With an apparent full-blown cover-up and perhaps dozens of public servants eager to talk, the House immediately should move to subpoena the Obama administration for the names and contact information for all 33 Benghazi survivors. It then should subpoena each of them, immunize them against prosecution, and protect them, their jobs, and their pensions and other benefits under the appropriate federal whistleblower statutes.
While some of these people should testify under oath behind closed doors, to protect classified information, others should offer sworn testimony in public hearings.
If Benghazi unfolded as Team Obama claims, and these 33 people have remained Sphinx-like merely because they had nothing contrary to say, so the historical record should read.
If, however, Obama & Company bribed, threatened, or intimidated these public servants to stay silent in order to secure Obama’s reelection, then Benghazi will prove to be a conspiracy more explosive and evil than Watergate.
Nobody died in Watergate.
How messed up is government if they can’t get to the bottom of this? I thought the whole idea behind police work is it gets the facts when they have sources?
Of course, there’s no real desire to get to the bottom of this, Ken, because it cannot reflect well on the Administration.
The whole point of the way our government was organized at the founding was that it did not matter who was in power. Senators not being elected as our founders intended was part of the slide. Giving children whose brains are not fully formed the right to vote was another. Then there is the idea that our government is supposed to take care of us. Ann Coulter pointed out which voting block that is.
They would never have gotten away with a Benghazi coverup, no matter who was president, just a few decades ago. We are sliding fast.
Go read up on the Gulf of Tonkin incident, or the Pentagon Papers, or Nixon and Anna Chennault, and then come back and explain how it was impossible to get away with a coverup before 18 year olds could vote.
Read it yourself. Nothing about it suggests that immature brains should be voting. The argument for is devoid of reason.
I’m puzzled why the House hasn’t bothered to get this far. It’s been half a year.
It’s only puzzling if there’s actually a cover-up, as opposed to a faux scandal being hyped for political purposes (see also: Fast and Furious, New Black Panthers, DHS buying bullets and coffins, Solyndra, the $200M trip to India, etc.). The GOP has had House subpoena power for two years now, and the number of top Obama aides charged with crimes remains … zero.
It’s a remarkable record. I don’t think Carter or Ford had any top officials convicted of anything, but otherwise it’s been the norm for recent administrations of both parties to see at least an indictment or two.
Nobody died in Watergate.
And therefore anytime people do die, it’s necessarily a bigger crime than Watergate? Do you really want to argue that?
The right seems very comfortable with the notion that 2,900 US deaths could happen on 9/11, and 4,400 US deaths could happen in Iraq, without anyone in the US executive branch committing a crime. But 4 dead in Benghazi — now that had to be a crime.
If you think what happened in Bengazi or Fast and Furious were faux scandals, you’re an even bigger political whore than I imagined.
I’ll believe they are real scandals when I see actual indictments. Your certainty that they are real scandals is merely an example of wishful thinking.
I’ll believe they are real scandals when I see actual indictments.
You’re joking, right? In Eric Holder’s (In)Justice Department, we’re going to see indictments?
Jim doesn’t care how many Mexicans die as long as Obamaa’s hand-picked head of the Department of “Justice” doesn’t care either.
Funny you should mention Fast and Furious, Jim. We know that the ATF furthered the commission of various acts of crime (by enabling a variety of high quality guns to cross the border into Mexico in support of the Sinaloa Cartel), particularly a large number of murders and particularly the murder of a federal law enforcement agent. That’s accessory to murder. Where are the indictments?
I’m not saying that there should be convictions. That requires beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. But absence of indictments or any sort of credible investigation of the people responsible in a case where we know the law was broken by someone tells me that the Obama administration simply is not enforcing the law with its own people.
In Eric Holder’s (In)Justice Department, we’re going to see indictments?
So the fact that there aren’t indictments becomes yet more evidence that the Democrats are guilty. That’s a nice self-fulfilling theory you have going.
