John McCain uses hurricane relief event to attack Obama on Benghazi

Opty · Oct 30, 2012

So, he turns an event which should have been focused on the people suffering and struggling through the after effects of one of America's worst natural disasters, and instead uses it to petulantly throw political mud.

Whatever happened to John McCain? Four years ago, he was kind of respectable. Well, sort of. Now he's nothing more than a bitter old partisan hack.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) spoke on behalf of GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney at a "storm relief and volunteer appreciation" event in Ohio on Tuesday, serving up a generous portion of hyper-partisan rhetoric on President Barack Obama's handling of the September attack on a U.S. consulate in Libya.

"This president is either engaged in a massive cover-up deceiving the American people, or he is so grossly incompetent that he is not qualified to be the commander in chief of our armed forces. It's either one of them," McCain told Romney volunteers, according to NBC News.

Stay classy, John.

:rolleyes

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/30/john-mccain-romney-storm-relief_n_2045976.html

Williebee · Oct 30, 2012

Well, he knows how to be a good republican soldier. I'm sure someone is trying to reteach that to Gov. Christie about now.

clintl · Oct 30, 2012

Christie's too busy bashing his state's mayors to pay attention to that.

muravyets · Oct 30, 2012

Williebee said:
Well, he knows how to be a good republican soldier. I'm sure someone is trying to reteach that to Gov. Christie about now.

Heh, good luck to them. I really deeply dislike and distrust a whole hell of a lot of things about Christie, but one thing I have to give him, he's his own guy.

ETA: Unlike John McCain who needs to be ashamed of himself, by which I mean he needs to retire from public life and never been seen or heard from again.

Seraph · Oct 30, 2012

figaroooooooooooooo

muravyets · Oct 30, 2012

There's so much about many members of the GOP nowadays that seems to be rooted in the 1800s, I can understand why they'd vote for a corrupt, belligerent, obnoxious, attitudinal thug like Christie. He's "old school" that way.

Me, I wouldn't trust him with so much as a burnt-out match, but I'm not likely to vote GOP any time soon, anyway. Also I don't live in NJ. He's not my problem.

rugcat · Oct 30, 2012

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) spoke on behalf of GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney at a "storm relief and volunteer appreciation" event in Ohio on Tuesday, serving up a generous portion of hyper-partisan rhetoric on President Barack Obama's handling of the September attack on a U.S. consulate in Libya.

"This president is either engaged in a massive cover-up deceiving the American people, or he is so grossly incompetent that he is not qualified to be the commander in chief of our armed forces. It's either one of them," McCain told Romney volunteers, according to NBC News.

I had no idea McCain got his talking points from Haskins. Of course, William managed to get Benghazi into a thread about someone in NYC inventing false rumors about the hurrican, which is much cleverer.

absitinvidia · Oct 30, 2012

That asshat Michael "heck of a job, Brownie" Brown is doing the same thing. His claim is that Obama spent too much time preparing for Sandy when he didn't spend enough time preparing for Benghazi.

Which, even if it's true? I think the lives of tens of millions of people might actually merit more preparation than the lives of a few. NOT SAYING the lives of the folks in Benghazi are worth less; just pointing out that a massive storm that affects a metric crapton of folks is far more likely to be brought to the president's personal attention than a diplomatic outpost of five (I made up that number, so please don't dogpile me on that).

blacbird · Oct 30, 2012

Let's all remember that this is the guy who picked Sarah Palin as a VP candidate.

caw

Manuel Royal · Oct 31, 2012

absitinvidia said:
That asshat Michael "heck of a job, Brownie" Brown is doing the same thing. His claim is that Obama spent too much time preparing for Sandy when he didn't spend enough time preparing for Benghazi.

Which, even if it's true? I think the lives of tens of millions of people might actually merit more preparation than the lives of a few. NOT SAYING the lives of the folks in Benghazi are worth less; just pointing out that a massive storm that affects a metric crapton of folks is far more likely to be brought to the president's personal attention than a diplomatic outpost of five (I made up that number, so please don't dogpile me on that).

1) They're simply not comparable situations, and they call for completely different kinds of government action. It's an idiotic criticism.

2) How does Michael Brown have the balls to ever, for the rest of his life, open his mouth in public about the subject of disaster response?

ETA: It's occurred to me an idiotic criticism will still work with a lot of people. Every time I take a trip here in the South, I realize how relatively sophisticated Atlanta is. Last Friday I stopped at a highway rest stop in Tennessee. After using the john, I was on my way out, and heard two women discussing the President. They agreed he was too stupid to make decisions, and must be "somebody's puppet". One lady said, "I think there are a lot of Communists in the government." Checked my watch; still 2012.

Alessandra Kelley · Oct 31, 2012

Manuel Royal said:
2) How does Michael Brown have the balls to ever, for the rest of his life, open his mouth in public about the subject of disaster response?

I don't know. People are peculiar, and memory is a funny thing.

Perhaps he thinks people only remember his name in association with hurricane disaster relief, without remembering the particulars of how lethally bad he was at it.

