lol I'm "leading the pack" of the "true believers" in "their delusions" even though I thought all along what the investigations concluded? O-kaaay . . .Well, looking at werepossum, since he went full retard to continue to defend it, I would say that as all of us expected, the "true believers" won't let a little thing like the facts stand in the way of their delusions. Werepossum is just leading the pack this time.
WASHINGTON — The Democratic-led Congress appears intent on using its oversight powers to investigate the Bush administration until the day the latter packs up and walks out of the White House.
Oversight hearings and reports have been as common as lobbyists on Capitol Hill since the Democrats swept the 2006 elections. In July alone, hearings covered a range of subjects including allegations of faulty wiring installed by US contractors in Iraq, possibly misleading testimony from Environment Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Stephen Johnson, and charges that politics guided hiring of career workers in the Justice Department.
White House officials consider the scrutiny a burden and a waste of legislative time.
The new Democratic majority's zeal for congressional investigations goes well beyond Alberto Gonzales and the fired federal prosecutors.
Aided by a new investigative team including a former mob prosecutor and a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter, Democrats have launched more than three dozen probes of the administration ranging from the White House to obscure agency heads. The House Oversight Committee alone has conducted 20 investigations.
With few legislative accomplishments in hand -- and only a few prospects in the offing -- it seems plain the 110th is shaping up as "The Oversight Congress."
This is troubling news for the Bush White House and Republicans. No fewer than six administration officials have resigned already amid the congressional probes -- and many more are in Democratic sights.
They are targeting a sweep of people and issues. Some are high-profile, such as the leaking of Valerie Plame's CIA identity or the U.S. attorney firings, subjects that make for compelling cable news dramas.
But many more are mundane: inefficiency at the federal crop insurance program or conflicts of interest in FDA contracting. Some are pragmatic, such as an examination of food safety following outbreaks of illness caused by contaminated peanut butter and spinach. Others are tragic: the death of Army Ranger Pat Tillman and the misleading information the military provided to his family.
"We're seeing results when we peel away some of the layers in every department," said Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), a member of the House Judiciary Committee. "People felt they could do whatever they wanted for whatever reason."
Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said Democrats had a mountain of issues to investigate.
"We have a huge backlog, and we'll try to use what we can to get to everything," he said.
The outbreak of investigations represents a significant change in Washington. For the first six years of the Bush presidency, Republicans controlled Congress and largely avoided tough oversight hearings and hard-hitting investigations, especially of the Iraq war and environmental issues.
"The Bush administration overstepped in its exertion of executive privilege, and may very well try to continue to shield information from the American people after it leaves office," said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, who sits on two committees, Judiciary and Intelligence, that are examining Bush policies.
Topics of open investigations include the harsh interrogation of detainees, the prosecution of former Governor Don Siegelman of Alabama, secret legal memorandums from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel and the role of the former White House aides Karl Rove and Harriet Miers in the firing of federal prosecutors.
Bush has used his executive powers to block congressional requests for executive branch documents and testimony from former aides. But investigators hope that President-elect Barack Obama's administration will open the filing cabinets and withdraw assertions of executive privilege that Bush officials have invoked to keep from testifying.
"I intend to ensure that our outstanding subpoenas and document requests relating to the U.S. attorneys matter are enforced," said Representative John Conyers, Democrat of Michigan, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. "I am hopeful that progress can be made with the coming of the new administration."
In addition, two advocacy groups, the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First, have prepared detailed reports for the new administration calling for criminal investigations into alleged abuses of detainees.
It is not clear, though, how Obama will handle such requests. Legal specialists said the pressure to investigate the Bush years would raise tough political and legal questions.
Because every president eventually leaves office, incoming chief executives have an incentive to quash investigations into their predecessor's tenure. Bush used executive privilege for the first time in 2001, to block a subpoena by congressional Republicans investigating the Clinton administration.
Obama has expressed worries about too many investigations. In April, he told The Philadelphia Daily News that people needed to distinguish "between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity."
"If crimes have been committed, they should be investigated," Obama said, but added, "I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve."
