Worse, if botched like previous hearings on the matter, these hearings could backfire against the GOP, as did the 1998 Clinton impeachment proceedings. On purely partisan considerations, the hearings are not worth the political risk.So this is the argument pushing back Democrats who say the hearings are purely partisan GOP maneuvering in an election year: On purely partisan considerations, the hearings aren't even worth it! Therefore the GOP must be moving forward on this to bring the American people the truth they deserve.
But the country deserves the truth....
They’ll get it if the GOP can keep the proceedings clean, factual and dispassionate. No speeches. No grandstanding. Gowdy has got to be a tough disciplinarian — especially toward his own side of the aisle.What Krauthammer is really trying to say is: Any Republicans who get too hot about the political advantage they're hoping to get from these hearings had better not let it show. Everyone stay grimly judicious, neutral looking, and swathed in truth-findiness.
The Democrats, seeking political advantage (like everybody else), will watch and wait and any drop of slaver that falls from mildly snarling Republican lips will be collected and magnified.
UGH!! Disgusting! Those terrible Republicans! Seeking political advantage over the dead bodies of 4 dedicated Americans. Have they no decency?!
पोस्ट्स
४७ टिप्पण्या:
This whole thing is a problem at all because the Dems were seeking political advantage , before the 4 Americans were dead!
@Ron
That's exactly the attitude that's going to screw the GOP if they let it show: Dems did it first! Dems did it too!
The GOP need to accept that the media are on the other side. What they do wrong will be overplayed against them. The excuse that the other side is worse or whatever is wound-licking.
They need to try to not get wounded.
I see Kraut's point as saying Obama's policy of sucking up to Muslim Jihadists so that they will fall in love with us so we can then work together with them to kill off remaining Jews and Christians for disrespect of Mohammed's god, is not going to sell. The Smiling Obama will not be seen as that evil by brainwashed voters.
Which leaves the real scandal to be the Media's complicity in the Hoax. Is that a bridge too far?
What it's going to come down to is whether the old truism "it's not the crime, it's the cover-up" still holds true when what was covered up was a fuck-up instead of a crime. I have my doubts.
They need to try to not get wounded.
Impossible. If the GOP doesn't produce a gaff from some member the MSM will manufacture it.
Yes, there's danger … but I want to know the truth. I want those responsible to have to explain themselves under oath. All those involved know that perjury can be a very serious thing. Scooter Libby, a slick lawyer who should have known better, found that out.
Stop talking about "the 4 dead Americans" and do issue a habeas corpus something or other for the 40 live ones that can't be found.
Ann is falling for the Tu Quoque fallacy.
1) Dems cover up the death of 4 Americans for political advantage
2) Dems pretend Republicans are now using the deaths for political advantage
3) Dems are excused because "everyone does it"
Yes, there's danger … but I want to know the truth.
Exactly. The GOP is going to take shit no matter what they do. This hearing will tell us if there is anyone left in the party with a set of balls.
"Impossible. If the GOP doesn't produce a gaff from some member the MSM will manufacture it."
You know, Scott Walker shows how to do it. He does not take the bait, does not show anger or hunger. He was asked the other day about the news story about his opponent Mary Burke's family company Trek and how it hasn't paid net income taxes for many years. He said he wasn't going to comment on someone else's taxes or business affairs. He just wants to tell the people about how his reforms are working in Wisconsin.
Republicans have to learn this move.
I know you're going to say I am trying to stop the GOP from making strong arguments and I'm secretly trying to help the Democrats.
And… whatever… no party can enforce 100% discipline all the time. Even if the GOP can figure out what it should say and how to say it, and even if they could get nearly all of their people to stick with the program, there's always the Todd Akin setting forth on his own, and of course, he'll get all the press.
The system is rigged!!!
"UGH!! Disgusting! Those terrible Republicans! Seeking political advantage over the dead bodies of 4 dedicated Americans. Have they no decency?!"
I've come to the conclusion that nearly everything modern Democrats say about Republicans is a massive display of psychological projection.
