Official White House photo
There are very few developments the political world cherishes more than a White House scandal. They invariably include months of endless drama and intrigue. Congressional scandals are nice, as far as they go, but they're a poor substitute.
And as Paul Waldman explained well yesterday, the bizarre Republican rhetoric surrounding the politics of the Benghazi attack reinforce a larger truth: President Obama hasn't had a legitimate scandal yet, and it's making his detractors antsy.
If you're looking at the Republican harumphing over Benghazi and asking yourself, "Why are we supposed to be so mad about this again?" you're not alone. Let's review: There was an attack on our consulate that killed four Americans, including our ambassador. Amid confusing and contradictory reports from the ground, President Obama waited too long to utter the magic incantation, "Terrorism, terrorists, terror!" that would have ... well, it would have done something, but it turns out that he did say "terror," so never mind that. But that's not the real scandal! The real scandal is that Susan Rice went on television soon after and amid all kinds of "based on the best information we have"s and "we'll have to see"s, said one thing that turned out not to be the case: that after the protests in Cairo, there was some kind of copycat protest in Benghazi, which was then "hijacked" by extremist elements using heavy weapons to stage an attack.
A sane person might say, OK, she was obviously given some incorrect information at that time, but it's not a particularly meaningful deception. As people have been pointing out for weeks now, it's not as though not using the word "terror" or saying there was a protest before the attack gave the White House some enormous political advantage. If you're going to have a cover-up, there has to be something you're covering up.
So what's behind the baseless accusations, unhinged conspiracy theories, and calls for a Watergate-style investigation? Waldman sums it up in two words: "scandal envy."
Republicans thought they had something with the job offer to Joe Sestak (remember the calls for an FBI special prosecutor?). Then maybe the "Fast & Furious" matter. Or maybe Solyndra. Now Benghazi.
Each of these stories was immediately compared to Watergate, and each failed to point to any wrongdoing whatsoever by the president or the White House.
Part of the underlying cause for the apoplexy on the right is that they're certain President Obama is a radical criminal up to no good, which means there must be some kind of scandal somewhere. That nothing has turned up, ironically, only reinforces suspicions -- since Obama has run a scandal-free administration it means he must be hiding something awful.
Kevin Drum had a good take on this.
Yep. They're just convinced that Obama runs a gang of Chicago thugs who are lying and cheating behind the scenes at every opportunity. It's a foundational story on the tea-party right. Unfortunately, the reality is that whatever else you think of Obama, he's one of the straightest arrows we've had in the White House since ... forever. He runs a tight ship organizationally, and on a personal level he's so intolerant of personal peccadilloes that he sometimes seems almost inhuman. It would be astonishing if he could actually avoid a serious scandal for an entire eight-year term, but if anyone can do it, it's probably Obama.
And yes, it's driving Republicans crazy.
Nixon had Watergate; Reagan had Iran-Contra; Clinton had Lewinsky; Bush had more scandals than he knew what to do with (Plame, US Attorney purge, torture, etc.); and Obama just isn't cooperating in the scandal department. His critics aren't wearing their desperation well.
I'd just add one thing to keep in mind going forward: the boy who cried wolf didn't do himself any favors. For Republicans to scream "Watergate!" and set their hair on fire every time there's even a hint of a controversy that kinda sorta might involve the administration, they're undermining their own credibility.
With this in mind, if/when there's a legitimate scandal involving the Obama White House, and Republicans once again go berserk, there will be plenty of folks who simply roll their eyes, tired of the faux outrage and manufactured controversies that never pan out. They'll say, "No, no, this time there really is a wolf," and many will respond, "We've heard it all before."
Leave a Comment:
You first need actual credibility in order to undermine it. Thats Issa in a nutshell, the dude is not credible.
Issa's car alarm, that talks when activated, can only say "Step away from your brain!" Not one of his goose chases in the last two years have been credible......
Many in the Taliban/Teaparty aren't able to see past The Man's really good tan. Don't know what can be done there.
Many aren't able to grasp the simple good sense it makes to provide adequate food, shelter, health care and training for their livestock. There will always be SOME who can't see the illogic in burning your home to keep warm.
Some are willing to do or say anything for money, believe everyone has their price. These simply can not understand that others may be motivated by any other means.
When Romney (again) shot from the lip regarding the events in Libya, Ayotte, Graham and McCain chose to support the leader of a political party actively engaged in disenfranchising Americans, rather than represent their constituents. Having gone out on that limb, they now appear to prefer to saw it off rather than climb back down.
Nixon had Watergate; Reagan had Iran-Contra; Clinton had Lewinsky; Bush had more scandals than he knew what to do with (Plame, US Attorney purge, torture, etc.)
Notice something: Clinton lied about a blowjob. Nixon, Reagan and Bush were all lying about attempts to overthrow the Constitution. That's the difference between a Democratic and a Republican "scandal" - the Republican scandals are all about treason being exposed.
Is there something about losing an election to Barack Obama that makes people go insane? Take the recent ravings of mccain and romney for example. Even their fellow republicans and romney's ticket partner admit the election is OVER. Yet, these two cannot get over their sour-grapes, screaming rants. They should both be examined and institutionalized, in sound-proof padded cells.
@acaboy - The problem is that both McShame & Robme lost and lost to the black man, period! Neither appear at least in the foreseeable future to "move on, get over it" and work for the good of the nation! And even though their "fellow republicans" admit the election is over - whether they too are willing to go about the business of working for US appears highly dubious at best. It is obvious that shame as a tactic doesn't work to motivate these people into moving past their own issues, and even the "constituents" that voted McShame into office don't seem to see anything wrong with his behavior - which makes me believe (deeply) that the sheeple feel the same way that he does otherwise they might vote him out!
