FYI, not everyone in the world is a redneck Texan. P.S.-- the word "gay" has a new meaning from the one that was popular from 1737 through 1967...
I don't have to think it, we have tapes of him directing the operation. And while people died in Benghazi, the investigation is not about whether The President or the SOS are responsible for those deaths. The only issues in play is whether they suppressed and altered information to make it appear better so that they could influence an election.
I can't watch that video at work. I'll have to check it out later. How do you ignore the YouTube video story WRT altering information. The White House and their minions are the only ones in the world who thought of that. They imposed that on the scenario as no one was reporting it on the ground in Benghazi as I understand it.
I'm not sure what WRT is. That said, I think you are confused. I agree that the White House altered information and suppressed it and have said as much. I don't have to think Nixon was honorable in order to think this White House did something wrong. It's possible, though admittedly rare these days, to be able to see that both sides are foul.
WRT = With Regard To I don't applaud what Nixon did. I just don't see it rising to the level of an impeachable offense. After the Watergate burglars were arrested, he was protecting himself from political enemies who wanted to make hay with the embarassment. Politics is ugly. I'm bothered by the passive acceptance of the Benghazi stink by those who think Nixon was Satan. Just not even close...
Eh, you don't seem to have a good grasp of what actually happened in Watergate and that seems to be clouding your opinion. His own party was ready to throw him out of office. I have issues with the Benghazi scandal and agree that people are dismissing it on this board way too easily, but it is not at the level of the Watergate cover up. This board dismisses the Benghazi issue for the same reason Chris Matthews laughed at the person on his show right afterwards who said it wasn't a spontaneous protest.
Not exactly. Mostly made up of people who whole heartedly believe that only their party is good for the country. It's not that they believe in party over country it's that they believe the other party actually wants to destroy the country. Obama and his administration are given slack and trust on this forum that no Republican would ever get. Did George Bush potentially dodge a war or get favors due to his father's name? OUTRAGE!!!!!! Did the Obama administration lie to the American people right before an election about a terrorist attack? What difference, at this point, does it make?
When you drain all the political spin out of this incident, serious issues remain. We are not talking about just "mistakes." Some one gave a direct order to scrub the rescue mission. Who and why? That decision cost lives that could have been saved. That goes beyond the "mistake" category. It actually goes beyond "gross negligence." Someone is liable for "murder," and needs to start assembling their defense team. If that mission was scrubbed because it wasn't politically expedient then it is time to appoint a special prosecutor. Both Republicans and Democrats should agree on that one unless they want to go down with the ship.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...e_committee_s_investigation_of_the_death.html More interesting than that was the explanation—not denial—from outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. “We quickly responded, as [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] General Dempsey said, in terms of deploying forces to the region,” said Panetta. “We had FAST platoons in the region. We had ships that we had deployed off of Libya. And we were prepared to respond to any contingency and certainly had forces in place to do that. But the basic principle here… is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place. And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, [Africa Command] General [Carter F.] Ham, General Dempsey, and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.” No evidence found of Al Qaeda role in Libya attack http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/19/world/la-fg-libya-attack-20121020 A second U.S. official added, "There isn't any intelligence that the attackers pre-planned their assault days or weeks in advance." Most of the evidence so far suggests that "the attackers launched their assault opportunistically after they learned about the violence at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo" earlier that day, the official said. The lack of a firm Al Qaeda link could constrain U.S. military options. The administration believes it has the right under international law to use lethal force against Al Qaeda operatives who kill Americans, but that case would be harder to make against members of a Libyan militia.
Does it really matter at this point? Who cares if it was Al-Qaeda or some libyan militia or protestors or scientologists or whatever. The point is that it happened, and the focus should be on avoiding similar instances in the future. Punish those who were negligent/incompetent and make sure it doesn't happen again.
Funny you should use Jon Stewart, basso. He did a nice follow-up on Benghazi this week: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-8-2013/the-big-benghazi-theory http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-8-2013/the-big-benghazi-theory----if- (I'd embed, but their site is behaving funny for me)
Who it was isn't a question. I'm not sure why you'd ask why it matters who did it. We know it was a terrorist organization. The question is whether this administration hide information, suppress information, punish subordinates who want to tell the truth, etc. We know they gave false information to the American people and to the victims for days and weeks following the event. The question now is whether they were liars or whether they were just incompetent.
THis video provides the smoking gun? Nixon knew almost nothing. He didn't know who Kenneth Dahlberg was. Any White House Association with events stops at Helms and Walters. Apparently John Mitchell didn't know and you want to claim that Nixon is orchestrating things. And this is weeks or months after the events. Haldeman explicates things and Nixon is following as best he can...
The heat was on. Nixon was going down. People wanted to save the party and so did Nixon. Regrettably that involved his resignation.
Yes, yes yes! Said much better than me. Really irritated with the notion you outlined so well. The 2-party system is old and tired, but that's a different conversation. In the end both parties are after the same thing: a lifetime in office and money from lobbyists and the like.
An absolutely astute observation of not just Clutchfans but our country in general including myself at times. But there has to be some point of intolerance for abuse of power and I would think that leaving fellow americans to die, treating it like its no big deal, and then covering up your role in the whole mess has to be a place all americans would draw the line. I support my party but not at the expense of the lives of my fellow countrymen.
