Don't spend a dollar for a nickel solution

I wrote a post on reasonable regulation. Regulations should be tested for results & based on real information, not reactions to vivid images and fear. For example, how many people know that gun violence has dropped sharply in the last twenty years, that cancer rates have dropped 20% in the same period or that U.S. CO2 emissions have dropped to the lowest levels in more than twenty years.

Politicians and interest groups often play to our fears and count on our inability to make reasonable distinctions. Imagine the activist asking for money or more government action with the slogan, "Things are significantly better than they were ten or twenty years ago, but I think they could get better." No. It is better for them to find the worst case exaggeration and claim that only they stand in the way of its perpetuation.

We should not be fooled by instigation to hysteria. A civilized nation needs laws and regulations to protect its people. But we need to apply a careful analysis. My father used to say that we should not spend a dollar to make a nickel decision. This is good advice. A bad regulation can make a bad situation worse. A regulation that costs $100 to save $10 should never be enacted. Not every problem has a regulatory solution. Some terrible problems have no solution at all and some problems have solutions that require techniques and technologies not yet developed. And the awful truth is that today's solution is often tomorrow's problem.

Whatever we do and whatever we fail to do will produce consequences, many of which we cannot foresee. The key to joy is not be find or even look for the perfect solution, but rather to have a flexible and robust process that can adapt to changing conditions and requirements.

Posted by Christine & John at May 7, 2013 7:20 PM
Comment #365464

Let’s talk about the great victory for the Republicans in SC. After all the liberal money pumped into a congressional seat in SC, after all the support from the liberal media, and even after Holder sent his thugs to Charleston to make sure the election was “legal”, Colbert lost and Sanford won. Will wonders never cease.

Posted by: CasperWY at May 7, 2013 9:10 PM
Comment #365465


I don’t know enough about the details of South Carolina. It is mostly a Republican district, but Sanford is plenty weird so the Democrats thought they might take it. They were mistaken. This exhausts my knowledge.

Posted by: C&J at May 7, 2013 9:53 PM
Comment #365467

Well said Christine & John, except what you are saying is we could do without the whole democrat and half of the republican parties. They are both bent on how to spend your money regardless of the result. If we used common sense like yours we would not owe over one million dollars per tax payer in debt and liabilities.

Posted by: Clark at May 7, 2013 10:32 PM
Comment #365479

Mark Sanford’s last tenure as elected official ended with one of the most ridiculous scandals.

Unfortunately, you folks timed this rather poorly.

The official reason the NRCC gave for not spending on the race was that Sanford didn’t need their help, but the timing of the announcement—it came shortly after the Associated Press reported that Sanford’s ex-wife had charged him with trespassing on her property in January—suggested that congressional Republicans had largely abandoned his effort. Sanford is scheduled to appear in court on Thursday to testify about the trespassing charges, one of perhaps many forthcoming embarrassing episodes for House Republicans as he continues to deal with his past transgressions.

Was it worth it? Defeating the Democrats so you could elect another yahoo(no pun intended, given the source) to embarrass you? You can have your kneejerk reaction to Nancy Pelosi, but your lack of willingness to let any fight go, even the self-destructive ones, will have its cost.

As for efficiency? It says something that part of where Democrats went looking for money when it came to funding Obama care was in the wasteful spending associated with Medicare Advantage, and the Drug Benefit. The Iraq war wasn’t so efficiently run, and the Costs of the Defense department, which went from three hundred billion a year to several hundred billion are simply incredible.

Republicans talk a good game on efficiency, but they have no desire to cut private enterprise a smaller check than is possible. Democrats are not so sentimental. Democrats are also not so keen on privatizing things, which usually means funneling taxpayer dollars to big businesses, which on principle the Republicans don’t want to offend or deprive of profit.

But even the Tea Party fringe has nothing to crow about. These austerity measures they’ve embraced are so poorly planned out, they’re likely to cost more money in the long run, as people sue the government for breaking its contracts.

The irony may be, though, that Obamacare will turn out to be the Nickel Solution.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 8, 2013 8:08 AM
Comment #365480


Mark Sanford’s last tenure as elected official ended with one of the most ridiculous scandals.”

Stephen Daugherty, you mean like Weiner posting a pic of his weener on the internet? Or perhaps you are referring to Bill Clinton’s blue dress episode? As I remember correctly, Clinton’s “ridiculous scandal” in the Oval Office. I wondered who would be the first to bring up Sanford’s scandal. Thanks you not disappointing me.


I don’t know enough about the details of South Carolina. It is mostly a Republican district, but Sanford is plenty weird so the Democrats thought they might take it. They were mistaken. This exhausts my knowledge.”

Is Sanford any “weirder” than Bill Clinton or Anthony Weiner?

I believe this is a pure case of Sanford (since he is a born again Christian in the Bible Belt), repenting and being sorrowful for his sin, and the people of SC following their Christian beliefs and forgiving him. Isn’t this what the left believes Christianity is all about; “forgiving those who trespass against us”?

It was a congressional seat that the left thought they could win and it tells us the people of this district would rather have a forgiven Christian as a representative, than a leftist/socialist. The question is, is this a preview of the 2014 election?

Posted by: CasperWY at May 8, 2013 9:44 AM
Comment #365481

Mr. Daugherty chose to only pick part of the quote from his link. Implying the Republican Party would have supported him. This shows the independence of the conservative voters in SC’s district 1; they chose to support a man who was not supported by their party. When was the last time that happened in the Democratic Party? The Republican Party did not support him and he did this on his own. As for the Pelosi remark; she scares the crap out of a lot of people, not just Republicans. Pelosi represents the elitist left of CA, she’s from a solid blue district, and she is certainly not seen as mainstream America. And she is totally out of touch with America.