That whole "...both be examined and institutionalized, in sound-proof padded cells." - works for me though and might be something that needs to happen....
Issa, car theif suspect along with his brother, an arson investigation of one of his businesses and he pull a gun on an employee before he fired him. This is the San Diego Rep who is running the investigations.
The Republicans figure Watergate worked. So if you want to get rid of a sitting President, you need another Watergate.
What they forget is, Nixon was crooked. Way more crooked than any other President before or since.
And, they forget that it was Woodward and Bernstein that blew the whistle, not the opposing party. The media knew it was a real story, that real crimes were committed and covered up.
Calling it Benghazi-gate is not enough to unseat an honest man from the presidency.
Oh, and Mark Felt (Deep Throat). If you want credibility as a whistle-blower, meet a reporter in a parking garage and deny it for 30 years. Don't look for the nearest camera crew and spew false outrage.
If they want a scandal, they can look at
But these scandals do not comport well with memes of the right wing bubble machine.
There's a deep argument to be made in support of that contention, but it's an interesting question, the answer to which partly depends on the measure used to determine it.
On the one hand, Nixon seemed likely to face conviction by impeachment, which would have made him the highest-ranking Federal Administration official to be convicted by an American tribunal of any kind. As he was, obviously, the leader of the Administration, that may well have qualified his as the most "crooked" one.
On the other hand, looking at the total number of Administration officials to be criminally investigated, indicted and/or convicted, the Reagan Administration holds what one may hope will be the all-time record of 138 officials involved in a variety of serious scandals, of which Iran-Contra was only the most serious. I'm sure many of us will recall that there were also major scandals at EPA, HUD, the S&L debacle, etc.
When it comes to considering the seriousness of the nature of scandals real and alleged, it's hard to top GW Bush's Administration - a number of the leading members of which (including the former President himself) have been convicted -in absentia- of war crimes.
I have to agree with JohnMesserly here, there are real issues of comparable seriousness that could (and arguably, should) be viewed as scandals of the Obama Administration. It must be extremely frustrating to the right-wing that those potential scandals are all things they'd be comfortable doing themselves.
The trouble with ignorance is that it picks up confidence as it goes along.
- Arnold H. Glasow
;-)
Unfortunately, today Woodward and Bernstein would be considered a part of the liberally biased press.
Not just meme's, John. You are talking about willfully undermining two of the very central pillars of the Republican Party, Wallstreet and Big Oil, in both supporting and direct profit roles. Not to mention the damage ACA will do to another central GOP pillar, Big Pharma and the lucrative profits in a pill-popping sick America.
More noteworthy is what the Republicans don't quack about, than what they do quack about.
Nixon was not more crooked than Reagan. Read Rachel's book "Drift" and you will find out that Iran-Contra was actually worse than Watergate in terms of a Constitutional scandal that struck at the basic powers of the republic. The reason that's not widely known is because at the time the Democrats knew they were weak and Reagan wasn't, so they collaborated in sweeping (most of) it under the carpet.
Although given that every Republican scandal since Watergate has involved some Imp of Satan who got his start working for that Prince of Darkness, there is an argument to make that Nixon is truly the Fount of all Things Evil.
I looooove the fact that I really did "pee on Nixon" - was down at the Nixon Library, there wasn't anyone around, so I "watered the grass." It felt goooood.
TC- Like a fool, I believed Iran Contra hearings was the Watergate that would unmask Reagan for the fraud he was. Not only was North not jailed, he appears as a hero in First person shooter games, and has a healthy salary from speaker's fees and book deals. The man should be jailed, as should those participating in the Bush administration policy on use of torture. The message to future law breakers is that it will make you rich.
NeedMore: There are economic populists in the T Party and libertarians who do not accept those pillars, branding them corporate socialism. Those coherent, viral lines of thinking do not broadly infect the FoxSpeak.
But at least on issue #1, they could. Minus a full blown scandal, the others could get some movement. I can see how maybe we could see some of the libertarians linking with Pelosi on reduction of the War budget and getting further real oversight, like judicial review of the Kill list. I can see how Bloomberg and other moderate republicans might get behind not Carbon Tax, but Carbon Tariffs. For example, California has become the 2nd largest market of Carbon emissions credits, but the market effect is that companies have an incentive to export their CO2 production out of California. By placing a carbon tariff on goods built outside of California, this would level the playing field. But interstate and international trade law (Chinese carbon production latent in imported chinese goods) would have to be legislated at the national level.
Yeah, I saw that business about Ollie as the hero. Let's remember the Nazis all sang the "Horst Wessel Song" about the Nazi here who, when he wasn't out bashing Jews and kicking queers was a pimp and a drug dealer. Standard issue right wing heroes, both of them. At least Horst Wessel got his head kicked in.
i am sick and tired of the repubs in washington.
but this is nothing new, look what they did to President Clinton.
repubs are ALWAYS DEMANDING an apology, or THREATENING IMPEACHMENT. why are they so hateful toward our President?
a repub on MHP said last week that repubs are jealous of the President because of all of his accomplishments.
i'm so glad he ws re-elected. all the dirty money that was spent and all the lies that were told, didn't work. in fact, it helped him get re-elected.
I think you hit all the right points, Suzette.
Republicans chased Clinton with White Water and Vince Foster the same exact way and finally got him with Linda Tripp's service to her party. I think Obama learned from the Clinton witch hunt and understands that the right is trying to do exactly the same thing to him.
The right wants another empty head with pen in hand in their Oval Office, so they can manipulate and reconstruct our government, not to serve the people, but to serve themselves. They do not get that with a Democratic president and it makes them spitting mad to have to wait another 4 years before they can get back to padding their personal nests.
