Dems Should Boycott Latest Benghazi Circus
'Shameless' political circus continues: Michael Tomasky
By Matt Cantor, Newser User
Posted May 7, 2014 1:55 PM CDT
This April 29, 2014 file photo shows House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio speaking on Capitol Hill in Washington.   (AP Photo, File)

(Newser) – A new round of Benghazi bluster is upon us, with Republicans forming a new committee to investigate events surrounding the attack. This time, the Democrats should take a stand: "They absolutely must boycott this absurd, insane, sickening, repulsive, shameful, and at the same time shame-less circus," writes Michael Tomasky at the Daily Beast. "Benghazi is and has been for some time a witch hunt that perverts all notions of democratic accountability and that obviously carries one purpose and one purpose only—the humiliation or worse of as many Democrats as possible."

Republicans have long wanted to see a Democratic version of Watergate; "now the attempt is somehow to criminalize bureaucratic error." Benghazi is a story of mistakes we can learn from. It's "what you call a tragedy," and it's already been the subject of many investigations. Are the CIA and Republican-appointed leaders like former Joint Chiefs head Mike Mullen really in on some kind of "liberal conspiracy"? If the streets are full of puddles in the morning, "maybe space aliens, working with the Iranians and the North Koreans, flew over your house" at 3am pouring water everywhere, Tomasky writes. "It’s also possible that it rained overnight. Here, it rained." Click for his full piece.

More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
Dems Should Boycott Latest Benghazi Circus is...
4%
1%
1%
50%
1%
42%
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Comments
Showing 3 of 260 comments
drumz
May 12, 2014 2:25 PM CDT
Further proof the GOP does not care about deficits.
thumpersdad
May 9, 2014 6:25 PM CDT
Is it just me or have most "reporters" ceased to be true reporters, and instead they have become more like commentators? Contrary to the beliefs of most of this current group of "reporters", I believe that most Americans, when given the FACTS without the OPINIONS of the reporter, are capable of making up OUR OWN MINDS in an intelligent way. In fact, most of us, liberal or conservative or in-between, can actually have intelligent discussions without resorting to personal attacks and name-calling. From what I've seen by people on both sides, when they seem to be losing the discussion of the facts on a logical level, that's when the name-calling, personal character attacks, and/or misdirection (i.e., attempting to change the subject) enters in. As a whole, we seem to have lost the ability to have intelligent discourse with those of whom we disagree.
thumpersdad
May 9, 2014 5:50 PM CDT
In an attempt to take the politics out of such a highly volatile subject, I would like to approach this from a different angle. Our ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the sitting President. ALL are appointed and chosen by the individual sitting behind the desk of the Oval Office. While it is true that they are confirmed by Congress, for all intents and purposes, they serve as a President's personal representative in and to a foreign nation. Rarely does the Congress fail to confirm a President's nominees, and each President has the right to select his choices. In other words, a new President does not get "stuck" with a previous administrations choices. Most ambassadors are more than just "acquaintances", and in fact, some are the President's friends. Many have played some part in getting the President elected. While for technical purposes their immediate superior in the chain-of-command is the Secretary of State (also appointed and serving at the pleasure of the sitting President) for all other intents and purposes, they answer directly to the President. Keeping all of this in mind, we must realize then that Ambassador Christopher Stevens was President Obama's choice to be his personal representative to the nation of Libya. I know this is very simplified, and that the actual process and program is more complicated. But here's my point. As the Commander-in-Chief, the President has the ultimate ability to uphold the concept that has been a tradition for virtually all time, NO ONE LEFT BEHIND and AVENGE EVERY LOSS. This President (and his Secretary of State) FAILED to protect not only some US citizens, but FAILED to protect his own personally chosen representative. Also, while the President has not avenged the loss of 3 brave US citizens, Mr. Obama has FAILED to avenge the death of his own personal representative, the very brave Amb. Chris Stevens. I am not trying to diminish the sacrifices of the other 3 men killed that night. They are, in my mind, very brave individuals who will forever be what I consider to be HEROES. I am only trying to show that Amb. Stevens position in this drama was unique in that he was a "friend" of and the personally chosen representative of Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama's handling (including that of all of his staff such as then-SecState Clinton, the little-known-at-the-time Susan Rice, and Press Story Teller, I mean Press Secretary, sorry! Jay Carney) is truly disgusting. When Mrs. Clinton famously asked "what's the difference", I would say "It matters because you failed to protect your friend the ambassador. So if you are not willing to protect, and also avenge the death of, a friend of yours that you sent into harm's way, America has no reason to be confident that you will protect the lives of any of the rest of us that you don't know. If you won't avenge your friend's death, how can I believe that you will avenge the death of anyone else you choose to put in harm's way, especially since you have absolutely no ties to them. No one has been arrested or brought to justice for the death of these 4 men. The perp's must believe that they are SAFE (which you are confirming by your inaction) especially when the can sit undisturbed and have coffee and doughnuts in an outdoor setting while giving interviews to the press. If you have so little character as to leave your personal friends exposed and not avenge their deaths, Mr. President, I know you would do the same to any of the rest of us US citizens. Heck, you'd probably have a great celebration party if you found out any of us conservatives had been killed. It's a DISGRACE!