“Because of Sanford’s blemished past, Democrats saw a rare opportunity to take control of the seat and poured significant resources into the effort. Had they been successful, the victory would have been an important symbolic victory that would have provided momentum for Democrats working to rebuild their majority in the House. The party nominated Colbert Busch, a centrist Democrat and the sister of celebrity comedian Stephen Colbert.

While Democratic outside groups united around Colbert Busch, the National Republican Congressional Committee said last month that they would not help Sanford with paid television ads, a move that placed increased pressure on the state Republican Party.

The official reason the NRCC gave for not spending on the race was that Sanford didn’t need their help, but the timing of the announcement—it came shortly after the Associated Press reported that Sanford’s ex-wife had charged him with trespassing on her property in January—suggested that congressional Republicans had largely abandoned his effort.”

Posted by: CasperWY at May 8, 2013 10:34 AM
Comment #365482

I also agree, the SC 1st district race was a great victory for Conservatives; but here is something interesting:

“It’s on. As the White House grapples with a growing backlash over its Libya lies and lapses, President Obama’s apologists are gearing up for battle. Put on your hip-waders. Grab those tar buckets. Get ready for Operation Smear Benghazi Whistleblowers.”

Isn’t this typical of the left? Clinton attacked the women who accused him of rape and sexual affairs. Obama has attacked anyone who disagrees with him as racist. And now, even before the testimony of the whistleblowers, we find the Obama machine attacking the character of the whistleblowers.

The same thing always happens on WB; whenever facts are presented, the first thing the left does is attack the source; they never answer the charges. So here we go again…

Posted by: DSP2195 at May 8, 2013 10:44 AM
Comment #365484

Listening to the Benghazi hearings and this is what I take away:

Democrats: “this is terrible, we thank the personnel and military for their service, and we need to learn from this and move on, but the embassy personnel have clearly attacked the Obama administration”.

Republicans: “let’s find out why this happened, why was false material put out, and how high did the cover up go?”

Hillary Clinton: “who cares how they died, let’s move on”.

Jay Carney: “this happened a long time ago, let’s move on”.

Does anyone notice a common thread in the left’s talking point? It’s “let’s move on”. Why would the left want to move on?

This hearing is going to throw Hillary Clinton under the bus with her presidential aspirations.

Posted by: CasperWY at May 8, 2013 1:36 PM
Comment #365485

Correction Casper; every Democrat, instead of seeking the truth, is using their question time to attack the Republicans. It appears to me, the Democrats have no interest in finding out why an American Ambassador and 3 other Americans wee killed. But they do have an interest attacking Republicans and the whistleblowers.

Posted by: DSP2195 at May 8, 2013 1:43 PM
Comment #365486

Hillary’s words:

“Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans,” Clinton said. “What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?”

Now attach the words to the video of her going spastic:

I can see this on multiple GOP campaign commercials in 2016.

Posted by: DSP2195 at May 8, 2013 1:53 PM
Comment #365487

Rush Limbaugh does not believe the Democrats will throw Hillary under the bus, he believes the goal is to smear the whistleblowers:

“The idea that Hillary is becoming baggage, an embarrassment, might bring down the regime… no, no, no, no. Hillary Clinton is going to be the next president. She’s gonna be the first female president, and she’s gonna have the same insurance policies that Obama has as the first black president, i.e., you can’t criticize her or we’ll call you a sexist and a bigot. That’s how they are dreaming of continuing to advance their agenda with no opposition. They’re not worried about Hillary being baggage. All they’re trying to do is continue with Obama’s philosophy of eliminating all opposition.

They don’t throw people overboard. They don’t throw people under the bus. Mrs. Clinton is still owed. And I’ll guarantee you, the energy right now at this moment in the Democrat Party is trying to find a way to embarrass these whistleblowers. The focus right now is how to destroy these people coming forth who would harm Hillary. That’s how they look at it. They’re not gonna throw Obama overboard. They’re not gonna throw Hillary overboard, pull her bacon out of the fire or any of that kind of thing.”

Posted by: George at May 8, 2013 2:04 PM
Comment #365488

As I also watch c-span and the hearings, I am amazed at the continued talking points from the left, that embassy budgets were cut by “Republicans”, even though it has been noted that “budget cuts” had nothing to do with Benghazi. Honestly, it’s embarrassing to watch the Democrats in this hearing. Is it possible that we have so many Congress men and women who are completely unqualified to represent their constituents?

Posted by: George at May 8, 2013 3:15 PM
Comment #365489

Knowing Gov. Sanford personally this is no victory for the Republican Party. Worse though is it shows just how bad the Democratic Party is in South Carolina.

SC-1 is conservative but Sanford took Charleston County as well as Beaufort (Hilton Head) and those are not conservative by any means. Remember Joe Riley, a Democrat, has been the Mayor of Charleston since biblical times. The fact is there are no viable Democratic candidates left in South Carolina, and the only support for Busch came from out of state. That allowed Sanford, a good politician, to hang Nancy Pelosi around her neck and the rest was history.

One of my personal political heroes is Dick Riley. I worked for several years with Fritz Hollings’ staff. Not only are these voices silent in the modern SC Democratic Party, but like minded talent interested in public office are excluded from Party support. This is why Tim Scott is a Republican and why Alvin Greene is maybe the best candidate the State Party has to offer.

Had the Democrats run a good candidate they would have taken SC-1. Now we all have to suffer with Mark again. Thanks a bunch.