I still hear traces of the Vince Foster assassination conspiracy to this date, from certain republicants. Alex Jones just said on his secessionist web site that the "new world order has just taken over!" These are the people (cuckoo for cocco puffs!) that think that the missions to the moon were staged in a movie studio...... P.S. how do you explain the moon rocks that we brought back?????? Wake up people.....
They are searching for a "Legitimate Scandal", because they cannot focus on the REAL one:
Skin Color.
So let me get this straight....repulican administrations are full of LEGITIMATE scandals but democratic administrations are paragons of virtue and should never be questioned and anyone with a different opinion needs to STFU? Did I miss anything?
@thinkster:
You want a "legitimate scandal" in the Obama administration?
OKAY. How 'bout drone attacks, how 'bout killing American citizens? Get your war-loving GOP to hold some hearings on THAT topic. Or, indeed, STFU!
The only thing you missed (non)thinkster is what a great job you're doing, giving yourself your own colonoscopy. Always good to be reminded how stupid stupid has to be, to be one of you morons.
Clinton lied about a blowjob. Nixon and Reagan and Bush were all caught out with acts of treason that struck at the basic powers of the Constitution. See, what you don't understand is that all you wingnuts are Confederate Traitors.
Another overreaction from a hysterical partisan. Crude insulting remarks do not substitute for an intelligent argument. You did not answer my question. Have Democratic administrations ever done anything wrong in your eyes?
Another hysterical partisan that carefully avoids the post that answered his question.
The post that I was referring to did not answer the question, it simply spewed hateful rhetoric and there was nothing hysterical about my response. sorry to disappoint you. I know its out of fashion to have civil discourse these days.
Hey thinkster - your question is irrelevant for the present moment!
You are avoiding the point. What is motivating members of my party, (as I too am a Republican), to constantly and relentlessly drum up non sequitur, cheesy and easily debunked "scandals" at every turn they can, is the relevant focus for today!
It should be noted, all the phantom scandals laid at the foot of this Administration involve powerfully placed African Americans.
And that thinkster is a discernible pattern! -Kevo
And for me in particular, why can't my party simply leave the crazy and start to govern! -Kevo
What motivates republicans is the 8 years of similar treatment given to George W Bush and Ronald Reagan which dems will justify of course and claim is entirely different. Its not different at all. It happens on both sides and the hypocrisy is breathtaking.
Which ever party is in power is going to have the other side come after it and repubs are no worse than the democrats who were determined to destroy GW Bush at all costs. But of course their arguments were "reasonable", its only the evil repubs who bring baseless charges which brings me back to my question which is not irrelevant. Is there anything that Obama could do that would be legitimate to question in the eyes of his followers? Doubt it.
Last time I checked concoleeza Rice and Alberto Gonzales are also minorities and they were targets of plenty of accusations and disrespect as well and there are probably many others. The racism argument is so old and tired. Its pathetic. It must be convenient to be able to cry racism every time you get criticized. Even Obama does not do that thank God. His supporters should follow his lead.
Hey thinkster, quit being so emotional! Your reference to Ronald Reagan is absurd. Do you even know of a person named Tip O'Neill?
And, your false equivalency regarding GW shows your non-sense for what it's worth - nothing! Your assertion, "repubs are no worse than the democrats who were determined to destroy GW Bush at all costs" deserves evidence, and you provide none!
Me thinks you, thinkster, think too much within the realm of truthiness! -Kevo
(Non)thinkster: mommy wants her computer back, little boy.
...There are PLENTY of legitimate scandals against King Obama. ...All we need now is a legitimate president 'cause we sho' ain't got one!
...We know you Obamasites aren't playing with a full deck and I sure wish you's quit pullin' the race card. ...Get a grip!
thinkster #4.1.....
You were not born with the nut gene. If you had been born with the nut gene it would all become clear to you.
What the blind with rage r's desperately want is to get the words impeachment and Obama in the same room together. Really, he's made them look and behave like mindless fools for going on 5 years, and pulling the rug out from under him is the one and only thing that would bring them any peace of mind and the warm, smug glow of vindication.
Faux outrage, thy name is Repubco. Wasting time, energy and money is what they stand for. The clanking and squealing of the right-wing noise machine is all they have to offer.
Yup. Look how fast their faux concern about jobs and deficit/debt disappears when its time to actually get to work.
Oh, no, no. Republicans dont' have time for jobs and deficit right now, they've got to discuss and investigate this wildly important conspiracy they've blown all out of porportion.
Citizens just aren't allowed any peace at all.
LOL
what with the W`s
Waterloo,, now Watergate think they still had bush on the mind.
Remember those kids in high school that were labeled as "losers"? Well, now they're older, richer, and still losers.
Remember those kids in school that couldn't think logically so all they did was call people names, or try to beat them up for being different? Now, they are older, poorer, and on government assistance.
I see. So you profess to think logically while simultaneously ignoring that these two statements are mutually exclusive of each other? I don't know if I find that funny or sad
HA!! The idea that Republicans give a rats behind about credibility is beyond laughable. How long ago has that ship sailed?
I'm surprised that Issa hasn't started impeaching President Obama for the BJ's that Petreaus got.
Oh, and Republicans, as far as Rice's as feck-ups - you can't begin to compare Susan with Condalisa.
Didn't Condi KNOWINGLY spout BS after 9/11, and during the Iraq War build-up?
Susan Rice gave measured answers based on the information that she knew at the time. And search all you want, but I'm 100% sure that you won't find any PDB that says, "Terrorists Determined To Attack US Ambassador At Consulate In Benghazi!"
So, STFU!
