Whoops. That's exactly what Republicans were saying when the FBI and newspaper investigators were closing in on President Richard "I am not a crook" Nixon for covering up the Watergate break-in by his operatives. Republican defenders of Nixon described it as merely a third-rate burglary and said investigating it would be a waste of time because nothing illegal or untoward happened.
२० नोव्हेंबर, २०१२
"It's not Watergate. It's a political witch hunt, designed to embarrass and discredit the newly re-elected Obama."
"It's a lot of Republican claptrap, another one of those conspiracy theories created out of thin air."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६० टिप्पण्या:
Yes!
Start the impeachment!
There is literally nothing the Left won't excuse in their politicians. Even if we held an investigation that proved that President Obama set Amb. Stevens up to be killed, the Left would still defend him.
My sole consolation is that history usually gets it right, and we'll eventually know the truth, as will future generations.
What did the president know, and when did he know it?
Sheesh. The Trib really blows up the browser.
Yeah, 4 guys dead because the Messiah mustn't be embarrassed 6 weeks out from the election is nothing.
On the same scale as WKRP's misguided Thanksgiving promotion.
Freeman Hunt said...
Sheesh. The Trib really blows up the browser.
What browser are you using?
It may not like the Trib's use of Javascript.
Apparently can't read it without some kind of registration.
Pass.
The truth is out there!
Ah. Google workaround is my friend.
How can anyone be concerned about this when there is the breaking news that
[brace yourself]
Women are underrepresented in Climate Science!!!!!!
I know, it is hard for me to fathom, myself.
But here is the shocking truth (scroll down to the last item):
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/11/scientists-dont-jersey-shores-fake-beaches-man-versus-african-penguins/58757/
Clearly, if more women were doing climate science, then, um, everyone would embrace govt-paid Cadillac contraception? Or something?
At the very leaf, disbelief regarding the hockey stick would disappear, I'm sure.
somefeller said...
The truth is out there!
Actually it's staring us in the face.
We know what happened.
We know where the buck stops.
It's not Watergate, no one died in Watergate.
Link requires sign up (it's free!).
Fuck that. Fuck Chicago.
TANSTAAFL, chickelit.
Pro-choice neo-con woman here: There was a time when the country was led by mostly men, mostly white, and if an operation was botched, administrators did their best to openly review what happened, what went wrong, and how to avoid having this happening again. I worked for good men like that, and they were honorable, generous, tough and fair with one and all.
But that's back when mostly white men were in charge. Now it's all these self-important, fussybutt women, and their castrati male codependents, like Obama.
Surely, we are reaching some sort of apex in the long stretch of letting the sissies be in charge. I am long weary of this government of cunts, and it just keeps going!
I am long weary of this government of cunts, and it just keeps going!
Weird how things could smell so rank when there are so many douchebags in the gov.
cf, that's about the most damning assessment of the last 50 years I think I've ever read.
I'm going out on a limb here, but I'll make a prediction:
BenghaziGate won't be determined to be about malice or connivance.
It'll be revealed to be about an administration that is so incompetent in day to day operations that they can't find their butt cheeks with both hands and a GPS system.
That is what they're hiding -- that everyone, all along the way, had absolutely no idea what they or anyone else in the loop was doing.
"Oh, shit, you mean we've got to come up with a consistent story? Can't we just BS the press like always?"
Google "getting to the bottom of benghazi"... and the sign up thingy will not be there.
Well thanks, Edutcher, for hearing me. I don't fell quite so lonely now.
cf:
It may and is probably for other reasons; but, at least one reason for a functional society is homogeneity. The leaders of yesterday could not effectively leverage skin color, or gender, or class, or any other differential to gain leverage over their competing interests. This necessarily limited corruption as everyone competed as individuals and on merit. The presence of empowered competing interests kept honest people honest and others from running amuck.
Of course, the presiding philosophy, principally Christian, was also integral to the order. The most likely outcome follows from a minimum differential between the starting and ending state. The observation that you made is evidence that the philosophy of America's founders was superior, which even led to the eventual rejection of involuntary exploitation and selective liberty. A feat which has yet to be matched throughout the world -- recognition of individual dignity.
As it is for men, it is also for women, they need to recognize individual dignity and the intrinsic value of human life. From those two axiomatic principles, and with consideration for the limitations and requirements imposed by the natural order, we have a hope to realize positive progress.
It's a political witch hunt, designed to embarrass and discredit the newly re-elected Obama.
Yep. Doesn't mean it won't work. Doesn't mean it shouldn't.
It'll be revealed to be about an administration that is so incompetent in day to day operations that they can't find their butt cheeks with both hands and a GPS system.
Young Hegelian-
I agree. The fact that nobody will provide a timeline of what Obama did and said that very night, and what orders he gave, indicates to me he simply didn't do anything.
My money is on him telling Clapper and Panetta to keep an eye on it, and give him updates as needed.
Can't a man just eat his waffle!
"It's not Watergate, no one died in Watergate."
I guess it depends on how you look at it.
Benghazi! Back there in the annex they were doing mean stuff to "prisoners". The ambassador was running guns to Syria through Turkey. Bad shit happened on movie night.
But Obama warned us not to hunt for the witch because he is the head of the witches.
The "occult" means simply the "hidden." And hiding the Obama Transformations of the middle eastern policy has become a full time media circus.
You can't have Watergate when 95% of the press is on Mr. Wonderful's team.
Everyone paying attention knows pretty much what happened.
But it won't amount to anything.
Move along little doggies. Biden and the press are protecting their homeboy.
Can anyone imagine a contingent of Democrats marching to the White House to tell the President he has to go? Me either.
Romney's shrink had an office in Benghazi the Committee to Reelect the President was burgling when they were rudely interrupted by terrorists.
Yes, please impeach the President over this...
@chickelit: Do as Lem suggests and go in through the RealClearPolitics link (it was first in the results when I tried it). It's worth it.
And I agreed with the piece when I finally got to it.
Relax machine.
You can't impeach a black president.
It's a rule.
Phase One was getting past the election, liitle or no harm done. Check. Phase Two is setting up any ongoing concern as sour grapes. Check. Media largely on board. Check.
So not Watergate at all.
Robert Cook said...
"It's not Watergate, no one died in Watergate."
I guess it depends on how you look at it.
And comrade Bob links a 'journalism' site that gives Oliver Stone his conspiracy ideas.
Thank you comrade Bob for your input, but the subject is Benghazi. Attempts at moral equivalency not withstanding.
Care to share your thoughts?
Obama: "I'm not a crook!"
Let's see how the two compare:
In Watergate, Nixon had no knowledge ahead of time what people like Liddy were up to. What they were up to amounted to fairly minor crimes. Then Nixon broke his oath of office by attempting to cover up these crimes.
In Bengazi, there was incompetance prior to the attack, during the attack and afterwards. This was followed by an ongoing coverup.
The main difference seems to be that one was covering up minor crimes by low-level people and the other is covering up incompetance by people at the highest levels.
And nobody died in Watergate.
Who's making a "moral equivalency?" I'm merely providing background on Watergate. Your scare quotes around the word "journalism" do not serve to undo the fact of Robert Parry's long career in journalism. This does not mean his word or his reporting is inviolable, of course. But neither does your punctuational sneering suffice to refute it.
I forgot to add: I'm not making a moral equivalency because Watergate was the far greater crime.
At least...according to what we know so far about Watergate and Benghazi.
I'm amazed, when I think on it, how effective it is to criticize not the substance of an argument but the character of the source. It's been, what, 2,500 years since someone wrote down why that tactic is invalid? It's still the most common thing in polemics.
The crime of Benghazi is that Obama created the environment that allowed jihadists to flourish by engaging in regime change. Then his vaunted State Dept. places our ambassador in that environment with outsourced security.
The fact that liberals ignored his adventurist foreign policy just goes to show the partisan hypocrisy that infects the political landscape not to mention the ignorance of the electorate who think we need another four years of this buffoon.
YoungHegelian said...
It'll be revealed to be about an administration that is so incompetent in day to day operations that they can't find their butt cheeks with both hands and a GPS system.
That is what they're hiding -- that everyone, all along the way, had absolutely no idea what they or anyone else in the loop was doing
Clyburn is already out there saying that 'incompetent' is a racist code-word.
So, yes, I think you are exactly right!
Neither Romney nor McCain had sufficient opportunities to demonstrate their competence in navigating the intricacies of the Electoral College.
I read All the President's Men a couple of months ago. I was struck by how incompetent everybody was. For instance, writing checks for criminal acts. Even the break-in was stupid. There was no campaign strategy being done at the Watergate. One comment from the book was that the break-in was done by people who had no idea what they were doing. It was very disorganized. Nixon gave his "dirty tricks" crew a lot of freedom, and they went overboard, and then it was drip, drip, drip in the media.
