Too Early?

[LoveLife&Laughter]

Who do you think will win?  Why?

1. Clinton is leading other Democrats for 2016 by ~4x.

2. Christie is leading other Republicans for 2016 by two points or more.

3. Christie leads Clinton for 2016 by two points.

However, Clinton claims she still hasn't made up her mind to run.  Baloney, she'll run, she can't lose.

Christie's the only moderate in the primary race.  He'll win the primaries the same as moderates did the last two times -- then lose the election because the TP types won't turn out for what they consider a RINO.  The economic war of the Libertarian will again play second fiddle to the Big Tent Religious Right.

Who will win?  After what 2000, 2004, and 2010 Republicans have done and are doing to the country -- and what R states did/are doing to gays, minorities, and women -- I don't think it'll even be close. * 

* Two years is enough time to fight a real war, but not the Old-Time-Religion virtual war against gays, blacks, and women -- even in this day and age of increasing progressive and scientific thinking.  It would take an New Testament kind of  miracle, and it seems to me Ds are the party of Jesus, moreso than the Rs.

Extra Credit:  

If Hillary wins, with the Rs automatically treat her as badly  --  oppose, scandalize, persecute, and prosecute  --   as they did Clinton and Obama?

[exedir]

Still too early to say how the Republican presidential nomination will turn out, literally and figuratively.  Looking at it rationally, always dangerous perspective, the Democrats will rather not run against Christie, a Walker or Cruz would be better to frame in a campaign as enemies of the...well, whoever...

Same is true for another inevitability campaign for Hillary, it didn't work out in 2008.  

The whole thing would have to appear as one of how the economy is doing, if the middle east in flames and if the domestic agenda such as health care hasn't settled down to something manageable.  Hillary does not have to run on Obama's legacy, she has to run on Bill's and her own, and make a case for a 3rd term for Bill and herself, assuming she still has Bill around the house.

The left is still a cipher as to whether they will go to the mattresses on income equality and lack of economic mobility in bedded in the issue of the minimum wage, job programs and support of unions and other social causes particularly gay marriage if that isn't settled by the courts by the campaign season of 2015.  

As to opposition, it is the point of politics as played today where winning isn't the only thing, it is everything.  

[LoveLife&Laughter]

Of course Hillary has to run on Obama, as well as she doe her husbands, Jimmy Carters  and her own.  Except for made-up stuff by their opposition, can't think of anything very bad.

Now the moderate That the GOP will nominate again in 2016 will have the baggage of Nixon's Watergate, Spiro Agnews Resignation, Gerald Fords presidential pardons, Bush Sr Read My Lips, Reagan's Iran Contra, Bush's Valerie Plame Affair, Iraq War WM D and another Republican Big Spending & .Great Depression.  Crooks and Liars all.

[base2final]

What difference does it make? A complete failure of the State Dept protecting U S Citizens in harms way after numerous reports of trouble coming. How's that for a can't think of anything?

[ProblemAgain]

funny cause just the other day when the us military had units moved to be able to evacuate americans from the sudan and south sudan, the right wing immediately accused obama of leading us into a new war....can you clusters get together and get your stories straight? tho most people already know that NOTHING he can do is going to be right for you...which explains why we shake our heads when your lips or fingers move

and it is probably too early to see what clowns they can cram into the magic car for the republican party this time round....the dim, the clueless and the believers in magic potions

[base2final]

So PA, you haven't lost your sharp edge. Thing is PA we did evacuate the Americans in the Sudan, but the Americans in Benghazi were left to defend themselves. 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/12/22/sudan-evacuatio...

Here's an article how the GOP decried the attacks on U S troops. Doesn't seem to agree with your accusation that the right wing accused Obama of leading us into a new war.

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/africa/193815-report-us-tro...

Maybe you could supply a link to back up your accusation!!

[LoveLife&Laughter]

Benghazi still seems to be the Rs distraction of W's incompetent dismissal of actual known intelligence just before 9.11 with,  "All right. You've covered your ass, now." (Bush to briefer)

Some folks can't accept responsibility for their own actions so they make up childish bu__sh__ about others "All Day Long".

[LoveLife&Laughter]

"the right wing accused Obama of leading us into a new war."

That was Libya.  

The rs are trying to start a war in Syria and Iran that they will then blame on Obama.

Can't you guys keep your bu__sh__ straight?

[ProblemAgain]

i actually listened to a texas legislator about the positioning of the marines: "obama leading us into another war." so i can't really supply a link unless you want me to post a picture of my ear.  and as we have seen so frequently the texas faction is just the ones who don't stop and filter their bullshit thru the 'this sounds too crazy even for us' screen that has also failed with santorum, caine, akin, bachman, ....holy crap, the list is endless...

[exedir]

Folks, we haven't even started the year and yes, the most pressing media item has been the situation of climate change tourists entombed in an ice sheet in the Antarctica and the multi-national effort to get them off their Russian ship.  

So, Benghazi, shum-gahze, as the the media is concerned it is yesterday's news, confirmed by NYT and the 60 Minutes debacle.  And sure it will be used against Clinton, if she runs.

The next item up is what will be done on UI extension and how much the Democrats will play it to cover the next ObamaCare break down as we move into implementation of the actual coverage.  Of course Sotomayor has add a further glitch in stopping the birth-control mandate on certain entities, religious, that is.  Next up coverage verification and premium payment  issues for ObamaCare...

[LoveLife&Laughter]

And what is the Republican "Plan"?

