Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Among the many reasons that Americans hold the House of Representatives in low repute – at historically abysmal levels, in fact – is the blatantly partisan and ideological misconduct of so many committee chairs. Without any evident embarrassment these mighty politicians deny science, defy mathematics, and dismiss every fact that contradicts their prejudices. But bad as these chairs tend to be, none is quite as flamboyantly awful as Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the Government Oversight Committee, a special investigative panel whose latest effort to conjure scandal from nothingness at the Internal Revenue Service would provoke his removal by a responsible leadership.

As we have pointed out repeatedly in these pages, and as testimony by the IRS inspector general has since confirmed, it is now clear that right-wing groups were not targeted for exceptional scrutiny. Moreover, there was no political motive in the agency’s treatment of the Tea Party and associated groups seeking tax exemption (in many cases illegitimately).

It is now equally obvious that the behavior of Issa himself, with his attempts to skew his committee’s investigation and conceal testimony that exonerated the agency, represents the most serious wrongdoing in the supposed “IRS scandal.” But this isn’t the first time that the California Republican, who happens to be the wealthiest man in Congress, has misused the broad powers of his chairmanship. Actually, that is all he does – as he demonstrated in equally opportunistic and amateurish examinations of both the Benghazi tragedy and the “Fast and Furious” affair.

Issa’s stewardship of the House Government Reform Committee has failed even by the standards of the Republican congressional leadership, which must have hoped that he would have collected some Obama administration scalps by now. He delayed the Fast and Furious probe solely to extend it into the election year, blustered against Attorney General Eric Holder, and accomplished…nothing.

There is little hope that Speaker John Boehner, who has enough problems maintaining a semblance of authority and dignity, will question Issa’s fitness to chair this important committee. But still we are left wondering: What would become of Issa if he were subjected to the Republican style of investigation? What if the presumption of guilt, the preference for insinuation over evidence, the omission of exculpatory facts, and the promulgation of conspiratorial speculations that feature in all of Issa’s theatrical probes were applied to him?

  • Dominick Vila

    Rep. Issa’s behavior is consistent with his personal record. The fact that he was found not guilty of the misdemeanors he has been involved in, does not mean he is an innocent man, and his behavior during the past 4.5 years attest to that.

    Should we assume that his assertions on the Benghazi tragedy, particularly his claim that the administration is lying, are based on the fact that he has information that prove the administration’s comments were, in fact, a lie? Should we assume that either his relatives in the Middle East or the Koch brothers who have considerable investments and contacts in the Benghazi region have told him what influenced the attack? Perhaps he should elaborate a bit more on what he knows, instead of blaming others who cannot provide more information because they simply don’t have all the facts or as a result of national security issues.

    Fast and Furious of a sting operation conducted to determine who was behind the sale of arms to the Mexican drug cartels. One of the goals was to reduce the level of violence in Mexico, which cost thousands of deaths and widespread fear among its population. The problem with F&F is not that it was an unprecedented sting operation or that it was inappropriate, but that it was badly mismanaged and that our agents got to close to finding who was behind the sale of lethal weapons to criminals.

    The IRS scandal is a sham. We now know that there was legitimate reason to investigate some of the applications for tax exempt status submitted by some Tea Party organizations that had been involved in campaigning. We also know that the manager who initiated those investigations was a conservative Republican, what exactly is Mr. Issa trying to prove? Should we assume he supports granting tax exempt status to organizations that don’t meet the necessary requirements as long as they are right wing organizations?
    The ultimate example of partisanship and cynicism involves the NSA surveillance “scandal”. The activities the NSA, and all the other intelligence agencies, have been conducting routinely since at least the days of the Cold War, are designed to keep us safe and minimize the probability of another 9/11. They are consistent with the tenets and requirements of the Patriot Act signed by president Bush and extended by President Obama for obvious reasons and with the support of most Americans. Should we assume Mr. Issa is an idealist in hiding whose beliefs are inconsistent with those embraced by his party?

    • Fern Woodfork

      Just Think Of All The Money Wasted By Issa Witch Hunting Looking For The Boogie Man When All He Had To Do Is Look In The Mirror And Look At His Own Party Members, They Are The Boogie Men!! Duh

      • Dominick Vila

        Especially when they found out that the IRS office manager responsible for the investigation is a conservative Republican, who deserves to be promoted for his courage and determination to do the right thing.

        • Fern Woodfork

          You Got That Right I Totally Agree With You My Friend!! 🙂

    • middleclasstaxpayer

      Regarding Benghazi, here is what really happened, per an experienced Air Force pilot:The combat code of the US Military is that we don’t abandon our dead or wounded on the battlefield. In US Air Force lingo, fighter pilots don’t run off and leave their wingmen. If one of our own is shot down, still alive and not yet in enemy captivity, we will either come to get him or die trying.

      The disgraceful abandonment of our Ambassador and those brave ex-SEALs who fought to their deaths to save others in that compound is nothing short of dereliction-of-duty.

      Additionally, the patently absurd cover-up scenario that was fabricated in the aftermath was an outright lie in an attempt to shield the President and the Secretary of State from blame.

      It has been over eight months since the attack on our compound in Benghazi . The White House strategy, with the aid of a “lap dog” press has been to run out the clock before the truth is forthcoming.

      The recent testimonies of the three “whistle blowers” have reopened the subject and hopefully will lead to exposure and disgrace of those responsible for this embarrassing debacle. It would appear that the most recent firewall which the Administration is counting on is the contention “that there were simply no military assets that could be brought to bear in time to make a difference” mainly due to the unavailability of tanker support for fighter aircraft.