Posted by: George in SC at May 8, 2013 4:41 PM
Comment #365491

Good points George in SC; the same can be said for the Republican Party running RINO’s instead of conservatives. When the Republican Party starts supporting conservatives, they will start winning elections. But alas, the Republican Party has weak leadership, only concerned about being loved by the liberal media.

Posted by: DSP2195 at May 8, 2013 5:34 PM
Comment #365492

C&J, one could assume that north of 90% of the population would agree with your article. As to why things don’t work the way you suggest, I would say that the ‘money influence’ in gov’t and politics is the way prime reason.

Taxpayers in Maricopa County, Az have expended $1.6 plus million dollars on the Jodi Arias trial. But, business interests have collected several times that over the period of the trial. And, there will be appeals to come. Business interests almost always trumps sound policy, regulations, etc.

There are reasons why Phil Gramm was able to quietly able to change the regs re commodities futures in 2000, why hedge funds have gone basically unregulated till this day.

It’s not that ‘people’ don’t know what should be done, etc. It’s the overwhelming money influence in politics/gov’t that is taking us down. Over a couple of hundred years both political parties have become subservient to corpocracy so we should not look for reform. For example, the loopholes are already in the new consumer finance agency regs. We just can’t know about them yet.

IMO, it will take a new 3rd party w/a/dif/pol/att etc.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at May 8, 2013 6:00 PM
Comment #365493

On Benghazi:
I find it interesting that the guy they pick to comment about the response was in Tripoli at the time. That’s like asking somebody in Cleveland about what happened in New York on 9/11.

I know the map projections tend to be a little deceptive, but the nations of North Africa are not small, for the most part. If I overlaid Libya on the Gulf Coast, I could travel from where live in Houston all the way to Miami, and never leave its territory. That’s all of the length of the Gulf Coast other than that of Texas.

First, you’re using a textbook invalid argument. My question is why the Republicans, being the God-Fearing Party, being the folks who inflicted such misery on the Democrats over both Clinton and Weiner, have now elected a man who not only has embarrassed himself and the party, but more recently, has had to settle a charge over trespassing at his ex-wife’s home. That’s the main reason why the Republican Congressional Committee didn’t back him.

So, not only are we talking about poor judgment, we’re talking about a continuation of poor judgment as well.

As for Christianity?

We were still hearing about Chappaquiddick when Ted Kennedy died. Republicans pursued Clinton his entire term, And they insisted on the resignation of Anthony Weiner.

If your Christian forgiveness, and their public repentance only applies to Republican candidates, it’s not Christian forgiveness. It’s Republican/Conservative Forgiveness, and it’s politically, not spiritually motivated.

What it tells us is that folks seem to care more about who they are against, rather than who they are for, and that is how Republicans got into the trouble they’ve gotten into to begin with.

How about this: If Ambassador Stevens was in New York, This other guy was all the way in Cleveland. The distance between the two is about 400 miles, and this guy had to be told, TOLD that Ambassador Stevens was dead by somebody else. Your whistle blower was closer to Sicily and Italy, and the victim was closer to Crete and the Peloponnese than they were to each other.

The Right is marketing this guy as a whistleblower, as if he were right there in Benghazi, and understood the nature of what was going on. But he wasn’t and he didn’t. His picture of it was almost all secondhand, by his own admission, and fragmentary, and his expertise on military matters questionable.

As for the special operators, whatever one of them present said, their orders were to help in the potential evacuation of the people right there. The 400 mile distance comes back into play.

The fastest regular helicopter in the world travels at 250 miles per hour. So no Zero Dark Thirty helicopter raid would have gotten there in an hour and a half. You would have needed, therefore, to get the soldiers to a fixed wing aircraft, ready and fueled for that flight, and it would have to be one that travelled at better than four hundred mph in flight. Then it would have needed to safely land, and the soldiers would have needed to safely find their way into an unknown situation.

So what Republicans are talking about here are fantasy decisions, without the benefit of real world logistics. Some guy at the man’s side says, we could be there in an hour, man takes his word for it, no concern about planning or dealing with the situation right there in Tripoli

Republicans were never interested in those killed, not in the least. Romney was knocking down the Obama Administration over the attack before Ambassador Stevens’ body was even cold, before we even knew there were casualties. His sister in law posted a picture savaging the Obama Administration over it. It was bad enough that it showed the dead bodies, but the stupid idiots managed to confuse Qaddafi with Ambassador Stevens!

The callousness of this continued perseveration cannot be underestimated. It was a cynical political move by Romney to attempt to fulfill the foreign policy part of following in Reagan’s footsteps, and Republicans continue to stripmine the issue for the sake of scandalmongering.

And what do they got? They got a man who might has well been across the Mediterranean, he was so far away, who was at best in intermittent contact with anybody else, who wasn’t by anybody’s admission in Benghazi.

We won’t have to throw anybody under the bus. If they had any substantive information, do you really think they’d be playing coy with it? The best they have is some disgruntled diplomat with fantasies of military intervention that are factually debunkable, and whose picture of the situation was hardly better developed than Washington’s.

I wonder if you heard about Rush’s latest bid for convincing America’s women he was a sympathetic character, imagining that the kidnapped women who were found in Ohio were going to be out of luck about welfare, or some junk like that.

To all-
What strikes me here is the need to continually scrape away at the reputation of Democrats. Every question is “how high up does it go?” And it’s all to rationalize all the BS attention it was given before, attention only given because some desperate nominee for President thought he had his Teheran Embassy hostage crisis.

