Political Conservatives tend to need daddy figures. They respond to authoritarian personalities.

"Preferences for stability, order, familiarity, and conformity add up to a strong propensity for what Jost calls system justification, or ?favorable attitudes about the overarching social order.? That is true not only among conservatives who are well-served by the status quo ? those with wealth and power ? but among those whose individual or group interests are ill-served by the social order.

At the far conservative end of the spectrum one finds the authoritarian personality: extremely hostile to change, intolerant of ambiguity or difference, and highly attuned to established hierarchy." http://grist.org/politics/2011-11-02...arty-politics/

This article should help you out in catching up on what really happened.

"There is an urgent need for full disclosure of what has become the ?Benghazi Betrayal and Cover-up.? The Obama national security team, including CIA, DNI and the Pentagon, apparently watched and listened to the assault on the U.S. consulate and cries for help but did nothing. If someone had described a fictional situation with a similar scenario and described our leadership ignoring the pleas for help, I would have said it was not realistic?not in my America ? but I would have been proven wrong.



We now know why Ambassador Christopher Stevens had to be in Benghazi the night of 9/11 to meet a Turkish representative, even though he feared for his safety. According to various reports, one of Stevens? main missions in Libya was to facilitate the transfer of much of Gadhafi?s military equipment, including the deadly SA-7 ? portable SAMs ? to Islamists and other al Qaeda-affiliated groups fighting the Assad Regime in Syria. In an excellent article, Aaron Klein states that Stevens routinely used our Benghazi consulate (mission) to coordinate the Turkish, Saudi Arabian and Qatari governments? support for insurgencies throughout the Middle East. Further, according to Egyptian security sources, Stevens played a ?central role in recruiting Islamic jihadists to fight the Assad Regime in Syria.?



In another excellent article, Clare Lopez at RadicalIslam.org noted that there were two large warehouse-type buildings associated with our Benghazi mission. During the terrorist attack, the warehouses were probably looted. We do not know what was there and if it was being administrated by our two former Navy SEALs and the CIA operatives who were in Benghazi. Nonetheless, the equipment was going to hardline jihadis."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ened-benghazi/

You clearly have zero understanding of how military tactics work in these circumstances.

While I was in the Marines this was one of the things we trained for, and later on one of the things I taught - entering a US Embassy under fire and taking control. We had mock embassies set up at "Combat Town" on board Camp Lejeune. An attacking force of hundreds of men using trucks with mounted machine guns wasn't even something we considered.

You cannot send in C130s and airplanes to bomb. We are talking about a sovereign nation here, and the embassy was located in the second largest city in Libya. You cannot take a terrorist incident and immediately escalate into an act of war.

Also, there was US Special Forces some four hundred miles away - In Italy, across the Mediterranean Sea. What exactly did you want them to do? Parachute in? Helicopter in? (I did mention the trucks with the mounted machines right?) The only way for them to go in would be with a secured landing area (with protection guaranteed by the Libyans, good fucking luck!) and then have them fight their way in... Only to have more of the same: They would still be vastly out numbered and out gunned.

So immediately military options were completely off the table.

The article itself was clearly very well written. It quotes another source (RadicalIslam.org, not even a fucking newspaper but a website) and mentions "two large warehouse-type buildings" associated with the embassy. The article quotes another article that says the "the warehouses were probably looted" and then "We do not know what was there". So your article quotes some website that claims buildings that might have been associated with the US embassy might have been looted but no one knows what was in those buildings. In others, not an ounce of fact. For all we know these buildings had pillows stuff with feathers in them.

There's all sorts of evidence that it was a weapon op gone awry

American Killed in Libya Was on Intel Mission to Track Weapons
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/glen-d...ry?id=17229037


Rand Paul: Was Benghazi op running guns?
Senator says evidence from catastrophe suggests a political operation went awry
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/rand-paul...XRPGvAiXCki.99


"The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation," officials briefed on intelligence told the Wall Street Journal, and there's evidence that U.S. agents—particularly murdered U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens—were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to Syrian rebels.