      This is simply BS, regardless how many supposed “experts” the Administration trot out to make such an assertion.

      The bottom line is that even if the closest asset capable of response was half-way around the world, you don’t just sit on your penguin ass and do nothing.

      The fact is that the closest asset was not half-way around the world, but as near as Aviano Air Base, Italy where two squadrons of F-16Cs are based.

      Consider the following scenario (all times Benghazi local): When Hicks in Tripoli receives a call at 9:40 PM from Ambassador Stevens informing him “Greg, we are under attack!” (his last words), he immediately notifies all agencies and prepares for the immediate initiation of an existing “Emergency Response Plan.”

      At AFRICON, General Carter Ham attempts to mount a rescue effort, but is told to “stand down”. By 10:30 PM an unarmed drone is overhead the compound and streaming live feed to various “Command and Control Agencies” and everyone watching that feed knew damn well what was going on.

      At 11:30 PM Woods, Doherty and five others leave Tripoli, arriving in Benghazi at 1:30 AM on Wednesday morning, where they hold off the attacking mob from the roof of the compound until they are killed by a mortar direct hit at 4:00 AM.

      So nothing could have been done, eh? Nonsense. If one assumes that tanker support really “was not available” what about this:

      When at 10:00 PM AFRICON alerts the 31st TFW Command Post in Aviano Air Base, Italy of the attack, the Wing Commander orders preparation for the launch of two F-16s and advises the Command Post at NAS Sigonella to prepare for hot pit refueling and quick turn of the jets.

      By 11:30 PM, two F-16Cs with drop tanks and each armed with five hundred 20 MM rounds are airborne. Flying at 0.92 mach they will cover the 522 nautical miles directly to NAS Sigonella in 1.08 hours. While in-route, the flight lead is informed of the tactical situation, rules of engagement, and radio frequencies to use.

      The jets depart Sigonella at 1:10 AM with full fuel load and cover the 377 nautical miles directly to Benghazi in 0.8 hours, arriving at 1:50 AM which would be 20 minutes after the arrival of Woods, Doherty and their team.

      Providing that the two F-16s initial pass over the mob, in full afterburner at 200 feet and 550 knots did not stop the attack in its tracks, only a few well placed strafing runs on targets of opportunity would assuredly do the trick.

      Were the F-16s fuel state insufficient to recover at Sigonelli after jettisoning their external drop tanks, they could easily do so at Tripoli International Airport , only one-half hour away.

      As for those hand-wringing naysayers who would worry about IFR clearances, border crossing authority, collateral damage, landing rights, political correctness and dozens of other reasons not to act” screw them. It is high time that our “leadership” get their priorities straight and put America’s interests first.

      The end result would be that Woods and Doherty would be alive. Dozens in the attacking rabble would be rendezvousing with “72 virgins” and a clear message would have been sent to the next worthless POS terrorist contemplating an attack on Americans that it is not really a good idea to “tug” on Superman’s cape.

      Of course all this would depend upon a Commander In Chief that was more concerned with saving the lives of those he put in harm’s way than getting his crew rested for a campaign fund raising event in Las Vegas the next day. As well as a Secretary of State that actually understood “What difference did it make?”, or a Secretary of Defense whose immediate response was not to the effect that “One of the military tenants is that you don’t commit assets until you fully understand the tactical situation.” Was he not watching a live feed from the unarmed drone, and he didn’t understand the tactical situation?

      Ultimately it comes down to the question of who gave that order to stand down? Whoever that coward turns out to be should be exposed, removed from office, and face criminal charges for dereliction of duty. The combat forces of the Untied States of America deserve leadership that really does “have their back” when the chips are down.

      • Dominick Vila

        The reason jet fighters were not dispatched from Aviano or Torrejon is because there were no tankers available in the region to refuel them.
        You are correct in saying that in combat you don’t abandon your fellow soldier, but another truism is military strategy is that you don’t compromise the safety of a military posts by sending troops from one place to help another. The effectiveness of air strikes in a small compound, such as a consulate, was marginal at best if the goal was to save the four Americans at that location. The only option was to send reinforcements from our embassy in Tripoli, which would have left that facility vulnerable to attack.
        Similar logic could be applied to the 3 attacks against our diplomatic mission in Karachi when Bush was in office. You would think that after the first attack precautions would have been taken to limit the probability of two more attacks.
        Regarding the initial statements, I believe the assumption that the attack may have been influenced by the provocative film that energized crowds throughout the Islamic world, is not surprising. In fact, that film may have been the catalyst or at least gave the opportunity to radical Kadaffi loyalists to carry out their vendetta.
        It is easy to explore other options and criticize the decisions of those who were reacting to a critical situation in real time, what is hard to do is to take steps to minimize the probability of more attacks which, sadly, remain a probability. Benghazi was not the result of ineptitude, it is just the last in a long string of identical incidents. Unfortunately, we seem to be more determined to criticize our own than take effective steps to fight terrorism.

        • middleclasstaxpayer

          While some of your observations may be accurate, it appears that the OVERRIDING goal of Obama was to avoid what Jimmy Carter did close to election time…..Carter did the right thing in attempting to save American hostages, but failed, and he most likely lost his reelection bid because of it. Obama is a narcissist, and it appears he decided to avoid any possibility of a reelection debacle by simply sacrificing the lives of the four souls who needed his help, and then later denied even knowing what was occurring over the 8 hour siege, an VERY UNLIKELY situation for a commander in chief, but one which Obama would like us all to believe. More lies & discrepancies emerge every day regarding Benghazi and the “facts” the administration wants to portray, but eventually the deceptions will be uncovered & told, and it will likely lead to the one in charge, or the one who should have been in charge, Obama himself. And our ineffective non-response to the killing of Americans will only embolden an already vicious & determined Islamist enemy to carry out more killings & terrorists attacks, as they apparently have nothing to lose with Obama at the helm.

