over there arming the rebels to begin with. This whole thing was just a case of blowback, and needs to be treated as such.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Or he should just drop the entire issue. We shouldn't have been over there arming the rebels to begin with. This whole thing was just a case of blowback, and needs to be treated as such.

I agree. That should be the angle on this.

 

[jmdrake]

If Benghazi didn't seriously hamper her before, why would it now? It'd just be seen as adding to this idea that Republicans are, again, grasping wildly at any and every accusation that floats past.

Are you freaking kidding?

http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/0...ratives-on-the-ground-during-benghazi-attack/

 

[jmdrake]

I don't think most people really care about Benghazi, tbh. I personally have no sympathy for a bunch of CIA agents who were meddling in others' affairs getting killed - they should have known the dangers they faced before butting into another country's business. As bad as that sounds, it's honestly how I feel.

I would, however, love to see Clinton pay politically for it. That won't happen though. People will vote for Clinton not based on policy, but because she's a woman. Same thing with Obama.

SMH It's not about whether or not you have "sympathy" with the CIA agents. It's whether or not those CIA agents were funnelling heat seeker missiles to terrorists. That's a problem. A BIG problem!

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

SMH It's not about whether or not you have "sympathy" with the CIA agents. It's whether or not those CIA agents were funnelling heat seeker missiles to terrorists. That's a problem. A BIG problem!

Right, but most of the public outrage directed at Obama, especially in Republican circles, is of the 'where the hell wur tha mureens' variety instead of disgust at us dicking around in yet another situation in the Middle East.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I don't think most people really care about Benghazi, tbh. I personally have no sympathy for a bunch of CIA agents who were meddling in others' affairs getting killed - they should have known the dangers they faced before butting into another country's business. As bad as that sounds, it's honestly how I feel.

I would, however, love to see Clinton pay politically for it. That won't happen though. People will vote for Clinton not based on policy, but because she's a woman. Same thing with Obama.

They were running guns to Syria. Do you remember the big deal that was the Iran-Contra scandal? This one should be too.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Let's play Hardball.

With a softball? Won't work. Sure, it's a great topic to throw out there to avoid big boy speak on important issues less discussed and maybe give some folks the impression that all of a sudden the media cares what they think but....hardball? Phhht. Hardly hardball at all.

Don't get me wrong. I'd love to play hardball more than anyone but it can...no, will.. do more damage than good. Cripes, there is a lot of things I'd like to see discussed here but I think in doing so it would bring upon scrutiny of some of our reps that they have had the luxury of not having thus far. And then, of course, people have to defend some positions on things (in scope) that these reps hold that may not go over very well out in the outfield. Have to watch those ground balls through the middle. Well...when you're playing hardball, that is.

 

[jmdrake]

Right, but most of the public outrage directed at Obama, especially in Republican circles, is of the 'where the hell wur tha mureens' variety instead of disgust at us dicking around in yet another situation in the Middle East.

That's because most shy away from *gasp* conspiracy theories! Everybody knows that at the very least, Bengazi was one big fubar. But the U.S. government sending heat seeking missiles to Al Qaeda linked terrorists? Say it isn't so!

Now here's the question. How do we go about pushing this particular angle?