# Who 's it gonna be?



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Wednesday the excrement will come in contact with the ventilation system regarding last fall's events at Benghazie, a lamb will be brought forward for inspection prior to sacrifice. How high up a position and who do you think he will be? I dont have even a guess but I do expect some grand Nixionian stonewalling.:icon_headagainstwal


----------



## jbarwick (Nov 17, 2012)

The way our government works these days the person will be in the news for a few months then back working for some governmental entity by the end of the year with no one noticing.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

......and so chimes the death knell on Hilary's hopes for a second run to become the Democratic candidate in the next presidential election. However, truth be known, the conductor orchestrating the original cover-up is currently referred to as Mr President!


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

I'm kind of astonished at what passes for a scandal these days. I remember when scandals involving intelligence were about whether the country should have been informed of differences of analyst opinion before going to war. Now it seems we're supposed to be informed before someone goes on a Sunday morning talk show. Doesn't seem to have much punch to me, but what do I know? 

Maybe this resonates with some people - but I doubt it resonates with any who would ever, ever consider voting for Obama or Clinton.


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

jbarwick said:


> The way our government works these days the person will be in the news for a few months then back working for some governmental entity by the end of the year with no one noticing.


Either that or the person will be forced to resign from the government post voluntarily and pursue a career as a lobbyist, government contractor, or salesperson for a government contractor.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

CuffDaddy said:


> Maybe this resonates with some people - but I doubt it resonates with any who would ever, ever consider voting for Obama or Clinton.


Is this statement supposed to cast an Obama or Clinton supporter in a positive light?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

LOL, well played. My point, of course, is that this is a topic that I suspect gets traction only with those who already "know" that something really terrible happened in the administration regarding Libya. But those people already think that something really terrible happens in the WH every day. Nobody is persuaded by this stuff except those who are already persuaded. Remember how much Solyndra mattered in the 2012 election? Or, for that matter, how much Enron's connections to Bush and/or Cheney mattered in the 2004 election? It's like that.

From what I've heard, it doesn't seem like a real scandal. But, separate and apart from my opinion on the substance, it also doesn't seem like something that anybody cares about except for the echo-machine that's talking about it to itself. (Happens to the Dems all the time, too. Just because YOU'RE excited about something doesn't mean everyone - or anyone - else is.)


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

CuffDaddy said:


> LOL, well played. My point, of course, is that this is a topic that I suspect gets traction only with those who already "know" that something really terrible happened in the administration regarding Libya. But those people already think that something really terrible happens in the WH every day. Nobody is persuaded by this stuff except those who are already persuaded. Remember how much Solyndra mattered in the 2012 election? Or, for that matter, how much Enron's connections to Bush and/or Cheney mattered in the 2004 election? It's like that.
> 
> From what I've heard, it doesn't seem like a real scandal. But, separate and apart from my opinion on the substance, it also doesn't seem like something that anybody cares about except for the echo-machine that's talking about it to itself. (Happens to the Dems all the time, too. Just because YOU'RE excited about something doesn't mean everyone - or anyone - else is.)


Thanks for being a good sport.

I'm about 80% with you, but let's just see where the truth leads us before we claim everyone's mind is made up.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Nobody but the right even thinks there's a question to ask. Whatever "the truth" is won't matter to anyone who doesn't already watch Fox News and/or hate Obama. I could be wrong, of course, but that's my read on it. Not on most people's radar screen.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

I reckon there are some new factors involved. One being the main stream media (CBS doubtless a cog of the 'vast rightwing conspiracy' ) openly questioning the administration. The guy has a world class ego. Another is whether Hilary sees this as a weapon for an all out intraparty showdown. I doubt she could win as an Obama third term. Not to mention the joyful reports we've all heard as Obama Care is instituted, its quite possible the pocketbook impact will affect many folks otherwise currently apathetic.

​


----------



## roman totale XVII (Sep 18, 2009)

I haven't looked around the Interchange for a while. Feels like an offshoot of Free Republic in here...


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

CuffDaddy said:


> Whatever "the truth" is won't matter to anyone who doesn't already watch Fox News and/or hate Obama.


CD, you sound reasonable 99% of the time, but then I read something like the above that makes me wonder. As far as I'm concerned, the murder of an American ambassador is not a Republican or Democratic issue. It's a national security issue. Fox News may be politicizing the issue to fire up the base, but at least they're asking questions. The rest of the news media is politicizing it even more by not asking* any *questions. That is, they've decided that they know the truth without actually investigating it at all.