If it’s so easy for an AG to shield an administration from indictments, please explain why Bush’s AGs couldn’t do it, or Clinton’s (with Deputy AG Eric Holder on duty), or George H.W. Bush’s, or Reagan’s.
That’s accessory to murder
Says you. But Darrell Issa has had subpoena power for two years, and he hasn’t been able to build a case for even appointing a special prosecutor, much less file indictments.
The GOP scandal playbook seems to go:
1. Assume that any mistake or misfortune in any way connected to the administration must be the result of criminal wrongdoing
2. Hold hearings and press conferences, and give a soapbox to anyone with an ax to grind
3. Run non-stop Fox News/talk radio/right wing blog coverage of the imagined scandal, with each “revelation” more breathless than the last
4. Meanwhile, no actual evidence of criminal behavior by the administration comes to light, just garden variety mistakes and misjudgments
5. So now the GOP’s base is convinced that “we know the law was broken by someone”, but there are no actual charges. So now we have a new imaginary scandal — the failure to prosecute the first one!
The point of this exercise isn’t to enforce the law, or improve public policy. It’s to tie up the administration in pointless fishing expeditions, smear it in the media, and keep the GOP base fired up with righteous indignation.
So the fact that there aren’t indictments becomes yet more evidence that the Democrats are guilty.
I didn’t write that. I merely wrote that you’d be a fool to expect indictments, regardless of guilt.
you’d be a fool to expect indictments, regardless of guilt
And the evidence for that is what, exactly?
Do explain what magic power Eric Holder has that makes this administration, unlike every other one, immune to criminal indictments.
No “magic power” is required. Merely a complete corruption.
Decades Ken? DECADES!?
Our ‘government’ couldn’t have gotten away with this ‘coverup’, just 50 MONTHS ago, to the DAY.
If this had happened, for whatever reason, regardless of the overall situation under George W. Bush, every MSM news outlet and OpEd Editor, even those at Fox and many at Glenn Beck’s organization, would be asking for GWB’s head on a platter.
AND rightfully so!
But now, 50 months into life in the workers paradise of Obamaland, the idiot children and inbred grandchildren of Dr. Goebbels are SO enamored of their Neo-Fuhrer, that they don’t even THINK to ASK about the boxcars…er, Benghazi, much less hold Obama’s feet to a scuttering marshmallow for answers beyond the BCS, his golf score with Tiger, or how the idiot dog if his, likes living in the WH!
We’re beyond sliding, we’re at terminal velocity and the ground is COMIN’ UP fast! Decades Ken, HAH!
Merely a complete corruption.
So why can’t the DOJ Inspector General find any evidence of this “complete corruption”? Is he in on it too? Why can’t Issa force anyone to testify under oath about this corruption? Is Holder a criminal genius?
Did you miss the part where he was held in contempt of Congress?
Did you miss the part where he was held in contempt of Congress?
That’s evidence that the GOP doesn’t like Holder. It isn’t evidence of a crime.
The contempt charge was passed with bipartisan support.
The contempt charge got 17 Democratic votes because the NRA announced that they would grade a vote against it as a vote against gun rights (!?!). So to correct my earlier statement, the contempt vote is evidence that the GOP and NRA don’t like Holder. It isn’t evidence of a crime.
The evidence of a crime are the firearms in the hands of the Mexican Drug Lords and the lifeless body of Brian Terry. The contempt charge was passed, because while Holder has admitted that the DoJ didn’t do all that was possible to prevent the crime, they won’t say what they decided not to do and why they decided not to do it. Why is it that we are always having to ask why the Obama Administration is uninterested in saving the lives of Americans?
“with the notion that 2,900 US deaths could happen on 9/11 … without anyone in the US executive branch committing a crime. “
Well, that does explain things.
Indeed, its the same misdirection played during Clinton, when the claim was supposedly a problem with President Clinton having sex with an intern. Really, Clinton was impeached for perjury while attempting to prevent Paula Jones from bringing him to court. It was the definitive “War on Women”, but as the “First Black President”; the Democrats looked away.