          • Dominick Vila

            The failure of Jimmy Carter’s hostage rescue mission was not caused by anything he did wrong, but by the failure of military commanders and strategists to take into consideration the weather conditions and the terrain in the area over which our helicopters were flying.
            The bottom line on Benghazi is that while different approaches may have been more effective, the cause and effect is identical to previous attacks against our diplomatic missions throughout the Islamic world. I think it is important to note that Benghazi was/is not the only vulnerable U.S. diplomatic embassy or consulate in that part of the world. Every single one of them is vulnerable. Short of building bunkers with large military details assigned to them, and becoming the laughing stock of the world, they will remain vulnerable for many years to come.

          • middleclasstaxpayer

            Vulnerability is always there with “sneak attacks.” However, in the Benghazi situation, the battle was ONGOING for at least 6-8 HOURS, more than enough time for a response to be forthcoming. Experienced Air Force pilots familiar with that part of the world estimated they could be there in less than 2 hours…45 minutes prep time and 73 minutes flying time. This is why Obama insists he “knew nothing” about the conflict…to admit otherwise would beg the question…”why didn’t you do something to help”??? Fact is, as commander in chief, he had an obligation to know the situation…..if he did, and failed to act, he’s not fit to be president. If he did NOT, then he is derelict in his duties, and again, is not fit to be president. It’s one or the other…take your choice!

          • Dominick Vila

            Let assume, for the sake of argument, that those jet fighters had been authorized to take off regardless of whether or not they had enough fuel to return to base, what then? Would they fire their missiles at zero range? The most they would have accomplished would have been to intimidate people gathered near the consulate. The only ones that may have made a difference would have been special forces, and none were in the vicinity of Benghazi.

          • middleclasstaxpayer

            Special forces (SEALS) N E V E R allow a comrade in arms to die without putting up a terrible & ferocious fight….special ops personnel were told NOT to deploy….they were ordered to stand down…..problem is, no one will admit WHO gave the orders??

          • Dominick Vila

            Leon Panetta authorized the deployment of a small detachment of Special Forces personnel (four Seals from Rota, Spain) to come to the aid of our diplomats and their security detail, 90 minutes after being notified of the ongoing attack. For reason that remain unknown, they did not arrive until 21 hours later, long after the terrorists had left the premises.
            The four security personnel that were ordered to stand down were assigned to our Embassy in Tripoli. I suspect the rationales for that decision was to ensure the Embassy was not left unprotected at a time of great uncertainty.
            You are correct in saying that our troops don’t leave their comrades in arms at a time of great peril, but I believe it is also true that military officers never leave a post vulnerable to attack to come to the rescue of another post that is under attack. Compounding a problem is not part of classic military strategy. As for who ordered the four embassy security agents to stand down and remain at their assigned location, I guess that in years past a Lt. Col. would have been made the scapegoat. Thankfully, that is no longer the way we do business.

          • middleclasstaxpayer

            Your explanation sounds convincing, but I just saw Leon Panetta on the news on Sunday evening claiming that he NEVER deployed any forces to Benghazi because he found out TOO LATE (?) to do so. Seems like the same excuse the commander in chief Obama used. Someone is lying….I wonder who?

          • Dominick Vila

            I did not watch that interview, but according to everything I have read on the subject Leon Panetta was meeting with President Obama when Leon received a call informing him of the attack that was going on. Leon passed the information on to the President.
            I think it is also important to remember that presidents don’t get involved in details such as the number of soldiers to be engaged in a rescue mission, when they should leave, what kind of weapons they should carry, and all the other details involved in a mission of this type. Presidents declare war, authorize major strategies or tactics, such as the use of drones or not informing a foreign government of a mission to capture or kill an enemy of the USA, or trading in secret with countries we don’t have diplomatic or trade relations with, but they don’t engage in all the details needed to guarantee the success of a military mission. The Pentagon and field commanders handle that part.
            I think it is also important to remember what happened when previous attacks were carried out against our diplomatic posts, how those attacks were investigated, what the focus of the investigation (s) were, and the final outcome. The only explanation given when our diplomatic missions were attacked in the past was simply that it was an act of terrorism. Everyone understood the realities of the world we live in, and accepted the fact that in spite of all our efforts, we remain vulnerable and few entities are as vulnerable as our embassies and consulates.

          • middleclasstaxpayer

            You’ve missed the most salient point completely. In ALL previous attacks against the USA, whether here or abroad, they have been “sneak” attacks, and hard to defend against completely. With Benghazi, we had 6-8 hours of ONGOING violence against our people BEFORE most were killed….Obama claims he “knew nothing” but you assert that Panetta told him immediately?? Someone is lying here, since, if they were “immediately” informed (which all most certainly were in an attack of this type against Americans at an American outpost/consulate), then the question still remains as to WHY nothing was done to aid & assist??? We had 6-8 hours to assert a response, special forces were ready, yet someone told them to “stand down???” WHO & WHY, when we know from experienced Air Force pilots that help was ready & available nearby???

          • Dominick Vila

            All terrorist attacks are “sneak” attacks without warning. What you are referring to is the duration of the attack, which is largely subjective. While it is true that a relatively large crowd gathered outside the consulate or in its vicinity, it is not clear that the radical elements involved in the shooting and firing mortar rounds were in the premises for that long.
            Some of the articles I read on this subject indicate Leon Panetta was informed some unspecified time after the attack began, while he was meeting with the President. The exact time when Panetta was informed and the exact time he passed the information on to the President, or whether other sources informed the President is unknown to me.
            Any idea when President Bush was informed about the dozen terrorist attacks against our diplomatic facilities, including three attacks against our consulate in Karachi? Does anybody care?

          • middleclasstaxpayer

            Your comment “Does anyone care” is odd, as all Americans “care” about the safety of our diplomats & service personnel. And we certainly “CARE” if we discover that lives were lost because of ineptitude, carelessness or selfish reasons like “winning an election.” Hillary Clinton voiced a similar crude comment about our brave personnel in Benghazi, when in fact we should be asking “how & why was this allowed to occur” instead of “does anyone care” or what does it matter.” Let’s not be diverted by “ancient history” and focus on what is occurring TODAY. Our supposed commander in chief & other administration officials whom we are supposed to trust with our safety & our lives (and the lives of our loved ones in the military & foreign service), are letting ALL Americans down with their cavalier attitude towards terrorists. We deserve better than the lot we have been dealt with Obama & company. And I’m sure his attitude is similar to yours. Does anyone care…REALLY???

          • Dominick Vila

            You, obviously, don’t care, and those who did not bother to investigate attacks against our embassies and consulates a decade ago did not care either. People that care about such attacks are not interested in who to crucify, instead, they focus on what can be done better to prevents more attacks.
            As for ineptitude, the ultimate example of ineptitude happened on 9/11/01 when 3,000 people died on U.S. soil.

          • middleclasstaxpayer

            Like all liberals, you simply change the subject when you don’t have an answer. With your logic, we’d still be arguing about the war of 1812! Ok,, what would you have done to avoid 9/11/01???

          • plc97477

            Try listening to the warnings would have been a great start.

          • Dominick Vila

            Like most conservatives you pretend the foreign policy disasters that took place when the GOP controlled the Oval Office and both chambers of Congress never happened. It was all a figment of our imagination, and judging by your fixation on ancient history it belong right besides the Pharaos, the Greeks, the Romans and, if left up to you, it would become a chapter of Mesopotamian history.
            Former President Bush was made aware of the fatwa issued by Osama bin Laden, in which that criminal promised to hit us in our homeland. Daily national security briefings were given to Bush, or more accurately to whomever he assigned to receive the information since he was too busy chopping wood in Crawford. As a minimum, Bush should have warned the nation and asked us to be vigilant.

          • middleclasstaxpayer

            Think about the “logic” you’re using…..RE 9/11/01….what areas would we watch…the entire USA? Or how about all the biggest cities? And what would we watch for? Suspicious folks, abandoned packages, tainted mail, what??? When global threats are made, the problems can occur anywhere. All we can do is REACT. With Benghazi, we had 6-8 HOURS of watching the slaughter from the drone overhead….MORE THAN ENOUGH TIME TO REACT! Yet NOTHING was done to help?? If we want to prevent future problems, as you suggest, let’s START with THOSE IN CHARGE RIGHT NOW. The CURRENT ADMINISTRATION currently holds our lives & our futures in their hands. Those are the people I’d want to get up to speed on terrorism, not someone from the past who no longer exerts control over our lives. But I’m sure your only response is to blame some past mistakes on someone else. That’s a “smart” way to protect us all, while deflecting blame from CURRENT PEOPLE for CURRENT PROBLEMS.

          • Dominick Vila

            One of the greatest differences between the way Republicans look at tragedies like these and the way Democrats do is that while we believe that Bush could have done more in response to the daily briefings and warnings he received, we don’t hold him responsible for 9/11 because we understand the limitations inherent in information that lacked specificity. Quite frankly, letting the American people know that there was a high probability of a foreign terrorist attack on U.S. soil would not have prevented that tragedy since we didn’t know where, when, who or how the attack was going to take place. As a result, the subsequent investigation focused exclusively on trying to find ways to minimize the probability of another attack, with positive results including the creation of the Homeland Security Department, greater cooperation between intelligence agencies, and enhanced NSA surveillance capabilities.
            Conversely, the Republican reaction to 9/11/12 has been focused on who to hang. The fact that it was an unannounced terrorist attack makes no difference to President Obama’s detractors, the fact that sending troops or reinforcements from our embassy in Tripoli would have only increased the number of victims since we simply did not have a large enough number of Marines or security agents to engage a mob estimated to involve a couple of hundred people, many of them heavily armed and well trained makes no difference to those trying to find wrongdoing where there is none. Leaving our embassy in Tripoli vulnerable to attack is something that even the most obtuse person can understand, obviously that ability to think logically does not include Republicans. Sending planes from Aviano, Torrejon or Rota would have, at best, intimidated some of the people in the vicinity of our consulate in Tripoli, it short of zero range bombing it would have done nothing to dissuade the terrorists that killed our personnel and destroyed that facility from achieving their nefarious goal.
            I understand why Republicans are desperately trying to find a parallel between 9/11/01, the 12 terrorist attacks against U.S. diplomatic missions when Bush was in office, the attacks against our allies in places like Madrid and London, and the daily terrorist attacks that were the norm in those days, including referring to that sordid era as “ancient history”, if I was a Republican I would probably be foolish enough to do the same, but that does not mean that overwhelming majority of Americans are incapable of taking the bait and ignoring the obvious.