It’s really and truly absurd, but that’s what’s become of the Republican Party. It embraces its worst embarrassments, and as long as a Dead girl or a live boy isn’t involved, they’re willing to welcome back the dumb bastards and paint another target on their backs.

It occurs to me that if Republicans weren’t running on a model of total political war, they could be doing a lot better. But they are, and they’ve decided they’re going to attack Democrats on everything, and defend themselves on every front. They’re not going to pick their battles, they’re going to exhaust themselves trying to justify everything they do, and vilify everything the Democrats do.

And where has that gotten them? Obama is still President, despite all they’ve done. They don’t have the Senate, despite having two great shots at it. They care more about fulfilling political fantasies than forging long term policy that won’t get reversed, and won’t embarrass the party with further failures. Republicans are refusing to learn from their mistakes. I guess they’re just waiting to learn from the one that will be big enough to really set them back. But even ones just like that haven’t taught them that they’ve gone to far, or set their standards too low.

It may be great for party discipline, but I think it will be terrible for the sustainability of the party’s power.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 8, 2013 10:22 PM
Comment #365494

Stephen, Maybe you and the rest of the Democrats don’t want to know what happened in Benghazi but most republicans and conservatives do want to know. Also we have a right to know. IMO all your worried about is this will tarnish your messiah Obama and your next possible president Hillary. If this is a cover up YOU PEOPLE are worse than Nixon’s Watergate, at least no one was killed there. You can bitch, moan and cry but something stinks for the Democrats.

Posted by: KAP at May 8, 2013 11:30 PM
Comment #365497

“And where has that gotten them? Obama is still President, despite all they’ve done. They don’t have the Senate, despite having two great shots at it.”

Then I don’t guess the left has anything to fear in 2014, right Stephen. Or perhaps Stephen could explain why the Obama administration and talking heads have gone into smear campaign against the whistleblowers.

Regarding Obama is still president; yes Stephen, but he has been castrated. He is nutless…no balls…and he’s losing his own party. Not all Democrats live in secure blue districts or states like Pelosi.

Regarding Benghazi…well Stephen, why don’t we wait until the investigation is over.

Regarding Christians; Stephen, you wouldn’t know a Christian if he came up and bit you on the ass.

It really sounds to me like Stephen is losing his marbles. You are beginning to sound like some of the shrill liberal ladies on WB. Are you a girly man Stephen???

Posted by: DSP2195 at May 8, 2013 11:49 PM
Comment #365498

Also Stephen, if jets were scrambled from Italy they could have beet there in 2 hrs. 400 miles to a jet is NOTHING at mach1. I can tell you know NOTHING of the military except for the BULLS**T you read in your liberal rags.

Posted by: KAP at May 9, 2013 12:00 AM
Comment #365501

Well, KAP, it’s your lucky day. I used to be an Air Force Navigator, responsible for placing an aircraft and its armaments on time, on target. In addition, I sat on alert, ready for rapid response, so I have a good idea how long it takes for to deploy in an emergency.

And I can tell you there is absolutely no way any rapid response team could have responded in time to save the Ambassador. It would have been physically impossible.

When I heard someone thought assets in Tripoli should have been deployed to Benghazi in order to save the day, I wondered enough to check the distance. Sure enough, Stephen is correct. The distance is 400 miles. Those assets in Tripoli could not possibly have reached the consulate in time.

The attack began at 9:30. The surviving Americans were evacuated at 11:42. The Ambassador and one other were killed in the initial assault.

Fighter aircraft in Italy could not have have saved the Ambassador either. It is 2242 miles from Aviano AFB to Benghazi. The fighters at Aviano did not have the range without refueling, and tankers were not available at that time. Furthermore, a fighter cannot target bad guys in a confusing urban environment without putting good guys at risk too.

Two additional Americans, Navy Seals, died later in a second attack, after a security team had already arrived in Benghazi.

There never was anything behind Benghazi conspiracy theory. The Senate Republicans have already declared themselves satisfied with the account, as clearly and specifically stated by Republican Senator Corker.

The House Republicans are once again making themselves out to be fools. It’s not the first time Issa has done this. Yesterday he publicized today’s hearing without letting the media or Democrats know the content, and Issa suggested it be big. It wasn’t. There’s nothing there. There’s a good reason no one pays attention to this.

If someone can come up with something specific, that might get traction. Vague accusations of a cover-up of… something… no one knows for sure, just something… that doesn’t get it done. Not even close.

Posted by: phx8 at May 9, 2013 1:23 AM
Comment #365557

phx8, You may have been in the A.F. and can site all the A.F. Bulls**t you want but you forget the Navy also has an Air Force. If there was an Air Craft Carrier anywhere in the area they could have scrambled them within minutes. Me being in the Navy and was stationed on the USS America CV 66 I can tell you with confidence that they could have been there within 1 hr. of the call to action, that is if this lame A** community organizer would have given the order instead of worrying about his election. By the way I did watch the hearings and the republicans did give equal access to the 3 men testifying, Maloney was pushing a line of BULLS**T that wasn’t true. All you prove to me is that you and others like you don’t care to get the truth out because it may cause YOUR PARTY to look bad, which it already has done. Obama doesn’t have the BALLs to be commander in chief all he is, is a Chicago community organizer and is trying to run the country like one and is failing. phx8 IT WAS A COVER UP TO SAVE HIS LAME ASS FOR THE ELECTION.

Posted by: KAP at May 9, 2013 10:10 AM
Comment #365560

Oh. I see. If there was a carrier nearby- which there wasn’t- it could have launched a plane. If it had been there. Which it wasn’t. But if one had magically appeared, then it could have. I saw a movie where an aircraft carrier traveled through time to win
WWII. That would totally work, if we could just perfect time travel.