Rape-Public-CONs supported Condi and now they think they're experts on... Rice relations. [ducks, covers]
The trouble with ignorance is that it picks up confidence as it goes along.
- Arnold H. Glasow
;-)
Re: Susan Rice, after a Democrat issues a statement, no new facts or information can be discussed thereafter, or it's "lies to the American People" and "cover-up" and "why weren't we told about this sooner!"
Let a Republican issue a statement and facts can hit 'em on the head like rocks, but it's either double down or some vague apology that isn't one at all.
I mean, how many Mitt Mendacity pages did there end up being? Certainly far more than Mitt Recants Another Blooper pages...what, there weren't any of those?
Darryl Issa Moron is the perfect example of who Darwin had in mind when he said: "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
I think there might be another explanation for why McCain and company are charging so hard on Benghazi and so very, very adamant that there was no protest of the offensive video going on before the terrorist attack on the consulate and safe house. If you look closely at who was responsible for translating and uploading the video, which was what sparked the protests in Egypt and other countries in the Middle East, it's well-known that they were Coptic Christians with close ties to Frank Gaffney, Jerry Boykin and their merry band of Muslim haters (all present at the Republican hate-fest, the Values Voters Summit this summer). If there were protests in Benghazi (and many people on the ground there at the time still say there were) and they were used to cover a terrorist attack, then wouldn't that make some Republican BFFs partly responsible for the deaths of the four Americans?
That movie bugs me too. I just can't help but wonder if all this bruhaa isn't designed to deflect attention from the creators of that movie.
That movie seems, for something so pivotal to the deaths of Americans, to be completely ignored. Especially quiet on the subject are the Republicans, who are squalling over everything BUT that movie. They've not called for any investigations or anything. That to me is suspicious. Because the right usually is so vocal about everything and nothing.
"The desperate search for a legitimate Obama scandal" Brilliant!!!
Check his mattress! See if the tag has been removed. Oh,wait he lives in the White House, never mind.
No, defacing WH property has to be grounds for impeachment! Get a Republican lawyer on that immediately.
This is just another means by the right to de-legitimize a democratic president.
It's the same thing that they did to Clinton. I wish I could find the actual quote, but I recall Clinton saying his win was viewed as a usurpation of the right wing's manifest destiny of ruling America.
The fact that there is a half black man with an unusual, foreign sounding name in the White House makes them go ape @!$%#. That Obama is also simply smarter and a better president than any other republican president since Eisenhower makes them go apoplectically ape @!$%#.
As hard as they try to keep reality out, they know they're watching a great President take shape. At the same time as much as they wanted history to rewrite itself and vindicate Pres. George W. Bush they are faced with watching history solidified his complete failure. No matter how much they squeal, reality will clearly record that Pres. Obama is a significant historical leader.
citizen #13
I think I found that quote for ya!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHm3CWvLs0c&playnext=1&list=PLAB8DE323852F19B9&feature=results_main
If it's a legitimate scandal, wouldn't the White House have ways of shutting the whole thing down?
Please don't use "Jew" in your name and spout this crap ...
I have a headache (like any good jap) from the facepalming.
When has Obama blamed anyone for these manufactured scandals? I think part of the reason you Republicans are going bat s%$^ is because Obama generally shrugs off these LOUD lies. And the few times that he spoke to refute the lies (and yes, I do mean the Presidential Debates), the republicans cried, "You're mean and classless!!! Wah, wah!!!"
I think a lot of this is based on the right wings desperation to avoid linking the attack to anti-muslim propaganda. Immediately after the attack there were a lot of "free speech" defenders stepping forward. If the attak was linked to the propaganda it would stain Right wing hands (I am looking at you Pam Gellar). Thus the attack on Obama and Rice are in part a defense mechanism. Now it just has a life of its own and the Republicans don't know how to let it go.
Everytime McCain or Graham is asked about it there immediate prologue is "4 people were killed!!!" That our Ambassador was murdered should require less grandstanding and more sobriety from McCain and Graham.
That McCain missed the classified briefing on Benghazi, of his committee, and that Graham immediately ran to FOX News, severely impacts their credibility. Now given General Petraeus' testimony they seem to have painted themselves into a corner. Are they going to call him a "liar," along with the President?
They really should STFU. Countless men and women had been killed in similar attacks in the past. I didn't hear them caterwauling then.
But "someone" changed Petraeus original testamony, HE says, now.
Now...that his personal daliances have been brought to light under under this administration.
Petraeus's testamony about anything now just might be tinged with some bitterness.
Hannitys calling for the president's impeachment! The president is already not american enough, not old enough, not mature enough, not white enough, not experienced enough, and not intelligent enough! Every dog whistle the republicants have come up with has been rebuffed, they lost the election, so now they have to come up with something new. I have a long memory on this birther crap, transcript crap, Kenyan crap, etc. O has finally taken the gloves off, and it is time for a serious fight......
Thanks, LongIslandJew, for fighting that ancient anti-Semitic slur that all Jews are intelligent. Your service in demonstrating that a Jew can be a moron is deeply appreciated by your buddy Eric Can't, er.
Hate much, LongIslandJew? Don't care about his birth certificate? 55% of all Republicans think he was born in another country, and his birth certificate is fake. Are you one of them?
Of what possible interest are his grades at Columbia, or Harvard, for that matter? I sincerely doubt that he got C's and D's as he was a scholarship student and editor of the Harvard Law Review. Perhaps you want to compare his grades to yours. Probably not a good idea for your own ego. What do his LSAT scores have to do with being President? Who is he a puppet for and why? Bill Ayers and Saul Alinsky? Give me a break.
Go back under your rock.
It just doesn't quit....sigh.