Actually, it was worse than that — it was subornation of perjury through bribes and threats. But I’ll bet not one person in a hundred knows that.
The Paula Jones suit was taken over by Republican operatives trying to bring down Clinton. They found out that he was having an affair, and used the Jones suit to get him on the record saying that he wasn’t having an affair, and then tried to leverage that lie into removing him from office.
As a legal matter they were right — he’d lied under oath. [At the time I thought he should resign.] But they miscalculated the public reaction. By the time it was over a couple Republican House Speakers had resigned, and Clinton left office at the height of his popularity.
Benghazi is like Monicagate in the sense that it’s virtually all about politics. It’s different in that the events in Libya were more serious, and that there’s no absolutely no evidence that anyone in the administration did anything criminal.
The Paula Jones suit was taken over by Republican operatives trying to bring down Clinton. They found out that he was having an affair, and used the Jones suit to get him on the record saying that he wasn’t having an affair, and then tried to leverage that lie into removing him from office.
A rewriting of history. If (the prosecutorially incompetent) Ken Starr was really trying to “take down Clinton,” he should have done it with Whitewater and other associated felonies. He only took on the Paula Jones case because Reno asked him to.
As a legal matter they were right — he’d lied under oath.
An incomplete history. As I said, they already had evidence that he’d been tampering with witnesses, even if he didn’t lie himself.
they already had evidence that he’d been tampering with witnesses
If the evidence had been compelling to Republican Senators, he would have been convicted. It wasn’t.
Those hacks had just lost an election. They wanted to hold on to their seats, and weren’t going to remove a popular president, regardless of guilt. And the Democrats irrationally supported him, when they could have made Gore president, with almost a certainty of reelection in 2000. But they were corrupt idiots.
And then Jim starts ranting about war for oil and how planes can’t bring down sky scrapers.
Our Congress voted to go to war in Iraq. Your not liking that vote doesn’t mean it was all lies for oil. What didn’t get a vote by Congress? Going to war in Libya and the shadow wars taking place all over the middle east and north africa.
And we have a President who wants us to believe he didn’t know what was going on. The same president that shows pics of his war room for storms and endless photo ops with gun crime victims.
Left Behind.
American service men and women, be it Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, CIA, and yes, State Department have died in service of our great country and will continue to die in service to our country. So to paraphrase the last Secretary of State, what difference does it make that four of our people made this sacrifice in Libya measured against the thousands sacrificed over the last 10 years in various military and covert and other operations?
Indeed, what difference does it make? The difference is whether the four, forget that, make it the entire cohort, most of whom were saved, whether those people were Left Behind?
Snark all you want Jim, but the concern about Benghazi is that our people were Left Behind. You know, like in a bad Tom Clancy novel such as “Clear and Present Danger.”
With regard to the crazier narratives of our service people being left behind in the jungles of Laos or Cambodia a la “Rambo”, there is an emerging picture of our airmen conducting photo missions over Soviet Russia back in the day, of being shot down, and spending the rest of their natural lives in the Gulag, in service of our country, all unacknowledged, and to a higher purpose at tremendous sacrifice to the individuals and their families.
So the difference it makes is not whether these four men died but whether they died honorably. Oh, indeed they died honorably, the honor question is whether the Guy-in-Charge-in-Chief was honorable in the circumstances leading to their deaths.
So what difference it makes Jim, and I know where you are heading with this, what difference does it make if Mr. Obama got 4 of our guys killed when Mr. Bush (and other Presidents) got thousands if not 10’s of thousands of our guys killed.
The difference is whether the people leading them were doing so in good faith, with honor, and adhering to the tacit contract we have with our service people, that is, we may call upon you to die in service of your country, but you won’t be Left Behind, and if you are Left Behind, it will be in something so covert and so secret and you will also know what you are getting yourself into when you volunteer for that mission. You know, “The Secretary will disavow any knowledge” kind of thing.
