Republican Senator Lindsey Graham Links Ukraine to – You Guessed It – Benghazi!

lindsey_graham3It’s starting to become a punchline for liberals. When all else fails, just blame it on Benghazi.  Nothing to make for dinner at home?  Benghazi!  Have a 20 page paper due by midnight?  Benghazi!  Feeling a little depressed after a long, dreary winter?  Benghazi!

And while I’m obviously not making a joke at the expense of the four Americans lives who were lost that night, I am making a joke out of the fact that it seems some Republicans will almost literally use any excuse to blame whatever’s happening on Benghazi.

Take for instance South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham who’s been quite critical of President Obama’s handling of Russia.  Graham said recently, “Stop going on television and trying to threaten thugs and dictators.  It is not your strong suit. Every time the president goes on national television and threatens Putin or anyone like Putin, everybody’s eyes roll, including mine. We have a weak and indecisive president that invites aggression.”

Which is funny considering on Bush’s watch we experienced the worst terrorist attack in our nation’s history, 13 embassies were attacked and in 2008 Russia sent troops into Georgia.

So, if aggression determines weakness, President Bush was king of the weaklings.

But Graham stepped it up a notch by somehow tying in the Russian invasion of Ukraine to – Benghazi! 

Of course he did.

Graham sent this tweet out:

Screen Shot 2014-03-04 at 1.44.27 PM

Yes, that’s a real tweet.

I’m sure Putin really sat there and thought to himself, “Well, the United States didn’t bomb Libya almost two years ago after Islamic radicals attacked their embassy – I guess that means I should send troops into Ukraine!”

Though I know it won’t happen, because most reporters are cowards, I really hope that someone will ask Senator Graham that if the American deaths in Benghazi “invited” Russia to send troops into Ukraine – what American deaths prompted Russia to invade Georgia in 2008?

Russia sending troops into Ukraine has nothing to do with Obama’s policies and it damn sure doesn’t have anything to do with Benghazi.  It would be one thing if Russia hadn’t done something like this recently, but they have – in 2008, before Obama was president.  

But like always Republicans like Lindsey Graham will do anything they can to bash President Obama and ridiculously blame something on Benghazi.  Even if it makes absolutely no sense.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • gmartini

    Miss Lindsay Graham: A noun, a verb, BENGHAZI!

    • DRINK!

    • Jim Bean

      When the POTUS lies to the entire nation (or allows one of his agents to do lie on his behalf) its a big deal to the more discriminating members of society. That’s why it won’t go away.

      • Phil the observer

        TROLL

      • Jim Bean

        The article was about Benghazi, and my comment was about Benghazi. Your comment was not. You don’t understand the definition of word ‘troll’. (Hint: it’s not ‘any comment that makes me squirm.”)

      • Pipercat

        No Jimbo, the article was about the shit that spewed from Lindsey’s twitter account…

      • Pipercat

        Only those who are filled with contempt believe he lied. There was a time when Americans put shit like this to the side; while a crisis of this magnitude unfolded. I love how you incorporated a variant of the word, discriminate.

      • Charles Vincent

        I would have used discerning.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        that would explain why scumbag Darrell issa has nothing on him….
        shouldn’t they be crying about fast and furious also?

      • Gary Menten

        Thank-you for your ringing indictment of Dubya, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Tenet and the lead up to the invasion of Iraq. I knew you had it in you.

      • strayaway

        Don’t forget to include Hillary’s enthusiastic support of Bush’s Iraq war. Serbia, Iraq, Libya, (almost) Syria and now this chance to prod Russia. McCain is her only competition as a cold warrior. Maybe she could be marketed as a Valkyrie…play some Wagner at her campaign rallies.

      • Gary Menten

        I’m sorry? Was it Hillary Clinton that mislead the country into war with Iraq or the Bush Administration?

      • strayaway

        Both. She voted in favor or authorizing Bush to make war on Syria.

        “”In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members…

        It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.

        This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I’ve ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction.”

        -Senator Hillary Clinton
        Addressing the US Senate
        October 10, 2002

      • Gary Menten

        Congratulations. You’ve managed to completely skate around the fact that it was Bush that provided the false intelligence that led to this vote; that it was Bush that in a State of The Union Address told America and the world that Saddam Hussein was buying Yellowcake uranium, that it was Bush that maneuvered most of the US Senate to vote to authorize military action.

      • strayaway

        I skated around a lot of things not pertinent to your comment listing villains who brought us the Iraq war. I simply added one other sponsor of that war and added her own given reasons. Everyone who voted in support of giving Bush that power was a co-sponsor. Are you suggesting that Hillary should be excused because she bought into a lie? Being fooled into voting for a war is an important and disqualifying part of her resume if that is what you are suggesting.

      • Gary Menten

        That Clinton voted for war should be remembered, yes. But she’s also not the one who mislead the country into war, who gave Congress misleading information, and who painted anyone who opposed it as unpatriotic, weak and a friend of the terrorists. That was a Bush con-job from beginning to end.

        Clinton also admitted her mistake.

        In any case, I voted for Obama.