WSJ reports that the State Department presence in Benghazi "provided diplomatic cover" for the previously hidden CIA mission, which involved finding and repurchasing heavy weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals. These weapons are presumably from Muammar Gaddafi's stock of about 20,000 portable heat-seeking missiles, the bulk of which were SA-7 surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/bengh...#ixzz2JOAWEUjZ


Was Syrian weapons shipment factor in ambassador’s Benghazi visit?

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz2JOAqjb78

So let me see if I understand you correctly.... You mean to tell me that the CIA was using the Embassy as a cover? Wow, surprise. I mean, I didn't see that coming a mile away.

I'm just gonna guess... Just throwing this out there..... The US and various allies used the CIA and other resources to move weapons into the country to help over throw Gaddafi. I'm guessing the State Department knew about it, The CIA, US Military forces in the area, The White House, AND CONGRESS all knew about it. The White House told us we didn't have "boots on the ground" in Libya - which means US military forces - but of course the CIA was knee deep there.

I going to go out on a limb here - I'm guessing the CIA is knee deep in Syria as well.

So then why are certain members of Congress going after the State Department asking them why we didn't have better security there? We all know the answer - Short of stationing a company of heavily armed US Marines, you will never be able to protect an embassy in a foreign country against an attack with hundreds of men in trucks armed with mounted machine guns.

If the CIA was operating in the area - and obviously they were because one of the buildings attacked was a CIA building - Then Congress already knew about it and authorized it.

I don't care about Clinton - I honestly don't. She's out of here and I pray she doesn't run for President in four years. But this is nothing more than Congress trying to bitch smack people around for no reason.

The key point that you are missing here is those same "rebels" aka Al Qaeda that we are supplying the weapons to and "tracking and acquiring from" are also the same supposed "terrorists" that attacked the embassy. Or that's what we are lead to believe outside of the admittance of the gun running op. (the second screwed up operation the Obama admin has been caught up in)

Good attempt at moving the goalposts. O'reilly is far right, NYT is center, center right...

Every time I see this thread title, my brain interprets it as "Rand Paul slams Chicken: I would have Fried you" - perhaps it's time for lunch.

Maybe; There are a lot of fine lines in such areas. We supported the "Libyan opposition forces", which seems to have included Al Qaeda to some extent. And then Al Qaeda attacked our embassy there. It might be less about Al Qaeda trying to secure weapons and more about Al Qaeda having the opportunity to attack the US. We still have yet to see how Al Qaeda benefited from this attack. Seems that one article seems to imply "some buildings that may be associated with the US" was "possibility storing weapons of some sort or maybe down pillows" and that they "might have been looted during the attack on the embassy". You have no story here yet - This article is second guessing everything. For all we know these buildings were owned by a company out of Hong Kong and were storing rubber ducks.

As for the "second screwed up operation the Obama admin has been caught up in".... I'm not seeing that. Seems to me the goal was to remove Gaddafi, and in that respect the mission was a complete success. And I am also guessing that Congress was involved as well - You can't be moving around millions of dollars of military hardware without Congress knowing about it. It's just like the Iran Contra Affair - You really don't think Congress and the White House didn't know what was going on?

The Ambassador was known for gun running. It's admitted he was there to transfer weapons. One of the ex-soldiers killed stated on TV that he was there for weapons tracking, acquisitions, and "disposal." It was a weapons operation gone awry. That is what I mean by second. The first was Fast and Furious. If you're not familiar with it it's where this Administration was supplying arms to the Mexican drug cartels.

Sorta beside the point. They (and their accomplices in right-wing media), turned the Tea Party from a little fringe organization into a significant political force in 4-6 years, and they're not going anywhere. They have tens of billions (with a B) to spend, and they want what they want.


No, of course it doesn't mean we should stop trying. It just points out the forces ranged against those who want to make REAL change. Kennedy wanted to make REAL change.

Also, it definitely makes me wonder if this country is beyond hope and is systematically being bled dry. There's certainly plenty of evidence to back up this thought ie. the Banksters ripping this country off for $12 Trillion and getting off scot-free.

Also, it points out the ridiculousness of arguing about dem v rep, which stuffed shirt inhabits the White House at a given time etc.

It doesn't fucking matter people! They're all just business agents for those that got them elected AND will give them lucrative employment after they leave office.