There is also a matter of trust. Yes, the “Right Wing” fever swamp was spinning all kinds of tales of orbiting AC-130s that had Presidential Orders not to intervene, just like in a bad Tom Clancy novel, and Jim, you are right to call out the wingnut contingent to believe in everything posted on the Web.
But the President and His Men (and Woman) haven’t done much to dispel these rumors and crazy theories, with his jetting off to Nevada for a campaign event that evening, with his burst of indignation (and his Secretary dropping the Indignation Card) that anyone ask what happened?
And yes, it is a matter of trust. There are people who question as to whether the President is straight with us on this, especially because he as dodged answering questions by doing the angry routine in public, a President who is in the habit of doing-the-angry in public to win arguments.
Maybe Benghazi was sacrificing our people to a high purpose the President cannot talk about, so he does-the-angry instead of the terse not-at-liberty-to-comment. But it is really hard to tell if this was to a high purpose in the War on Terror or to a low purpose, a dishonorable purpose, that the 4 were Left Behind to no good purpose apart from the President’s famous indecision in making any kind of decision. And there is plenty of evidence of that, and it doesn’t all come from the Right Wing. We really don’t know about Benghazi, but we do know the President can hardly make a decision to save himself, and this is not a Right/Left Wing matter, this is a widely acknowleged attribute of his leadership.
So Jim, if your comment is to say that we need to trust the President that Benghazi was serving some high purpose instead of some low, dishonorable purpose, we have something to talk about, whether the President merits that trust or not. But if your thinking is some kind of simplistic calculus that 4 is much less than the several thousand casualty count attributed to President Bush, I don’t think there is anything to discuss between us as we have a completely orthogonal world view.
The difference is whether the people leading them were doing so in good faith, with honor,
The problem with that standard is that the facts have no power over it. The right will never grant Obama (or Clinton) a presumption of good faith where military action is concerned.
But the President and His Men (and Woman) haven’t done much to dispel these rumors and crazy theories
The burden of proof is on the people with crazy theories.
we do know the President can hardly make a decision to save himself, and this is not a Right/Left Wing matter, this is a widely acknowleged attribute of his leadership
That is a fantasy, and an example of the problem with a subjective “trust” standard. There is literally nothing Obama could do to earn that trust from the Right. He can order the mission against Bin Laden, knowing that a Desert-One-style failure could cost him re-election, and on the Right still be known as a guy who can’t make a decision to save himself. He can order intervention in Libya, knowing that US lives may be lost, and that Gaddafi might not go down without a long civil war, but when US lives are lost, he’s still (to you) the guy who can’t make a decision.
if your comment is to say that we need to trust the President that Benghazi was serving some high purpose instead of some low, dishonorable purpose, we have something to talk about, whether the President merits that trust or not
You are stacking the deck right from the start, by burdening Obama (and only Obama) with a requirement to earn the trust that is otherwise routinely extended to the commander in chief. Absent evidence to the contrary — and in this case there is no evidence to the contrary — I assume that any president is acting in good faith, no matter how many people die.
I think Benghazi should be investigated just like any other incident where things go bad. But there is also some wisdom in proportion. The decision to invade Iraq deserves at least 1,000 times as much scrutiny as Benghazi, and won’t get it, because it isn’t in either party’s political interest to make a big deal about it.
“The right will never grant Obama (or Clinton) a presumption of good faith where military action is concerned.”
At what point in time has Obama or any Democrat for that matter presumed Bush acted in good faith? You cant push standards for behavior when your party doesn’t adhere to any.
Pro-tip: If you want people to get along with you and try and solve problems, don’t go around calling them racists who want to put black people back in slavery, kill the elderly, starve the children, rape the women, ect. It is one thing for wackjob leftists to say in the comment sections on the internet but it is also stuff that Obama and his administration are saying.