          • middleclasstaxpayer

            AGAIN, you have avoided the question by changing the subject. You inferred that Pres Bush failed by not taking appropriate action to avoid 9/11/01, and I asked what YOU would have done?
            Where & what is your reply?

          • Dominick Vila

            As a minimum, he should have asked all Americans to be vigilant, and he should have placed all law enforcement agencies on high alert. While those measures would, most likely, not have prevented 9/11, it would have given us comfort in knowing that everything humanly possible had been done.

          • middleclasstaxpayer

            So you now AGREE that President Bush could NOT have prevented 9/11/01, but you would have “felt better” if ALL police around the USA were on high alert. This is exactly what liberals do….they do things to help us (and them) FEEL BETTER, even though most of these “feel better” solutions do absolutely no good, like the plan to penalize all law-abiding citizens who want to utilize their 2nd Amendment rights, so as to pretend that this “solution” might prevent a madman from harming others.

          • Dominick Vila

            Would you care to share with us your opinion of what Bush should have done in response to all the warnings of an imminent terrorist attack on U.S. soil? As oppose to you, many of us on the “left” don’t mind acknowledging that there was little he could do considering the lack of specificity of the warnings and the threats made by our enemies prior to the attack. Helping a nation heal may not be important to you, it is to me.
            Needless to say, it would have been a lot better if he had been able to intercept what was being discussed during the planning meetings held by Al Qaeda prior to 9/11, but since that was a virtual impossibility I don’t mind acknowledging that preventing that tragedy was virtually impossible. The same goes for the 12 terrorist attacks against U.S. diplomatic missions when W was in office, and Benghazi. Although the lack of preparedness and positive measures taken after the first attack against our consulate in Karachi, which allowed two more attacks against the same facility to take place, is less than satisfactory.
            Perhaps not surprisingly, there are some similarities between the actions taken by the inept GOP after the first attack against our consulate in Karachi and what they are doing now to prevent a sequel to the terrorist attack against our consulate in Benghazi. Their focus has always been on deflecting attention from their failures, and trying to claim ineptitude when the same circumstances apply to their political opponents. Their goal is not on prevention or responsibility, it is focused strictly on deceitful tactics designed to avoid responsibility for what happened when they had control of the Oval Office and both chambers of Congress, while blaming others for not preventing a tragedy that could not have been prevented or stopped without sacrificing more American lives.

          • middleclasstaxpayer

            It is obvious to everyone that, like you said, there was very little that could have been done by President Bush to avoid the 9/11/01 tragedy. And of course it would have been great to have been able to intercept the plans in advance. But now move forward to this year in Boston. The Obama administration had WARNINGS from Russian authorities about the two Islamist brothers, but IGNORED the warnings and failed to watch them?
            At the same time, the Obama administration was illegally intercepting email & phone information is secret & in violation of our sacred Constitution, yet STILL FAILED to uncover anything.
            Result: 3 dead, hundreds wounded. Obama is exactly what Bill Clinton describe him as in 2008….THE AMATEUR! If he worked in the private sector, Obama would have been fired long ago, but instead we have to pay his almost $10,000 per week salary for his lifetime, as well as paying for his various Hundred Million Dollar “family vacations.”

          • CPAinNewYork

            Hillary Clinton failed in the Benghazi situation. For someone regarded as tough, she doesn’t seem to be able to hold up under pressure.

          • plc97477

            Don’t forget the fact that baby bush had numerous warnings about the attack on 9 11 and ignored them completely.

          • CPAinNewYork

            I think that your defense of Obama and Panetta here is very thin. You’d be better advised to admit that the administration screwed up on Benghazi and that they tried to wriggle out of the blame by lying.

      • ChristoD

        You make a very compelling case of what shoulda/coulda/woulda happened but I am not at all convinced that your ‘Monday morning quarterbacking’ answers the fundamental question: ‘What is the compelling reason why ANYONE in the chain of command wouldn’t do everything possible to save this disaster from happening ?’. It is awful easy to ‘speculate’ as to what could have, should have, etc. happened but until it can be proven that decisions, or lack thereof, were incompetently or knowingly made, this continues to smell like a classic political witch hunt. It doesn’t help that Congressman Issa has a reputation for head hunting. By the way, a classic example of KNOWINGLY lying, and getting away with it, is the lead up to the Iraq war and the lies that VP Cheney perpetrated to assure that we would invade Iraq. Now THAT is a hunt that this dog would love to have seen happen. Fact is, the man belongs behind bars….plain and simple.

        • middleclasstaxpayer

          It’s odd that you cite the Iraq war…didn’t the ultra liberal hero Bill Clinton, AGREE with the then intelligence, that there WERE weapons of MD???

          • ChristoD

            The ultra liberal Bill Clinton ? Aha, you give yourself away as a neo-conservative of the first order ! So much for your credibility. It was Cheney who lied by flat out stating that Iraq was working with Bin Laden and was involved in 9/11 and then repeated it when it was proven he had NOTHING to do with Bin Laden and 9/11. THAT is what prompted the attack on Iraq NOT WMD. By the way who gives a damn what Clinton thought.

          • ChristoD

            Most of the posting above is pure nonsense, conjecture or flat out lies. You sir are a fraud of the first order. Your argument about Benghazi is therefore pure unadulterated BS. Thank you for exposing your disingenuous ass.

          • middleclasstaxpayer

            That was certainly an easy way for you to avoid answering a simple question: WHY did NO ONE in the Obama WH even lift a finger to help in Benghazi, with 6 to 8 hours advance notice??