Somewhat different take. Polls show that a strong majority of americans favor common sense gun regulations, higher taxes for the rich, and significant reductions in military spending.

But guess what? Far right-wing republicans (who have almost become mainstream) are vehemently opposing all those things. Why? Because they're in the back pockets of those interests!!!

So, WE have to get them elected (millions of Americans make small donations), and then change the laws to stop the "revolving door" http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-ele...hibitions.aspx and reform campaign finance.

Very true - but a strong majority of Americans have been giving the Rethugs quite a pounding at the polls these days. :thumbsup

Again, I'm not saying any of this shit is easy. I have a hard time thinking of a scenario short of a full-on depression that would rouse enough of the public to force these changes.

What about Gary Johnson? What would keep him, or any other 3rd party candidate, from falling to the crooked system that props up the Dems and the Cons?

Yeah, but remember...everyone hooked into the right-wing media bubble sees everyone who doesn't 100% agree with their stuff is (Limbaugh voice)The Liberal Media(/Limbaugh voice). I've said it before, Minte has a blind spot you could drive a truck through.

I sorta hate singling out Minte, but he's typical of people hooked into the right ring propaganda machine. He's in the bubble, and documented facts that contradict the stuff he regurgitates can't penetrate that bubble. I've seen this numerous times in threads here. He's the perfect example of a victim of the (admittedly excellent) right wing media brainwashing machine.

Forget about trying to trying to get through to people like him. Well don't stop trying, but don't hold much hope of having a rational, open exchange of ideas

The "right" has nothing on the "left" when it comes to blind hypocrisy.

I watch CNN, FNC, & MSNBC.

And MSNBC is the MOST ridiculous "news" channel I have ever seen.

Just sit down and watch Ed Shulz and Rachel Maddow back to back. It's a joke. They don't even bother trying to "report" any news at all. They just attack, attack, and attack all Republican politicians.

It's pathetic.

Fox News has Shepard Smith's "Fox Report". That is solid news reporting.
CNN has Wolf Blitzers "Situation Room". Also pretty solid.

MSNBC has NOTHING that actually just reports what is going on in the world! It is THE worst.

And I hear and read (right here on GFY) plenty of far left Democrats just blindly spouting the same talking points that MSNBC reports verbatim from the White House daily.

I'm still wondering what happened to the press that used to QUESTION everything the govt. did?
I guess they only do that if it's a Republican administration these days. :(

Or as Chris Matthews (of MSNBC) said: "I get a tingle up my leg when I hear Obama speak" :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I hear ya, but i think you're being overly optimistic about the power of "WE" these days. One example - I wonder how many people even know what OWS is really about. You sure won't hear about it in right wing and (allegedly) 'mainstream' media.


You forgot to mention the DemoCrips. Yeah, their steaming pile of shit is slightly less stinky atm, but woop dee doo.

Nothing really, and it would eventually happen. At least at the moment, the Progressive/Pragmatic Libertarians offer a renewal that simply won't happen with the dem/rep/tp circle jerk.

I completely disagree, but it's irrelevant in the bigger picture.

They're both utterly worthless if you want to figure out what's really going on.

I wasn't referring to any "bigger picture"
Neither you or I have any freakin' idea of what the true "bigger picture" is. We aren't privy to that kind of info.

I'm just a pornographer on a message board talking to someone I don't know (you)

But I do know what I see on MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News. So you can "disgree' all you like.

Just turn the channel to MSNBC and sit through Al Sharpton's show. Or Ed Shulz's show. Or Rachel Maddow. Or ANY of the prime time shows on MSNBC.

You will not hear one single news item reported. It will all be an open and undiluted attack on Republican politicians.
There is nothing to disagree about on that. Just watch it and you'll see for yourself.

Me? I like switching between the three "news" networks. It's entertaining.

1) I do, because i take the time to do lots of research. And if you take the "follow the money" tack in your research, it becomes blatantly obvious and always leads me back to (see sig)

2) Yeah, it's entertaining for a minute for a minute or five...then my blood pressure spikes. This especially happens when listening to right-wing media. Because at this time, their connection to reality is much more tenuous than left-wing media. I know this because I fact-check the stuff that comes out of both sides of both sides of their collective mouths LOL. Either way, with a few exceptions, they're worthless.