Start A Petition

Kansas Republican and Rachel Maddow Clash Over Benghazi and Obama 'Cheerleading' (TEXT and VIDEO)

US Politics & Gov't  (tags: Rachel Maddow, Tim Huelskamp, Obama, congress, ethics, republicans, politics, propaganda, lies, dishonesty, corruption )

- 1938 days ago -
A question over the inclusion of Army Sgt. 1st Class Cory Remsburg at Tuesday's State of the Union address spiraled into a policy-spanning battle between MSNBC host Rachel Maddow and Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS).


We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Elizabeth M (65)
Wednesday January 29, 2014, 12:59 pm
I felt the inclusion of Army Sgt. 1st Class Cory Remsburg was a wonderful thing to do. He is a survivor and a hero for fighting for his country. Then this Rep. Huelskamp R-KS) just goes off the topic regarding the President as being lawless....another Rep. full of hot air!!
Thanks Carrie.

Lois Jordan (63)
Wednesday January 29, 2014, 5:07 pm
Noted. I watched most of this with my jaw on the floor. This guy's a real tool. Does he think he's so smart to twist the subject around and not answer her questions? I will say that the look in his eyes, and his brief stumbling here and there weren't lost on me. He hasn't quite perfected the "GOP Spiel.".....still got his training wheels on.

Kit B (276)
Wednesday January 29, 2014, 8:35 pm

So where was all the screaming and shouting by the republicans when Saint Reagan disarmed the Marines and 220 were murdered by a car bomb? That was okay? I guess as long as the president can quickly distract the public with another [Grenada] non-war all is well.

From the Washington Post in depth investigation: The FACTS:

First, some important context: Although the ambassador was killed, the Benghazi “consulate” was not a consulate at all but basically a secret CIA operation which included an effort to round up shoulder-launched missiles. In fact, only seven of the 30 Americans evacuated from Benghazi had any connection to the State Department; the rest were affiliated with the CIA.

The official reports, such as the one from the Accountability Review Board and the Senate Homeland Security Committee report, essentially dance around that uncomfortable fact:

“In December 2011, the Under Secretary for Management approved a one-year continuation of the U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi, which was never a consulate and never formally notified to the Libyan government.” (ARB)

“The attacks in Benghazi occurred at two different locations: a Department of State ‘Temporary Mission Facility’ and an Annex facility (‘Annex’) approximately a mile away used by another agency of the United States Government.” (Senate report)

So, from the State Department perspective, this was an attack on a CIA operation, perhaps by the very people the CIA was battling, and the ambassador tragically was in the wrong place at the wrong time. But, for obvious reasons, the administration could not publicly admit that Benghazi was mostly a secret CIA effort.

The talking points were originally developed by the CIA at the request of a member of the House Intelligence Committee. Interestingly, all of the versions are consistent on one point — that the attacks were “spontaneously inspired by protests at the U.S. embassy in Cairo,” a fact later deemed to be incorrect.

The talking points through Friday begin to become rather detailed, at which point there is sharp push-back from the State Department. Let’s look at the version as of 5:09 p.m. on Sept 14, a Friday, and see the red flags for State:

■The talking points refer to a “direct assault against the U.S. consulate.”

■ The CIA says it “warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy.”

■ The CIA says it “has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists in Benghazi and eastern Libya.” It cites “at least five other attacks” against foreign interests and says it “cannot rule out the individuals had previously surveilled [sic] the U.S. facilities.”

The clear implication is that State screwed up, even though internally, it was known that this was a CIA operation. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland especially objects to the reference to previous warnings, saying it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings.”

Moreover, Nuland had been constrained from saying much about the attack at her daily press briefings, so she was unsure why the agency would suddenly give so much information to members of Congress.

After the CIA makes minor changes, such as deleting a reference to the militant group Ansar al-Sharia, Nuland responds, “These changes don’t resolve all of my issues or those of my building’s leadership.” At that point, a White House official weighs in and writes in an e-mail:

“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”


Katie & Bill D (107)
Wednesday January 29, 2014, 9:55 pm
Rachel had the comeback for this Jerk! Can't believe he treated her like this on her show on TV!
Thank You Carrie

Jim P (3247)
Thursday January 30, 2014, 8:49 am
For those of you who cannot access the video in the visit link, here is another link,
directly from Rachel Maddow's own web site:

ty, Carrie.

Jason R (67)
Thursday January 30, 2014, 9:09 am
These fReaks scare the crap out of me!

Thanks, Jim & Kit.

Avril Lomas (0)
Thursday January 30, 2014, 11:02 am
Could not believe how damned ignorant this jerk was. However he picked the wrong person to yell at. Rachel stayed composed and easy won the match!. Rachel 1. Jerk zero.
May I also remind the Repugs the No. of deaths and injuries to our troops and the innocent population during the LIARS WAR in IRAQ??.
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.