A gaff is a large hook used for bringing the fish into the boat.
I know you're going to say I am trying to stop the GOP from making strong arguments and I'm secretly trying to help the Democrats.
I'm just curious as to why when you acknowledge the media's bias, you write posts telling the Republicans to just lay back and enjoy it instead of posts condemning the media for its bias and demanding that they either become objective or admit their bias publically.
Love how Pelosi tried to get even representation for Dems, and then took her marbles and went home when she didn't. Same woman who significantly increased party edge on committees when she was Speaker. Because, you know, They Won.
Both sides are taking risks here. The Dems, on their part, if they continue this refusal to participate, will be sitting on the sidelines, with little chance to reduce the impact of anything that comes out, except for ignoring it in the press. All the Republicans really need to do, if the Dems don't participate, is to not overplay it. To look serious and earnest, and not showboat to make partisan points.
But w/o Dems on the select committee, this inclination will likely be reduced, since most of the Dems on investigatory committees in the House seem to spend most of their allotted time defending the perps as well as the undefendable, and making other political points. If Pelosi continues with her boycott, countering this won't be necessary, and the former prosecutor running the committee can do what he was trained to do.
My fatigue meter is pretty good, and I think this issue is dead. The only people who mentioned it here are members of my Republican club who watch Fox all the time.
It's not fair but what is.
You know, Scott Walker shows how to do it. He does not take the bait, does not show anger or hunger … Republicans have to learn this move. I know you're going to say I am trying to stop the GOP from making strong arguments and I'm secretly trying to help the Democrats.
Not at all on you trying to help the Democrats. I've known better than that for some time. Remember when you proved to me that you are an Independent?
On the other point: Scott Walker is just one very intelligent person, not a diverse group like the GOP, filled with its share of grandstanders and idiots. Someone's almost bound to step over the line. And in the rare case that they don't the MSM will invent it – like it invents so many other things. The gullible will eat it up. The Sunday talk show folks will swoon from pure pleasure. Krauthammer will say, "I told you so," in his measured, urbane way.
But we may finally learn the truth, which could be mundane and not harmful to Obama or the Dems, and that is worth it to me. We cannot simply let this fade away because it might be dangerous to pursue it. There's this thing called "duty" and Congress needs to live up to it.
I agree with you 100% on this one Althouse.
GOP: Watch your step carefully!
the problem is that the system needs to work otherwise you and I get dragged out of our beds in the middle of the night and shot in the back of the head. It's not a threat, it's not a comic exaggeration, that's what it boils down to. Look at Latin America. Etcetera. Etcetera. The system needs to be fairer or it's the old WSB cRy:
The game is rigged! Tear the place apart!
It would be helpful if you expressed an interest in right and wrong instead of always being about game-playing and stretching the law till it snaps. La Belle Dame will find out one day she is just a little 90 lb 60 yo who somebody like me, and there are bigger, can pick up with one hand, her little pocket pistol aside.
I think there is real dread on the democrat's side is they fear more revelations on how inept this administration has been on even the simplest of security matters. The dems have a sympathetic press to aid them, but here is no aid for the testimony of CIA operatives who were on the ground at Benghazi. What a turn of events to have a witness like that testify?
it would be interesting to understand how the Democrats have immunity for making the kind of mistakes you describe. Is it simply media bias or are they doing something clever that could be imitated?
Every candidate who runs a "have you no decency" ad against the GOP should have an ad run against them of Ambassador Stevens being dragged through the streets as buildings burn, cut with a loop of Hillary saying "What does it matter?" over and over and over again...
"Ann is falling for the Tu Quoque fallacy."
You've misread me. I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying the GOP needs to avoid the charms of that sort of argument. It's never that good -- i.e., it's classified as a fallacy -- but it particularly will hurt Republicans, particularly here.
"Every candidate who runs a "have you no decency" ad against the GOP should have an ad run against them of Ambassador Stevens being dragged through the streets as buildings burn, cut with a loop of Hillary saying "What does it matter?" over and over and over again…"
Yeah, ads displaying the body of the ambassador… that'll be well received.