          • ChristoD

            Where was I……….You make a very compelling case of what shoulda/coulda/woulda happened but I am not at all convinced that your ‘Monday morning quarterbacking’ answers the fundamental question: ‘What is the compelling reason why ANYONE in the chain of command wouldn’t do everything possible to save this disaster from happening ?’. It is awful easy to ‘speculate’ as to what could have, should have, etc. happened but until it can be proven that decisions, or lack thereof, were incompetently or knowingly made, this continues to smell like a classic political witch hunt. It doesn’t help that Congressman Issa has a reputation for head hunting. By the way, a classic example of KNOWINGLY lying, and getting away with it, is the lead up to the Iraq war and the lies that VP Cheney perpetrated to assure that we would invade Iraq. Now THAT is a hunt that this dog would love to have seen happen. Fact is, the man belongs behind bars….plain and simple.
            In addition, I ask YOU, why have you strayed from the article mentioned above. It involves the CHARACTER or lack thereof of the apparent head hunter Darrell Issa. I am so anxious to hear you defend this low life or better still change the subject to one that you feel more comfortable with.

          • middleclasstaxpayer

            You state that ANYONE in this admin would have done everything possible to help in Benghazi…..well, what WAS done? Answer: not a blessed thing, except to make excuse after excuse as to why “nothing could be done.” “Obama..”we didn’t Know”….Biden: “we didn’t know.” Panetta: ” I advised the President>” When: “Immediately, but I don’t remember exactly when.” Some (OR ALL) are lying here???? This is your hero, the “commander in chief” of the most powerful military in the world, yet NOTHING was done to save our REAL hero’s in Benghazi. They risked their lives for us and got nothing in return except cold rejection….Obama too busy campaigning to help.

          • ChristoD

            This is turning out to be nothing but a pissing contest. Your head is so far up the rear end of the RePUGNicans (which clearly means it is up yours) on this that if I PROVED you were wrong you would slither away and onto something else just to defend your glorious ideological out-of-control party. Am I proud of MY PRESIDENT, your f’in A I am. Imagine, if you will, Michelle ‘Psycho’ Bachmann, Newt ‘the Beaut’ Gingrich, Rick ‘Holier than Thou’ Santorum, Rick ‘Secession’ Perry and the Worst of the Worst that pillar of untruths Mitt ‘The Twit’ Romney in his place and I thank my lucky stars that folks like you are in the minority and will be for the foreseeable future simply because……you deserve it.

          • middleclasstaxpayer

            Have it your own way…..but remember, if Obama was working in the private sector (which he never was or is capable of doing), he would have been FIRED long ago, with no hope of getting another job. He is out of touch, incompetent & arrogant, traits that do not work well in the real world. And he certainly has no clue about managing money or a budget. Witness his failure to set one, or his hundred million dollar “family vacations” while he tells the rest of us to “do with less.” When history records his deeds (or misdeeds), he will rank 10 spots BELOW Jimmy Carter. We have “enlightened ” folks like you to thank for our situation, both at home & world-wide. GREAT JOB!

          • ChristoD

            Listen Mr. Einstein, minus the political intelligence, let me see if I have this right. PRESIDENT Obama JUST ran for re-election and kicked Mr. (a term I use VERY lightly) Romney’s change-a-day butt both in the popular vote and in the electoral vote and you claim he would be fired in the private sector. You either have no idea about the private sector or you are a fool. I would hire him in a New York minute or work for him. THAT is how much I am convinced he is a leader of the first order, prejudiced idiots on the right notwithstanding. So, you are now the know-it-all MINORITY that still doesn’t like the results so you deal with it by continually insulting and attacking a damn good PRESIDENT. You call him a socialist and NOTHING he has done validates it, you say he is not an American born citizen despite irrefutable evidence to the contrary, you say he spent $1 trill. on ‘shovel ready’ jobs when his stimulus package was barely $800 billion, almost half of it in TAX REDUCTIONS, You say he has done nothing, which is laughably not true. He saved us from a depression, gave GM and Chrysler a second chance and made money for us in the process, ended the criminal war in Iraq, gave us a long overdue Affordable Care Act, etc. etc. etc. I don’t know why I am wasting my time trying to counter your nonsense other than it gives me pleasure to shove the truth down your throat.

            One last thing, IF you are the pilot you APPEAR to have been and you served in the armed forces, I thank you for your service. As for your political opinions, I suggest you apply to Faux News, they could use an ideologue like you to continue their phony and false propaganda against the duly elected PRESIDENT who you RePUGnicans continue to belittle to the detriment of our country every single hour of every single day showing utter contempt for the Democratic process every step of the way in the process. You are a disgusting display of humanity.

          • middleclasstaxpayer

            You’re throwing a lot on the wall, hoping something will stick. Let’s address the ACA…last Friday, the WH released a 606 page “update” advising that the “employer mandate” will be “postponed” until 2015, knowing that currently there exists the highest number of part-time jobs in US history. WHY? Because employers are getting ready in advance to AVOID the mandates by employing only part-time workers, devastating an already paralyzed jobs market. At the same time, healthcare COSTS are skyrocketing, reflecting health insurance firms need to CHARGE MORE to cover HIGHER ANTICIPATED costs associated with insuring many otherwise uninsurable individuals.. But anyone in 2014 can “claim” to be uninsured and get federal benefits WITHOUT ANY PROOF of income OR eligibility. Great plan!

          • ChristoD

            Thanks for the ‘enlightened’ comment. I agree I am enlightened about fools like you. As for 10 spots below Carter comment, I surely don’t agree but, that will still be about 35 spots ABOVE Dubya, the empty suit President extraordinaire.
            You Sir are full of way too much hate and misinformation that me thinks you may explode any second. Step back, take a deep breath and let the sun shine on your face. Hopefully it will lighten up your hateful mood and make you the good man that I suspect you may be.