And perhaps that may be true for many people.

regdog · Oct 31, 2012

Pathetic and utterly classless.

Gale Haut · Oct 31, 2012

It's annoying that so many people eargerly buy into any criticism that will support the narrative they want to hear.

robeiae · Oct 31, 2012

Opty said:
Whatever happened to John McCain? Four years ago, he was kind of respectable.

Good one.

'Course, he's still right about Benghazi...

RichardGarfinkle · Oct 31, 2012

robeiae said:
Good one.

'Course, he's still right about Benghazi...

You mean right about the continual attempts of right wing people to bring it up in order to distract from every other aspect of things, up to and including trying to pull away from the right's aversion to FEMA and all federal disaster relief even the day after a hurricane came through putting a great many people's lives in danger and creating vast need and concern.

So, what exactly does the phrase "right about" mean in this lexicon?

robeiae · Oct 31, 2012

RichardGarfinkle said:
So, what exactly does the phrase "right about" mean in this lexicon?

"This president is either engaged in a massive cover-up deceiving the American people, or he is so grossly incompetent that he is not qualified to be the commander in chief of our armed forces. It's either one of them."

That's what McCain said, that's what he's right about. Pretty clear, I think.

Xelebes · Oct 31, 2012

robeiae said:
"This president is either engaged in a massive cover-up deceiving the American people, or he is so grossly incompetent that he is not qualified to be the commander in chief of our armed forces. It's either one of them."

That's what McCain said, that's what he's right about. Pretty clear, I think.

I love the black and white world.

raburrell · Oct 31, 2012

Or door #3: The right is so determined to invent a ZOMG conspiracy around a national tragedy and unfolding investigation that they've convinced themselves of a and b.

RichardGarfinkle · Oct 31, 2012

robeiae said:
"This president is either engaged in a massive cover-up deceiving the American people, or he is so grossly incompetent that he is not qualified to be the commander in chief of our armed forces. It's either one of them."

That's what McCain said, that's what he's right about. Pretty clear, I think.

Statements are made in context. McCain said this in the context of assistance to hurricane victims. Are you asserting that there is no such thing as a right and a wrong time to say something?

Vince524 · Oct 31, 2012

raburrell said:
Or door #3: The right is so determined to invent a ZOMG conspiracy around a national tragedy and unfolding investigation that they've convinced themselves of a and b.

Before I disagree, which I'm sure I will, what the heck is ZOMG??

raburrell · Oct 31, 2012

ZOMG

To save myself coming back here, it's (as Xelebes said) the black and white 'it can only be these two possibilities' canard of McCain's that I find ridiculous. He's presenting a false choice. It could be a lot of things, and the two options McCain is presenting are hardly the most likely, let alone only choices.

Vince524 · Oct 31, 2012

raburrell said:
ZOMG

To save myself coming back here, it's (as Xelebes said) the black and white 'it can only be these two possibilities' canard of McCain's that I find ridiculous. He's presenting a false choice. It could be a lot of things, and the two options McCain is presenting are hardly the most likely, let alone only choices.

Well, there are to my mind, which is a scary place (Especially as I sit here at work in a skirt and blonde wig.) there are more than 1 major issue.

1) The lowering of security forces and denial for requests for more security. Clearly, not a good idea. Who made that call? Why? According to Charlotte Lamb, it wasn't because of budget reasons, so why? Don't see how that can be answered in a good way, but if it wasn't Obama then who get's hung out to dry? No way they're pinning it on Hillary before the election.

2) The whole I said it was an act of terror the next day in the rose garden, but then decided I was wrong on Letterman and the View and figured it was just a demonstration gone bad, despite evidence to the contrary. Still hasn't cleared that up.

3) The latest, why wasn't help sent. There was a drone sent, but it was unarmed? Were no armed drones available? Who told Tyrone Woods to stand down? That battle went on for 7 hours. Are they saying there was no way to get help to them in all that time?

Seems to me there's plenty to suggest cover-up.

raburrell · Oct 31, 2012

I really don't want to start this up again, but to suggest one third option, they are trying not to blow an ongoing investigation. Mistakes made on security in one consulate do not automatically inflate to prove gross negligence of the level McCain is alleging. This is where McCain took a giant, partisan-hack sized leap. At least until he comes out and makes the same declaration about Bush and 9/11.

I will agree to disagree on the back and forth. As I've said, my opinion is that he stated clearly that it was a terror attack in the Rose Garden, and his statements after that were cautiously worded as there was conflicting information. I understand that you see it differently.

Btw, the drone thing is another area where there is a lot of information in dispute. The timing of it is nowhere near what Woods's father claims it was.

eta: You say that in your mind, McCain's *are* the two likeliest scenarios. To mine, that just proves this is all based in partisanship and not reality. I believe my version, you believe yours, neither of us has a #)@(*$ clue who's right nor a way to prove it.

Ambrosia · Oct 31, 2012

All of the politicizing of the disaster here in the Northeast is sickening. And deflecting from everything going on by constantly mentioning Benghazi seems like a last resort of desperation.