The only way it could have been prevented was for the Ambassador not to go in the first place. Once he and the others went to that remote consulate, they were doomed. There was security- 10 Libyans were also killed in the assault- but it would have taken a much larger force to save the day. That Ambassador knew the risks better than anyone. He had a lot of enemies. He served in a state that had just undergone a brutal civil war, with a lot of people killed. He was instrumental in overthrowing Khadafi, the Khadafi dead-enders knew it, there were a lot of them, and they had it in for him.

The response wasn’t perfect. It never is. The coordination between agencies was not perfect either. It never is either. But the response was good, the coordination was good, and nothing in the response or coordination would have changed that outcome, short of magic or time travel.

Posted by: phx8 at May 9, 2013 12:02 PM
Comment #365561

Btw, KAP, that consulate was a CIA outpost, not just a bunch of paper pushers. And that safe house was a CIA safe house. There were some formidable people there, including former Navy Seals. We don’t like to advertise that sort of thing, and they’re not going to discuss it in a public hearing, but there’s more to this story than the public needs to know. That doesn’t mean there’s anything sinister or any kind of cover-up. Those guys in Benghazi were doing their job, it was an important job, it was a dangerous job, and they died in the service of our country.

Posted by: phx8 at May 9, 2013 12:15 PM
Comment #365563

On Comment #365494

I think we know, for the most part, what happened in Benghazi. It defies common sense that the President would deliberately allow an ambassador to die, and they’ve already admitted, via an investigation report by the State Department that there should have been more security there.

And what is supposed to be covered up? what is it, an order, a decision, what? You can’t say. It’s the ultimate in logical fallacy. The angle you’re taking, you’re asking the Obama to prove a negative, to prove that there wasn’t anything to cover-up. You haven’t proved, through, that there was anything to cover up.

Well, KAP, you MUST be an expert on what I’m thinking.

Exactly what are you planning on using those jet aircraft for? Strafing runs down a populated street? Bombing targets? Missile strikes?

There’s a reason we have the A10 and the C130 Gunships, But a C130’s top speed is 300 mph, and the A10’s combat radius for close air support is 288 miles, roughly, with about ten minutes of useful time over target. That’s all without refueling.

And what exactly are you trying to use here? The C-130, for all its positives, is slow as hell, and would not make it in time. The A-10? That’s an aircraft that’s been described as an airplane built around a really big gun, but that gun’s built to crack tank armor with depleted uranium shells. How’s that going to help them, if you have people already in the embassy, attacking them?

Our best option for saving the day would have been to get people there in helicopters, operators who could maneuver around, who could carefully distinguish between targets, and directly help the staff. But they weren’t within range of Benghazi.

You have your fantasies about how this crap works, and that’s what you’re working off of. In your mind, it’s like calling the police, and they’ll be there in minutes.

You seem to have this notion that we should be attacking ground forces with military equipment essentially designed for open warfare, jetfighters and things like that. Was it really in our interest to inflict additional civilian casualties in a friendly area to us?

You’re so obsessed with confronting me about my party that you don’t even stop to consider how much water you’re carrying for the one you don’t even want to admit you support anymore. Its pathetic. You simply cannot accept any explanation that doesn’t make Obama look bad. He has to be in over his head, he has to be wrong.

And pardon me, but how does leaving an ambassador to die count as a positive in a campaign? Why would anybody think that? Your bias shows itself, despite your best efforts to pretend that you’re objective on the matter.

The best option, in the best of all worlds, would be to have a full security force there, posted, on the scene. But the folks you’ve so assiduously failed to hold responsible for their actions CUT the budget for embassy protection, which means that this would have not been done.

So what do you do? You scream about coverups, even if you have no idea what was supposed to be covered up, no smoking guns, not even a rational motive for cutting loose the Diplomatic staff. You insist, loudly, that there would be military options, but your military options seem rather naïve about the actual impact on the ground.

You’re not really starting from the facts with the story you want to tell, you’re starting from thinking the worst about people like Obama and people like me, and then trying to find facts to fit your narrative. Is it not surprising then, that you overlook the basic facts of what was possible?


Then I don’t guess the left has anything to fear in 2014, right Stephen. Or perhaps Stephen could explain why the Obama administration and talking heads have gone into smear campaign against the whistleblowers.

I suspect that Republicans are going to continue to field far right candidates or centrist ones that won’t be able to manage the neat trick of pleasing both the center and the Republican base at once. They’ve done it two times before, and you’ve so far given us no reason to believe that they’re going to split the difference.

Regarding Obama is still president; yes Stephen, but he has been castrated.

Check your jockstrap, Sally, you’re coming up just as empty. Care to elaborate why you’ve failed to pass real budgets, why you can’t seem to get all those red-meat bills you pass from the House anywhere near being signed into law?

Why, if you’re so well-endowed, are you complaining about all the bills that never got taken up in the Senate?

You’ve achieved gridlock, stalemate. At best, a Draw. That’s the idiocy of your whole approach of fantasizing about remaking government your way. That’s why your people felt they had to take care of the whole FAA thing. The reality is, you’re dug in, trying to keep Democrats from moving forward with their agenda, not really advancing yours, except by heavy-handed means that don’t exactly endear you to the public.

Regarding Benghazi, you and the rest seem to have just jumped to your conclusions. You’ve concluded that the conflicting initial reports, which most people would dismiss as typical in developing incidents, represent some sort of coverup. And nobody can dissuade you of that.