[LoveLife&Laughter]

Oh, and p.s.  :0)

[ProblemAgain]

New York Times report casts doubt on al Qaeda involvement in Benghazi

By Mark Morgenstein and Chelsea J. Carter, CNN

updated 6:35 PM EST, Mon December 30, 2013

Attackers set the U.S. Consulate compound in Benghazi, Libya, on fire on September 11, 2012. The U.S. ambassador and three other U.S. nationals were killed during the attack. The Obama administration initially blamed a mob inflamed by a U.S.-produced movie that mocked Islam and its Prophet Mohammed, but later said the storming of the consulate appears to have been a terrorist attack. View photos of protesters storming the U.S. Embassy buildings in 2012.

HIDE CAPTION

Attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya

/span>

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

>

>>

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• New York Times article says competing storylines about 2012 Benghazi attack likely are both wrong
• The report says contrary to GOP assertions, al Qaeda was probably not involved in the attack
• The article suggests independent Libyan militias played a key role instead
• Report: Anti-Muslim video may have sparked the violence, but not solely, as suggested by Obama administration

(CNN) -- A New York Times report on the September 11, 2012, attack that killed four Americans -- including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens -- in Benghazi, Libya, calls into question much of what Republicans accusing the Obama administration of a cover-up have said about the incident.

The three main points of contention have been whether the attack was planned, whether it was sparked by an anti-Muslim video, and whether al Qaeda was involved.

However, the Times says, the administration's version, focusing on outrage over the inflammatory video, and first delivered by then-ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice on Sunday morning talk shows five days later, isn't exactly right, either.

GOP leaders dispute new Benghazi report

"The reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of those story lines suggests. Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs," according to David D. Kirkpatrick's article in the Times.

It's a conclusion that CNN has drawn in its previous reporting.

The attack at the Benghazi diplomatic compound has become a political flashpoint in a long-running battle between the White House and Republicans, who accuse the Obama administration of not bolstering security before the attack, of botching the response to it and of misleading the public for political gain less than two months before the November election.

The GOP suggests the administration removed specific terror references and stuck to the explanation advanced by Rice -- later proved untrue -- that the attack was the result of spontaneous demonstrations over the U.S.-produced film "Innocence of Muslims," which contained scenes some Muslims considered blasphemous.

The White House and its allies in Congress have said any confusion and conflicting information in the early hours and days after the assault stemmed from the "fog of war," not any deliberate effort to mislead the public.

The White House had no comment when CNN requested a response to the Times article.

After reading it, Obama's former national security spokesman Tommy Vietor unleashed a series of tweets, including these, condemning Republicans who've spent more than a year lambasting and investigating the Beghazi incident:

-- "If Rs spent 1/50th as much time as @ddknyt learning what really happened in #Benhazi, we could have avoided months of disgusting demagoguery."

-- "Republicans inflated the role of al Qaeda in #Bengazi to attack Obama's CT record. They were wrong, and handed our enemy a propaganda win."

-- "Credit to @ddknyt but also disconcerting that his #Benghazi article offered more insight into what happened than all Congressional hearings."

The Times' article, which includes interviews with several Libyan militia leaders who helped bring down Col. Moammar Gadhafi's dictatorship in 2012, says no evidence supports speculation about al Qaeda's involvement in the Benghazi attack. To the contrary, the Times reports that the diverse and fractured opposition militias, many of whom were at least somewhat friendly toward U.S. interests, most likely contributed to the attack.

That dovetails with the findings of the State Department investigative panel report on Benghazi.

"The Benghazi attacks also took place in a context in which the global terrorism threat as most often represented by al Qaeda (AQ) is fragmenting and increasingly devolving to local affiliates and other actors who share many of AQ's aims, including violent anti-Americanism, without necessarily being organized or operated under direct AQ command and control," the report said.

The Times report zeroes in on militia leader Abu Khattala as well as the like-minded Islamist militia Ansar al Sharia.

In a recent interview with CNN's Arwa Damon, Khattala acknowledged being at the Benghazi mission after the attack but denied any involvement.

Damon spent two hours interviewing Khattala at a coffee shop at a well-known hotel in Benghazi. He allowed Damon to use an audio recorder to tape the conversation, but refused to appear on camera.

Khattala's narrative of the events that night was sometimes unclear and, at times, seemed to be contradictory, Damon said.

He admitted to being at the compound the night of the attack, but denied any involvement in the violence.

Asked about allegations he may have masterminded the attack, Khattala and two of the men he brought with him to the interview "burst out laughing," Damon said.

Khattala told CNN that he had not been questioned by either Libyan authorities or the FBI.

The militia leader was one of those whom U.S. prosecutors charged in the attacks, as CNN first reported.

Ansar al Sharia is more a label than an organization, one that's been adopted by conservative Salafist groups across the Arab world. The name means, simply, "Partisans of Islamic Law."

In Benghazi, Ansar al Sharia was one of many groups that filled the vacuum of authority following the overthrow of Gadhafi.

The group's central belief is that all authority is derived from the Prophet Mohammed, that democracy is un-Islamic and that other branches of Islam, such as the Sufi, are heretical.

There do not appear to be organizational links between Ansar al Sharia and al Qaeda, but there is solidarity.

Among the group's Benghazi membership is Mohammed al-Zahawi, who fought to overthrow Gadhafi and praised al Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri in a BBC interview. He said al Qaeda's statements "help galvanize the Muslim nation, maintain its dignity and pride."

A different Ansar al Sharia is affiliated with al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen, and budding franchises are said to exist in Tunisia, Morocco and Egypt.