So when you talk about considering Obama’s words and deeds through the prism of good faith, also remember what Obama and his staff have been directing at the loyal opposition.
At what point in time has Obama or any Democrat for that matter presumed Bush acted in good faith?
You must be joking. Democrats voted for the Authorization to Use Military Force to give Bush a free hand in the war on terror. They voted to let him invade Iraq. They granted him an enormous presumption of good faith.
Can you even imagine the GOP granting Obama the same?
Democrats voted for the Authorization to Use Military Force to give Bush a free hand in the war on terror.
Have you forgotten the “Bush lied, People died” meme?
It wasn’t just a meme: Bush’s people did in fact lie, and people did in fact die. That isn’t a presumption of bad faith, it’s just the facts.
So in other words, your previous comment was BS.
Your reply reveals why people shouldn’t have a “good faith” in Democrats actions and motives.
But let’s make this bipartisan, why should we assume good faith out of politicians. Politicians from both parties, and politicians in general going back thousands of years, have shown that we should not assume good faith from any of them. We should be skeptical of their speeches, motives, and actions. We used to have a media that believed this.
What makes Obama different than other people? Why should he not get.the same scrutiny as Bush or Clinton? Why must Democrats always have this cult of personality for their leaders that deifies their character and ignores all of their negative attributes and actions? When will Democrats apply the principles of deconstruction, which they have used to tearn down our society and culture, to their own leaders and beliefs?
And the, “But Bush” defense has no bearing on judging Obama by his actions. Might as well go full godwin.
“But 4 dead in Benghazi — now that had to be a crime.”
Glad you see the light, Jim.
Sorry I forgot the sarcasm tags.
Evidently I needed to include the tags for you in my response.
Benghazi is like Monicagate in the sense that it’s virtually all about politics.
This statement just shows how low you can go Jim. From Obama’s peoples perspective, this would be a true statement. Which is what makes it so low.
Jim writes:
“You are stacking the deck right from the start, by burdening Obama (and only Obama) with a requirement to earn the trust that is otherwise routinely extended to the commander in chief. ”
Typical statist-lib-dem partisan, whiny, situationally ethical, fantasy re-writing of reality.
First off, a vote for you is an expression of trust in you – temporarily. If you get more votes than the other guys then more people trust you than the other guys.
As if Bush II was trusted by your side on day 1 After the 2000 election. Yeah right.
Trust always has to be earned. It’s just that typically our CinC’s have had actual experience and accomplishments upon which a temporary bit of trust can be given. Note “temporary”….that’s why we call the first few days of an administration a “honeymoon”. I’m sure you recall that now that you’ve been reminded……
Carter was a Governor, a Nuke submariner, and ran a business (peanut farm). That’s all useful experience. Carter was trusted at the start.
LBJ was a career politician with scads of votes one could look at to see what he was made of.
Reagan was a Governor, worked for a living for decades.
Truman ran a business – and knew how they could fail – was an experienced politician, and fought in a hot war.
Obama? People with two synapses to rub together looked at his empty experience sheet and non-voting record and were wary – and rightly so. And yet more than 50% voted for him in 2008 – that’s an expression of trust right there.
After 4 years of failure and misery there is even less reason to trust him.
And now Donna Brazile and other lo-info lib-dems are beginning to realize what we knew all along – Obama is not for them; doesn’t care about them; never thinks about them.
After the Obamacare briberies, the Dream Act end arounds of the people’s will, rebuffs of our best allies, and hugs with our enemies….
MOST CERTAINLY Obama is not to be trusted.
Reagan was a Governor, worked for a living for decades.
So being an actor is “working”, but being a lawyer and professor and state legislator isn’t?
After the Obamacare briberies
In that case you shouldn’t trust any D.C. politician, because virtually every big bill passed by Congress has as much “bribery” as Obamacare. As I write this Senator Moran (R-KS) is blocking the continuing resolution to prevent the firing of rural air traffic controllers (a result of the sequester). If the rest of the Senate agrees to give Moran his air traffic controllers in order to keep the government from shutting down, is that bribery?
