Um, that's BS. We KNOW Nixon hired people to commit a crime and then used his power as President to try and stop the investigation. That is actual abuse of power. With Benghazi, we've had multiple hearings...MULTIPLE HEARINGS and investigations and so far nothing damning has come out. Screwing up is different than covering up. We know that people made mistakes, but instead of trying to prevent those mistakes, which with all the embassy attacks that happened during the previous administration you'd think we'd know better by now, Republicans are obviously just trying to stick it to Hillary in case she runs in 2016 and trying to drum up controversy for the President. I know this to be true because none of you seem all that concerned about the safety of any other embassy right now and you obviously never gave a s**t about the safety of embassies before when during the previous administration there were 54 attacks on diplomatic targets resulting in 13 Americans being killed. There were only THREE hearings about these attacks btw.
Wow! They really have gotten under your skin, huh? The facts that a rescue group was given a stand down twice, then after being told it was a terrorist attack misinforming the American public that is was a spontaneous protest from a YouTube video gone haywire which consequently resulted in the FBI not being able to investigate the crime scene, then during the congressional investigation high ranking state officials told the highest ranking diplomat on the field not to interview alone without the lawyer being present and after he did being reprimanded and demoted are pretty alarming. How many people have been brought to justice for these murders in Libya? None you say. I understand that the Demos don't want to look bad. Nobody ever wants to look bad, but the evidence heard today, makes Hillary and this administration look pretty bad, no matter how much you think the republicans have politicized it. If you don't want to play politics, then don't be a politician.
If you are serious about accountability, lets go back 15 years and start there. If not, stop crying wolf.
Most of the people who committed a previous attack died in the bombing & the rest were Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations who we are still going after. Now back to this investigation. When is someone going to be brought to justice for these murders?
Nice dodge, but I am talking about an entire illegal war. No worries though, we can certainly address Benghazi as soon as we clear up all those other pesky issues.
How about we go back and address every single unsolved crime since the beginning of mankind before we take care of those? No dodge, maybe Chevy or Ford. It is possible to solve these murder cases and previous cases still be dealt with. Please feel free to contact your Demo lawmakers about prosecuting the illegal war. Did your tin foil hat slip off for a second?
Do you have Nixon's signature on those checks? :grin: Nixon resigned because he knew he was ultimately responsible for what went on. There's a certain honor in that POV. And it was an info-seeking burglary-- no jewels or cash were involved! Yes, a screwup and a coverup are separate things and one can be guilty of both. Regarding the 13 other embassy attacks, were any rescuers ordered to "stand down?" Were any of those embassies denied the help requested whether in advance or when in dire straits? Not that I know of....
No. Nixon resigned because after all his obstruction had failed the select committee approved articles of impeachment. Those articles were going to go to the House for a vote and he was going to lose. Rather then get officially impeached and then face the trial portion where he would ultimately be kicked out office, he resigned. There was no honor in it. He fought hard, firing special prosecutors and having his AG resign instead of carrying out the order. Hiding tapings and then blaming his secretary for erasing them, etc. Don't let anyone downplay the abuse of power Nixon displayed. As much as I believe there was intentional lying involved in the Benghazi situation, I don't believe it rises to the level of Watergate.
Nothing has come out? what? Have you not been paying attention? Unless CBSNews headlines with it then it doesn't exist in Oski's world.
No doubt the election handlers tried to spin it. It was an election the nation could not afford to lose. But of course there is no real science in electioneering and now they do look like bumbling fools. As did all the FAUX-tards electioneering their side. But calling the ambush and subsequent actions incompetent just denies the dangers and uncontrollable nature of warfare.
We'll just have to disagree then. He fought hard, no doubt. He had worked a lifetime to ascend to the highest office, Indeed he had come back from being politically dead so he didn't want to be brought down by mere political shenanigans. I know that he resigned to avoid impeachment but it never should have risen to that level-- talking about politicizing something! If you are going to charge the President of the US with obstruction of justice, let it be something monumental. This is like losing your driver's license over a parking ticket in my opinion. Obstruction of justice over info-gathering hijinx? Seems a little bloated to me.
Ha! He ordered people to break into someone's office to steal things. When an investigation opened he destroyed evidence. When a special prosecutor he appointed was going to bring him down he ordered his AG to fire him. The AG refused as it was unethical and resigned instead, along with deputy. He then refused to comply with a subpoena. When he did comply they turned over blank tapes and blamed the secretary. When the smoking gun finally got into the hands of the committee and the voted to send the impeachment papers to the floor, he resigned because he knew he was going to be booted from office and he didn't want to go through the trial portion. Where by the way he might actually end up being guilty of a crime. Instead he walked away and got a pardon. And you call him honorable. The only people who showed honor potentially in this case were the AG and his deputy who refused to carry out unethical orders. If you find Watergate to be minor and unworthy of the attention it got and find Nixon to be honorable, how in the world do you find issue with an administration changing talking points to make themselves look better?
Do you really think Nixon HIMSELF was directing that operation? It's really all about proportionality... to wit: people died at Benghazi not at Watergate. That raises things to a whole new level.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_oe3OgU8W0s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> to wit: the people killed were intelligence operatives in a forgien war zone, ambushed by overwhelming forces.
Nixon once referred to a Mexican as a "wetback" therefore under the giddy code he will receive universal benefit of doubt and hours BBS defense.