Sen. Pat Leahy is running into stiff resistance from conservatives -- and a mixed response from liberals -- as he pursues a "truth commission" to investigate the alleged abuses of the Bush administration.
The Vermont Democrat, who is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, pitched the idea last week during a speech at Georgetown University, saying the commission would not pursue criminal indictments but would launch a fact-finding mission to "learn the truth" about the Bush years.
He said the commission would strike the "middle ground" between those who want to prosecute Bush officials for alleged violations of civil liberties and the politicization of the Justice Department and those who want to resist any inquiries into the past eight years. Leahy has since launched an online petition that has garnered more than 26,000 signatures.
Republicans have spoken out against the idea, and reaction from Democrats has been mixed.
Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, who supports pursuing allegations of torture, said officials should not be "afraid" to use the existing infrastructure, including the Department of Justice and statutes already on the books to investigate and punish anyone who broke the law.
"I don't know if we require a formal new commission to do that," Reed told MSNBC.
Other Democrats say the proposal is no good because it doesn't go far enough.
Bob Fertik, co-founder of Democrats.com, wrote on his Web site: "I truly do not understand the distinct minority of 'liberals' who would rather 'learn the truth' about George Bush's most heinous crimes than prosecute them. And when I read the 'arguments' for a 'Truth Commission,' all I see are fallacies."
But other Democrats, including President Obama, have suggested that an investigation of the Bush administration would be too divisive. Obama declined to endorse the idea of a "truth commission" at his prime-time press conference last week.
"My view is also that nobody's above the law, and if there are clear instances of wrongdoing, that people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen, but that generally speaking, I'm more interested in looking forward than I am in looking backwards," Obama said.
"So I will take a look at Senator Leahy's proposal, but my general orientation is to say let's get it right moving forward," he said.
Leahy said the commission could look at matters ranging from the firings of U.S. attorneys, interrogation techniques used on terrorism suspects and the authorization of warrantless wiretapping.
Rachel Maddow's explosive documentary "Why We Did It" adds substantial evidence to what most Americans have long suspected: the Bush Administration invaded Iraq not because of WMD's, but because of oil.
The Bush-Cheney administration's invasion of Iraq cost 4,486 U.S. soldiers' lives and up to 1 million Iraqi civilians' lives. Two million veterans served in Iraq and many continue to suffer profound physical and mental injury.
Taxpayers are paying $1 trillion plus interest for the disastrous invasion, and the huge increase in oil prices cost our economy at least $3 trillion. These are important reasons for the huge increase in our national debt, which is forcing deep cuts in essential domestic programs.
In the past year, Congress conducted extensive investigations of the deaths of just 4 Americans in Benghazi, Libya. But Congress has never investigated the truth about Iraq, even after 11 years.
It's time for Congress to thoroughly investigate the Bush Administration's Iraq War lies, and determine the true reasons for Bush's invasion - especially oil.
lol I'm "leading the pack" of the "true believers" in "their delusions" even though I thought all along what the investigations concluded? O-kaaay . . .
Proggies aren't happy unless everyone is marching in lockstep, I suppose.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2008/0805/p02s04-uspo.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/4137.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/world/americas/13iht-bush.1.17792506.html?_r=0
http://people.bu.edu/dkriner/Kriner%20and%20Schwartz%20LSQ.pdf
Hell, Democrats continued investigating Bush even after he was gone. Old Leaky Leahy wanted investigations to continue with a "Bush Administration 'Truth' Commission."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...-leahys-bush-administration-truth-commission/
In fact, the far far left proggie wing are STILL demanding more investigations.
http://www.democrats.com/investigate-iraq-war-lies
Absolutely nothing new here except which side's squealing ox is being gored at the moment.
You seem to have majored in false equivalencies in college. We all lived through the Bush Administration. There were so many scandals any one of which if it were Obama we'd probably be sitting in impeachment hearings over.
Just imagine the lying to Get us into Iraq and the disaster of preparation for Katrina. And those are just the two major ones.
