One can only wonder...

.... how much news coverage NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, Bill Maher, John Stewart, SNL, etc....would be covering the stories if it were a republican president in office while the IRS is accused of targeting liberal organizations and, the Benghazi mess.

:stir:
 
Sam

Iran-Contra while different and well intended by Ronald Reagan, was every bit the scandal that Benghazi has the potential to be and nothing happened to him.
 

xfire

New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
Sam

Iran-Contra while different and well intended by Ronald Reagan, was every bit the scandal that Benghazi has the potential to be and nothing happened to him.

Now you're just trying to make him cry. Or fly off the handle and call you a fucking hippie liberal.
 
Now you're just trying to make him cry. Or fly off the handle and call you a fucking hippie liberal.

I agree with Sam that the media would treat a republican administration differently but I don't want to see him put all this energy into this only to see republicans drop it like a hot potato next year after the poll numbers show that it is hurting their candidates in the mid-term elections. And although I am not a hippie you'd be surprised to know that my hair was very long in college. lol
 

xfire

New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
I agree with Sam that the media would treat a republican administration differently but I don't want to see him put all this energy into this only to see republicans drop it like a hot potato next year after the poll numbers show that it is hurting their candidates in the mid-term elections. And although I am not a hippie you'd be surprised to know that my hair was very long in college. lol

Honestly, if Obama is guilty of an impeachable offense I hope they nail him. If Hillary Clinton is guilty of covering shit up, she doesn't deserve to run for president. If Darrell Issa and the rest of the republicans are merely engaging in a partisan witch hunt , they should resign from office or be impeached themselves.
 
Honestly, if Obama is guilty of an impeachable offense I hope they nail him. If Hillary Clinton is guilty of covering shit up, she doesn't deserve to run for president. If Darrell Issa and the rest of the republicans are merely engaging in a partisan witch hunt , they should resign from office or be impeached themselves.


I saw Issa yesterday on Meet The Press. I don't know where this is going. I just have a hard time believing that anyone that values their political career would knowingly let these people die and not try and help them. And as much as I disagree with him on just about everything, I don't believe president Obama would allow it to happen either. I guess the whole issue is that after it happened was there an effort to hide the facts. The coverup is usually always worse than the behavior itself.
 

xfire

New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
I'm not even clear on what was supposedly covered up. That there was an attack is clear, no covering that up. That the administration didn't divulge everything they knew, as they knew it? Is that standard procedure? I don't know. I do know that law enforcement won't comment on an ongoing investigation. How about lawyers, can you discuss cases? What's the real deal-e-o here?
 

xfire

New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
19 Startling Media Reactions to the Benghazi Cover-Up

And still no specifics as to what exactly was covered up. No one tried to cover up the attack and that early into the investigation no one could say for certain what had happened. What exactly is Obama guilty of? What exactly is Hillary Clinton guilty of?
 
First, how many threads about this is this guy going to post?

Second, I posted this in another of his threads. It's appropriate here, too.

This sums things up pretty well. From Andrew Sabl at The Reality-Based Community, who simply begs Republicans to make up their minds what they are actually pursuing here:


"Look, I’m not a Benghazi expert. I’m willing to entertain the possibility that there’s something here that the media aren’t telling me. But before I evaluate the case, I need to see some concrete charges. My challenge to conservatives is to tell me, very simply, the following:

(1) What, in your view, was the crime? Who did what and which law did it break? No crime, no cover-up (in the usual sense).

But the idea seems to be that what was “covered up” was not crime but incompetence. (That stretches the former meaning of “cover-up,” but never mind.) So:

(2) Who failed competently to perform his or her job, in which concrete ways? Which decisions are we talking about, by whom, at what time, and on what grounds should we believe that a competent person in the job in question would have had to make a different decision? Again, failure to devote unlimited resources to guarding every consulate at all times does not constitute an incompetent decision but rather precisely a competent one. And a judgment (apparently held by the diplomats on the ground at the time) that there was a tradeoff between high security and diplomatic effectiveness is also, absent conclusive arguments to the contrary, quite defensible. We need more.

(3) What information was covered up, and how? What facts do we (a) now know to be the case that (b) were previously concealed from view by (c) illegitimate threats or undue influence (as opposed to agency politics as usual, whereby those higher up would rather sweep mistakes under the rug but grudgingly tolerate subordinates who air them)?

Unless all three of these elements in (3) are present, there was no cover-up—at most a halfhearted attempt at a cover-up, or an honest difference of opinion about facts. And unless number (1) or (2) is present, there was nothing to cover up.

At this point in the career of a scandal, or attempted scandal, there are often disagreements over whether the charges are true. But I can’t remember the last time I’ve seen a scandal where I don’t even know what they are."
 
For those of you in here who fail to understand, enlighten yourself.

Free your ass, and your mind will follow.



 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
Sam

Iran-Contra while different and well intended by Ronald Reagan, was every bit the scandal that Benghazi has the potential to be and nothing happened to him.

Yeah, but lets face it, Ollie North basically jumped in front of the bullet for Ronnie, and took it like a good soldier. Can't find that kind of loyalty in a Democratic administration!
 
I'm not even clear on what was supposedly covered up. That there was an attack is clear, no covering that up. That the administration didn't divulge everything they knew, as they knew it? Is that standard procedure? I don't know. I do know that law enforcement won't comment on an ongoing investigation. How about lawyers, can you discuss cases? What's the real deal-e-o here?

Fair point. I honestly believe that Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton fueled all this by claiming it was a reaction to the youtube video.

Then the black helicopter theories started pouring in.
 
.... how much news coverage NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, Bill Maher, John Stewart, SNL, etc....would be covering the stories if it were a republican president in office while the IRS is accused of targeting liberal organizations and, the Benghazi mess.

:stir:

Funny because this actually happened. The IRS audited the NAACP because its chairman, Julian Bond, had attacked President Bush in a speech to the group's national convention.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-30-naacp-irs-probe_x.htm
 
Top