So why am I being asked to withhold judgment? You’ve so far failed, in the year and change since Benghazi, to achieve any kind of enlightenment, to fulfill your threats of finding impeachable offenses. You’re grenade fishing for scandal, and everybody who isn’t part of your party’s base can see the desperation.

As for Christians? I can’t say I know who’s a Christian and who’s not for sure, since only God can know that, but I would say you’re the last person I think back to when I want a good picture of a real Christian.

As for the parting shots?

Ooooh. I’m hurt. I think it’s a sign I hit something of substance, wounded your nice little fantasy world. I answered the fevered speculation of the right with some solid facts. Your Whistleblower would be torn apart on the stand. He wasn’t there in person. He repeated hearsay from a military source, hearsay that was contradicted by expert testimony. He was as far away from things as a person in New York would be from Cleveland, and he didn’t even have enough awareness of the situation to know when the Ambassador was dead.

The best you got is just some guy repeating your story from before, but the distance he had from the scene undermines his narrative.

So, you’re coming back with these pre-emptive claims that the Administration and liberals are trying to smear the whistleblowers, because you really don’t want anybody putting your story under scrutiny.

Well, tough luck. Scrutiny will be applied.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 9, 2013 12:47 PM
Comment #365564

Some wish to characterize the decision to hold back the final special ops team as a callous act of disregard for the lives of Americans. However, it would seem clear from a cursory reading of the testimony that the special ops team was never going to be tasked with interceding in the fire fight. It was over. The team was going to provide evacuation support at the Benghazi airport. Did it ever strike anybody that the higher command was also concerned about security at Tripoli and that the resources would be better used there?

Posted by: Rich at May 9, 2013 1:53 PM
Comment #365565

Stephen, As for somebody who has never served in the military you sure do think you know a lot don’t you or is it just the BULLS**T you read in books. Stephen, Obama F***ED, up, 4 people died because of his incompetence and Hillary’s blunder. Knowing that prior attacks to that compound were made and knowing British and Red Cross people were pulled from the area our Glories Leader did nothing and is still doing nothing. There were Drones flying around watching the attack in real time yet none were used to disperse those who were attacking. He can use them to kill others as he has done but chose not to use those drones to disperse the crowd trashing and killing our ambassador and others. So you and your other liberal talking heads and Obama lovers go ahead and keep defending the incompetent community organizer. It will be your downfall.

Posted by: KAP at May 9, 2013 6:28 PM
Comment #365567


I can understand that you don’t trust Stephen’s opinion on the military response to Benghazi. However, I don’t understand your dismissal of the military’s sworn testimony that it couldn’t get resources to Benghazi in time to repel the attacks.

Do you think that the military is lying? Do you think that they are lying when they tell you that the special ops team that was ordered to stay in Tripoli wasn’t even kitted for battle and would only have been able to assist in evacuation at the airport? Do you think that they are lying when they tell you that the drone was unarmed? Do you think they are lying when they tell you that jet fighters were too far away?

Do you honestly think that the President of the US deliberately allowed four Americans to die in Benghazi? That is the gist of the recent hearings by conservatives. It makes no sense.

What the American public is buying is that it was foolish to have allowed a US Ambassador to travel to Benghazi without significant protection on the date of 9/11. That is particularly true when the fact that it was a major CIA facility in North Africa is considered.

The American public, I believe, also is aware that the administration tried to “spin” the incident as something other than a successful al-Qaeda attack. But, they are not buying the idea of some elaborate cover up and deliberate sacrifice of Americans.

Posted by: Rich at May 9, 2013 9:18 PM
Comment #365568

As far as the president Rich YES, and the military is sworn to take his orders. Does that answer your question Rich. I DO NOI TRUST OBAMA, he is weak and incompetent.

Posted by: KAP at May 9, 2013 9:51 PM
Comment #365570

Well, KAP, thanks for your direct answer. I don’t know how to argue with that opinion. The guy who has no trouble pulling the trigger across the globe on al-Qaeda and its affiliates suddenly gets wet feet when the life of an American ambassador and three other American are at stake. Doesn’t make sense to me and I believe for the majority of Americans.

Posted by: Rich at May 9, 2013 10:04 PM
Comment #365571

For a president who took out Bin Ladin by going across the border of Pakistan, and taking out that other idiot in Kuwait. Rich, please explain to me why he didn’t beef up security in Benghazi knowing full well that the British, and Red Cross pulled their people out for security reasons? How many times did they ask to improve their security? How many times did an attack happen at the same facility? Now tell me with all honesty should I trust someone who let 4 people die when he could have at least put an effort into trying to save them? NO I don’t trust Obama and anyone in his administration. He lied through this whole Benghazi thing and threw others under the Bus to save his sorry ass.

Posted by: KAP at May 9, 2013 10:31 PM
Comment #365605

Obama and is administration lied about Benghazi and tried to cover up what happened for one reason…he had made the bold statement that Al Qaida was finished. Any terrorist attacks affiliated with Muslim terrorists has to be dismissed as untrue. This is why Obama CANNOT make himself use the word Islamic Terrorist.

As for the question capable of allowing 4 men to be killed…yes, Obama is very capable of allowing 4 Americans to die. He will do anything to protect his agenda and legacy.

The goal of the liberal media and the goal of Obama worshippers like Stephen Daugherty is to protect Obama and the left. As disgusting as it seems, the United States has enemies from within. Unless the media is willing to investigate the news and report the truth, the American people will never know what happened in Benghazi. Obama is fully confident in his smug arrogance that this truth will never reach the masses of ignorant democrat voters. And lefties like Stephen Daugherty and Rich simply repeat the talking points of the liberal media.