I just like to see how much he can ignore at once.I think you win for longest post, WerePossum.
-John
On the bright side, this is about what I thought. Yes, they issued a statement they knew was false, but it was the least politically damaging one selected from several reasonable possibilities. That's politics, not a scandal, clinging to the most favorable (or least unfavorable) explanation as long as is viable.
"Least politically damaging" to blame a video and throw its creator in jail.
The admin is given a free pass to throw Americans under the bus.
I don't think the Obama administration had anything to do with him being thrown in jail other than to blame the video (which was one of the things used in some locations to fire up the Jihadis.) After that I imagine someone saw his picture and said "Holy crap, we've got a warrant out for that guy.""Least politically damaging" to blame a video and throw its creator in jail.
The admin is given a free pass to throw Americans under the bus.
I admitted ignorance about Benghazi, and offered no opinion on Benghazi - just a generalized hope he gets impeached for something. I would think the IRS and NSA stuff should qualify if this doesn't.
Perhaps you'd also be interested in pointing out what I have to walk back.I for one am interested to watch Werepossum try and walk things back while simultaneously blaming "proggies" for any insane and delusional accusations he may have made along the way.
Something I don't understand here. Supposedly this was a CIA arms smuggling ring with dozens of people there earlier in the day. That's the kind of thing that certainly would have a lot of heavily armed security. So how did our ambassador come to be there practically alone with zero security? Why would our ambassador be there at all when such a program screams for plausible deniability? This comes back to my objections to Valerie Plame as a covert operative - running a clandestine arms smuggling operation from a diplomatic mission is just as stupid as running an overt part of a diplomatic mission as a covert operative. When you are trying to hide something, why use a place to which suspicions and surveillance are already going to be drawn? And if our government really is this stupid, why leave such a place with zero security when such an important government figure is present? None of this makes any sense.
While it's certainly possible that the CIA acted stupidly in this case there's simply no way any of us have even close to enough information to make that call.
For the foamy, my first two quotes here sandwiching Eskimospy's.True. We can't even really know if they are covering up because there are vital secrets at risk or simply because they can, just to avoid embarrassment or criminal charges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monovillageNo dispute that the Obama administration has taken this behavior a giant leap further, but more Democrats than Republicans (percentage-wise) supported the recent Republican bills to end the NSA spying even though it was a Republican bill attempting to rein in a Democrat administration. It's a bipartisan problem, but the Dems are marginally better on it than are the Pubbies.
A lie that been refuted by the IRS Inspector general, but little baby bronies like yourself continue to spew it.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ot-liberals-w/
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2011/...-little-ponys/
There's always a few Republicans that support the NSA and the loss of freedom, no dispute there, but this administration has taken that loss of freedom a giant leap further.
Quote:The Obama administration is the worst ever on this issue.
Originally Posted by monovillage
How is this particular administration on the issue ?
Unfortunately I have little faith that the next administration, be it Democrat or Republican, won't be even worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bshole View Post
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Its hysterically funny. Next thing you know, there will be yellow cake uranium there, then chem weapons and then suitcake nukes. It's all one big conspiracry by OBama to DESTROY America. Bahahahahahaha!!!!!
SNIP
Um, you DO know we recovered over five hundred tons of yellow cake uranium in Iraq, right? Under our supervision it was sold to Canada, whose reactors can use yellow cake uranium. (Most reactors need yellow cake uranium to be significantly enriched before being useful as fuel.)
Interestingly, Libya had one of the longest running nuclear weapons programs in the Arab world, partnering at times with India, the Soviet Union, Japan, Argentina, Red China, even (briefly) Belgium, but mostly of course Pakistan. After a US naval interdiction in October 2003, Quadhafi came clean and in December 2003 signed an agreement admitting his not-so-secret nuclear program and opening his facilities to international inspection. (Certainly he had been told he was going to be the next Iraq, which in 2003 was still a credible threat.) We found that although his centrifuges were more advanced than we had thought, Libya had taken possession of only a few hundred of the 10,000 Quadhafi had contracted to buy to produce up to ten deployable bombs a year. Most of the yellow cake Quadhafi purchased from Niger was apparently resold to Pakistan in return for technical assistance - although honestly he doesn't seem to have received much value for his millions and his uranium - but we did ship 25 tons of yellow cake uranium, centrifuges, and other components from Libya to Oak Ridge, TN in 2004. So the reason there was no yellow cake uranium in Libya is - Bush. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...ya/nuclear.htm
Now you know.