Vince, there's that "7 hours" again. Show me the time line and please include sources. I want to see where folks are coming up with 7 hours of fighting. I have checked out this timeline with the news reports and can, at the max, see 4 hours, with the two security force, ex-navy seals dying in the two hour fight for the annex. The main consulate building attack was less than an hour--54 or 56 minutes, something like that.

The drone was not over the consulate when the attack started and had to be re-routed there. The Secretary of Defense said it was unclear from the picture angle what exactly was transpiring, the scene was chaos with buildings on fire and people running around, the commanders didn't have good enough "eyes" on the situation to assess the risk to additional troops, and that is why they didn't send in support.

FWIW, I would have sent help regardless. Military are trained to go into a hostile situation when things are in chaos. I think his explanation of not sending troops into an unknown situation was ridiculous. But I wasn't in that room and all I can do is second-guess their decisions. That's all any of us can do. Hind-sight, as they say, is 20/20. However, calling President Obama a Muslim and a commie has to be some of the stupidest rhetoric I have seen. And, these people spouting it appear to believe it. Saying that President Obama sat and watched those people die and didn't care is lunacy. Saying he is a murderer is asinine. The rhetoric on the Right has a very scary feel to it. Especially when they start talking about "taking back the country" in the same sentence with being armed to the teeth and knowing how to fire the guns.

Vince524 · Oct 31, 2012

raburrell said:
I really don't want to start this up again, but to suggest one third option, they are trying not to blow an ongoing investigation. Mistakes made on security in one consulate do not automatically inflate to prove gross negligence of the level McCain is alleging. This is where McCain took a giant, partisan-hack sized leap. At least until he comes out and makes the same declaration about Bush and 9/11.

I will agree to disagree on the back and forth. As I've said, my opinion is that he stated clearly that it was a terror attack in the Rose Garden, and his statements after that were cautiously worded as there was conflicting information. I understand that you see it differently.

Btw, the drone thing is another area where there is a lot of information in dispute. The timing of it is nowhere near what Woods's father claims it was.

eta: You say that in your mind, McCain's *are* the two likeliest scenarios. To mine, that just proves this is all based in partisanship and not reality. I believe my version, you believe yours, neither of us has a #)@(*$ clue who's right nor a way to prove it.

Well yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree. Considering how some of the links I have refenced where the Admin changed it story to it was an attack show news people ( I think it was ABC, but I don't have the time to go back and check) sayng how it was something new, yeah I think it's a stretch to say Obama was clearly stating it was terrorists the day after. Not to mention everything that happened later.

I do agree that the whole drone thing is still up in the air. (No pun intended.) But again, why did it take so long?

I don't believe that all of these answers need to take so long as to come after the election. But that could be me.

Ambrosia said:
All of the politicizing of the disaster here in the Northeast is sickening. And deflecting from everything going on by constantly mentioning Benghazi seems like a last resort of desperation.

Vince, there's that "7 hours" again. Show me the time line and please include sources. I want to see where folks are coming up with 7 hours of fighting. I have checked out this timeline with the news reports and can, at the max, see 4 hours, with the two security force, ex-navy seals dying in the two hour fight for the annex. The main consulate building attack was less than an hour--54 or 56 minutes, something like that.

The drone was not over the consulate when the attack started and had to be re-routed there. The Secretary of Defense said it was unclear from the picture angle what exactly was transpiring, the scene was chaos with buildings on fire and people running around, the commanders didn't have good enough "eyes" on the situation to assess the risk to additional troops, and that is why they didn't send in support.

FWIW, I would have sent help regardless. Military are trained to go into a hostile situation when things are in chaos. I think his explanation of not sending troops into an unknown situation was ridiculous. But I wasn't in that room and all I can do is second-guess their decisions. That's all any of us can do. Hind-sight, as they say, is 20/20. However, calling President Obama a Muslim and a commie has to be some of the stupidest rhetoric I have seen. And, these people spouting it appear to believe it. Saying that President Obama sat and watched those people die and didn't care is lunacy. Saying he is a murderer is asinine. The rhetoric on the Right has a very scary feel to it. Especially when they start talking about "taking back the country" in the same sentence with being armed to the teeth and knowing how to fire the guns.

Here's a link I was able to dig up while on lunch.

There are other's I'm sure.

The whole he's a commie, mulsim or whatever is horseshit. But if he sat there and watched and said get help to them asap, and help didn't arrive, then who screwed up? It may very not have been Obama, but who?

John McCain uses hurricane relief event to attack Obama on Benghazi

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.

Represent.

Old revolutionary

Old revolutionary

Lost in the Fog

A bit of a wallflower

Sophipygian

The Scavengers

waxing digital artistic

Touch and go

Nurture Phoenixes

Touch and go

Delerium ex Ennui

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Nurture Phoenixes

Are you gonna finish that bacon?

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Are you gonna finish that bacon?

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Grand Duchess

Are you gonna finish that bacon?