When I was in school, my journalism major friends were major league independent thinkers (ie, a-holes). They weren't left or right, they were truth seekers, and they didn't care who it hurt or helped by exposing it.

What if the "truth" is the following scenario:


The Libyan Consulate was under attack. The American ambassador requested help immediately. The administration had military assets (American and/or foreign allies) at their disposal and refused to engage the attackers. Some time later, help was again requested and again denied.

If the truth is the above, then I would hope that it would matter to every American, R or D.

No one cared about Watergate until *years *after Woodward and Bernstein started their investigation.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

OK, that's a little different than the story I've been hearing, which is about how the initial characterizations by the administration of events, not about decisions made during the attacks. Complaints about someone not calling it terrorism seem immaterial in the long run to me. If somebody kiboshed some kind of ready response that was feasible, then that does sound like a possible mistake.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Quite frankly, every American citizen should be enraged. We were attacked, our Ambassador and three of his staff were murdered. When it first happened, some really bad management decisions of the Obama Administration were about to be exposed and that would have cost the President votes in his reelection effort. Such disclosures would have been inconvenient and hence were pushed aside under the guise of an investigation was yet to be completed. The investigation was completed and to almost no one's surprise, no official that had been elected or politically appointed was found at fault. Four civil service careerists took the fall and our Secretary of State admonished Congress, "this was such a sad thing. Can we not just accept that and move on!" The sad reality is the Secretary of State lied to us; the Secretary of Defense lied to us and indeed, our President lied to us! For gawd's sake, we have flown air strikes out of Knob Noster, Missouri, against targets in Afghanistan and Iraq. There were air assets that could have been brought to bear at Benghazi that would have slowed the terrorists down and given Ambassador Stevens and his staff a chance. Political expediency precluded that!


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

CuffDaddy said:


> OK, that's a little different than the story I've been hearing, which is about how the initial characterizations by the administration of events, not about decisions made during the attacks. Complaints about someone not calling it terrorism seem immaterial in the long run to me. If somebody kiboshed some kind of ready response that was feasible, then that does sound like a possible mistake.


Thank you. Yes, I'm not talking about semantic BS. Is it terrorism or isn't it? Who cares? I'm talking about lives being unnecessarily lost and why it happened. If it was an honest mistake, then I can be cool with that. If it was some twisted political calculation to enhance re-electability, then I've got a problem with that.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Quite frankly, every American citizen should be enraged. We were attacked, our Ambassador and three of his staff were murdered. When it first happened, some really bad management decisions of the Obama Administration were about to be exposed and that would have cost the President votes in his reelection effort. Such disclosures would have been inconvenient and hence were pushed aside under the guise of an investigation was yet to be completed. The investigation was completed and to almost no one's surprise, no official that had been elected or politically appointed was found at fault. Four civil service careerists took the fall and our Secretary of State admonished Congress, "this was such a sad thing. Can we not just accept that and move on!" The sad reality is the Secretary of State lied to us; the Secretary of Defense lied to us and indeed, our President lied to us! For gawd's sake, have flown air strikes out of Knob Noster, Missouri, against targets in Afghanistan and Iraq. There were air assets that could have been brought to bear that would have slowed the terrorists down and given Ambassador Stevens and his staff a chance. Political expediency precluded that!


What really interests me, and this is pure speculation, is why didn't we call for help from our British allies or other allies (NATO or non-NATO) in the region? There are conflicting reports as to whether or not US military assets were available, but putting that aside, why didn't we ask for British or Israeli help? Don't you think that Israel could have had a commando unit in place within 5 hours? Don't you think that unit could have been in and out before the Arab/Israeli political ramifications blew up? My questions are rhetorical and probably unanswerable, but I wish someone in the media would be asking them.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

There were air assets available, but there was also a risk of some air/ground combat losses that would have proven difficult and inconvenient at that point in time for the Obama Administration to explain or rationalize at that point in time. They would have been forced from behind the protection of the very carefully scripted image they were struggling to maintain, at least until the election was past! There were several air wings of our own that could have flown the mission(s). However, if we had looked to the international community, I suspect Israel would have been the single ally willing to respond, given the time constraints involved.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

eagle2250 said:


> There were air assets available, but there was also a risk of some air/ground combat losses that would have proven difficult and inconvenient at that point in time for the Obama Administration to explain or rationalize at that point in time. They would have been forced from behind the protection of the very carefully scripted image they were struggling to maintain, at least until the election was past! There were several air wings of our own that could have flown the mission(s). .


I hope that comes out loud and clear during the hearings.

I remember reading somewhere that British units were ready to move and just required a request from the USA. The request never came. Whether this is one of the bogus stories floating around immediately after the attack is for debate, but "Why didn't we attempt a rescue or ask our allies to help?" is one of the major questions that I wish they could answer during the hearings.

The standard answer from the administration is "Well, the attack was over before we could mobilize forces.", but that makes no sense because how did the administration know the attack was over? That is, after the fact, it's easy to say that the attack lasted for X hours, but in real time, there is no way that they would know if the attack was stopping or pausing. Hence, it would be prudent to send forces in no matter what. Benghazi is just screwy.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

The fact that Hillary and Obo had the famous video story rehearsed and repeated disturbs me and adds greatly to my suspicions.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

*4. Whistleblowers were intimidated into silence.* Hicks testified to a pattern of behavior that leads to the reasonable conclusion that many officials within the State Department wanted him to remain silent after the Benghazi attack. He said that on the night of the attack he was personally commended both by Secretary Clinton and President Barack Obama. But he later questioned why Ambassador Rice blamed the YouTube movie, and from that point on his superior, Acting Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs Beth Jones, questioned his "management style" and told him directly that no one in State should want him on their team in the field again. He was eventually demoted to a desk job after having been deputy to Ambassador Stevens, and remains in that post. Hick also testified that the Accountability Review Board, convened by Clinton last fall allegedly to determine the facts of the attack, never had stenographers in the room during his tw0-hour interview. Nordstrom concurred. Thompson was not even allowed to testify to the ARB despite having direct knowledge of the attacks due to his position on the US Foreign Emergency Response Team. Thompson testified that the FEST was designed to go from zero to wheels up very quickly but was not deployed at all. He wanted to tell his story to the ARB, but was not allowed to. Hicks also testified that for the first time in his career, the State Department assigned a lawyer/minder to attend witness interviews with the ARB. He also testified that Jones told him not to be personally interviewed by Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the Republican House member who was investigating the attack on behalf of the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee. It all adds up to a pattern of witness control and intimidation.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> The standard answer from the administration is "Well, the attack was over before we could mobilize forces.", but that makes no sense because how did the administration know the attack was over? That is, after the fact, it's easy to say that the attack lasted for X hours, but in real time, there is no way that they would know if the attack was stopping or pausing. Hence, it would be prudent to send forces in no matter what. Benghazi is just screwy.


Like securing a secret facility and it's contents.

Not just letting it sit there open for weeks.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> Nobody but the right even thinks there's a question to ask. Whatever "the truth" is won't matter to anyone who doesn't already watch Fox News and/or hate Obama. I could be wrong, of course, but that's my read on it. Not on most people's radar screen.


We understand that fact checking and truth seeking has lost popularity with our left-leaning friends.

If I were Left leaning that would bother me.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

So. Who was it? It seemed to by-pass us over here.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

The evidence does suggest that the Administration falsely manipulated the post-event message in order to minimize political damage, though that is not completely clear. The alternative explanation that the message was manipulated in order to enhance the opportunity of capturing the terrorists is not completely implausible, though it is exceedingly difficult to square with the treatment of Hicks and others. While Cuff suggests that such manipulation is a fairly small matter, I don't think so. We lost Americans that day and providing the American people with a false explanation in order to enhance the President's chances in November is craven and unacceptable. Furthermore the Libyan army also lost soldiers in defense of US interests, and we embarrassed the Libyan government when we articulated a false explanation incompatible with their truthful one. Thus diplomacy and decency took a backseat to election politics.

The accusation that the Administration improperly refrained from sending assistance to our diplomats and troops seems more farfetched. It does seem that such assistance would have been feckless given time/distance constraints. That said, it also seems that this is easier to know after the fact than before. So it is fair to ask why assistance was not approved immediately upon request even if the shot was long. The explanation can be benign but still disturbing (we had insufficient confidence in our information such that we were reluctant to "shoot before we could aim") or perhaps just plain disturbing (we wanted to give the Libyan government a chance to do its job lest we give offense by prematurely interfering).