@NeedMoreCoffee The best part about them never quitting is that it is so much fun to see them twist in the wind, screaming BUT BUT BUT when every sane, thinking person in America is laughing their asses off at them. Like the LongIsland dude. I'm totally cracking up at him.
I hadn't been following the post-Benghazi pseudo-outraging marathon very closely, but I've noticed that CNN and other news shows covering this almost non-stop. And I got to thinking to myself: I must be a really bad citizen, because I can't figure out why exactly Rice's comments are controversial. Why, exactly, is this important???
I thought I was really missing something (Where's the "there"?)...
I wasn't.
Seriously why are the news agencies even giving these yahoos air time?
I guess it depends on how one defines "news agencies"...
The trouble with ignorance is that it picks up confidence as it goes along.
- Arnold H. Glasow
;-)
CNN: Cretins' News Network.
Wolf's usually Blitzed.
Rice didn't lie. Did you even read the transcript? She repeated what the CIA had told her at the time. By the way, Rice is the UN Ambassador, and really has nothing to do with Benghazi. The proper person to talk is the Secretary of State, under whom all foreign officers serve.
As far as only a few people knowing about that video? It was viral on Youtube. A lot of people knew about it, and it only takes one religious fanatic to pump it up into an international incident.
So if anyone has their head up their a**, it's probably you.
I am learning nothing of importance from LIJew. He'd simply affirmed my earlier suspicion: That he's a raving idiot. I've put him on "Ignore this Author" as he's a complete waste of time.
Another conservative who comes here with "inside" information from an undisclosed source, to share the "fact" that he knows more than everyone else...
Didn't we go through this yesterday with Scott numbers regurgitating the same Conservative Unverifiable Defense (CUD).
It is especially disturbing that after Republicans have searched out scandal after scandal with scant evidence and always ending in complete failure, the mainstream media continues to give them hours and hours of coverage without following it up with an equal amount of time for the complete dismantling or retraction of these baseless attacks that have filled hours of news coverage. John McCain, Darrell Issa, Lindsey Graham, Dana Rohrabacher and every other individual that engages in scandal hunting should be dragged out to face hard questions and significant demands for apologies, the same way they tried to drag out the administration and people within it.
For weeks on end we've been asking how come Susan Rice and the administration are misleading the American public, now we know they aren't and they have been as accurate as they can be as things unfold. Now it's time to ask all those who were pressing this false argument why they have been misleading the American public for weeks on end. Now that we know Susan Rice’s previously described misleading statements, weren’t misleading and come nowhere near disqualifying her for the nomination of Secretary of State, it's time to press all those who attacked her in this regard, with questions about what they should be disqualified for because of their misleading attacks.
Every person that has ever had to face a false accusation in public deserves equal time after that accusation has been proven false to clear their name. If they have to bear weeks of false claims, they are owed equally significant vindication by being able to watch weeks of legitimate attacks against those who pressed the false claims. Just because the false attacks are a disgrace, doesn't mean you double down on this disgrace by letting it go without righting the ship.
As much as I enjoy the president, there are some things he's failed at: namely the NDAA, the drone attacks, the extensions of the Patriot Act, the use of the State Secrets Act, calling for an assassination against an American citizen, the refusal to close Guantanimo, and a few other things like that. Obama is no saint, by far - and we're certainly giving up a lot of civil and privacy rights in the process to an endless war on terror against a nebulous enemy we don't understand and can't really defeat.
Katherine- I would agree with several of the things you don't like about Obama, but I disagree with your position on the drone attacks and calling for an assassination of an American fighting for the other side. The man committed treason of the highest order, and in any of our past wars, would have been shot on the spot if captured. Drones can cause collateral damage, and often do. But if you've ever been in combat (and I have) there is always collateral damage. In a war against terrorists they usually don't oblige you by fighting out in the open, mano-a-mano. Many of these terrorist leaders hide in safe places our troops can't get to, like across the border in Pakistan. Often the only way to get to them is with the drones (which have the added advantage of not getting our soldiers killed). It would be great if we didn't have war at all, but that's not how things are right now, and I can accept the drones for the time being.
Obama hasn't refused to close Guantanamo. One of the first things he did was try to close it, but was shot down by filibustering in the Senate. Remember all the controversy about trying the prisoners in military tribunals or in US courts? That was all part of the effort to close the place down.
Oh geeze, you're right on Guantanamo. I totally forgot about that. Back then I was still a silly headed Libertarian Republican so everything the president did was eeevil. (I fortunately grew out of that phase.)
The other stuff I don't like - as I said. If it's required or merely a part of doing battle, then I'll accept that. I don't like it. I wish it didn't happen. But it will happen.
"there are some things he's failed at:....the drone attacks, the extensions of the Patriot Act, the use of the State Secrets Act,"
I am in agreement with rwsgate about the traitor and somewhat about Guantanamo Bay. On Guantanamo Bay, I admit, I probably don't care as much about that as I should. With regard to the stuff I quoted above... I guess I'm not as liberal as I would like. Frankly, I find these provisions to be necessary in times of war. And to be honest, if it were between using drones or sending a soldier to the ground--a soldier who is somebody's child, parent, sibling, friend... I welcome the use of drones. Drones are sent to dangerous places. And from what I know, those who control drones are held responsible for WHO they actually kill. So if you think drone pilots just bomb the hell out of people over there, you would be wrong. It is their priority to avoid as much collateral damage as possible. The Patriot Act and the States Secret Act may have been responsible for saving countless American lives. I cannot argue its failings.
I always said it and believed it, President Obama can be a ruthless military strategist, and fortunately, he uses that ruthlessness to protect his people--my people--Americans. What I do want is some kind of regulation to go with these powers, since they're SO vulnerable to abuse.
Can't speak to the NDAA issue. I haven't an opinion about that one, since I generally don't know much about it.
Crying wolf, losing all credibility in what may be a serious situation occurring... doing the same thing over and over as if the result will change by sheer will and obstinate pronouncement...
May we please ask Senator John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Kelly Ayotte and the entire GOP scandal police team ... are you insane?
Seriously. Folks, we live in the "Information Age" and while you folks seem to think the bubble of misinformation you live in matters to everyone - it doesn't. Some of us use common sense and take personal responsibility to be actually INFORMED.
And we also vote. We just did. You [for the most part = "majority"] lost. Now get to work on the matters that are important. Come out of insanity to at least a semblance of cogent thought and reasonable actions for the good of the entire country.
Benghazi as an issue should ONLY be about apprehending the criminals that killed our citizens. Sane people know this.
Wrong on two accounts. First, you responded to the wrong post. Nicely done.
Second, not once did I say Bush. I said the mess that the GOP keeps trying to make. You decided that was about Bush, not my problem.
Also, your jab at Obama for being illegitimate is just typical of the crass arseholery of GOP minions like yourself. Accept some responsibility for that why don't you?
Thanks once again, LongIslandJew, for demonstrating that a wingnut can indeed do his own colonoscopy. And for ceaselessly fighting the ancient anti-Semitic slur that all Jews are smart.
Thanks for proving the point LongIslandLoon. Can't handle that you were wrong so you pivot and talk about something else and it's all nonsense.
I also note that you take no responsibility for your losing argument. You actually think any of us "libs" are angry with you? How sad. Pity you, yes. Angry, no.
No "religious, Israel loving" Jew refers to "judeo-christian" anything, and certainly not to "judeo-christian foundings of our country"
btw ... shouldn't you be getting ready for Shabbos ? go pray for the state of israel ... rockets are hitting jerusalem!!! see ya after havdalah ...
I love it when they call us angry and then proceed to spend sentences calling us every insult they can think of.
Projection and cognitive dissonance at it's finest.
LongIslandJew- Every Saturday on DailyKos they have a section where they publish the best hate mail of the week and let people vote on it. You know, if you added in a little more homophobia, capitalized a few of your words, you might have a shot at an "above average" rating. Of course, you can actually spell, so that might work against you.
By the way, for a person who has "God in his life", you don't sound much like a Christian. So really, give DailyKos a try.
"-have to go back to running my multi-million dollar business."
LMAO very hard. long-island you even still have a business. never mind running it.
Serious offer: I will provide the princely sum of one dollar to anyone who can prove conclusively that LongIslandJew is a spam bot.
Seriously, I'm starting to think that the GOP think tanks are writing bots to go out to liberal discussion boards and spew random vitriol. The degree of similarity between all their posts (scotty of a million numbers, shooter, this clownboat, etc) strikes me as clear evidence that they are pieces of cleverly written keyword recognizing software.
Note how a direct question is never answered, and no actual facts are ever provided. If a news source is ever cited it's Fox. For my own sanity, I must believe that no human could be this obtuse.
How great it would be if we could have actual discussions with more members of the political right. Does everyone remember when they used to provide actual legislative couterproposals to things and we were able to have a battle of ideas? Man, that was awesome...
Barack Hussein Obama the architect of today's fiscal nightmare, LongIslandJew
LonIslandJew,
You need to study some of shooter242's posts. He is much better at distorting the facts than you. I'll give you a hint, you need to know what the facts are if you want to do a good job of distorting them. Study!
Apparently McCain is trying madly to get an audience for his worldview that Al Qaeda is still out there, stronger than ever, and the US should still have a large military presence in Iraq, and we should stay in Afghanistan and attack Iran. Not a popular view even among Republicans, but he doesn't care because he has another audience.
Right wing Obama haters are the ones listening and jumping on the bandwagon because they are looking for any excuse to justify THEIR worldview that Obama shouldn't be president because he is black and therefore incompetent and is probably not even legitimately president.
This wacky coalition is the essence of the Republican party today.
Time for you to go pee on the fire hyrdrants elsewhere, you shiny little troll. Did you miss your date with your girlfriend, Pammie Gellar?
Liberals always play the race card when they are losing the rgument.
When you have an entire network seeking to parse every word and look for phrases to take out of context, it makes sense to watch your words. When you care about the accuracy of what you say you are more circumspect. If the president cared as little about facts as Mitt and Fox he would not try to be precise.
What argument was he losing before he talked about race thinkster? Let's at least use logic which you said you're so fond of to analyze that statement, hmm?
(non)thinkster is just another senile Auld Phart in the midst of wingnut dementia
I think it's important to recognize a few things about this whole "scandal:"
1: it's become pretty clear that Susan Rice read what the talking points told her to say on the Sunday shows. Even with Petraeus's testimony today, he basically said "the talking points initially said 'Al Quaeda' but it was later changed by someone before Rice talked to the media." Accepting that, its clear that Rice did not deliberately lie. Of course there will be those who claim that Rice knew what the talking points initially said and deliberately decided to ignore it. But one thing is clear, Rice was told that it was a spontaneous demonstration with "extremest elements" which is what she said.
2: The fact that Rice didn't lie and Obama didn't lie and they truly were operating on the intelligence at the time is irrelevant to the (portions of the) right wing that want to make this a story. the story is going to morph now into a "different" scandal and here are the possibilities. A:President Obama altered the talking points (for some reason); B: There is a vast conspiracy amongst the 9 departments who reviewed the talking points to tow a party line and they all agreed to remove the reference to Al Quaeda, (again for some reason as the right has yet to demonstrate what Obama gained by lying about whether this was terrorism or spontaneous).