The problem with the "4 DEAD AMERICAN HEROES!!!" vs. coverup of bungling approach is Americans can count.
Like it or not, and it doesn't matter that "democrats voted for the wars too!" - the 40,000 casualties under Bush and trillions pissed away on the "Noble Freedom Lovers" of Iraq and Afghanistam squarely fall in the public's mind as a Republican and Neocon fiasco.
40,000 beats 4.
So if Republicans are vying to get power again, and one argument is "LESS DEAD AMERICAN HEROES" - they need to square up with the public and explain in the aftermath of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Benghazi how they will approach foreign policy and check the blood thirsty warhawks in Republican ranks that want America in 6 new wars of adventure..
Please allow me to hip you to something: Krauthammer is a one-trick pony. He is the circus clown whose job it is to run about the ring, doing the same prat falls over and over again at each performance.
@Althouse: They need to try to not get wounded
Oh the warrior! I'm getting the vapors. Must sit down. Must remember to breathe at the wonder of the courage and sacrifice and commitment to victory.
Hey, @Althouse: not listening to you.
Wait. You're a huge Bob Dylan fan, right? So,
Get out of the road if you can't lend a hand. And no, the line is not about the proverbial hand held job (book dealer).
Benghazi is a good example of a scandal that is almost entirely political in nature. What laws were broken? What crimes were committed?
It seems to me the scandal is...
1) Ignoring the dangers in Libya and the lack of security
2) Obama more concerned about his re-election than the life of his ambassador.
3) Making no effort to rescue our people
4). Attempting to blame a movie and jailing a citizen for political purposes
5). No attempt to find or punish the killers
This is all scandalous to me. If I was a Democrat would I feel differently?
1, 3, and 5 are all judgment calls. 2 is just pure Obama embarrassment. The only whiff of a crime is 4.
Legally Congress only has authority to pass laws. You have a fact-finding commission in order to pass a law. What law would fix any of these scandals? What is the remedy Congress is seeking?
Apparently we want to find out the facts because the facts would embarrass Obama and Hillary. And the Democrats want to cover up the facts because the facts would embarrass Obama and Hillary.
We better be "just the facts, ma'am" because the partisan divide is obvious.
Ann Althouse said...
UGH!! Disgusting! Those terrible Republicans! Seeking political advantage over the dead bodies of 4 dedicated Americans. Have they no decency?!
Hard to argue with this.
Hand wringing over Republican hardball... typical. How come such tactics have never rebounded against the Democrats when they've played their cards against the GOP?
Do the Democrats have some special insulation that makes them immune to vigorous attack? If so then I'd like to see the explanation, in detail.
But, assuming the Krauthammer-Althouse Effect exists, that the Benghazi hearings entail some political risk, allow me to point out that all winning strategies entail risk. A riskless strategy is more costly than no strategy.
Example:
Churchill wanted the Allies to mount an invasion of Europe in 1943, as did Stalin, but the two leaders advocated for the second front for different reasons. Stalin wanted the Wehrmacht's war fighting ability in the East halved by the appearance of Anglo-American armies in its rear. Churchill wanted Red Army contained east of the Vistula. FDR thought the strategy too risky. So Overlord was put forward to 1944, and the result was victory and the Iron Curtain. An even less risky strategy would have been no D-Day invasion at all. The Nazis would have been defeated by September 1945 in any case, but the result would have been an Iron Curtain from Trondheim to Biarritz instead of from Stettin to Trieste.
"I paid for that microphone" (Goddamn media).
"Aw shut up" (heckler).
---These shows of anger are why Reagan lost.
The folks like Jimmy Carter and peace, not raving lunatics like Ronnie Raygun.
I have it on good authority that if Reagan had fooled the folks and brought us to Armageddon by winning, the Lion of the Senate Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts would have sacrificed himself and helped the Soviets defeat the right-wing cabal Reagan was ready to deploy on the world.---
In reality, what Obama and Biden proved is you attack, attack, attack and win. This ain't 1980 no more. This culture is crass and sucks balls.