I think the assertion that the Administration has blood on its hands is extremely premature, but I do think it is important to ask difficult questions and be prepared for uncomfortable answers, especially given the way the Administration appears to be treating critics within our own State Department.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

By far the most far fetched notion revolving around Benghazie is the utter lack,from the top, of preparedness and expectation that some one out there in the muddy Islamic world just might plan on some sort of action on the anniversary of 9/11. 

​I though it was quite possible ,didint you?


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/347760/hicks%E2%80%99s-full-account-night-benghazi-attacks


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> .....
> 
> The accusation that the Administration improperly refrained from sending assistance to our diplomats and troops seems more farfetched. It does seem that such assistance would have been feckless given time/distance constraints. That said, it also seems that this is easier to know after the fact than before. So it is fair to ask why assistance was not approved immediately upon request even if the shot was long. The explanation can be benign but still disturbing (we had insufficient confidence in our information such that we were reluctant to "shoot before we could aim") or perhaps just plain disturbing (we wanted to give the Libyan government a chance to do its job lest we give offense by prematurely interfering).
> 
> I think the assertion that the Administration has blood on its hands is extremely premature, but I do think it is important to ask difficult questions and be prepared for uncomfortable answers, especially given the way the Administration appears to be treating critics within our own State Department.


I do wish I could agree with your conclusion, but in this instance, I just cannot. Ambassador Steven's and his head of security for the mission had requested additional security for the mission, based on the heightened terrorist threat, on several previous occasions. There were US and other friendly combat air assets within three hours flying time of Benghazi. The Sec of Def has said they were not armed, fueled and ready to launch and that it would have taken (I think it was) 20 hours to put iron on the insurgents. In high risk operating environments, it is pretty common practice to prepare and maintain contingency strike packages (flight plans), going so far as to arm and fuel the aircraft and have them standing ready for launch, in the event they are needed. When the call comes in you pull the flight plan off the shelf and open the gates of hell to release those dogs of war against the threat! At least that's how it was done back in the old days. Attacks against our embassies are acts of war against the US and must be treated as such. Ambassador Stevens and his staff deserved far better back-up and support that The President of Secretary of State allowed...that was unconscionable and trying to cover it all up with lies and misinformation is criminal!


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

By next week Benghazi will have happened before the 2008 election.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Hitch said:


> By next week Benghazi will have happened before the 2008 election.


Click your heels together three times.... You never know....

I recall someone recently posting - rather vociferously - that GWB kept Americans safe overseas in a way that Obama never could....


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Wow with all those attacks between 2000 and 2008 there must be many in which Bush lied about the nature and severity of the ensuing battles . I'll wait while you find those Ok? But make sure you find all of them that Bush attributed the attacks to a youtube video, when he knew better. And just to be fair I wont mention that the attacks under Obo came after the end of the War on Terror.


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

The "War on Terror" has ended??


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

*August 6, 2009:* 
Here is shocking video of White House Adviser on Homeland Security and Counterterrorism John Brennan making a speech where he declared that the United States is not engaged in a "War on Terrorism", and that the USA is not in a "Global War" against "Jihadists." The speech reveals Obama's thinking on Foreign Policy and that he does not grasp the struggle America is engaged in.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

VictorRomeo said:


> Click your heels together three times.... You never know.... I recall someone recently posting - rather vociferously - that GWB kept Americans safe overseas in a way that Obama never could....


My comment on the (rather impressive) Mother Jones chart is that an "attack" doesn't necessarily equate to injury or death. Not to downplay the importance of the data, but I'd like a little more info before I buy into the obvious conclusion that Mother Jones wants us to draw.

Another set of statistics to consider (that may be a little more concrete) is the following: Over 200+ years, there have been eight US ambassadors killed while in office. Two died in plane crashes. Six, including Stevens, were killed in armed attacks. Prior to Stevens, all of the other attacks occurred between 1968 and 1979, the height and aftermath of the Vietnam War.

I don't know if one cancels the other, but I thought I would put the information out there as the MJ graphic has gotten a lot of airplay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambassadors_of_the_United_States


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

The Congressional Benghazi review is underway and uncoving a fair amount of negative testimony regarding the handling of the attack; the IRS has been discovered focusing illegal and unwarranted attention on the Tea Party membership and the Justice Department has been discovered secretly monitoring AP International communications, subsequent to some negative reporting they had dared to produce against the performance of the Obama Administration. A case for impeachment seems to be building? The result of tragic abuses/misuse of elective authority, perhaps? Bad days ahead for the Obamamainians, absolutely!!