Regarding castration; Stephen does not have the ability to understand it is Obama who is castrated; it is Obama who is a lame duck. It’s not about Republicans and what they can get through the Senate; it’s about what Obama can’t get through the Senate or the House. Stephen Daugherty does not believe constituents have the right to vote who they want in office; he believes constituents (even from red districts and states0 should only vote in liberal Democrats (check his comments on SC district 1). Then once elected, Stephen Daugherty does not believe the representatives have the right or responsibility to vote the wills of their constituents. This is why he thinks conservatives in Congress are obstructionist. Stephen Daugherty is ignorant and cannot understand (in his liberal Obama worshipping mindset) how anyone could vote against the messiah Obama. He is honestly perplexed that people would go against the messiah.

Stephen said:

“So, you’re coming back with these pre-emptive claims that the Administration and liberals are trying to smear the whistleblowers, because you really don’t want anybody putting your story under scrutiny.”

I would love to see the Benghazi story under scrutiny and enough facts have already been linked to showing the administrations attempts to smear the whistleblowers.

If any truth is ever to be known about Benghazi, it will not come from the liberal media investigating a crime; it will come from the House conducting their own investigation.

Perhaps Stephen and Rich would feel different if it was their son, brother, or father who was killed in Benghazi. Perhaps they would also want to know what really happened, as the families do. Although, we must understand, that worship of the messiah supersedes all search for the truth.

At some point, the left will through Hillary Clinton under the bus.

Posted by: DSP2195 at May 10, 2013 9:54 AM
Comment #365606

“Democrats Actively Working to Undermine Testimony of Benghazi Whistleblower”

“NBC’s Lisa Meyers: Benghazi Hearing “Reopens” Case Against Hillary Clinton”

“Politics: It would be naïve to expect any White House to ignore the political implications of a foreign policy crisis occurring two months before a presidential election. But there is a reason why no White House admits to playing politics with tragedy: It’s unseemly. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland injected politics into the U.S. response to Benghazi when she raised objections to draft “talking points” being prepared for Rice’s television appearances.

One paragraph, drafted by the CIA, referenced the agency’s warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months prior to the attack, as well as extremists linked to the al-Qaida affiliate Ansar al-Sharia. In an email to officials at the White House and intelligence agencies, Nuland said the information “could be abused by members (of Congress) to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”

The paragraph was deleted. The truth was scrubbed.

Nuland still had concerns. “These changes don’t resolve all of my issues or those of my buildings (sic) leadership,” she wrote.

Did she have good reason to believe that the GOP would demonize her boss, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (the building leader)? Yes.

Could she trust the GOP to be fair-minded and understanding? No.

Could Benghazi be a campaign issue if not carefully managed? Yes.

But she and her cohorts in the administration were wrong to let political considerations cloud the public record. For far too long, the White House shied away from calling Benghazi a terrorist attack and stood behind Rice’s initial statement that it was inspired by protests over a crude anti-Islamic video.

Credibility: The White House has long maintained that the talking points were drafted almost exclusively by the CIA, a claim that gave cover to both President Obama and his potential successor, Clinton. “Those talking points originated from the intelligence community,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said in November, adding that the only editing by the White House or the State Department was to change the word “consulate” to “diplomatic facility.” Nuland’s emails prove him wrong. As I wrote yesterday (“Why Benghazi is a Blow to Obama and Clinton”), Obama has earned the trust of most Americans but credibility is a fragile thing.

Throw Hillary under the bus? In a statement to ABC, Carney notably insulates the West Wing and not the State Department by saying “the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and nonsubstantive.” And, with no apparent regard to hypocrisy, Carney criticized the GOP for attempting to “politicize the talking points.”

Drip, drip, drip: There is almost certainly more to come. While Karl and Hayes did not disclose their sources, a hallmark of congressional investigations is to leak selected evidence to embarrass the sitting administration. It’s a safe bet that these emails, produced voluntarily for Congress by the State Department, were summarized and leaked by Republicans. The Obama White House might want to borrow a page from the scandal-ridden Clinton playbook: Release all Benghazi documents at a time and manner of their choosing, before the GOP does so.”

Posted by: CasperWY at May 10, 2013 10:12 AM
Comment #365607

Watching the news today more trouble in Libya, this time in Tripoli. The British have already evacuated some of their Embassy staff. I hope Kerry doesn’t follow in Hillary’s foot steps and leave our Embassy staff in harms way. I think it time Obama realizes that Al Queda is NOT on the run but is just as strong or stronger than before. All because he took out one leader he had better realize there are others to take his place.

Posted by: KAP at May 10, 2013 12:28 PM
Comment #365608

KAP, Obama cannot accept that Al Qaida still exists; therefore liberals and the liberal media cannot accept the fact that Al Qaida still exists.

The left had a hay day when Bush stood on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln in 2003 with a banner behind him saying, “Mission Accomplished”. In their eyes, President Bush was ignorant, a liar, out of touch, etc. Now, move forward several years; Obama said Al Qaida was finished, on the run, of no consequence, etc. Do we hear the left saying, Obama was wrong, that Al Qaida is still active? No, no, no, what we have is ignorant little talking heads like SD, AD, Rich, and others defending Obama’s talking points. Hypocrites to the highest!!!

Is there anyone in the United States who actually believes the events in Benghazi, resulting in an ambassador and 3 other men being killed, was the result of a video? Is there anyone who believes it wasn’t Al-Qaida or another Islamic terrorist group responsible?