      • strayaway

        Given the choices between Obama, Clinton , and McCain, I think you made the best choice. I voted third party.

      • PoppaDavid

        Perhaps you should actually read the document passed by Congress. In a bipartisan move Congress just gave Bush the opportunity to conduct foreign policy. Congress reiterated the Constitutional authority for the President to take the steps necessary to keep this nation safe from foreign threats, starting with negotiation and ONLY if that failed was he authorized to use force. President Bush decided that attacking Iraq was “necessary” even when negotiation lead to U.N. inspections and the inspections determined that there were no weapons of mass destruction threatening the United States. Or you could say “they gave him enough rope”.

      • strayaway

        Perhaps you should actually read the Constitution which only gives Congress the authority to declare wars. This was a good example of what can go wrong when the legislative body of the government abdicates its responsibility to the executive branch. What a bunch of fools to give President Bush a loophole/ blank check. It was like giving matches to a five year old. In the Senate 29 Democratic Senators voted to give their power to Bush including Hillary Clinton while 21 Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator, Chafee, had the brains to vote against handing out matches to Bush.

      • PoppaDavid

        I said “the opportunity to conduct foreign policy” and “authority for the President to take steps to keep the nation safe”. That is covered under the authority to negotiate treaties and the oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”. “And ONLY if that failed was he authorized to use force.” The Congress authorized war after exhaustion of peaceful alternatives, and only to defend the national security of the U.S.

        If the Republican President Bush chose to exceed his authority by initiating war before exhausting the alternative, then the Constitutional conservatives should have initiated impeachment proceedings against Bush rather than waiting seven years to complain that Clinton was wrong to trust President Bush. The Democrats were making an effort to “make it work” during the Bush Administration. In contrast, the Republicans have been making an effort to “make it fail” during the Obama Administration.

        If you want to claim that the vote on this resolution is an indicator of ability to govern, then the Republican party in whole fails. All but one Republican Senator voted “Yes” and 96% of the Republican Representatives voted “Yes”.

      • strayaway

        I agree that only Senator Chaffee and six House Republicans voted against allowing President Bush to declare war while 42% of Democrats similarly supported the Constitution. The majority of House Democrats, to their credit, also voted against this bill. I guess we just disagree though on whether Congress can delegate its legislative monopoly away to the executive any more than the Supreme Court can allow the executive branch to decide selective cases. Congress should have included a provision requiring its own vote if Bush had come back to Congress saying all of his other efforts had failed. Then Congress could have declared a war. Instead, Congress washed its hands of the matter so individual members could not be blamed for Bush’s actions. That didn’t work. We know who they are.

      • Gary Menten

        No, it doesn’t go away for the same reason delusional Teabilly nincompoops are still calling for the President’s birth certificate or claiming he was born in Kenya despite not having a shred of credible evidence to prove it. It won’t go away because facts and evidence that you don’t like mean nothing at all to fanatics such as yourself. Like those who insist on believing the world was created by an all-powerful God 6000 years ago, you prefer to cling to fantasies because the fantasies are more comforting to you than the facts.

      • Jim Bean

        Maybe you’re right. Maybe I just don’t WANT to accept that the president honestly believed 150 men armed with RPG’s, assault rifles, night-vision goggles, and pickup-truck-mounted machine guns was probably just a group of film critics returning from the theater.

      • Gary Menten

        Yeah, except the president never said they were and called it an act of terrorism early on. So again, thanks for entertaining us amusing fantasies but don’t overstay your welcome.

      • Jim Bean

        24 hours after the attack and Obama’s Rose Garden ‘no act of terror will ever shake our resolve’ statement he was asked by Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes, “Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?”
        OBAMA: “Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.” (That, we now know, was a lie).
        When he later tried to slither away by claiming he was saying it was a ‘terrorist attack’ all along, The Fact Checker gave him four Pinocchio’s. You’ve earned five.

      • Gary Menten

        OBAMA: “Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans.”

        Not saying “its a terrorist attack” before enough facts are in, and there was a lot of confusion on the issue, is not the same thing as saying “No it isn’t. He never said this.”

        “And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.” (That, we now know, was a lie).”

        Actually you know nothing of the sort, only that the US has not caught the guys that did it which is hardly the same thing. Bush incidentally, never caught OBL, he never even made a serious attempt to catch him and if he were to be judged by the same standards you judge Obama, then Bush lied for 7 straight years.

        So even with your 20-20 hindsight, your conclusions are still unfounded.

      • PoppaDavid

        Please explain how you have forgotten that President Bush resolved to punish those responsible for 9/11 and then said it wasn’t important. Explain how President Bush said that he would follow the money and cut off funds for al-Qaeda, and then dropped his promise when the money trail led to Saudi Arabia. Explain how President Bush said that he would help the Northern Alliance rebuild Afghanistan in exchange for overthrowing the Taliban, and then siphoned the money off to his war for oil in Iraq, while allowing the Taliban to recover and rebuild their strength on the basis of broken American promises.

      • Jim Bean

        I didn’t condone any of that, did you? I’m a registered Democrat. There ARE some Democrats who expect their own party to adhere to some basic standards rather than just wave the party flag no matter what.