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> The Congressional Benghazi review is underway and uncoving a fair amount of negative testimony regarding the handling of the attack; the IRS has been discovered focusing illegal and unwarranted attention on the Tea Party membership and the Justice Department has been discovered secretly monitoring AP International communications, subsequent to some negative reporting they had dared to produce against the performance of the Obama Administration. A case for impeachment seems to be building? The result of tragic abuses/misuse of elective authority, perhaps? Bad days ahead for the Obamamainians, absolutely!!


Ha. Wishful thinking. In the end it will be nothing more than a multi-million dollar investigation that took years to complete with tens of thousands of man power hours wasted resulting in no arrests (perhaps a little shake of the finger saying "no,no"). Our politicians are corrupt enough to know that convicting politicians would only lead to jailing more politicians. It's probably the one thing the dems & repubs agree on (although they'd never admit it).


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

None the of the recent scandals come close to impeachment material by any standards except those of the late-nineties. That said, while I remain unimpressed by the Bhengazhi flap, the IRS business is very troubling. I suspect it was not really politically-motivated, but simply a quick enforcement decision that would let the IRS make some initial determinations as to who might not really be a qualifying group but, instead, a purely political organization. Nevertheless, the heuristic appears to have been extremely ill-concieved and should never have gotten very far without someone realizing the necessary anti-free-speech implications. I have no idea whether anyone in the administration knew of this, and so far they are responding fairly appropriately. Still, the President is ultimately charged with what happens on the ship during his watch, so some responsibility is borne all the way at the top. (After the IRS selectively focused on some left-leaning groups during the Bush administration, people should have been appropriately sensitized.)

I don't have enough information to have much of an opinion on the AP stuff, but it doesn't sound great so far. I suspect we will learn that this has happened a LOT over the last 13 years.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

eagle2250 said:


> A case for impeachment seems to be building?


I don't know if impeachment is in the cards, but if it came to pass, a successful impeachment of the President would be intriguing for many reasons, not the least of which would be a Joe Biden Presidency becoming a reality...and him possibly picking Hillary as his Veep! Other scenarios are possible. Any which way one cuts it, impeachment or not, the next three years are going to be interesting...for all of us.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

I think it's likely that the American public will be ready for a change of leadership in 2016, provided the GOP puts up a decent candidate. But impeachment over this kind of stuff... well, that might alter the calculus. The biggest problem that the GOP faces right now is that it is just percieved as loony and unhinged by lots of moderate voters. Crying "impeachment!" over this kind of stuff just furthers that impression.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

CuffDaddy said:


> I think it's likely that the American public will be ready for a change of leadership in 2016, provided the GOP puts up a decent candidate. But impeachment over this kind of stuff... well, that might alter the calculus. The biggest problem that the GOP faces right now is that it is just percieved as loony and unhinged by lots of moderate voters. Crying "impeachment!" over this kind of stuff just furthers that impression.


As much as I hate to admit it, I don't see a pathway to impeachment via Benghazi. Benghazi (before and during) appears to be a mess of incompetence by Hillary and Panetta (damnable but not illegal). The coverup that followed appears to indicate lack of character on the part of the administration, but again not illegal. Benghazi may eventually turn the tide of public opinion against the administration, but is it an impeachable offense? I don't think so, but I've been wrong before. I never thought Clinton should have been impeached.

The IRS issue appears to be illegal, almost obviously comically so, but I'm unsure if the trail will lead to the President. However, I would not be surprised if it did reach the Oval Office through Valerie Jarrett or David Axelrod, but I think it stops there. Or I should say that those folks are smart enough to ensure it stops there.

Taken together, could I believe that the President's re-election staff masterminded both the Benghazi coverup and IRS-gate? Oh yeah. I have no problem believing that. But if it stops there, then the President is probably safe from impeachment...and, out of respect for the office and the country, should be.

Just because a little less than half of the country thinks the current President is an incredibly bad one (whether rightly or wrongly), doesn't mean he should be impeached. GWB was proof of that.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^LOL>
Never.ever underestimate the potential of the perfect (political) storm! It has now been acknowledged that (unspecified) IRS leadership in D. C. was aware of the additional attention being given to tax matters of the Tea Party membership and the Justice Department has acknowledged that AP communications were captured allegedly because of suspected leaks regarding a terrorist incident in Yemen. By-gawd, the broth seems to be thickening into (potentially) quite a stew! Personally, I am offended by bullsh*t regardless of whether it flows from the mouths of democrats or republicans!