BREAKING NEWS; just reported on FOX News: WH has military on standby to rescue embassy staff in Libya.

I hope they have the military close enough to save their lives.

Posted by: CasperWY at May 10, 2013 1:03 PM
Comment #365609

Casper,WY Exactly, If Obama has any smarts he will get one of our LPH’s off the Libya shores for quick extraction of our Embassy staff and for protection.

Posted by: KAP at May 10, 2013 1:09 PM
Comment #365611

There have always been LPH’s patrolling the Med. Probably more so today than when I served on an LST with them years ago. But I don’t guess we had any here last September. Yeah…

Posted by: CasperWY at May 10, 2013 1:20 PM
Comment #365612

Finally, ABC News is weighing in on the coverup:

“When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack…

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.

“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012. “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

Summaries of White House and State Department emails — some of which were first published by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard — show that the State Department had extensive input into the editing of the talking points.

State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the talking points:

“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”

In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”

The paragraph was entirely deleted.

Like the final version used by Ambassador Rice on the Sunday shows, the CIA’s first drafts said the attack appeared to have been “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo” but the CIA version went on to say, “That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” The draft went on to specifically name the al Qaeda-affiliated group named Ansar al-Sharia.

Once again, Nuland objected to naming the terrorist groups because “we don’t want to prejudice the investigation.”

In response, an NSC staffer coordinating the review of the talking points wrote back to Nuland, “The FBI did not have major concerns with the points and offered only a couple minor suggestions.”

After the talking points were edited slightly to address Nuland’s concerns, she responded that changes did not go far enough.

“These changes don’t resolve all of my issues or those of my buildings leadership,” Nuland wrote.

In an email dated 9/14/12 at 9:34 p.m. — three days after the attack and two days before Ambassador Rice appeared on the Sunday shows – Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote an email saying the State Department’s concerns needed to be addressed.

“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”

Related: Diplomat Says Requests For Benghazi Rescue Were Rejected

After that meeting, which took place Saturday morning at the White House, the CIA drafted the final version of the talking points – deleting all references to al Qaeda and to the security warnings in Benghazi prior to the attack.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said none of this contradicts what he said about the talking points because ultimately all versions were actually written and signed-off by the CIA.

“The CIA drafted these talking points and redrafted these talking points,” Carney said. “The fact that there are inputs is always the case in a process like this, but the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and nonsubstantive. They corrected the description of the building or the facility in Benghazi from consulate to diplomatic facility and the like. And ultimately, this all has been discussed and reviewed and provided in enormous levels of detail by the administration to Congressional investigators, and the attempt to politicize the talking points, again, is part of an effort to, you know, chase after what isn’t the substance here.”

UPDATE: A source familiar with the White House emails on the Benghazi talking point revisions say that State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland was raising two concerns about the CIA’s first version of talking points, which were going to be sent to Congress: 1) The talking points went further than what she was allowed to say about the attack during her state department briefings; and, 2) she believed the CIA was attempting to exonerate itself at the State Department’s expense by suggesting CIA warnings about the security situation were ignored.

In one email, Nuland asked, why are we suggest Congress “start making assertions to the media [about the al Qaeda connection] that we ourselves are not making because we don’t want to prejudice the investigation?”

One other point: The significant edits – deleting references to al Qaeda and the CIA’s warnings – came after a White House meeting on the Saturday before Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday shows. Nuland, a 30-year foreign service veteran who has served under Democratic and Republican Secretaries of State, was not at that meeting and played no direct role in preparing Rice for her interviews.”

But Stephen and the left have no problems with these redactions. Even the old liberal Bob Beckle on Fox’s “The Five” has serious problems with the cover-up, especially if it led to the failure to protect embassy staff.

I just wonder how long it would take Hillary and Susan Rice to claim the 5th if they were brought back to testify under oath?

Posted by: DSP2195 at May 10, 2013 1:37 PM
Comment #365613

CasperWy, I to served in the Navy on board various Ships, 2 Destroyers from ww2 1 new DE, a DLGN and a carrier. People like Stephen have NO IDEA what the military can do except what they read in books.

Posted by: KAP at May 10, 2013 1:54 PM
Comment #365617

KAP, thank you for your service. My grandfather served in subs in WWI, my father spent 18 months in sub hunter PBY’s out of Pensacola and then 3 years in England during WWII. I spent 3 years on an LST out of Little Creek, VA. I loved those days and look back on them with great pride. But you are correct, Stephen has no concept of what it means to defend the Constitution he so readily trashes. As was said before; Stephen and most liberals have done nothing to protect the rights they so eagerly tout. Everything was handed to Stephen. It’s like the little rich kid who is given everything by his parents; he has no respect for work or an income because he was never forced to work or make a living. This is what Stephen suffers from. He was never required to sacrifice for anything.

Posted by: CasperWY at May 10, 2013 2:34 PM
Comment #365618

CasperWy, I was stationed for shore duty at Little Creek at AMSU. Probably did some work for that LST you were on. I was there from I think 76 to 78.

Posted by: KAP at May 10, 2013 2:43 PM
Comment #365628

I was there from 1967 until 1970. I was on the USS Wahkiakum County. We decommissioned it in December of 1970 in Orange, TX.

Posted by: CasperWY at May 10, 2013 4:51 PM
Comment #365632

Well CasperWy I guess I didn’t work on your LST!!! LOL

Posted by: KAP at May 10, 2013 8:21 PM
Comment #365633

LOL, but I’m sure you would have done good job.

Posted by: CasperWY at May 10, 2013 8:45 PM
Post a comment