The media being for or against you is out of your control so don't give it mind. Do not give council to your fears. Know what is the truth, as limited as that is now regarding Benghazi, and focus on finding more truth.
This is noble and people can see it. It will involve Horse's Ass committee's and such for the Lowell Weicker's running the GOP. This is to keep the base happy and voting, which is something Romney sure as Hell couldn't achieve even though his ego convinced him otherwise and the asshats he hired sold him a bill of goods.
That there is some authentic Republican gibberish. The exigencies of earning a living sometimes force an advocate like Krauthammer to exhibit a flexibility worthy of Gumby. In fact, that will be my new sobriquet for Charlie K.
Henceforth, he is Gumby.
In the battle of the narrative, the narrators always have the advantage, but facts eventually win out. It seems to me that Ben Ghazi is a larger screw up than the Valerie Plame outing. That shouldn't be such a hard position to sell, but you never know......It's very difficult to get the Dems to acknowledge past mistakes and almost impossible to get the media to do so. Richard Nixon was less of an anti-Semite than FDR. Eisenhower had a better record on civil rights than Adlai Stevenson. The appellation perv is more fitting for the behavior of Bill Clinton than Ken Starr. The right has lost those battles. I'm not sanguine about their chances here.
The Benghazi issue is as relevant as the abortion/murder issue. People who place a priority on money do not care. People who place a priority on self-esteem do not care. People who place a priority on their career do not care. As with abortion/murder, the bodies are out of sight and out of mind. Not by virtue of privacy, but by virtue of time's dark veil.
Why were we in Benghazi? Why was it a State Department operation? If we were there running weapons to Syrian "rebels" did Obama have the presidential authority to order that?
Not buying the claim that the video was used to excuse a "broader failure of policy."
Why were we in Benghazi? Why was it a State Department operation? Were we running guns to Syrian "rebels" and if so, did Obama have the legal authority to order that?
Not buying the claim that the video was offered up to cover a "broader failure of policy."
Saint Croix - "Attempting to blame a movie and jailing a citizen for political purposes."
That is another trap Republicans best not stupidly fall into - making a 1st Amendment Hero of Nakoula, the guy who said he made the video and committed several parole violations and criminal fraud in the process of making it to "hopefully get Muslims to kill and injure Americans".
Lest the far Right forgets, it was not just Benghazi...9/11 had multiple attacks on embassies as a consequence of militants exploiting that video intended ti incite to riot.
And right wing Republicans are particulary dense, given their
'law&order' mentality, in arguing that "lots of con men doing fraud and violatimg parole aren't returned to prison and poor Nakoula was simply because American people's attention was on him after the riots, burning embassies, and dead bodies he said his video had a role in."
Well, duuuuuh!
"UGH!! Disgusting! Those terrible Republicans! Seeking political advantage over the dead bodies of 4 dedicated Americans. Have they no decency?!"
Hard to argue with this.
Except, of course, it was actually Obama and Hillary(literally) lying in an attempt to seek political advantage over the dead bodies of 4 dedicated Americans.
It doesn't help that Gomer Pyle wearing a shag do is running these things.
I hope their are tons of props....Dan Burton style.
Here's the "loophole" -- protecting civilians -- that ostensibly authorized Obama to arm Libyan "rebels."
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/24/the_united_states_and_its_allies_explore_legal_case_for_arming_the_libyan_rebels
If Stevens, et al. were sending weapons to Syrian rebels, where was Obama's presidential authority to arm these rebels -- "rebels" who continue to kill civilians to this very day? Or ... was Hillary just going rogue?
Until we know what the State Department and the CIA were doing in Benghazi, how can anyone argue this was a policy screw-up and not a cover-up of a crime?
If Gowdy and his committee stick to the fundamental WHY and WHAT FOR questions, they'll be just fine.
A gaff is a large hook used for bringing the fish into the boat.
Dang it! Hooked again by my own large gaffe!!