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

I think everyone is forgetting the first scapegoat - Nakoula. The director/producer was denounced by pretty much everyone in the executive branch of the government after the attacks, and arrested by the FBI for parole violations (in an unusually vigorous prosecution of possibly using the internet and lying about making a movie.)

The guy was definitely sleazy, as he was on probation for check kiting, but the feds came down hard on him at the behest of the executive branch, for, basically, making a movie that some people find insulting. 

The actions of the executive were *definitely* shady. I don't know if they veer into criminality, but, at the very least, some highly ranked public officials need to be humiliated for their actions.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Perhaps it's just a 'Midwest Region' thing, but on last evening's newscasts I heard the term impeachable offense(s) used on three different news reports...only one of them was Fox News!


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

eagle2250 said:


> Perhaps it's just a 'Midwest Region' thing, but on last evening's newscasts I heard the term impeachable offense(s) used on three different news reports...only one of them was Fox News!


One good thing that's happening is that the media appears fully engaged now. Where that leads us is unknown, but I'm more confident in America when the Fourth Estate performs its duties in good faith.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> One good thing that's happening is that the media appears fully engaged now. Where that leads us is unknown, but I'm more confident in America when the Fourth Estate performs its duties in good faith.


...but only after they find out their friend has been spying on them.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

jbmcb said:


> I think everyone is forgetting the first scapegoat - Nakoula. The director/producer was denounced by pretty much everyone in the executive branch of the government after the attacks, and arrested by the FBI for parole violations (in an unusually vigorous prosecution of possibly using the internet and lying about making a movie.)
> 
> The guy was definitely sleazy, as he was on probation for check kiting, but the feds came down hard on him at the behest of the executive branch, for, basically, making a movie that some people find insulting.
> 
> The actions of the executive were *definitely* shady. I don't know if they veer into criminality, but, at the very least, some highly ranked public officials need to be humiliated for their actions.


It took an extremely childish mindset to think this nonsense would fly


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> I think it's likely that the American public will be ready for a change of leadership in 2016, provided the GOP puts up a decent candidate. But impeachment over this kind of stuff... well, that might alter the calculus. The biggest problem that the GOP faces right now is that it is just percieved as loony and unhinged by lots of moderate voters. Crying "impeachment!" over this kind of stuff just furthers that impression.


That is a part of the template I wont accept, I dont see 'lots of moderate' voters thinking that way.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

WouldaShoulda said:


> ...but only after they find out their friend has been spying on them.


This could be a good thing. With apologies to Bill, Hell hath no fury like a reporter scorned.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Hitch said:


> It took an extremely childish mindset to think this nonsense would fly


Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your mindset), criminals and neer-do-wells seem to feel the full effect of the law when politicians feel the need to flex their muscles or establish their tough-on-crime street cred. Woe be the death row convict when his state governor decides to run for higher office...many examples of ugly cases where simpletons/mentally disabled convicts were executed when clemency was reasonable, just so the politician could be tough on crime.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> One good thing that's happening is that the media appears fully engaged now. Where that leads us is unknown, but I'm more confident in America when the Fourth Estate performs its duties in good faith.


Absolutely! A vigilant press, equitably focused on all parties concerned, should serve to keep all those elected, self-righteous political hacks a bit more honest. Reminds me of that old joke: How do you tell if a politician is lying? Answer: His/her lips are moving! LOL.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

eagle2250 said:


> Absolutely! A vigilant press, equitably focused on all parties concerned, should serve to keep all those elected, self-righteous political hacks a bit more honest. Reminds me of that old joke: How do you tell if a politician is lying? Answer: His/her lips are moving! LOL.


Agreed...and the President's lips have been doing a lot of moving over the last four years.

I would say that if the just-awakened-Press is hungry after its long slumber, there is a lot of low hanging fruit to pick.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Hitch said:


> That is a part of the template I wont accept, I dont see 'lots of moderate' voters thinking that way.


Really? Well, we just have a different read on things. A level-headed Eisenhower (or non-evil Nixon) type Republican would have walked to victory in 2012. But the modern GOP is so far out there on a bunch of issues that many younger voters just won't give them the time of day. At least that's how it seems to me. Some old conservatism - the actual kind that is skeptical of large changes in society, not the kind that wants to radically re-engineer things just in a different direction than liberals - would have a lot of appeal. But those approaches can't get past primaries in the GOP today.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

BTW, just ran across this article/column re: Benghazi's impact on HRC's poll numbers: https://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/05/16/witness_the_devastating_impact_the_benghazi_story_has_had_on_hillary_clinton.html

No traction. This one's not a winner. The IRS thing makes the administration look inept, as all administrations periodically appear (and, to some extent, are). The federal government, like any very large and complex enterprise, is going to have employees that do inappropriate things senior managment doesn't like; so far, that's all that seems to have happened. The AP business probably isn't illegal, but looks somewhat abusive and may take away some of the "honest broker" credit Obama typically gets from non-Republicans. But I can't see that any of these things remotely approach the "bring down the president" line. I could be wrong, but that's my read at the moment.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

CuffDaddy said:


> BTW, just ran across this article/column re: Benghazi's impact on HRC's poll numbers: https://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/05/16/witness_the_devastating_impact_the_benghazi_story_has_had_on_hillary_clinton.html
> 
> No traction. This one's not a winner. The IRS thing makes the administration look inept, as all administrations periodically appear (and, to some extent, are). The federal government, like any very large and complex enterprise, is going to have employees that do inappropriate things senior managment doesn't like; so far, that's all that seems to have happened.  The AP business probably isn't illegal, but looks somewhat abusive and may take away some of the "honest broker" credit Obama typically gets from non-Republicans. But I can't see that any of these things remotely approach the "bring down the president" line. I could be wrong, but that's my read at the moment.


I agree only in part. First, it is highly unlikely that the President had any involvement in the IRS misbehavior, though make no mistake -- that misbehavior was about as rotten as it can get. Accordingly, Americans may think a bit less of Obama in regards to competency, but that is about it. That said, this is not the Administration's first IRS related scandal. Recall the President's statements regarding alleged tax dodging by the Koch brothers. More specifically, he accused Koch Industries of using US partnerships and other pass-through entities to avoid corporate income tax and thereby dodge its US tax responsibilities. That accusation was grounded in information that should have been confidential within the IRS. While the rather obvious breach was noted and reported, it also never got "traction," which seems especially unfortunate given that various professional tax publications later reported that no "dodgery" had taken place since all the tax attributes (including income) of all those pass-through entities would simply roll up into Koch Industry C corporations that report all earnings on a US consolidated return. Regardless of whether Obama knew he was slandering a US citizen, his behavior was simultaneous shameful and shameless.

Benghazi is harder to predict. I'm old enough to remember Watergate, which also had no traction; until it did. In the end though, a cover up of an illegal act (albeit just stupid political hijinks) is much easier to cast as an impeachable offense than a cover up of a venal political spin (albeit a spin on the murder of a US ambassador). But impeachable or not, Benghazi does make the President appear to have cared more about his reelection than the gravity of the murder of one of his own ambassadors, which does (and should) risk diminishing his ability to govern as he would like.

Finally, let's face it: when it comes to "traction," the national media matter; and that media in 1974 despised RMN in a way that today's media are incapable (apart from FoxNews) of despising our current president.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Mike, as usual, we agree on a lot, but end up in a different place! Time will tell, but I just don't get any serious "vibes" from the Benghazi thing. Too many theories about "what really happened" have come and gone. It all feels like straw-grasping. Besides, I think many Americans are surprised that ambassadors to f***ed up countries don't get killed more often. People watch movies with attacks on ambassadors and the like and assume they're common. Anyway, this is a prediction, not a philosophical dispute, so time will tell. I'm not emotionally wrapped up in it, so I can wait patiently for the outcome.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

CuffDaddy said:


> Mike, as usual, we agree on a lot, but end up in a different place! Time will tell, but I just don't get any serious "vibes" from the Benghazi thing. Too many theories about "what really happened" have come and gone. It all feels like straw-grasping. Besides, I think many Americans are surprised that ambassadors to f***ed up countries don't get killed more often. People watch movies with attacks on ambassadors and the like and assume they're common. Anyway, this is a prediction, not a philosophical dispute, so time will tell. I'm not emotionally wrapped up in it, so I can wait patiently for the outcome.


The place we end up is not really that different. I agree that the idea that these scandals will "take down" the President is unlikely, though perhaps you are more certain than me. I do think that they -- especially Benghazi -- will work to diminish the President's ability to govern as he wishes, though perhaps you don't even go that far.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

I think that ability is already pretty diminished, given the opposition he gets in Congress! I think these things make some of the opposition seem slightly less insane, however, and may influence mid-term electoral outcomes in 2014. The narrative of Republicans being unwilling to agree to even the most modest and widely-supported of measures (like Manchin-Toomey) is being significantly diluted at the moment; I had doubts about whether that narrative would change anything over the next 18 months, but it might have created a circumstance where Dems might, _might_ have bucked the strong trend of 6th-year elections being bad for the pres's party. I now suspect that trend will continue.

When you think about it, this is all very consistent with the broad historical pattern. In the first term, the president's (any president's) opponents have trouble making scandals stick because either they haven't developed yet or are easily excused as being part of the old culture that the new pres is trying to change! So the first term disputes are usually about policy, and trying to win the referendum that is the second election. For a president who is re-elected, that strategy has obviously failed, but scandal becomes both relatively and absolutely more viable as an avenue of attack. This is all pretty typical stuff (not to suggest I'm untroubled by the IRS or AP things - I don't like either at all).


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Nixon never broke into an office. Claimed he was unaware of the dirt going on. Used the IRS against enemies. And I'll wager no one you know would have bet on the resignation any time in 1972, and probably '73 as well.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

My friend Steve Malzberg of Newsmax was hosting a radio show on WMAL on Saturday when he interviewed Victoria Toensing, the lawyer for State Department Benghazi whistleblower, Gregory Hicks. Toensing disclosed not only that Hicks is a registered Democrat who voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primary and for President Obama in both the 2008 and 2012 elections, but also that NBC News edited these disclosures out of a broadcast interview with Toensing before Hicks testified last week' before a House committee last week.

NR


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Hitch said:


> My friend Steve Malzberg of Newsmax was hosting a radio show on WMAL on Saturday when he interviewed Victoria Toensing, the lawyer for State Department Benghazi whistleblower, Gregory Hicks. Toensing disclosed not only that Hicks is a registered Democrat who voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primary and for President Obama in both the 2008 and 2012 elections, but also that NBC News edited these disclosures out of a broadcast interview with Toensing before Hicks testified last week' before a House committee last week.
> 
> NR


Well, of course they did.


----------



## toddorbertBU (Apr 28, 2013)

Hitch said:


> My friend Steve Malzberg of Newsmax was hosting a radio show on WMAL on Saturday when he interviewed Victoria Toensing, the lawyer for State Department Benghazi whistleblower, Gregory Hicks. Toensing disclosed not only that Hicks is a registered Democrat who voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primary and for President Obama in both the 2008 and 2012 elections, but also that NBC News edited these disclosures out of a broadcast interview with Toensing before Hicks testified last week' before a House committee last week.
> 
> NR


So what? I haven't seen any news or opinion sources label or even imply that Hicks is a Republican or opponent of the President. In fact my impression of him has been a loyal aide to the late ambassador an career civil servant.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

toddorbertBU said:


> So what? I haven't seen any news or opinion sources label or even imply that Hicks is a Republican or opponent of the President. In fact my impression of him has been a loyal aide to the late ambassador an career civil servant.


 hmmm until today has you noticed any news or opinion sources label or imply that Hicks twice voted for Obama?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

The case builds and builds against them...and now we are hearing that the Justice Department dogs of constitutional rights infringement have been nipping at the heels of Fox News reporter James Rossen, as a result of his reporting on North Korea's increasingly aggressive military posturing. Should we add Eric Holder's name to the list of who should be the first to go (or at least slip him a copy of the Constitution, so that he might become familiar with it)?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

FWIW, I have become rather dis-enamored of Mr. Holder as AG. I think the characterizations of him as some sort of Machiavellian mastermind are misplaced, as are the depictions of him as hopelessly inept, but if he were to seek other employment (and he'd surely be able to make a heck of a lot more money than he is making currently!), that would be OK with me.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

eagle2250 said:


> (or at least slip him a copy of the Constitution, so that he might become familiar with it)?


I think he knows the Constitution. I just don't think he holds it in the highest regard.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

_Tom Brokaw: 'It's Tough to See How' Holder Keeps His Job_

Hmmmm nothing to do with Benghazie ,but interesting nonetheless.


----------