          • middleclasstaxpayer

            I haven’t resorted to calling YOU names, even tho you found it necessary to do so to me. Your “hero” is really lucky that there are enough souls like you to fool so he could get his way, which he handily did. Just because he’s lucky doesn’t make him right, as history will likely discover (and uncover) in the coming years It’s just a shame that taxpayers will have to pay his almost $10,000 per MONTH salary for life….you know his type will NEVER work another day in his life with that bonanza to fall back on. Lucky he is while everyone else is told to “do with less.”

          • ChristoD

            First off, in my mind as feeble as it can sometimes be, I do not believe I have referred to you in any way that you did not deserve. Your colossal and embarrassingly absurd and erroneous description of OUR PRESIDENT offends me and I responded in kind. OUR PRESIDENT is indeed ONE of my heroes as are my sisters and brothers in arms, my local Minister and many other WORTHY people. I am not only NOT a fool but am a very pragmatic FACT based realist who SEES what is being perpetrated by hateful folks on the right. Your blatant inability to see only things that you WANT to see is both offensive and scary. The ‘alternate reality’ you and your cohorts are portraying is both absurd and hateful to the extreme and the way you have displayed a disrespect for the office of the POTUS is so infuriating that name calling is more than justified. From the very beginning you and your cohorts have resorted to lies, innuendo, misinformation and misrepresentation to such a degree as to belittle the man and the office, to an extreme. The way you have shown NO respect to him, or the office, should be an outrage to every reasonable American. And finally, while I am ranting, I detest the obvious disrespect you are showing me, and people like me, who voted OUR PRESIDENT back into office by utter disrespecting him and doing everything in your power to delegitimize a very legitimate man of honor, integrity and intelligence. You sir, and the likes of you, are an embarrassment to our country.

          • middleclasstaxpayer

            I am not criticizing you for the way you feel or your beliefs. It is a normal human reaction to justify decisions we have made in life. The fact that, up to now, the mostly liberal media has supported the decisions of liberals by studiously avoiding any criticism of Obama, or posting ANY negative outcomes from his decision-making allow you to continue to self-justify your choices.
            However, once this media “shield” begins to crack, as it did last week when the ultra-liberal NEWSWEEK magazine published their VERY CRITICAL & DAMAGING “HIT THE ROAD BARACK”, things will start to change. It’s now only a matter of time before other liberal bastions of support begin to crumble. Will it be SALON magazine, or, God forbid, the NY TIMES that jumps on the bandwagon next? Once that occurs, other liberal outlets will be forced to also pile on, lest they be seen as behind the times. Whether it’s a week, a month or a year from now, obamas chickens will come home to roost. When that happens, even you will have to admit the folly of your beliefs. Time is running out….best of luck to you.

          • ChristoD

            Oh but you ARE criticizing me, and my beliefs and MILLIONS of other Americans, by your over the top, and in many case flat out untruthful, criticism of OUR PRESIDENT. By attempting to delegitimize him you are insulting my beliefs and trying to forcefully negate my vote by using a constant drumbeat of misinformation, lies, innuendos’, etc. I have NO problem that we may differ based on ISSUES BUT, your criticism is about EVENTS and your OPINION of the events and frankly because you are so politically partisan you refuse to accept that mistakes were made and unfortunately people died. However, to state that is was a cover-up is simply NOT true and your constant drumbeat will not change that. Not only are you criticizing the PRESIDENT but by extension you are insulting the intelligence of each of us who support him with your constant reference to our lack of intelligence for voting for him. And as for your whinny and laughable reference to the ‘liberal media’ you show a total lack of maturity and fact. As an example where was the ‘liberal media’ when ass—- Cheney and puppet President Bush led us into a trumped up Iraq war ? No where to be found. I don’t remember you bleeding heart cry babies. complaining then. As for the ‘ultra liberal’ Newsweek article, it was written by an independent writer who was stating his OPINION and in no way should that be treated as endorsement by anyone other than the writer, who by the way, I vehemently disagree with since his article was blatantly OPINIONATED. To imply that OUR PRESIDENT requires a teleprompter to speak intelligently is offensive, untrue and incorrectly insulting. Questioning OUR PRESIDENTS is laughably desperate on the part of the writer. NO LOGICAL thinking person could in any way dispute that. By the way Sir, many of the so called ‘liberal media’ have done an excellent job editorially allowing those writers on the extreme right to voice their opinions also but I don’t hear the ‘liberal media’ receiving credit for that. God forbid that a kind word come out of the mouths of the Tea Party infected right wing whacko’s.

            Let’s leave each other alone. Your assessment of OUR PRESIDENT smells of sour grapes and your prediction that ‘whatever’ will come home to roost is so absurd, it doesn’t warrant a response. As I wrote earlier, when I consider the alternative we had in the 2012 Presidential election, I am proud of my vote and of those who elected OUR PRESIDENT, and I will continue to challenge the constant attacks from the right for the absurdity of their core premises and for the outrageous hate and divisiveness that it is attempting to create. You and people like you are a cancer to our country and nothing more UNLESS AND UNTIL you get back to the issues, debate fairly and not obstruct and do what is right to better, not tear down, our country.

          • middleclasstaxpayer

            OK, let’s talk issues>>>>Why were our four brave Americans left to die in Benghazi when we had 6 to 8 hours of ADVANCE notice as to their plight, and LIVE drone feed to actually SEE what was occurring? We do have the best prepared military in the world. Why was NO ONE allowed to help when help was requested?