“So being an actor is “working”, but being a lawyer and professor and state legislator isn’t?”
Are you REALLY that obtuse? Or are you so in the tank you cannot put two logical statements together?
Or did you just ignore, for example, my comment about Obama’s non-voting record? That non-voting record would include his time as a state legislator. Do you always ignore facts that you find inconvenient?
You *DO* know what the point is regarding working for a living vs being a politician, yes?
“In that case you shouldn’t trust any D.C. politician, because virtually every big bill passed by Congress has as much “bribery” as Obamacare.”
You have an amazing capacity to put words in other people’s mouths. You did that a lot with Rand, in this thread:
Who said I trusted any DC politician?
It seems that your whole world view is based upon a spiderweb of assumptions that simply aren’t true.
Could you at least TRY to read what people bother to write rather than make up fantasies in your head?
That non-voting record would include his time as a state legislator.
What do you mean by “non-voting record”?
You *DO* know what the point is regarding working for a living vs being a politician, yes?
No, I don’t. Obama was a politician, but he also worked as a lawyer and professor. He spent more of his life in the non-political private sector than, say, Paul Ryan. There is no reason, based on Obama’s resumé, to deny him the presumption of good faith that you’d extend to Ryan or any other elected official.
Who said I trusted any DC politician?
So you were just as skeptical of Bush’s foreign policy actions as you are of Obama’s? If true, I applaud your consistency.
“You *DO* know what the point is regarding working for a living vs being a politician, yes?”
Jim replies:
“No, I don’t. ”
That explains a great deal.
There is no reason, based on Obama’s resumé, to deny him the presumption of good faith
Yes, there certainly was and is. His ideology and fellow travelers are more than sufficient.
You are proving my point. No liberal Democrat is going to meet your standards for trustworthiness.
Lol Jim, are you saying all liberal democrats are anti-american communists who want to impose their world view via revolution? Or maybe just a long march…
“You are proving my point. No liberal Democrat is going to meet your standards for trustworthiness.”
Wrong again, oh fantasy-spinner:
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
The Right often loves Democrats after they’re dead or term-limited (i.e. after it matters). How about one that’s still alive? Which prominent liberal Democrats would you trust to carry out foreign policy in good faith?
There are very few “liberal” Democrats any more. Liberals believe in freedom of speech and markets. Democrats are mostly leftist.
Arguing about labels is so tiresome, so I’ll play along: name some living prominent “leftist” Democrats you’d trust to carry out foreign policy in good faith.
None, by definition.
No liberal Democrat is going to meet your standards for trustworthiness.
How is this hard for you Jim? Include most republicans as well and you’ll be close to the mark regarding those I trust.
“The Right often loves Democrats after they’re dead or term-limited (i.e. after it matters). ”
It’s not our problem that your party went from being a reasonable representation of traditional liberality to a Hard Left, Socialist Anti-Constitution, Anti-US organization of Rich, Power-broker, plantation owners.
Jim, if the administration was acting in good faith in regards to Benghazi why did they tell so many public lies about it?
Why the need to explain it away with knowingly false stories for over a month?
And what does that say about the administration that felt the need to do that, and about Benghazi?
Why the need to explain it away with knowingly false stories for over a month?
They were only “knowingly” false in hindsight. At the time there was plenty of uncertainty, which was reflected in the mixed messages from the administration. Plus, the CIA didn’t want them saying certain things publicly, which further slanted the public story away from what turned out to be the truth. It was a communication failure.
And what does that say about the administration that felt the need to do that, and about Benghazi?
Not much. It says that they weren’t able to immediately and clearly communicate the essence of a confusing situation in a way that didn’t require revision as the days and weeks passed. It isn’t clear that their failure to immediately communicate the nature of the attack had any real effect on anyone, other than driving John McCain and Lindsay Graham insane, and denying Susan Rice the Secretary of State job.