      • PoppaDavid

        Try these standards for anyone responsible for defending our nation.

        Don’t telegraph your punches.

        Don’t be in a rush to make public statements.

        Don’t tell everything you know.

        Terrorists watch TV and read the news. They need the news reports to tell them what is happening AS it is happening so they can plan their attacks, their defense, and identify what works or doesn’t work. Telling the world “what the government knew” and “when they learned” it exposes our intelligence capacities to the opposition. That can wait until after the battle is over. Americans have a right to know what is happening, but, if it isn’t an evacuation, they don’t need it immediately.

        Back in World War II, the Japanese were launching their balloon bombs against mainland America. And they were a very effective weapon. However, the public and the press kept their mouth shut about the damage, the Japanese though the project was a failure, and they stopped launching the bombs. Which really helped us.

      • Odd Jørgensen

        except that it was not a lie,they caught at least one of the ringleaders behind the attack in Benghazi,but it`s just so damn easy to sit behind a keyboard and play judge on things you know jack-shit about right?

      • PoppaDavid

        Please explain the Iran-Contra affair in light of your statement. Please explain the Weapons of Mass Destruction that killed four thousand American soldiers, marines, sailors and aviators in Iraq in light of your statement.

  • shutdafrtdoor

    Do these pukes all sit around the table and smoke the same shit!!??

    • sup sup sdfd…. no, because if they were smoking, they would be a lot more relaxed… MsLindseyPinkThong up there is twisted way to tight ….

      • shutdafrtdoor

        Hey 2cents! What up fooooooo! LOL! You are RIGHT! You can’t shove a Q Tip up their ass right now!

  • Brett Taylor

    maybe if the GOP would stop going on tv and show their lack of support for their president, people like Putin wouldn’t think he could do what he wants.

    • Pipercat

      Too much truth to that statement. Vlad calculated the response by these miscreants and hoped for all of this divisiveness. Nothing like supporting your adversaries by undermining yourself back home. Pathetic.

      • TheOneWhoNocks

        To be honest, I doubt we entered Putin’s mind any more than we thought about Russia when we went into Iraq. Not everything’s about us.

      • Pipercat

        Vlad is a chess player. To assume he isn’t thinking at least a step ahead is kinda dumb. Look how fast they countered the sanction threat with their own sanction threat. He knows it really is up to the EU and their response. However, the EU is not going to do anything unless we are right there in the thick of things.

      • Jim Bean

        The EU know we will not.

      • Pipercat

        Better check with Angela, looks like a deal is in the making. Um, John had a nice visit in Kiev, btw….

    • gmartini

      So much for “United We Stand,” huh?

      • Pipercat

        The word “we” has become very subjective and selective these days…

    • strayaway

      Putin must have a pen and a phone.

      However, The title of this article suggests that Graham linked Benghazi to Ukraine. I have read this article twice and can’t find any quote of Graham even mentioning Benghazi. Maybe the article should be retitled. Who says the President isn’t strong though? Why just yesterday SOS John Kerry was in Ukraine and handed out $1B the US borrowed from China to the unelected leaders of Ukraine with instructions to spend it however they pleased. What could be more manly than ordering unelected foreign leaders to spend our money?

      • Pipercat

        Maybe you should look at the twitter comment Shorty posted…

      • strayaway

        Good point. Just because it looks like an add didn’t mean I should have read around it.

    • Jim Bean

      Yeah. Like Obama has conducted himself like someone not to be fooled around with.

  • Phil the observer

    Good Lord……Wait, I have to whizz…Bengazi!!!!

  • rossbro

    Yes, people Graham IS dumber than he looks. Really !!!

  • PoppaDavid

    Actually Graham may be on to the truth. Back in April 1983 the United States embassy in Beirut was attacked by terrorists killing 17 Americans and 46 others. President Ronald Reagan responded strongly by rebuilding the embassy and sending U.S. troops into Lebanon. In October 1983 the Lebanon Marine barracks was attacked by terrorists killing 242 American Marines.

    President Ronald Reagan responded with even more strength by withdrawing the American troops from Lebanon and invading Grenada. No one has ever been convicted or punished for either attack. That failure of American resolve in the Middle East is with us today. Benghazi is chump change in the world of international terrorist actions.

    October 2000 saw al-Qaeda sending a suicide mission against the USS Cole killing 17 American sailors. The November election saw George W. Bush elected to commander in chief with the information that Osama bin Laden was responsible. Nothing was done by Clinton or Bush. On 9/11 Osama bin Laden attacked again. And the fools talk about Benghazi!

    • Gary Menten

      How quickly they forget….

  • jmoney

    I THINK THIS WAS RUSSIA PLAN THE WHOLE TIME MAKE MONEY OFF OLYMPICS AND THEN ATTACK LOOK AT WHERE THE ATHLETES STAYS AND WHAT PROBLEMS THEY HAD

    • jmoney

      but as far as president is doing the best he can with a bullshit congress fire them all make it where they cant run again and then vote new ones in with an approval rate of under 10% even if i had that a regular job id be fired