While the Benghazi hearings in the U.S. House of Representatives have provided more detail to the events of the 9/11/12 attacks, they have revealed no real cover-up. So why have they had some 20 hearings on the matter with more to come?
After the attack, Donald Rumsfeld tweeted that "The attacks on our embassies and diplomats are a result of perceived American weakness."
Was that the then Secretary of Defense's stance in 2002 when the American Consulate was attacked in Karachi, Pakistan killing 10 and injuring 51?
Did he have the same opinion after the bombing at the U.S. Embassy in Uzbekistan that killed 2 and injured 9? Or in 2004 when gunmen stormed and breached the U.S. Consulate in Saudi Arabia taking 28 hostages and ultimately killing five consulate staff and four security guards?
Ok. Maybe this was the first time that a U.S. diplomat was killed at one of our facilities. Well, no. That was also in 2006 when diplomat David Foy was killed outside the U.S. Consulate again in Karachi. That attack marked the third terrorist incident at that particular facility in under four years. Clearly there was some forewarning there.
In total, there were 12 terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities abroad during G.W. Bush's tenure (the most of any U.S. President in history leaving a total of 60 dead), and 8 of those attacks occurred under Donald Rumsfeld's watch. I'm sure you all remember those hearings, right? Or you may remember at least one of the three total Congressional hearings on the 12 attacks. How quickly the Pat Tillman cover-up story has been forgotten.
Maybe those abject failures were because that was the army Rummy had, as opposed to the one he wanted. Just as in 2011, when GOP lawmakers shaved $128 million off of the administration's request for embassy security funding and an additional $331 million in 2012.
Perhaps Benghazi was the first time that a U.S. ambassador had been assassinated abroad? No, again. Militants have killed U.S. Ambassadors on five previous occasions, including two at U.S. diplomatic facilities.
Republicans are pulling out the stops to manufacture a scandal that they hope to stick on Hillary Clinton (2016?) or Democrats in general while a budget is still in the wait. That is the House of Representatives primary purpose which continues to go undone while they are wasting their time and our money on a partisan (yes, I'll say it) witch hunt.
Well, what about the IRS scandal? What about it. Why should political organizations receive tax exempt status when lying on their application to being classified as such? This should be a patriot rallying point of wasted tax-payer monies.
The portion of the tax code being misused by politically bias groups such as those which are tea party affiliated and that the IRS was investigating involve what is known as section 501(c). This section of the tax code was established for the benefit of groups that promote "social welfare" as their primary purpose and contains at least 25 tax-exempt designations including no federal income tax. The political action groups applying under this provision also allows them to forgo listing the names of donors or how much they donate. Do you honestly think that the "Coalition for a Conservative Majority" is in any way involved in promoting social welfare as their primary purpose? Section 501(c) of the tax code specifically states that the benefiting organization shouldn't be primarily engaged in partisan politics or electioneering. Close the loophole, and repeal Citizens United.
Then there is the Justice Departments phone records seizure from the Associated Press. What about that? I would think that most patriots wouldn't mind our government investigating a liberal media group that jeopardized the security of our country's espionage advantage by releasing the name of a British informant of Saudi nationality who had courageously infiltrated al-Qaeda in Arabian Peninsula (Yemen) to have a drone strike carried out to kill the perpetrator of the USS Cole bombing. Without his outing by the AP, which infuriated both the British and the Saudi governments, he would be still in place feeding information to the good guys. Seems like a good idea to me to find out where the AP got their information. I guess we should leave it up to the U.S. Vice President to leak the names.
While you are watching that hand, the other is under the table making deals with corporate America to take away your overtime pay and obfuscating it as "pro-worker and family-friendly" when in reality it is a backdoor way to feed the deep pockets of corporations so that all of that money can keep trickling down.
The new GOP effort is to change the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which requires covered employees to receive time-and-a-half pay for every hour over 40 within a work week. The proposal would allow workers to bank up to 160 hours, or four weeks, of comp time per year that could be used to take time off for any reason.
The problem is that the bill provides no guarantee that workers would be able to take the time off when they want and gives the employer the discretion over whether to grant a specific request to use comp time. I would add that banking leave time essentially gives employers an interest free loan from workers.
The cost of these government-mandated benefits will be passed off to American workers, resulting in fewer jobs, reducing American spending capacity, and putting more of your hard earnings into the pockets of the 1 percent. This is the best congress money can buy. How about fixing the things that are broke instead of breaking things that are not?