Here's the troubling thing though. The true story here is that there was some uncertainty amongst the intelligence community about what occured. There were conflicting reports and the administration tried to keep the public informed based on what it knew. But even if the right accepts that there is no "lie" here to hang on Rice or Obama they're just going to start screaming about the intelligence failures of the administration in allowing this to occur and then not being able to pin down what happened for (wait for it 14 days). Remember (albeit a much larger issue) 9/11 commission took YEARS.
Anyway that's my two cents.
Okay, thank you LongIsland, that actually answers my subsequent post. So the argument goes that he needed it to not be Al-Quaeda because he campaigned on dismantling Al-Quaeda. At least that makes some sense, though again I have to ask if that's the case why did the administration subsequently inform the public that the attack was conducted by terrorists at all. If they were trying so hard to coverup the scandal why didn't the administration try and block investigations, hold back information etc.
Yeah. There are a handful of real concerns here that are not being addressed in the midst of this 'scandal'. First and foremost what was the CIA doing in this country? Was that mission important for national security or was it something else? Will the mission continue or has the CIA been ousted? Is that good or bad for our security and for our operatives?
Secondly how did the attackers know that the ambassador was going to be at the consulate on that day? Was it just a random attack where they got lucky or did they have insider information? If they had insider information who gave it to them? Was it the Libyan government? Do they have operatives within the Libyan government? If so for either of those latter two questions then at what levels and to what extent? What information do they know? For all we know there has been a huge intelligence breach of both our operations in Libya or even worse in other countries and within the Libyan government. What does this mean for our security and there's?
Why was Steven's there? He had no official orders to be there (he was supposed to be at the embassy in Tripoli) and he did not have official business there. So what prompted him to go there in the first place?
I'm very concerned that there's been a massive intelligence leak or that there are massive intelligence gaps that we don't know about and I'm very concerned that this might be jeopardizing foreign operations or even domestic ones.
But none of those questions are being asked and they likely won't be because people can't stop with this pointless conspiracy witch hunt.
.....yeah this is just nuts. A. you guys kept insisting that the only thing people cared about was the economy and that what was happening over seas didn't matter and B. the scandal broke months before the election and had little impact on how people voted and this was after knowing it was an Al'Qaeda attack.
No he talked about decimating Al'Qaeda, in particular in Afghanistan. Unless you're a complete idiot we still have been engaging Al'Qaeda in Yemen, Pakistan, and Samalia. Unless you completely ignored foreign affairs you knew that Al'Qaeda as an organization wasn't dead, but you also know that he has virtually eliminated their presence in Afghanistan and has toppled most of the organizational leadership. Al'Qaeda is far more regional now that it was before and that's a good thing for national security.
Mr. Long Island, I don't think anyone (or at least not me) is personally attacking you. If you could relax your rhetoric a little we could have an intelligent debate about this issue. None of us on this message board know exactly what was known when it was known. There are conflicting reports about what aid was requested and when (including what aid was requested during the attack). There very well may have been some intelligence failures here, I'll admit that. However, there is not as of yet a smoking gun showing that the administration knew something and lied to the public. You seem to be pointing to the fact that there are some gaps in the intelligence as evidence of that smoking gun. Isn't it at least possible that they truly were intelligence gaps rather than stifling of negative information by the administration. I think ultimately that's the debate. Did the administration stifle reports that it didn't like or was there simply a large number of conflicting reports.
Sir, you aren't getting an argument from me that there may have been intelligence failures or even poor decision making. However, what I take issue with and disagree with you about is whether that was based on a cover up or just an intelligence failure. There is an ongoing investigation into what occurred. You seem to be getting overly heated about this. My ideology is not preventing me from seeing things. I agree with you that this may have been an intelligence mistake and perhaps things could have gone differently, but isn't that what an investigation is supposed to uncover and hopefully fix.
What do you want to happen. It doesn't appear that any lies took place. The intelligence community said one thing and then as more information came in the report on the event slowly changed to the current analysis that terrorists were involved. Again, my ideology does not stop me from believing that perhaps the administration "dropped the ball." I agree that perhaps better intelligence could have helped or maybe in hindsight a different decision could have been made that night. But you seem dead set on believing that this is evidence of either some larger cover up or some larger ineptitude. Intelligence is never perfect and rarely can predict a precise attack before it occurs. Further, perhaps you need to try and consider the possibility that rather than an elaborate cover up, what really occurred was simply conflicting reports from conflicting intelligence agencies that finally coalesced into our current understanding of what occurred.
No. He said he dismantled them in Afghanistan and decimated their control overall. Which is true.
Which he did. The main funding and organizational force of Al'Qaeda was through Osama Bin Laden and that is exactly what has happened with him being executed: Al'Qaeda is no longer an organizational unit that works in cohesion like it used to, to launch national attacks. There are still regional pockets of Al'Qaeda in existence, but they are nothing compared to what the organization was before.
Provide any evidence that this claim is true
Riiight...except for that meeting in Vegas he went to? Thank you for admitting you either lied then or you're lying now. The contradictions are lovely. For the record no he didn't watch the feed for 9 hours long (considering that the attack wasn't 9 hours long in the first damn place), but secondly this is still horrifically presumptuous on your part. First off we don't have any information that they watched the attack happen- what we do have evidence of is that information was sent to the department (not the White House) asking for local military support and the CIA worked to come up with a local solution. Lastly there weren't SEALs present at the compound. The men who responded- the ones who were told to "stand down"- were CIA operatives who were former Navy SEALs who disregarded orders and responded to the attack anyways and were killed as a result. The unit who was put on standby, as is my understanding, was a US Army Airbourne unit based out of Italy that was informed they were to go in on a rescue op, but they were never activated. We don't know why- you are presuming why they weren't activated when you don't actually know.