Quote:Yes, I know that. It's the main reason I discounted the British story about Hussein approaching Niger about buying yellow cake uranium even before it was revealed to be a French hoax. Whatever the reason Hussein approached Niger, it surely wasn't to buy more of the yellow cake uranium he had in abundance with very little means of utilization. Niger doesn't really sell anything else Iraq would need, so I'm guessing he was feeling them out for clandestine oil shipments in return for transshipment of contraband from other nations.
Originally Posted by thraashman
And you do know that that yellow cake Uranium you're referring to is something that had been in Iraq since before the first Gulf War and the U.S. and U.N. were completely aware of it and it had been documented.
I mention it only because so many on the left seem to think it never existed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TerryMathewsPretty much what everyone with at least half a brain already knew and everyone with at least an ounce of honesty already admitted - the administration lied its asses off and forced the CIA talking points to be revised showing the least damaging story even though everyone knew it was a lie. Honestly I can't get very worked up about that as its political damage control after the fact. Romney was my guy, but his team was engaging in the same behavior, just making it as politically damaging as possible.
Where are you all this morning?http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/w...house/8471737/
Quote:
Originally Posted by boomerangHonestly I'm not convinced that Hilary's head should roll except for just basic dishonesty - something that applies to virtually all our politicians. I don't like that State turned down requests for proper security - and I really, really don't like that after the guy was dead they then claimed to offered in private what they turned down on record - but it's possible this was an honest screw-up or, assuming the gun running allegations are true, a calculated risk that bit them hard.
Everything one needs to know about the seriousness of the Benghazi cover up is evident in the degree of zeal which the faithful followers of the Obama regime devote to defending their messiah. If this was a nothing story, they would be ignoring it. They are not doing that. They are clawing tooth and nail in fear that something might actually "stick" in this particular debacle.
We have a regime in place that puts party before the nation to a degree that I can't recall in my lifetime. There is no longer anyone willing to fall on the sword because they made a huge blunder. Our nation is being governed by the "everyone is a winner" crowd and they've got the trophies to prove it. They are not just blameless, they are beyond making mistakes.
Our country was running arms from Libya to Syria. Arms that were ending up in the hands of our enemies. It was supposed to be a secret. It resulted in the death of four Americans including a highly respected Ambassador. The whole thing could have been spun several ways that would have minimized the culpability of the regime in conjunction with a sacrificial lamb taking the fall. The conservative press and the nation as a whole would have begrudgingly accepted this.
But their arrogance would not allow for this. Nobody from the elite running the nation should have to admit any guilt. Why should they, they are all winners. So they doubled down with the lies and the deceit. As time goes on and more documentation is released the heap of shit is getting higher and higher and it's getting more difficult to crawl out from under without getting some on them.
The mid-term election is a lost cause. The presidential election in 2016 is the big one. The day Hillary announces she will not run for the presidency is when this will break loose. Her head is the head that should have rolled. That did not happen and will not happen for obvious reasons that are purely political. When she announces she will not be running, a sacrificial lamb will be led to slaughter so as to not sully the Clinton name any further.
What a state our nation is in. Politics and party are more important than anything else and to a degree I don't recall in my lifetime. There is no price too great to pay in the quest to achieve absolute long-lasting power. Illegal arms operation and dead Americans certainly are not enough.
