Tom Cotton on Benghazi fundraising: Where was this outrage when Democrats fundraised off the Iraq war?

posted at 11:21 am on May 9, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via the Free Beacon, a valiant attempt to shame Democrats and their media friends into dropping their outrageously outrageous outrage about Republicans using the new Benghazi committee to raise dough. Valiant but futile, that is: Read today’s New York Times editorial on the committee and tell me how it differs from something Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s office might put out. The left’s narrative on the committee is straightforward and unified — everything about it is illegitimate, from the GOP tilt of the membership (seven Republicans, five Democrats) to the pre-midterm timing to, yes, the sort of cash grab that Democrats engaged in themselves vis-a-vis Iraq. Any argument they can find to discourage the public from paying attention is an argument worth using. You’re not going to shame them out of that.

That being so, how much is Benghazi fundraising really worth to the GOP? Trey Gowdy thinks the party should lay off lest the committee come to be seen as some sort of political commercial. Republicans aren’t listening to him but they should. If they’re serious about the investigation, protecting its legitimacy is job one. And let’s face it, they’re going to reap political benefits from it whether they ask for them overtly or not. Money will come in and, more importantly, conservatives will turn out in November irrespective of whether a Benghazi envelope from the RNC shows up at the door. The more frantic the fundraising gets, the easier it’ll be for Dems to write Gowdy and his project off as a joke.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Well, post outrage, I hope we finally locate the policy manual laying down markers to handle spontaneous protests. Especially the bad Mohammed video inspired ones.

We were obviously caught flat-footed. So we must ask, have other administrations successfully predicted and prevented major armed protester attacks? Is denouncing these videos usual policy? Is producing commercials to denounce these videos usual policy? Did they measure the success after the video-denouncing commercials aired? Did this prevent more attacks? Did they think coming out against the video would prevent attacks? Is it common place for State to assume some responsibility for the protests, as we apparently did with this video, since it was made by an American? Does this work?

If saying, “it’s the video!” as part of an explanation by State was ever a reasonable, legitimate position, all of these questions would have to be asked, no?

Obviously, this is more than ridiculous. In other words, to cite this video in any way, at any point, is even more lame than we realize.

LetsBfrank on May 9, 2014 at 2:05 PM

He in fact said “I don’t believe him”…

Del Dolemonte on May 9, 2014 at 1:47 PM

Yes, he said that.
And you take it to mean what?
Funny that you go on about ‘spin’.

verbaluce on May 9, 2014 at 2:18 PM

Looks like Boehner has made his committee picks.

Nancy: What to do? What to do?!

WisRich on May 9, 2014 at 2:24 PM

He in fact said “I don’t believe him”…

Del Dolemonte on May 9, 2014 at 1:47 PM

Yes, he said that.

And you take it to mean what?

Funny that you go on about ‘spin’.

verbaloon on May 9, 2014 at 2:18 PM

Sorry, Cultist, but you’re the one who put false words in Gowdy’s mouth, not me.

And your attempt to blame me for your dishonesty is only making me laugh at you even more.

Slow down, you’re already dizzy enough.

Z-

Del Dolemonte on May 9, 2014 at 2:26 PM

there is nothing serious or legitimate about this committee President.

verbaluce on May 9, 2014 at 12:04 PM

That’s better…

PatriotRider on May 9, 2014 at 2:27 PM

Hypocrisy Alert! Clinton, Kerry, Gore & Other Democrats Talk About Saddam’s WMD BEFORE AND AFTER Bush Is President and Call for War Against Iraq

Just a taste…

“I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. … Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons.”

- Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) Addressing the US House of Representatives, 10 October 2002 Congressional Record, p. H7777

Resist We Much on May 9, 2014 at 2:30 PM

Del Dolemonte on May 9, 2014 at 2:26 PM

I take it you’re not going to answer what you take ‘I don’t believe him’ to mean?

verbaluce on May 9, 2014 at 2:36 PM

Resist We Much on May 9, 2014 at 2:30 PM

Whereever you’re pulling that from, it’s intentionally edited.

Try this real and very different one:

It is from the perspective of 10 years on the Intelligence Committee that I rise in opposition to this resolution on national security grounds. The clear and present danger that our country faces is terrorism. I say flat out that unilateral use of force without first exhausting every diplomatic remedy and other remedies and making a case to the American people will be harmful to our war on terrorism.

For the past 13 months, we have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with President Bush to remove the threat of terrorism posed by Al Qaeda. Our work is not done. Osama Bin Laden, Mullah Omar and other Al Qaeda terrorist leaders have not been accounted for. We have unfinished business. We are risking the cooperation that we have from over 60 nations who are sharing their intelligence and helping us in the war on terrorism. We cannot let this coalition unravel.