Watergate was, first and foremost, about the power of the media, and how they can shape the narrative. We see this today with the Obama scandals, and how they are brushed aside as nothing. It's really kind of astounding how much power the media has to shape our world.
Obama has nothing to fear. The lapdog press will cover everything up and he will be free and clear.
He could molest ELmo on national television and it wouldn't matter.
There is no crime he could commit or law he could break that would lead to his impeachment.
He can do whatever he wants and we have no recourse.
We have to get used to that fact.
You could find the same thing with Bush's re-election. The outrage over Iraq was driven up a few settings after Kerry lost.
And, even though Bush won by a larger percentage than his first time around, he didn't have a mandate.
Geez, you folks just don't get it.Obama has Black Teflon and nothing sticks to that stuff.And when you factor in the Media complicity its like Black Tungsten Teflon. Give it up.
For all of Nixons warts (and there were many) at least Tricky Dick was qualified to be president and didn't need voter fraud to assure his election.
Robert Cook said...
I forgot to add: I'm not making a moral equivalency because Watergate was the far greater crime.
Then why bring it up? Unless it's you're rather inartful way of saying that President Obama is trying to deceive the American people. Yes he is.
At least...according to what we know so far about Watergate and Benghazi.
But the current 'tragic occurrence' gives rise to no questions on your part.
Curious, that.
With Watergate, the question was whether the president and members of his administration was guilty of a crime.
What exactly, is the allegation with Benghazi? Is anyone in the administration being accused of a crime?
"Sen. John McCain today issued a statement essentially conceding that he was wrong in accusing the White House of changing U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s talking points on Benghazi for political purposes."
Oh noes...what next?
"Unless it's you're rather inartful way of saying that President Obama is trying to deceive the American people. Yes he is."
I assume every President does not just try to deceive the American people but considers it a paramount part of his job.
Robert Cook said...
"Unless it's you're rather inartful way of saying that President Obama is trying to deceive the American people. Yes he is."
I assume every President does not just try to deceive the American people but considers it a paramount part of his job.
Then you agree. The current resident is certainly a worthy successor to Nixon.
Which has nothing to do with Benghazi. Unless you think the White House is the architect of the cover up.
AF said...
Watergate was to ascertain whether the president was guilty of a crime.
With Benghazi the questions are to ascertain who is guilty of a crime.
At this point your assertion is comparing apples and tennis recquets.
What crime?
Saint Croix:
The implication is that in many ways, the press possesses greater authority than the people to whom authority has been granted. The power to realize a preferred outcome through the manipulation of perception should not be underestimated. The other insight gained is that freedom of the press cannot be unsupervised and must necessarily be limited.
Incidentally, it is the lack of competing interests which condemns regimes directed through monopolies or monopolistic practices. That is why communist, socialist, fascist, etc. regimes are destined to fail by design. The ability of the ruled to hold authority accountable is intentionally limited, whereby nothing short of an armed revolution is capable of correcting the inevitable progressive corruption.
This was also the problem faced by other centralized organizations, including organized religions. However, where some people learned from their mistakes, others have failed and continue to sponsor corruption of individuals, institutions, and nations. All for the sake of advancing their own political, economic, and social standing.
machine said...
What crime?
Who, by their inaction, allowed four United States citizens to be murdered.
This is a brilliant article, comparing the Benghazi scandal with the Valerie Plame horseshit. Hollywood made a movie about that! And yet the Valerie Plame "scandal" was a joke. She was not in the field, she was never in danger, her name was accidentally revealed by Richard Armitage. The whole thing was ridiculous.
This scandal is--obviously--far worse. Innocent people died, including a U.S. ambassador. It stinks of lies and cover-up.
The special prosecutor appointed in the Bush Administration is the precedent for appointing one here.
It would be quite notable if they don't appoint one. And failure to do so would harm any future attempt by the Senate to appoint special prosecutors in a Republican administration. If the Democrats protect Obama here, and continue to pretend like this is a non-scandal, it will lower the ethical bar for conduct in all future administrations. You won't be able to get Republicans to vote for a special prosecutor against a Republican President.
Just waiting for Obama to give a peace sign and proclaim, "I am not a crook!"
On a more serious note, Nixon was pushed from the White House when most Republicans lost faith in him and the GOP leadership gave him the shove. Does anyone really think that the Democrats care about Benghazi, or that they would be willing to push Obama out of office? It seems that they are totally convinced that the ends justifies any means, so I do not see any justice being done on this issue while Obama is still in the White House.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा