Support NeoGAF

[B-Dubs]

lets me meet your starting line up!

SUCH DIVERSITY!

 

[FyreWulff]

lets me meet your starting line up!

Repubiclones

 

[Black Mamba]

It's just 7 of the same person.

Well, there are 236 of the same person, so it makes sense.

 

[Jack Remington]

Rich Lowry is such a goddamn POS.

The Benghazi Deniers

Also, the Democrats should not send any members to the committee. Don't even dignify it. Let it be seven irrelevant GOP House members yelling at clouds.

 

[Wilsongt]

Rich Lowry is such a goddamn POS.

The Benghazi Deniers

Also, the Democrats should not send any members to the committee. Don't even dignify it. Let it be seven irrelevant GOP House members yelling at clouds.

Then butch so much about terroist abd all, yet they are completely fuckinh blind to the domestic terrorism that is occuring. Fuck me. These people.

 

[benjipwns]

Rich Lowry is such a goddamn POS.

The Benghazi Deniers

Great piece, really drills down to the heart of the matter that the deniers wish to well, deny:

The deniers evidently believe:

An administration should be able to make erroneous statements about a terror attack that killed a U.S. ambassador in the weeks before a presidential election and expect everyone to accept its good intentions afterward.

An administration should be able to withhold a bombshell White House email from congressional investigators and expect everyone to greet its long-delayed release with a yawn.

An administration should be able to send out its press secretary to abase himself with absurd denials of the obvious and expect everyone to consider its credibility solidly intact.
...
The administration’s apologists claim that President Obama immediately called Benghazi a terror attack in a statement in the Rose Garden on Sept. 12, the day after the assault. He did indeed refer to “acts of terror,” although vaguely. In an interview the same day with CBS, he was asked: Was Benghazi the result of a “mob action,” or was it something more serious? “I don’t want to jump the gun on this,” the president said.

He obviously wouldn’t have said he didn’t want to jump the gun if he had already jumped it. Besides, if the president of the United States was willing to say it was a terrorist attack from the very beginning, why was one of his national security officials stuffing his ambassador to the United Nations with pablum in an email just a few days later?

Blaming the video allowed the administration to put the most anodyne possible interpretation on Benghazi, while staying in its ideological comfort zone.

If the video had incited the attack, it meant that extremists both at home and overseas were to blame and that the administration could adopt a defensive posture about our country and its alleged Islamophobia. Parts of the media eagerly picked up this narrative. Time magazine ran an evenhanded cover story lambasting people who make obnoxious YouTube videos and people who kill ambassadors. “These hatemongers,” according to Time, “form a global industry of outrage, working feverishly to give and take offense.”
...
The other notable Benghazi defense from the past week is the “Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle” version of the standard “old news” deflection. Asked about the editing of the initial Benghazi talking points by Fox News’ Bret Baier on “Special Report,” former National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor explained helpfully, “Dude, this was like two years ago.”

What’s the statute of limitations on misleading the public about a terror attack , dawg?

 

[Jack Remington]

So they didn't come out publicly with the whole truth about the attack.

So. Fucking. What?

Was a crime committed? Nope? Then move the fuck on.

An administration should be able to make erroneous statements about a terror attack that killed a U.S. ambassador in the weeks before a presidential election and expect everyone to accept its good intentions afterward.

An administration should be able to withhold a bombshell White House email from congressional investigators and expect everyone to greet its long-delayed release with a yawn.

An administration should be able to send out its press secretary to abase himself with absurd denials of the obvious and expect everyone to consider its credibility solidly intact.

Yes. I do believe all of these things. I disagree with the premise that there was any "bombshell" email, but yes. I do believe these things. Any reasonable person should.

 

[Wilsongt]

Serious question. When was the last time any meaningful legislation was passed?

 

[AntoneM]

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/koch-brothers-americans-for-prosperity-2014-elections-106520.html

The Koch brothers’ main political arm intends to spend more than $125 million this year on an aggressive ground, air and data operation benefiting conservatives, according to a memo distributed to major donors and sources familiar with the group.