To my libertarian/conservative friends: Don't bother arguing Benghazi with the leftists. There is no evidence, no argument, no smoking gun that will divert them from their chosen path, which is to defend this regime to the bitter end. Just be happy to know that there are many in the nation that have not let it rest and will not let it rest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boomerangI pretty much agree, I just don't think it's completely a leftie problem. Who really is held accountable in our government? W went around telling us that the British have learned that Saddam had tried to purchase yellow cake uranium from Niger when we knew that story was a French operative's forgery before the British even brought it to us - not to mention Saddam already had hundreds of tons of yellow cake uranium. No one was held responsible. State sent Valerie Plame's freakin' husband, a bureaucrat with zero experience or expertise, and no one was held responsible. It's how our government operates, sadly.
I hear you, I really do. Supplying arms through various means has been done all through my lifetime and I'm certain it was going on before that. That's what precipitated the problem. It's not the problem.
Here's my issue in a nutshell. Nobody and I mean nobody is responsible for anything in this administration. That's it, right there.
It's a leftie thing. Judge people on their intentions instead of the outcome. And of course our leftie friends see no problem with it because they think exactly the same. Like minded people tend to give a lot of allowances for like minded people. But in this case we lost by all accounts, not just three very brave individuals, we lost a very valuable, highly respected, very intelligent man, that being Chris Stevens. And what did we get? Lie after lie after lie choreographed and spread throughout the administration. Obama himself was still telling the lie weeks after it had become known that it was in fact not true.
They could have told a believable lie (by leaving out the gun running - justifying to themselves that it was for national security, blah, blah) in the beginning and atoned for their mistakes and as I said earlier, it would all have gone away. Many would have known, many would have suspected but a majority would have realized that we're all human, we make mistakes, this was a big one, but the administration is truly sorry and has vowed not to repeat it. Done, wrapped up, back to business as usual.
But no. Their ego's would not allow for that. Nobody was held accountable. Obama had told the nation numerous times about his glorious victory over al Qaeda. He was weeks away from an election. Can't have anything disparaging coming out about him. Hillary was next for ascension to the throne and we couldn't have her reputation tarnished because fortunately, thus far, every illegal venture and despicable behavior by her had succumbed to the Teflon her stature had provided her.
So, for purely political reasons, the worst of reasons, the spin machine was cranked up for the latest version of the current truth. And that truth was deemed to be so airtight, that it could not and must not be altered. That truth needed to be protected such that documentation releases were sandbagged and the bullshit just goes on and on.
Our political system is a sickening cesspool of partisanship. It will not change until we decide to change it. Right now one faction of the country would like to see someone answer for what happened in Benghazi and the other wants to protect their partisan interests even if it involved the deaths of some of our people and arming people who are our enemies.
So, another opportunity slips by. No surprise. Who is electable in our nation these days to the highest office in the land? People who skirt the law, make zero contributions to the nation. People who lie and cheat and steal and say things that are believable to so many useful idiots. People who have accomplished things, who have run things, who don't need the job in the quest for more power, who don't sugarcoat our situation are demonized and made out to be unworthy.
This absolutely is not going to end well. Benghazi will be but one page of a long book. And it doesn't have to be this way.
Quote:Notice Obama's COMPLETE lack of interest in actually getting the terrorists who actually committed the attack as well. Perhaps that too can tell you something.
Originally Posted by bshole
Notice the rabid fascination with hanging all of this on Obama and the COMPLETE lack of interest in actually getting the terrorists who actually committed the attack...... that alone tells me all I need to know about these smear boys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JhhnnIf only you were capable of understanding just how unintentionally appropriate is that statement . . .
The first one lies, and then the second swears to it. Repeat it often enough & the believers will fall right in line, as usual.
Quote:Two things. First, I largely agree, which is why I'm not all up in arms about the lying and deceit. It's lying and deceit to cover up something politically embarrassing, a cover-up which may or may not (probably not) involve any real, intentional wrong-doing by the Obama administration. That is categorically different from, say, the cover-up over the IRS scandal or the Fast and Furious scandals which hide true wrong-doing. (Although not necessarily by the Obama administration - the IRS scandal could be a Christie thing where like-minded employees take advantage of a perceived friendly environment, and the BATFE needs no friendly environment at all.) No matter the dishonesty, it does not affect the deaths of Stevens and Smith. Competent planning and leadership might have prevented the deaths of Woods and Doherty, or might not. But either way, none of the dishonesty directly concerns the night of the attack, only the attempt to make it as politically damage-free as possible. That is independent of any guilt, as my guy was trying just as hard to make it as politically damaging as possible. That's how politics works - it is not an honest business.
Originally Posted by HomerJS
Can anyone explain to me why what the administration said was the cause of the ambassadors death immediately after while facts were still coming vs the same ambassador refused extra security offered to him by military which could have saved his life???
Second, no way in hell am I believing that Stevens was turned down twice on record, then off record was offered the same thing for which he'd repeatedly asked and turned it down. That is merely a cynical attempt to blame the dead guy for being right, and that does piss me off a great deal.
Quote:I agree with every bit of that, but his point is that none of the deceit materially affects the four deaths. Even if the Obama administration had taken the highly unusual (for them and indeed most administrations) step of reporting the exact truth rather than the least political damaging scenario remotely possible, those four men are still dead.
Originally Posted by Jaskalas
A perfect demonstration that you have no idea what Benghazi is.
Illegal arms smuggling to Syrian terrorists aside, we suffered a terrorist attack and our people died. The White House then fearing their re-election narrative of defeating terrorists, instead of calling it what it was decided to blame Americans for the "protest".
Yes, this President's administration blames YOU, me, and everyone else for our free speech, for our youtube videos, for making people angry. For making them "protest" and for them killing Americans in Benghazi. Weeks later, after these lies became clear and repugnant, the President still spoke to the UN of the "video". Of America's fault.
All so they could save face and not be embarrassed. What are they covering up? Pretty much nothing. But they're doing it. They are corrupt and lying and breaking the law and the media is complicit in assisting, as demonstrated by that second Presidential debate.
This is conspiracy of corruption rooted down to nothing more than petty partisan politics. Where the White House fabricates a hateful lie against the American people, stood by that lie, and the media stood with them. The video maker was even arrested. They never came clean and had to be dragged against their will to divulge any information. Just this week we finally learn that the White House was directly involved in orchestrating this lie.
Perhaps if this was not the most secretive white house in history, then none of their covering, lying, and scheming would have felt necessary. Maybe then they would have been honest and not try to pawn the terrorist attack off as a protest caused by Americans.
It's possible that the cover-up is hiding true gross incompetence or even malfeasance by the Obama administration, but I see no reason to assume that. Sometimes people honestly fuck up. Sometimes people take chances (especially with other people's lives) that seem worth it at the moment, but in hind sight are disastrous. Since I have no way to get at the truth and no one I'd trust to get it for me, I see no reason to get all bent out of shape over the possibility of gross incompetence or malfeasance. The cover-up, sure, that makes me mad, but I keep it in context. Had this happened under President Romney six weeks before his re-election, do we really think he'd behave that much differently? While I'd like to think so, I don't have enough confidence to get really bent at Team Obama over it.
Quote:The problem I have is that the states' rights candidates seem to embrace for the states the exact things I'd prefer the federal government to handle. I believe we should all have the same human rights nationwide, and I believe the federal government usually (though certainly not always) does a better job on environmental issues. Yet it seems to me that every viable states' rights candidate wants to empower the states to handle environmental issues (which have a nasty way of not honoring state boundaries) and block gay marriage.
Originally Posted by Jaskalas View Post
A good question. You'd have to choose the right candidate in the primary, there may be one or two for each of us. Aside from that, when it comes down to the general election and the ballot is stacked with war hawks, you've got to vote third party.
In addition, and this may sound self serving, if we champion State's rights then local interests will trump national parties. The stale impasse at the national level would find itself replaced by a more fluid dynamism.
If we weren't limited to just Republican or Democrat then we might find a more valid choice to vote against the arming of terrorists. We might also put petty partisanship aside and listen to New York Times warning us about this administration. Maybe then the media wouldn't carry their water or directly and wrongly intervene in Presidential debates.
Quote:I suspect that starting around mid-2017, he and OJ are doing a joint investigation. Then these vermin will no longer be able to hide. Um, on any PGA-level golf course, I mean.
Originally Posted by cabri View Post
It has been how many years now?
I seem to recall that Obama went on record as stating that those responsible will be held accountable.
Who (which terrorists) has been brought to task.
Or what did he mean by accountable?
He had no problem taking credit and exposing classified info w/ respect to Bin Laden.
Quote:From what I understand, the White House had actually released these emails, but in heavily redacted form. Now we know that the redactions had nothing to do with national security and everything to do with Obama security as they were simply covering up the political calculations and direction.
Originally Posted by Doc Savage Fan View Post
The White House insisted for nearly a year that they had released all communications related to the Benghazi talking points. It's now clear that they were lying.
Quote:While I largely agree with Bill here, it's not the whole story. We haven't had an ambassador killed in the line of duty since Carter. It's a really big deal. So the Obama administration didn't choose to make it a political issue, it is inherently a political issue, as witnessed by Team Romney beginning its own political attacks long before they likely knew Team Obama was lying.
Originally Posted by Jaskalas View Post
Your reply falls short, having refuted nothing.
Here's some more "Stewox level stuff". Bill O'Reilly: President Obama, the press and the Benghazi memo.
quote=werepossum;36319977
Quote:lol 10,000 people killed in auto accidents and you insist on going on and on and on about the one I backed over.
Originally Posted by Thebobo
just a simple question where was the outrage?
Outrage about the killings are as always directed at those who killed them. Outrage directed at Team Obama is twofold, that they poorly planned both security and response (which may be totally unfounded) and that they lied and spun to make themselves look better (which is unarguably true.) I'm unconvinced about the validity of the former and unexcited about the latter, but let's at least be honest about it.
What! Moderate? Never!FWIW, I can confirm Werepossum did not follow the lunatic fringe on this story. He usually took a more moderate position, occasionally embracing some of the goofier allegations, but not nearly so much as hardcore loons like Boomerang, Mono, etc.
lol I'm "leading the pack" of the "true believers" in "their delusions" even though I thought all along what the investigations concluded? O-kaaay . . .
Proggies aren't happy unless everyone is marching in lockstep, I suppose.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2008/0805/p02s04-uspo.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/4137.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/world/americas/13iht-bush.1.17792506.html?_r=0
http://people.bu.edu/dkriner/Kriner and Schwartz LSQ.pdf
Hell, Democrats continued investigating Bush even after he was gone. Old Leaky Leahy wanted investigations to continue with a "Bush Administration 'Truth' Commission."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...-leahys-bush-administration-truth-commission/
In fact, the far far left proggie wing are STILL demanding more investigations.
http://www.democrats.com/investigate-iraq-war-lies
Absolutely nothing new here except which side's squealing ox is being gored at the moment.
Oh bullshit the guy was a criminal and plead guilty to his charges. Or should criminals get free passes?
I don't think the Obama administration had anything to do with him being thrown in jail other than to blame the video (which was one of the things used in some locations to fire up the Jihadis.) After that I imagine someone saw his picture and said "Holy crap, we've got a warrant out for that guy."
This is a direct attack on him based on his involvement with the video, which the admin was scapegoating to blame Americans for the terrorist attack. Couldn't be any clearer why they went after him. The "warrants out" narrative doesn't hold, this is straight up political prosecution.On September 27, 2012, U.S. federal authorities arrested Nakoula in Los Angeles for suspicion of violating terms of his probation. Violations included making false statements regarding his role in the film and his use of the alias "Sam Bacile"
Here's his "crime".
This is a direct attack on him based on his involvement with the video, which the admin was scapegoating to blame Americans for the terrorist attack. Couldn't be any clearer why they went after him. The "warrants out" narrative doesn't hold, this is straight up political prosecution.
I just like to see how much he can ignore at once.
lol I'm "leading the pack" of the "true believers" in "their delusions" even though I thought all along what the investigations concluded? O-kaaay . . .
/bunch of crap snipped