And this would have started a war with Libya. Do you understand this?
Provide any evidence that it has.
You saying that they wanted to cover this up so that people wouldn't know that Al'Qeada still existed is a conspiracy theory. That is one of many that have been put forward by Republicans. Others are that he didn't want it known that he is a failure as a CinC to get out so he covered it up to get re-elected. Others are that he wanted them to get killed as some deal he made with Al'Qaeda because he's secretly working with them to make us less safe. The list keeps going. You have no evidence that the accusations you make are true. Provide ONE SLIVER of evidence that a. the president lied about his claims about Al'Qaeda b. that there was a cover-up c. that the cover-up was to prevent people from knowing that Al'Qaeda was still existent and c. that people did not know that Al'Qaeda was still existent. When you can provide evidence of this then I will be persuaded that you are correct. Otherwise it's a conspiracy
Ahhh I have no concept of truth or common sense. I can back every one of my claims up with evidence, can you? yes, but it's me who is at fault. Please tell me what other situations have they gotten caught in and when did they blame Republicans and claim conspiracy? Unless you provide evidence I'm not going to believe you. Because rational people do not believe that X is true until they have evidence FOR X.
There isn't any evidence to suggest anything wrong happened on behalf of US citizens at this point in time. The only wrong doing that we've seen was on behalf of those who actually perpetuated the attack. Granted I do agree that there seem to be huge intelligence problems that I would like answers for. The rest, however, are baseless accusations that people are making without evidence. People need PROOF for the things they claim or they cannot claim them to be TRUE. That is all I'm arguing.
Ugh no, not exactly. There were no SEALs involved- there were CIA operatives who were at a near by outpost who were former SEALs who were told to stand down by the CIA. They then ignored that order and went to the compound and were promptly killed. We do not know why they were told to stand down.
There are e-mails requesting increased security in Tripoli, not Benghazi. Those requests were for local military and police personnel or private contractors.
This, again, is a conspiracy. You already believe that this is true even though it hasn't happened and you have no evidence of this. Isn't it possible that your ideological and partisan beliefs are clouding your interpretation of information or do you honestly believe that you're the objective one here despite your constant assertions of things that never happened or that aren't based in fact?
Exactly. You cannot take knowledge you have in the future or present and then retroactively apply it to a situation in which that information wasn't known. That seems to be what some are doing. You can only assess actions on the basis of what people knew and what operational abilities were available at the time. If things need to be fixed or changed then we make them to prevent future mistakes. Again I am in complete agreement with tiger that it's likely this is going to prove to be an intelligence breach or failure of different departments to communicate, but we don't KNOW any of this and we won't until they're finished investigating. People need to calllllllm down.
Arguing with a moron never works. But clicking "ignore" works every time.
cartoon #24.8
Why don't you watch this. I did.
Congress Holds First Hearing on U.S. Consulate Attack in Libya
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Congress-Holds-First-Hearing-on-US-Consulate-Attack-in-Libya/10737434835-1/
I did watch the hearing Six. What are you disputing in my reporting? Nothing in the hearing contradicts what I've said. Please clarify your statement.
Obamanoids are brainwashed people like the young angry man, Rachel Maddow. You all feed yourselves with your own vomit.
nope. there is nothing going on. All this imbecile embassador rice and her president going to talk shows ..and the whole 9 yards....naaa..
mnbc is a cult. a fanatic religion. no wonder the numbers of viewers are so few. Is just too crazy to be appealing to people.
loot at the comments above. anyone saying anything about benghazi is racist, radical, bla,bla....we are still waiting for an explanation.
meanwhile, the unemployment benefit claims, spike....and the big communist party people continue singing the songs of the obamanoids and his young angry man, rachel maddow "we are the world....we are the children...."
stfu
hurricane22- your fifteen minutes are up and your village misses their idiot. Please go home.
Mommy wants her computer back, little boy.
LongIslandJew
Member Since: 11/2012 Last Seen: 11/16/2012
The smell of a new troll..... LOL!!!!
yoohoo!!!!! hello???? does longisland(jew) have power????
I said those things -- not rws --- you need to deal with me
your "statements" about history - religious and american -- are wrong -- they do not state facts -- they are not even reasonsable analyses since they don't rely on facts
-- and your word usage is wrong, too
go do some reading and get back to me
good shabbos
I think LIJew just signed up as hurricane22.
One other thing to consider. To what end is President Obama attempting to cover this up.
One thing I think gets missed when considering whether this is a scandal or not is, why? When there is a cover up there is something to cover up. With Iran-Contra it was violating the law with illegal arms dealing, with Watergate it was violating a slew of election laws as well as B and E, with Clinton even there was the concern of his wife/public discovering his extra-marital affairs compounded by a lie.
Those posting here that believe this is a scandal and Obama lied I have to ask, why? I don't see the net benefit of lying. As I understand it the theory is that President Obama knew from the outset that this was a terrorist attack and deliberately attempted to mislead the public for 14 days. Ignoring the fact that the administration voluntarily told the public it was terrorism LONG BEFORE any investigations were conducted, what is the benefit to the lie. Please enlighten me, the theory must be that it was politically expedient for this to be a spontaneous reaction to the video rather than terrorism and the administration desperately wanted to push that story, but why? We know terrorism is a problem, we know it's possible that it could hit anywhere, violence in the middle east is pretty much a daily occurrence. Please, someone explain to me why the cover up.
I'm truly not trying to stoke more controversy or anger with this post, I'm absolutely 100% curious what the supposed motivation is for the coverup because it's lost on me.