Others have talked about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, and he is trying to get nuclear weapons. There is a threat not only from Iraq, but from other countries of concern in the past.

Let us show our greatness. Vote no on this resolution.

Morning Joe ran with the edited one last month as quickly apologized.

“So Nancy saluted the president for working to disarm Saddam Hussein, but what clearly opposed to the war,” Scarborough explained. “In fact, seems like she had it just about right 10 years later.”

verbaluce on May 9, 2014 at 2:47 PM

Hillary and Kerry voted for the second war in Iraq.

Schadenfreude on May 9, 2014 at 2:51 PM

verbaluce on May 9, 2014 at 2:47 PM

Deflection. RWM 2:30 PM didn’t quote Pelosi’s speech to prove that Pelosi supported the war in Iraq. She quoted this portion of it:

Others have talked about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, and he is trying to get nuclear weapons. There is a threat not only from Iraq, but from other countries of concern in the past.

And she could have quoted this part of it:

I want to call to the attention of my colleagues to a letter that was just declassified about Saddam’s use of chemical and biological weapons. The letter refers to a question asked by a Senator to George Tenet, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The question was: ‘If we initiate an attack and Saddam thought he was threatened, what is the likelihood that in response to our attack that Saddam Hussein would use chemical and biological weapons?’ The response was: ‘Pretty high,’ if we initiate the attack.

[from which Nancy concludes: ]

Force protection is our top priority on the Intelligence Committee. We must protect our men and women in uniform. They are courageous. They risk their lives for our freedom, for our country. We cannot put them in harm’s way unless we take every precaution possible to protect them.

… to prove that Pelosi, along with Kerry, Gore, Clinton, et. al., believed that Saddam had WMDs before and after Congress (including 209 Democrats in the House) voted to go to war against him.

By the way, your version of Nancy’s speech is also quite a bit truncated. Here’s the speech in its entirety from Nancy’s website.

de rigueur on May 9, 2014 at 3:04 PM

Maybe to keep it from happening again?

Bishop on May 9, 2014 at 1:14 PM

How does obsessing about a talking point prevent the next attack, exactly?

Tlaloc on May 9, 2014 at 3:15 PM

How does obsessing about a talking point prevent the next attack, exactly?

Tlaloc on May 9, 2014 at 3:15 PM

Because that so-called “talking point” was a statement by Barack Obama and Barack Obama’s minions that it wasn’t an attack.

Barack Obama and Shrillary also screamed over and over and over again that it wasn’t an attack and that since it wasn’t an attack, there was nothing to prevent.

THIS is why. Your Obama Party is grossly incompetent.

northdallasthirty on May 9, 2014 at 3:42 PM

The thing I find interesting about verbaluce’s spin is that Nancy Pelosi admitted that Saddam had WMDs and was looking to get nukes, yet insisted the US should do absolutely nothing.

Contrast that with her insane demands that Syria be leveled, then her screaming insistence that Iran should be allowed to nuke Israel.

What you figure out is that Nancy Pelosi is a deluded, power-mad and amoral bigot who will say and do anything to hold on to her position.

northdallasthirty on May 9, 2014 at 3:45 PM

Maybe to keep it from happening again?

Bishop on May 9, 2014 at 1:14 PM

How does obsessing about a talking point prevent the next attack, exactly?

Tlaloc on May 9, 2014 at 3:15 PM

Please tell us, in your own words, how President Bush could have kept the original 9/11 attacks from happening-in a manner that you Democrats would have approved of at that time.

Take your time, but I’m not expecting an answer.

Del Dolemonte on May 9, 2014 at 5:54 PM

Please tell us, in your own words, how President Bush could have kept the original 9/11 attacks from happening-in a manner that you Democrats would have approved of at that time.

Take your time, but I’m not expecting an answer.

Del Dolemonte on May 9, 2014 at 5:54 PM

My canned response to libs when they raise the PDB:

So, did the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) tell us exactly where, how and when OBL was going to strike? No. Unlike the attack on the American Embassy in Cairo, were there any prior threats naming the specific target and method in newspapers or on websites? No. Unlike the attack in Benghazi, which was just the most recent of dozens, had there been any other prior threats made with specific targets named?

Should we have grounded all planes? All trains? Stopped work at all ports? Closed all malls, sporting events, and skyscrapers lest biological or chemical agents be introduced into the ventilation systems? Shut down all universities, governmental buildings, hospitals, factories and other structures with mass capacity?

Should we have closed down nuclear power plants, water processing plants, electrical facilities, and all other utilities? We probably should have shut down interstate commerce, the interstate highway system and banned all heavy trucks and SUVs, which could be used as car bombs.

It probably would have been prudent, since no specifics were given in the PDB, to order all Americans to bubblewrap their homes, drink only boiled water, eat only foods that they grow, remain indoors listening to Alex Jones after receiving a bevy of immunisations or just plain kill themselves.

After George Bush had issued all of those Executive Orders protecting Americans from every conceivable danger, he then could have sent Congress home, revoked habeas corpus as Abraham Lincoln did, declared martial law, and instituted laws like Woodrow Wilson did that criminalised criticism and protest of the government and its national security and defence actions, including making war. In fact, people making antiwar statements at their own dinner tables could be charged under the Espionage Act…just like during the Progressive administration of President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat. Maybe, he could have just rounded up all Muslims and sent them to internment camps like FDR did to Japanese-, German-, and Italian-Americans.

So, while we waited for Osama’s “determined strike,” we could have just destroyed our Constitution, civil liberties, civil society, and economy….thereby rendering any attack by al Qaeda unnecessary.

Yes, I’m sure that you would have applauded Shrub, if he had taken all of those actions on unactionable intelligence in a PDB. Snarkfreakalicious!

Resist We Much on May 9, 2014 at 6:32 PM

Verbie, there are tonnes of quotes, texts of speeches, and video on my link…many from the time when Bush was still Governor of Texas.

Nearly everyone, including every major intelligence agency, thought that Saddam had WMD. Nevertheless, I still opposed the war.

My point is that there was and remains a tremendous amount of hypocrisy on the subject of Iraq relative to Democrats.

It was – an admitted – purposeful strategy devised by Bob Shrum, who ran John Kerry’s failed presidential campaign to turn the Iraq War into ‘Bush’s Big Lie’ and ‘The Bad War.’

Just as both Obama and Hillary opposed the Surge for political reasons, so too did many Democrats when it came to the entire subject leading into the 2004 elections.

Resist We Much on May 9, 2014 at 6:37 PM

How does obsessing about a talking point prevent the next attack, exactly?

Tlaloc on May 9, 2014 at 3:15 PM

Because in order to maintain that narrative, this Administration imprisoned the filmmaker. They sought to deflect their failure to heed the repeated requests for additional embassy security, by blaming this on an unforeseen reaction to a video. And to drive that home, they jailed a person for exercising his First Amendment rights.

Hill60 on May 9, 2014 at 9:19 PM

Saying that these attacks were caused by a video, would be as completely asinine and daft as saying…oh…I don’t know…that…Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ was actually warning about the dangers of capitalism, and the concentration of weal…

…nevermind.

a5minmajor on May 9, 2014 at 9:24 PM

Please tell us, in your own words, how President Bush could have kept the original 9/11 attacks from happening-in a manner that you Democrats would have approved of at that time.

Take your time, but I’m not expecting an answer.

Del Dolemonte on May 9, 2014 at 5:54 PM

First you tell me what that had to with anything I said?
I mentioned the Iraq war, not 9/11. Despite what Fox told you the two had nothing to do with each other.

Tlaloc on May 10, 2014 at 1:50 AM

Because in order to maintain that narrative, this Administration imprisoned the filmmaker. They sought to deflect their failure to heed the repeated requests for additional embassy security, by blaming this on an unforeseen reaction to a video. And to drive that home, they jailed a person for exercising his First Amendment rights.

Hill60 on May 9, 2014 at 9:19 PM

The filmmaker violated his parole. Weren’t you guys supposed to be the law and order types?

Tlaloc on May 10, 2014 at 1:51 AM

Because that so-called “talking point” was a statement by Barack Obama and Barack Obama’s minions that it wasn’t an attack.

Barack Obama and Shrillary also screamed over and over and over again that it wasn’t an attack and that since it wasn’t an attack, there was nothing to prevent.

THIS is why. Your Obama Party is grossly incompetent.

northdallasthirty on May 9, 2014 at 3:42 PM

Let’s say for sake of argument everything you said here was stone cold fact.

And?

Do you really think there is some magic power in the words “it was an attack” that somehow prevents it from happening again?

I certainly hope not, since that would be insane. Which leaves right back where we started- a select committee to bit*h about talking points does absolutely nothing to make anyone safer. It’s a transparent political move, and everyone knows it.

Tlaloc on May 10, 2014 at 1:53 AM

For the record, Obama deserves every bit of scorn he received for making that remark. Inexcusable.

verbaluce on May 9, 2014 at 12:38 PM

Ever notice that whenever a supporter of the Rat-Eared liar deigns to fault him, it’s always for something that even if you admit the worst of, that’s the end of the story? … never something more to be investigated… This way, the coward liars who back the coward liar can pretend to maintain a semblance of impartiality… pfff.

loubkk on May 10, 2014 at 9:37 AM

Comment pages: 1 2