There are two ways that this investigation could serve the interests Krauthammer mentions: 1) it could turn up yet more "smoking gun" documents that the Administration has managed to hide so far; and 2) one or more witnesses with first hand knowledge could be "turned", e.g., by an offer of immununity. What isn't likely to lead anywhere is questioning hostile witnesses. Krauthammer is right that when politicians are doing the questioning, you usually get dueling pontifications. Even if that doesn't happen, the fact is that cross-examining a hostile witniss is hard. To be successful at it you need something to keep the witness honest: a contemporaneous document, a prior admission by the witness, a credible witness on the other side. I don't know whether this investigation will turn up anything. I hope it does, because it seems to me that there are a lot of legitimate questions that haven't been answered.
Like it or not, and it doesn't matter that "democrats voted for the wars too!
Everyone wanted war but for some reason the Democrats get a pass on that.
… the 40,000 casualties under Bush …
Sort of true. There were 4,800 US soldiers dead, 31,965 US soldiers wounded. Far less than in Vietnam, Korea, WW2, WW1 or the US Civil War.
http://tinyurl.com/jw38knp
Common tactic: Take something that is normal, commonplace and ordinary and breathlessly elevate its significance.
… and trillions pissed away on the "Noble Freedom Lovers" of Iraq and Afghanistan squarely fall in the public's mind as a Republican and Neocon fiasco.
Gee, I always thought Obama said on his first campaign trail that Afghanistan was the good war, the war neglected by the evil Bushitler, a war that has not made us more safe, but has distracted us from the task at hand in Afghanistan!
http://tinyurl.com/mmhd897
I AM a part of the "public's mind," am I not? O Lord, where did I go wrong?
Kidding aside, I think we all knew at the time Obama(and the Democrats who parroted him) was lying. There was the danger that Hillary would out-hawk him, doncha know.
Later he kind of had to follow up on the rhetoric, albeit reluctantly and designed from the start to fail. Couldn't 'evolve' on this issue without losing significant credibility. Drones are more his style.
What William said at 11:45 a.m. is spot on. We've seen this over and over again -- what should turn to the Republican's advantage instead turns into a Democratic win. You just know that, somehow, the hearings won't damage Hillary, but will instead make her sympathetic to some who right now don't care one way or the other about her.
The only people who mentioned it here are members of my Republican club who watch Fox all the time.
Yah thats crap. I don't watch Fox at all and I still want it covered.
Trying to marginalize the death of 4 Americans by somehow associating them with "faux" news is pathetic.
The problem with the "4 DEAD AMERICAN HEROES!!!" vs. coverup of bungling approach is Americans can count … the 40,000 casualties under Bush… squarely fall in the public's mind as a Republican and Neocon fiasco. 40,000 beats 4.
Sure 4,000 beats 4 unless of course you are talking about 2 different things. the casualties under Bush was during a war. The 4 in Benghazi, one of them the US Ambassador to Libya, was during … we still don't know what. Or why. Or even who was at fault.
No one's been brought to justice, although Obama can deal death, even to American citizens, by drone strikes thousands of miles away. But just cannot seem to locate the murderers no matter how hard he tries.
Journalists can locate them easily enough, even have a refreshing drink with one of them at a sidewalk café. But I'm sure Obama's trying as hard as he can to bring them to justice.
One of his dilemmas: If the jihadist murderers were ever arrested, where would they be jailed and tried? Qitmo? Rendition? Downtown NYC? Problems, O those problems. They DO tend to snowball after awhile.
Cedarford: The problem with the "4 DEAD AMERICAN HEROES!!!" vs. coverup of bungling approach is Americans can count … the 40,000 casualties under Bush
Shorter: "4 kids dead in a hit and run? Snooze. Kids die in car accidents every day"
Idiot.
We are beginning to see the fallout from our abandonment of morality. People like Cedarford, throwing good men under the bus, simply because they have no moral values or character.
hagar,
"Stop talking about 'the 4 dead Americans' and do issue a habeas corpus something or other for the 40 live ones that can't be found. "
Precisely.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा