I think if that (add you own word here) woman does run for President, A dozen conservative women need to show up at her speaking engagements wearing "Blue Dresses".
Even if the White House or State Department are guilty of some misdeed here, I don't see how it's worse than Watergate or Iran-Contra, which is a line I keep hearing. Using Executive powers to stop an investigation by Judicial, or illegally selling arms to an enemy state in order to illegally fund your own terrorist guerillas-- both of these are far far worse than changing some talking points to help with an election (if that even is what happened, it's nowhere near proven.)
That is because you are limited. Which is forgiveable. More so if you surrender your vote. You see, one of those was appropriately punished, one wasn't and probably shouldn't have been as it was merely a decision of state. One Zero involves himself in on every given day since he decided to support the muslim brotherhood. Neither, in any case, involved the allowance of the murder of anyone save the last, the one you think is not an issue.
I understand, being liberal means whatever you do is automatically excused, for your part, on your part. It just doesn't work outside of your mind.
Doom - well said. No one was murdered in Watergate and the President did not even know about it until afterwards - ergo the cover up. Iran-Contra: at least it involved the protection of American national interests and did not directly profit terrorists. The SecState and the WH were in on this debacle prior to, during and after the murders. Juckman, try your mindless drivel somewhere else where people don't have a clue.
"Decision of state" implies the President is above the law. If you are willing to grant a Republican that power, you should be willing to grant a Democrat the same power; I don't think either should get that pass. Obama's use of drones on American citizens overseas is probably an impeachable offense, lying/mis-stating/erring (however you want to characterize it) about the cause of a terrorist attack is probably not an impeachable offense.
But of course, if you are a Republican, anything a Democratic President does is an impeachable offense-- so far I've heard Solyndra and Fast-and-Furious were grounds for impeachment, and. . . nothing happened. Either the GOP leadership doesn't actually believe they are impeachable offenses, or you guys voted for a bunch of wimps.
"President did not even know about it until afterwards"-- ahhh but he did engage in the coverup, so it's not like Nixon was completely blameless. He didn't resign on a whim, he knew he was guilty.
I can't understand why Obama is to blame for the deaths in Benghazi. There was no benefit to him in their deaths, so how were they sacrificed for political gain? It makes no sense. Was Bush to blame for the diplomats that died under his watch?
So the other "issue" is that the administration wasn't clear about whether it was an outright terrorist attack or developed out of demonstrations. The GOP belief is that this is evidence of some kind of publicity ploy, related to his re-election, and there is some kind of cover-up. Except they haven't found anything to prove that. What you guys see as deliberate obfuscation looks to the rest of the public like miscommunication and internal disagreement.
Tim - there is an undercurrent that US arms are being supplied to the "insurgents" and that th e CIA is involved in this up to their necks. Whether or no this comes out is unknown. But what was Amd., Stevens doing in Benghazi in the first place after the State Dept. came out with several warnings about travel in Libya?
The issue here is the deliberate misrepresentation of the facts surrounding the murders just before a Presidential election. The State Dept. notified the President of Libya that it was a terrorist incident and four days later the UN Amd, Sue Rice, is blaming some unknown video.
Bill Clinton is a convicted perjurer - a felon - and should have been removed from office if not for a bunch of gutless senators. The same will happen here. The House may impeach but the dems in the senate will never convict. You need a two thirds majority for that. This is why the House must wait until after the 2014 elections to see if there are enough new senators to make a difference.
Tim - it's like you never get beyond the dem talking points when you make a comment. You're starting to bore me. Wake up and put the Kool Aid away for a while.
Huh. I am not actually aware of what DEM talking points are. Most of what I know about Benghazi comes from looking at blogs like this one, and reading the wikipedia article on it (which is a pretty bland and apolitical.) I have noticed that a lot of what conservatives are saying relies heavily on assumptions. You guys start with the premise that Obama is evil, so it's not hard to look at the events and assume he must have deliberately done something wrong, but from an apolitical stance it just looks like blundering and intra-governmental disagreement, and events that transpired too quickly on the ground for anyone to change the outcome. You think there is some smoking gun document that will show the President or Hillary are guilty of some high crime, and the fact that we haven't found it means there is a cover-up, except it's just as likely there is nothing.
I think there is probably a lot more going on here than we know, but I also think it has to do with behind-the-scenes diplomacy and deals with the new government of Libya. Ironically all this publicity about Benghazi is probably screwing up current efforts in the region. I also note that very little attention is being paid to beefing up security at other locations-- you'd think the uber-patriotic Republicans would all for that.
13 comments:
lol
Heh!
Well, okay, I don't have sympathy for every particular devil in a blue dress!
I think if that (add you own word here) woman does run for President, A dozen conservative women need to show up at her speaking engagements wearing "Blue Dresses".
Even if the White House or State Department are guilty of some misdeed here, I don't see how it's worse than Watergate or Iran-Contra, which is a line I keep hearing. Using Executive powers to stop an investigation by Judicial, or illegally selling arms to an enemy state in order to illegally fund your own terrorist guerillas-- both of these are far far worse than changing some talking points to help with an election (if that even is what happened, it's nowhere near proven.)
tim,
That is because you are limited. Which is forgiveable. More so if you surrender your vote. You see, one of those was appropriately punished, one wasn't and probably shouldn't have been as it was merely a decision of state. One Zero involves himself in on every given day since he decided to support the muslim brotherhood. Neither, in any case, involved the allowance of the murder of anyone save the last, the one you think is not an issue.
I understand, being liberal means whatever you do is automatically excused, for your part, on your part. It just doesn't work outside of your mind.
Doom - well said. No one was murdered in Watergate and the President did not even know about it until afterwards - ergo the cover up. Iran-Contra: at least it involved the protection of American national interests and did not directly profit terrorists. The SecState and the WH were in on this debacle prior to, during and after the murders. Juckman, try your mindless drivel somewhere else where people don't have a clue.
Doom-
"Decision of state" implies the President is above the law. If you are willing to grant a Republican that power, you should be willing to grant a Democrat the same power; I don't think either should get that pass. Obama's use of drones on American citizens overseas is probably an impeachable offense, lying/mis-stating/erring (however you want to characterize it) about the cause of a terrorist attack is probably not an impeachable offense.
But of course, if you are a Republican, anything a Democratic President does is an impeachable offense-- so far I've heard Solyndra and Fast-and-Furious were grounds for impeachment, and. . . nothing happened. Either the GOP leadership doesn't actually believe they are impeachable offenses, or you guys voted for a bunch of wimps.
Odie, there show be four stains on each dress; each stain bearing the name of an American murdered by terrorists at Benghazi.
-sig
"President did not even know about it until afterwards"-- ahhh but he did engage in the coverup, so it's not like Nixon was completely blameless. He didn't resign on a whim, he knew he was guilty.
I can't understand why Obama is to blame for the deaths in Benghazi. There was no benefit to him in their deaths, so how were they sacrificed for political gain? It makes no sense. Was Bush to blame for the diplomats that died under his watch?
So the other "issue" is that the administration wasn't clear about whether it was an outright terrorist attack or developed out of demonstrations. The GOP belief is that this is evidence of some kind of publicity ploy, related to his re-election, and there is some kind of cover-up. Except they haven't found anything to prove that. What you guys see as deliberate obfuscation looks to the rest of the public like miscommunication and internal disagreement.
Tim,
There you go again, proving my point. I am very much NOT a Republican. I'm not even really tea party or libertarian.
Tim - there is an undercurrent that US arms are being supplied to the "insurgents" and that th e CIA is involved in this up to their necks. Whether or no this comes out is unknown. But what was Amd., Stevens doing in Benghazi in the first place after the State Dept. came out with several warnings about travel in Libya?
The issue here is the deliberate misrepresentation of the facts surrounding the murders just before a Presidential election. The State Dept. notified the President of Libya that it was a terrorist incident and four days later the UN Amd, Sue Rice, is blaming some unknown video.
Bill Clinton is a convicted perjurer - a felon - and should have been removed from office if not for a bunch of gutless senators. The same will happen here. The House may impeach but the dems in the senate will never convict. You need a two thirds majority for that. This is why the House must wait until after the 2014 elections to see if there are enough new senators to make a difference.
Tim - it's like you never get beyond the dem talking points when you make a comment. You're starting to bore me. Wake up and put the Kool Aid away for a while.
this thread needs a "like" button.
Huh. I am not actually aware of what DEM talking points are. Most of what I know about Benghazi comes from looking at blogs like this one, and reading the wikipedia article on it (which is a pretty bland and apolitical.) I have noticed that a lot of what conservatives are saying relies heavily on assumptions. You guys start with the premise that Obama is evil, so it's not hard to look at the events and assume he must have deliberately done something wrong, but from an apolitical stance it just looks like blundering and intra-governmental disagreement, and events that transpired too quickly on the ground for anyone to change the outcome. You think there is some smoking gun document that will show the President or Hillary are guilty of some high crime, and the fact that we haven't found it means there is a cover-up, except it's just as likely there is nothing.
I think there is probably a lot more going on here than we know, but I also think it has to do with behind-the-scenes diplomacy and deals with the new government of Libya. Ironically all this publicity about Benghazi is probably screwing up current efforts in the region. I also note that very little attention is being paid to beefing up security at other locations-- you'd think the uber-patriotic Republicans would all for that.
Post a Comment