Again, it is worth contrasting this communication failure with the baldfaced lie Condoleezza Rice told about the Iraqi aluminum tubes. In that case she had been personally briefed that the tubes were probably not for nuclear use. After time and deliberation she went on TV and said they could only be used for nuclear weapons development. That statement had a real effect: it strengthened the strongest argument in the administration’s case for war, the threat of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein. But that lie was not subject to one percent of the Fox News coverage that Benghazi has gotten. It did not result in hearings and filibusters. Even after the lie was public knowledge, Condoleezza Rice was confirmed as Secretary of State without a fuss.
Except that through FOIA requests we found out the administration knew exactly what had happened and there was plenty of clear and concise knowledge between the CIA & State Dept. about what had happened, but the White House & State decided to send out Susan Rice to lie, and then Hillary and others continued said lie for at least a month.
We’re not talking about Rice & Bush here, so keep your talking points to yourself.
“We’re not talking about Rice & Bush here, so keep your talking points to yourself.”
Jim has demonstrated time and again that he has studied and memorized the Obama technique of distraction and dissembling.
there was plenty of clear and concise knowledge between the CIA & State Dept. about what had happened, but the White House & State decided to send out Susan Rice to lie
That is simply false. The DCIA and DNI testified under oath that they’d reviewed and approved the talking points that Rice used in her TV appearances.
Which makes me wonder: where did you get this false information?
In case you forgot America is still at war with the crazy terrorists who attacked Benghazi. Do you really expect the government to tell the truth while at war?
Right. So instead of putting out a plausible cover story, they put out transparent lies that were clearly in the political interest of the administration two months before an election.
You’re accusing Petraeus of putting out transparent lies in order to serve Obama’s re-election effort? If that was true it wouldn’t be too hard to find some career CIA people to testify to it. Why hasn’t that happened?
“They were only “knowingly” false in hindsight.”
That is a total crock. We now know they knew EXACTLY what was going on and that they made up the video story as a cover up.
We know it.
They know it.
It seems only you don’t know it
They were only “knowingly” false in hindsight.
Bullshit.
“They were only “knowingly” false in hindsight.”
Would you grant Bush that same consideration or will you continue on with the conspiracy theory that it was a war for oil, a war to avenge his father, a war to turn Iraq into a colony, a war to enrich himself and his friends, ect ect ect.
Whether you agree or disagree with the war in Iraq and what you think of the validity of a small portion of the reasons used to justify the war, the war was not any of the conspiracy theories of the left or what you have been saying about it.
Looking at the big stink people made over Pat Tillman, you think those same people would be equally outraged over Benghazi or even outraged or even mildly upset.
will you continue on with the conspiracy theory that it was a war for oil, a war to avenge his father, a war to turn Iraq into a colony, a war to enrich himself and his friends, ect ect ect.
I’ve never said any of those things. You’re arguing with someone else.
Looking at the big stink people made over Pat Tillman
The “big stink” came after it came out that Army officials deliberately lied to cover up a friendly fire incident. That’s how it’s supposed to work: first you find out that there was wrongdoing, and then you get upset. Where Obama is concerned, the Right’s MO is outrage first, evidence later.
those same people would be equally outraged over Benghazi
Are you kidding? Benghazi has gotten 10x the attention paid to Tillman, despite there being no evidence to date of wrongdoing. How many filibusters did Tillman inspire? How many cabinet appointments were scuttled? You have lost all sense of perspective.
That’s how it’s supposed to work: first you find out that there was wrongdoing, and then you get upset.
Sort of like finding out that Benghazi was blamed on some video, and then later discovering it was a planned terrorist attack months in the making?
The subtext of your comments always aludes to some conspiracy. Earlier you were making references to 9/11 and Iraq. Sure, I gave more examples of conspiracy theories than the ones you are talking about but it is only to show the full scope of democrat party mind set which extends from the top down not just some wingnuts.