The $125 million projection comes from a memo obtained by POLITICO, labeled as a “Confidential Investor Update”

“If the presidential election told us anything, it’s that Americans place a great importance on taking care of those in need and avoiding harm to the weak,” reads the AFP memo.

Echoing Charles Koch’s opposition to the minimum wage, it asserts that free market, low-regulation policies “create the greatest levels of prosperity and opportunity for all Americans, especially for society’s poorest and most vulnerable.” Yet, the memo says, “we consistently see that Americans in general are concerned that free-market policy — and its advocates — benefit the rich and powerful more than the most vulnerable of society. …We must correct this misconception.”

 

[Black Mamba]

Serious question. When was the last time any meaningful legislation was passed?

I'd imagine the budget deal that ended the shutdown. before that, the one that prevented the fiscall cliff (twice), and then the VAWA extension.

Pretty sure that's it since the election.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Rich Lowry is such a goddamn POS.

The Benghazi Deniers

Also, the Democrats should not send any members to the committee. Don't even dignify it. Let it be seven irrelevant GOP House members yelling at clouds.

their obsession over vitors comment is so stupid. He was clearly saying that in response to Bret's righteous questioning over a specific action he might have done 2 years ago. Do you remember every email you wrote?

 

[benjipwns]

Serious question. When was the last time any meaningful legislation was passed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1789

 

[Wilsongt]

I'd imagine the budget deal that ended the shutdown. before that, the one that prevented the fiscall cliff (twice), and then the VAWA extension.

Pretty sure that's it since the election.

And how many things failed to pass/died in the house? Fuck this congress

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/koch-brothers-americans-for-prosperity-2014-elections-106520.html

The Koch brothers’ main political arm intends to spend more than $125 million this year on an aggressive ground, air and data operation benefiting conservatives, according to a memo distributed to major donors and sources familiar with the group.

The $125 million projection comes from a memo obtained by POLITICO, labeled as a “Confidential Investor Update”

“If the presidential election told us anything, it’s that Americans place a great importance on taking care of those in need and avoiding harm to the weak,” reads the AFP memo.

Echoing Charles Koch’s opposition to the minimum wage, it asserts that free market, low-regulation policies “create the greatest levels of prosperity and opportunity for all Americans, especially for society’s poorest and most vulnerable.” Yet, the memo says, “we consistently see that Americans in general are concerned that free-market policy — and its advocates — benefit the rich and powerful more than the most vulnerable of society. …We must correct this misconception.”

why do you want to snuff out their free speech!?

 

[Jack Remington]

I'd imagine the budget deal that ended the shutdown. before that, the one that prevented the fiscall cliff (twice), and then the VAWA extension.

Pretty sure that's it since the election.

Something I've been thinking about recently: in 2010, 2012, and now in 2014, I've seen quotes from members of Congress saying, directly, "I don't expect we'll be taking up any major legislation until after the election."

I've seen these quotes as early as spring. And you'll see quotes from the media saying "Congress isn't expected to take up any major legislation with an election looming."

We have elections every two years. These people are flat out saying that Congress will not perform its basic function at least 40% of the time. How is that okay?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Something I've been thinking about recently: in 2010, 2012, and now in 2014, I've seen quotes from members of Congress saying, directly, "I don't expect we'll be taking up any major legislation until after the election."

I've seen these quotes as early as spring. And you'll see quotes from the media saying "Congress isn't expected to take up any major legislation with an election looming."

We have elections every two years. These people are flat out saying that Congress will not perform its basic function at least 40% of the time. How is that okay?

both parties are the same IMO

 

[Crisco]

So they didn't come out publicly with the whole truth about the attack.

So. Fucking. What?

Was a crime committed? Nope? Then move the fuck on.



Yes. I do believe all of these things. I disagree with the premise that there was any "bombshell" email, but yes. I do believe these things. Any reasonable person should.

That's really the problem with the whole Benghazi "scandal". Even taking the entire story at face value, it doesn't amount to much. Before most of the facts were even known, the White House decides to take the least politically damaging angle during a Presidential campaign. Big fucking deal. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney takes the podium before Ambassador Steven's blood is even dry and declares the whole fiasco as proof that Obama's foreign policy is failing. Who's the scumbag here?

The only thing keeping this going are the suggestive undertones from the GOP that the Obama WH (or Hillary) were somehow personally responsible for those four deaths, and that he committed treason. Of course, there is zero evidence connecting A to B to C, but they continue to push that narrative because its the only chance at making people care. It hasn't worked though. People who care about Benghazi and people who have or will ever vote for a Democrat do not intersect. It's a non-existent issue outside of their bubble.

 

[Wilsongt]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1789

Your sarcasm is duly noted, and how nice of you to skip over all of the social advancements of the 20th century.

 

[benjipwns]

Something I've been thinking about recently: in 2010, 2012, and now in 2014, I've seen quotes from members of Congress saying, directly, "I don't expect we'll be taking up any major legislation until after the election."

I've seen these quotes as early as spring. And you'll see quotes from the media saying "Congress isn't expected to take up any major legislation with an election looming."

We have elections every two years. These people are flat out saying that Congress will not perform its basic function at least 40% of the time. How is that okay?

You'd rather they be attacked for potentially controversial votes? Or even worse, get voted out?

Your sarcasm is duly noted, and how nice of you to skip over all of the social advancements of the 20th century.

And how many of those had their hand forced in part by the courts?

 

[Hobbestetrician]

Your sarcasm is duly noted, and how nice of you to skip over all of the social advancements of the 20th century.

Benji is too busy pwning to contribute anything sincerely.

 

[Wilsongt]

You'd rather they be attacked for potentially controversial votes? Or even worse, get voted out?


And how many of those had their hand forced in part by the courts?

"Controversial" votes?

ENDA is controversial?
Extension of unemployment benefits is controversial?
Better gun safety is controversial?

What universe do you live in?

 

[benjipwns]

"Controversial" votes?

ENDA is controversial?
Extension of unemployment benefits is controversial?
Better gun safety is controversial?

What universe do you live in?

What universe do you live in? You're the one who wants to eliminate religious liberty, wants to take all guns away and give more welfare to illegal immigrants.

 

[Wilsongt]

What universe do you live in? You're the one who wants to eliminate religious liberty, wants to take all guns away and give more welfare to illegal immigrants.

Gurl... Did you honestly just go there?

 

[Aaron Strife]

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2014/0...with-deal-nunn-leading-gop-senate-contenders/

An Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll that rolls out Saturday finds Democrats in an especially close race for the state’s top offices in November.

The poll has Gov. Nathan Deal three percentage points ahead of Democrat Jason Carter, and finds that the governor’s approval ratings have fallen firmly below the 50 percent threshold.

Michelle Nunn, the Democratic front-runner in the Senate race, has built leads against each of the five top GOP Senate contenders in a potential November matchup, though her lead against businessman David Perdue is particularly narrow.

 

[Jack Remington]

I was thinking: since it seems there's broad consensus from both Republicans and Democrats that our corporate tax rate is too high, why hasn't a bipartisan solution to this gotten anywhere?

IMO, we could see immediate economic benefits by reforming the corporate tax structure.

 

[Oblivion]

here we go fellas

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/report-fbi-questioning-sheriffs-officials-bundy-militia

Good. Let's see how this goes. The idea that these fucks go unpunished for threatening to KILL people part of the federal government is insane.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2014/0...with-deal-nunn-leading-gop-senate-contenders/

Nunn vs Handel come on!!!!

I was thinking: since it seems there's broad consensus from both Republicans and Democrats that our corporate tax rate is too high, why hasn't a bipartisan solution to this gotten anywhere?

IMO, we could see immediate economic benefits by reforming the corporate tax structure.

Because republicans don't want it reformed, they want it lowered or eliminated. Dems will keep the same burden on businesses just streamlining it.

 

[kaching]

lets me meet your starting line up!

I like how they made Gowdy's pic taller to accommodate his hair.

 

[Wilsongt]

I like how they made Gowdy's pic taller to accommodate his hair.

The higher the hair, the closer to God.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I like how they made Gowdy's pic taller to accommodate his hair.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/this-man-has-the-most-confusing-hair-in-congress

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Innovative ad by Dems in NC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAuqNqn0ICY

 

[benjipwns]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/maga...gers-are-doing-the-white-house-s-job-20140509

When Jay Carney was grilled at length by Jonathan Karl of ABC News over an email outlining administration talking points in the wake of the 2012 Benghazi attack, it was not, by the reckoning of many observers, the White House press secretary's finest hour. Carney was alternately defensive and dismissive, arguably fueling a bonfire he was trying to tamp down.

But Carney needn't have worried. He had plenty of backup.

He had The New Republic's Brian Beutler dismissing Benghazi as "nonsense." He had Slate's David Weigel, along with The Washington Post's Plum Line blog, debunking any claim that the new email was a "smoking gun." Media Matters for America labeled Benghazi a "hoax." Salon wrote that the GOP had a "demented Benghazi disease." Daily Kos featured the headline: "Here's Why the GOP Is Fired Up About Benghazi—and Here's Why They're Wrong." The Huffington Post offered "Three Reasons Why Reviving Benghazi Is Stupid—for the GOP."

It's been a familiar pattern since President Obama took office in 2009: When critics attack, the White House can count on a posse of progressive writers to ride to its rescue. Pick an issue, from the Affordable Care Act to Ukraine to the economy to controversies involving the Internal Revenue Service and Benghazi, and you'll find the same voices again and again, on the Web and on Twitter, giving the president cover while savaging the opposition. And typically doing it with sharper tongues and tighter arguments than the White House itself.

While the bond between presidential administrations and friendly opinion-shapers goes back as far as the nation itself, no White House has ever enjoyed the luxury that this one has, in which its arguments and talking points can be advanced on a day-by-day, minute-by-minute basis. No longer must it await the evening news or the morning op-ed page to witness the fruits of its messaging efforts.

...

The new landscape has allowed the White House communications shop do what it does best: Figure out new ways to bypass the mainstream media. It holds off-the-record briefings, sometimes with Obama in the room, for select progressive bloggers from outlets such as TPM and ThinkProgress. (More than once, a National Journal reporter who previously worked at a liberal outlet has been invited as well.)

The outreach to progressive bloggers is part of a multipronged White House media strategy that also involves briefings with the likes of bureau chiefs, prominent columnists, even conservative writers such as Byron York and David Brooks, although certainly with each group, the mileage varies.

Consider: A search of White House records shows Ezra Klein, then with The Washington Post's Wonkblog, visiting more than 25 times since 2009; last week, a Post story detailed the travails of Lesley Clark, a White House reporter for McClatchy who has been to the Oval Office three times in the last three years, and has asked one question directly to Obama in all that time.

The hope, from the White House's perspective, is that progressive media elites sway the mainstream press.

....

Still, Jilani worries that some endorse the White House's positions not because they always agree with them, but because they don't want to give the GOP any fodder. "That's a hard thing to separate," he says.

Joan Walsh, an editor-at-large at Salon, brought this tension to a head last year when she slammed Klein for being too critical of the Obamacare rollout and, in essence, giving aid and comfort to the enemy. "On one hand, yes, it's important for Democrats to acknowledge when government screws up, and to fix it," Walsh wrote. "On the other hand, when liberals rush conscientiously to do that, they only encourage the completely unbalanced and unhinged coverage of whatever the problem might be."

Unbalanced. Interesting word for a card-carrying member of the progressive media to use.

 

[Wilsongt]

Idiot "Dr" Keith Ablow says shit that is stupid. More news at 11.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/foxs-kei...-to-children-discussing-threesomes-naturally/

Sex education is “a Trojan horse inside the schools,” he insisted, “and they’re going to start talking about threesomes, and they’re going to be talking about everything that’s okay.”

Despite some of their reticence towards sex ed, all the other co-hosts were shocked that he even Went There (“I’ve never heard that taught in sex ed,” one chimed in), but Ablow stuck to his weird ol’ guns.

“We don’t jail people for these things,” he added, but wondered why teachers wouldn’t decide to teach 10-year-olds the Kama Sutra, if they wanted to. (Probably because explaining “clitoris” to a ten-year-old is hard.)

 

[Oblivion]

Rr

http://www.nationaljournal.com/maga...gers-are-doing-the-white-house-s-job-20140509

Ron Fournier?

 

[B-Dubs]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/maga...gers-are-doing-the-white-house-s-job-20140509

Is this guy blind, deaf and dumb?

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

That's really the problem with the whole Benghazi "scandal". Even taking the entire story at face value, it doesn't amount to much. Before most of the facts were even known, the White House decides to take the least politically damaging angle during a Presidential campaign. Big fucking deal. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney takes the podium before Ambassador Steven's blood is even dry and declares the whole fiasco as proof that Obama's foreign policy is failing. Who's the scumbag here?

This is my take as well. It was my response from the start-- that I don't expect a politician to *not* spin weeks before an election (if that happened).

I think the desire is to get this into hearings so that they can get somebody important to lie, or tell an embarrassing truth before the election. I don't expect it to work.

 

[Sibylus]

So much sweat and toil expended to crucify Bengheezus, so little anywhere it matters.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

Here's a list of claims that Politifact investigated Regarding Benghazi. Seems to be quite of misinformation coming from the right.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

I was thinking: since it seems there's broad consensus from both Republicans and Democrats that our corporate tax rate is too high, why hasn't a bipartisan solution to this gotten anywhere?

IMO, we could see immediate economic benefits by reforming the corporate tax structure.

Is there a consensus?
The tax rate might be alright, but the effective tax rate seems pretty poor.

 

[Piecake]

I was thinking: since it seems there's broad consensus from both Republicans and Democrats that our corporate tax rate is too high, why hasn't a bipartisan solution to this gotten anywhere?

IMO, we could see immediate economic benefits by reforming the corporate tax structure.

The only sensible way to reform the corporate tax code is to either adopt a destination-based corporate tax, meaning tax the company's earnings where the product is sold or eliminate corporate taxes all together and simply jack up the highest income and capital gains bracket to make up for it.

I think either solution is far better than lowering the corporate tax code and perpetuating the idiotic situation where nations compete for corporate headquarters in a race to the bottom where only regular citizens are fucked over.

 

[Mario]

So they didn't come out publicly with the whole truth about the attack.

So. Fucking. What?

Was a crime committed? Nope? Then move the fuck on.

I think we all know the rationale is

"Obama" lied about Benghazi->Obama's anti terror policy was not effective as he claimed->Obama deceived Americans->Obama stole the election (and Hilary was complicit)

Of course they won't let it go. What else do they have since painting themselves into a corner on unemployment, marriage equality, the deficit and the ACA?

They missed their chance on actual issues they had a chance on like drones, NSA overreach, and whistleblower treatment when they failed to speak out (aside from Rand Paul). And they won't get out in front and take the lead on immigration.

Benghazi is all they have. And they'll ride it all the way into the ground like the ACA.

 

[Giant Panda]

So they didn't come out publicly with the whole truth about the attack.

So. Fucking. What?

Was a crime committed? Nope? Then move the fuck on.



Yes. I do believe all of these things. I disagree with the premise that there was any "bombshell" email, but yes. I do believe these things. Any reasonable person should.

If it were found out that the administration had outright lied then that totally is a big problem. Making excuses for the intentional lying by the government makes no sense. The reason why Benghazi isn't scandal is because all the evidence points to the administration using the best information they had at the time.

 

[Jack Remington]

If it were found out that the administration had outright lied then that totally is a big problem. Making excuses for the intentional lying by the government makes no sense. The reason why Benghazi isn't scandal is because all the evidence points to the administration using the best information they had at the time.

Why? There are all sorts of reasons an administration might not want to make classified information public knowledge.

 

[Oblivion]

If it were found out that the administration had outright lied then that totally is a big problem. Making excuses for the intentional lying by the government makes no sense. The reason why Benghazi isn't scandal is because all the evidence points to the administration using the best information they had at the time.

See, this is what I don't get. Even if the administration lied about the video being responsible, and not a planned attack by Al Qaeda....so fucking what? Would trying to blame the video somehow cause Stevens and his crew to be alive today? I truly don't get this shit.

 

[Oblivion]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...torum-says-gop-should-raise-the-minimum-wage/

Holy shit. Is the first actually useful thing Santorum has supported in his miserable existence?

 

[The Librarian]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...torum-says-gop-should-raise-the-minimum-wage/

Holy shit. Is the first actually useful thing Santorum has supported in his miserable existence?

You're very nice, aren't you?

 

[Piecake]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...torum-says-gop-should-raise-the-minimum-wage/

Holy shit. Is the first actually useful thing Santorum has supported in his miserable existence?

Mitt Romney also voiced his support on it. That banned guy might have been right! There might actually be some movement of the minimum wage at a federal level

 

[B-Dubs]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...torum-says-gop-should-raise-the-minimum-wage/

Holy shit. Is the first actually useful thing Santorum has supported in his miserable existence?

He was pretty populist during the 2012 primary so this isn't very shocking.

 

[benjipwns]

And well before that, though this summary is from the 2012 primary season:

Santorum’s competitors are also likely to highlight votes he cast to benefit organized labor, including minimum-wage increases and preserving government wage-setting regulations, that have so far captured little attention on the campaign trail.

As he surged in the final polls, Republican rivals this week latched onto his record on legislative spending, which an online advertisement by Rick Perry says includes taxpayer money for a “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska and a teapot museum in North Carolina.

The Texas governor, who finished fifth in Iowa, has also accused Santorum of voting to lift the debt ceiling eight times, an issue that has more resonance today after the summer stand- off between the White House and House Republicans that led to the nation’s reduced credit rating.

Paul told CNN Jan. 2 that Santorum “spends too much money. He wasn’t leading the charge to slash the budgets and vote against big government.”

...

In 1993, Santorum was one of 17 House Republicans who sided with most Democrats in backing a Clinton administration bill to protect striking employees from being permanently replaced by their employers.

Santorum’s Senate service shows a clear track record of supporting the Davis-Bacon Act, the federal law that requires government contractors to pay workers the local prevailing wage (USMMMNCH) and a perennial target for elimination by the business community and anti-union Tea Party activists.

...

In 1996, Santorum voted in effect for an amendment by former Massachusetts Democratic Senator Edward M. Kennedy that said the 1931 law shouldn’t be repealed.

In 1999, the Senate accepted a Santorum amendment that said it should consider “reform” of Davis-Bacon rather than repeal. Later that year, Santorum was one of 15 Senate Republicans who sided with Democrats in rejecting an amendment that would have limited the application of Davis-Bacon in federal disaster areas.

He has a mixed record on federal minimum-wage laws, casting votes for increases and at other times against them. A pro- Santorum publication put out by the Pennsylvania Republican Party in 2006 noted “50 Things You May Not Know About Rick Santorum.” Ranked at No. 23: Santorum “wrote legislation that would increase the national minimum wage.”

...

In 2002, he supported President George W. Bush’s decision to impose tariffs on imported steel. In 1999, he was one of 42 senators who voted in effect for a bill he co-wrote that would have restricted imports of foreign steel.

His support of terrible and outdated ideas has long been practice.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

It is a potentially devastating addition to a record as secretary of State that included a number of decisions favoring the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (after abandoning a longtime U.S. ally there), as well as appeasing a virulently anti-American regime in Iran–moves that have not turned out so well, to say the least.

Now the Boko Haram decision raises a whole new set of questions.

How could the Clinton State Department reject naming Boko Haram as a terrorist group?

Who was involved in blocking Boko Haram’s terrorist designation?

Are any of the so-called experts who were totally wrong still at the State Department?
Did Secretary Clinton have anything to do with refusing to designate Boko Haram?
If not, was she even aware of the controversy? Shouldn’t she certainly have been aware, considering the number of federal agencies and members of Congress that were asking her to designate the organization?

These questions about Secretary Clinton’s record are potentially even more serious than the questions about Benghazi. As Congressman Patrick Meehan, who chairs the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, told Rogin, by failing to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization in 2011, “We lost two years of increased scrutiny. The kind of support that is taking place now would have been in place two years ago.”

In light of the recent events in Nigeria, Secretary Clinton and other key State Department officials owe the American people some answers about their decisions.

http://www.gingrichproductions.com/2014/05/hillary-clinton-boko-haram-and-benghazi-the-real-scandal/