I didn’t bring up Tillman because of coverage, I brought it up because it is yet another example of hypocrisy of the left in what they get outraged about when it comes to war. The past five years have shown the opposition to war is hallow political opportunism that puts party before country.
Sort of like finding out that Benghazi was blamed on some video, and then later discovering it was a planned terrorist attack months in the making?
Where was the wrongdoing? Rice was repeating talking points vetted by the CIA and DNI.
The subtext of your comments always aludes to some conspiracy. Earlier you were making references to 9/11 and Iraq.
You are completely misconstruing those references. My point was that you can have loss of life without a White House criminal conspiracy. Fast and Furious, Benghazi, 9/11 and Iraq are all examples of that fact. I was arguing against the nutty idea that dead Americans necessarily implies conspiracy.
the full scope of democrat party mind set which extends from the top down
First of all, there’s no such thing as the “democrat party”, it’s called the Democratic party.
Second, please show me where Obama said that Iraq was “war for oil, a war to avenge his father, a war to turn Iraq into a colony, a war to enrich himself and his friends, etc”. Those beliefs do not extend from “the top down.” You are imagining things.
My point was that you can have loss of life without a White House criminal conspiracy. Fast and Furious, Benghazi, 9/11 and Iraq are all examples of that fact.
Fast and Furious doesn’t qualify because there is a clear evidence trail by which ATF agents enable the smuggling of guns (and whatever else was being smuggled with those guns!) across the border and these guns showed up at a lot of crime scenes including at least 200 murders in both the US and Mexico. And they are still turning up at crime scenes, such as a shoot out between the Sinaloa Cartel and the Mexican military last November.
When you provide weapons that you know will be used in crimes, that makes you an accessory to those crimes. There remains no evidence that the Obama administration has investigated these crimes. Instead, they have gone to lengths to protect those involved. The same holds for the Benghazi attack. While the crimes in the Fast and Furious case are notable in themselves, we also have two examples of extensive cover ups.
First of all, there’s no such thing as the “democrat party”, it’s called the Democratic party.
You lost that rhetorical argument before you were born. Wikipedia says it’s an epithet that’s been in frequent use since 1940, but was used as an insult as early as 1889. And it’s been seen in the wild (presumably in use by the spelling-flexible) since 1834, before the party chopped “Republican” off its name.
Where was the wrongdoing? Rice was repeating talking points vetted by the CIA and DNI.
Where’s the evidence that her talking points were correct?
Let him go, he’ll never be convinced too much kool aid. Maybe he’ll be on the first boxcar out of Dumbassville, under the fluttering Obamaland banners, thinking, “…sh1t, maybe I was wrong!?”
“thinking”???????
I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, in spite of his proclivity for blindness.
It’s enlightening to look at Jim’s method of argument; Which Gregg correctly identifies as distraction and dissembling.
explain how it was impossible to get away with a coverup
This strawman would be both.
It’s only puzzling if there’s actually a cover-up
Ditto.
I’ll believe they are real scandals when I see actual indictments.
We already know the ridiculous attempt at coverup exists, so now Jim unilaterally declares an indictment is required before it rises to the level of scsndal.
Benghazi is like Monicagate in the sense that it’s virtually all about politics.
Despicable. Obama killed those men by his inaction and the inaction of those he put in charge. Jim, I will never forgive you for making this dishonorable statement.
There is literally nothing Obama could do to earn that trust from the Right.
Actually a true statement, but you leave off the most important rest of it. He has earned distrust.
You are stacking the deck right from the start, by burdening Obama (and only Obama) with a requirement to earn the trust that is otherwise routinely extended to the commander in chief.
This is just delusional. All presidents must earn trust. The fact that you think Obama is being treated special by those that distrust him shows you live in the matrix.
They were only “knowingly” false in hindsight.
You believe if you say this BIG LIE long enough and loud enough it constitutes an argument. Actually, this is the answer to all your arguments with rare exception.