          • middleclasstaxpayer

            By the way, here’s a front page article in the ultra-liberal NEWSWEEK magazine last week….why is NEWSWEEK turning on Obama after constant support in the past???

            By Matt Patterson (Newsweek Columnist – Opinion Writer)

            Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world’s largest economy, direct the world’s most powerful military, execute the world’s most consequential job?

            Imagine a future historian examining Obama’s pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League, despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a “community organizer;” a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, less often did he vote “present”); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.

            He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: thewhite-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama’s “spiritual mentor;” a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama’s colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?

            Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were ‘a bit’ extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass – held to a lower standard – because of the color of his skin.

            Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) “non-threatening,” all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?

            Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon – affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.

            Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don’t care if these minority students fail; liberals aren’t around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes,racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin – that’s affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn’t racism, then nothing is.

            And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.

            What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama’s oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people – conservatives included – ought now to be deeply embarrassed.

            The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that’s when he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth –

            it’s all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years. (An example is his 2012 campaign speeches which are almost word for word his 2008 speeches)

            And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. Remember, he wanted the job, campaigned for the task. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. (The other day he actually came out and said no one could have done anything to get our economy and country back on track). But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?

            In short: our president is a small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such an impostor in the Oval Office.

        • middleclasstaxpayer

          Just to expand on my reply…..you asked: “what is the compelling reason WHY ANYONE in the chain of command wouldn’t do everything possible to save (Benghazi) from happening?” The obvious answer is that NOTHING WAS DONE or even attempted??? It is a certainty that everyone in the WH from Obama on down was aware of an attack (terrorist or otherwise) on American soil, which this was. Yet NO ONE raised even a finger to help, even with 6 to 8 HOURS to do so???

          For your further edification, here is an impressive list of all Obama’s “accomplishments” in his life:

          First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.

          First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.

          First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States .

          First President to violate the War Powers Act.

          First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico .

          First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.

          First President to spend a trillion dollars on “shovel-ready” jobs when there was no such thing as “shovel-ready” jobs.

          First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.

          First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.

          First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S. , including those with criminal convictions.

          First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.

          First President to tell a CEO of a major corporation (Chrysler) to resign.

          First President to terminate America˜s ability to put a man in space.

          First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer and to say that America is no longer a Christian nation.

          First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.

          First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.

          First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke out on the reasons for their rate increases.

          First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.

          First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).

          First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.

          First President to actively try to bankrupt an American industry (coal).

          First President to fire an inspector general of AmeriCorps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.

          First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.

          First President to surround himself with radical left wing anarchists.

          First President to golf 73 separate times in his first two and a half years in office, 102 to date.

          First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records.

          First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.

          First President to go on multiple “global apology tours” and concurrent “insult our friends” tours.

          First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayers.

          First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.

          First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.

          First President to fly in a personal trainer from Chicago at least once a week at taxpayer expense.

          First President to repeat the Holy Quran & tell us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.

          First President to tell the military men and women that they should pay for their own private insurance because they “volunteered to go to war and knew the consequences.”

          Then he was the First President to tell the members of the military that THEY were UNPATRIOTIC for balking at the last suggestion.

          First President to side with a foreign nation over one of the American 50 states ( Mexico vs Arizona ).

          Is it any wonder that a disaster like Benghazi happened under Obama’s watch???

    • CPAinNewYork

      If anyone wants to get a description of Darrell Issa, they should read his Google reports. Why the Democratic opponents didn’t distribute those reports is highly suspicious.

  • ORAXX

    Issa’s arrest record is, likely, longer than the collective record of the rest of the congress. This man has no business holding any elective office.

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-z0f0h6VoqyI/UZ7ifG8ZOcI/AAAAAAABDqo/PjPCskDI6AQ/s1600/1darrell.jpg

    • barneybolt12

      This sign needs to be posted on every bill board in his district. Maybe the good folks in California will see what kind of man he really is, and replace him. I won’t hold my breath though.

    • RobertCHastings

      The BIG problem with all of his weapons violations is that in the present Congress, controlled by the NRA, he would be viewed as a national hero. The rap sheet looks like he is an actual candidate for investigation, by the Ethics Committee.

  • Buford2k11

    The GOP sure luvs their criminals…it’s no wonder why there is so much corruption in our government…keep electing criminals into our power structure…look at what it did for Wall Street….

  • Lovefacts

    Sadly, Issa’s criminal record isn’t brought up and, if it is, doesn’t appear to matter. The only thing of importance seems to be Issa’s wealth. To bad he’s never served time as he deserved. Then again, money talks and money walks, especially before the courts.

    • Dominick Vila

      …and the fact that he is doing the dirty work the Tea Party loves…

      • 4sanity4all

        But you have to admit, with Darrell Issa’s rap sheet, he makes the perfect tool for the Tea Party to use to achieve their nefarious ends.

        • Dominick Vila

          He definitely meets all the requirements…

  • howa4x

    We really need to investigate how he got so wealthy. Was it using his position for insider trading? or getting kickbacks? Robbery?Maybe an investigative magazine like Mother Jones should delve into his shady financial world.

    • Diogenes67

      Nothing so dramatic. He made his money in car alarms. Remember Viper? It was his company and he is the voice of “Step away from the car.”

      • duanebidoux

        Obviously his background in auto theft allowed for a particularly enlightened business strategy in the car alarm business.

        • Fern Woodfork

          Who Better Than A Car Thief To Make Car Alarms!! LOL

          • Russell Byrd

            And to be a U.S. Representative. 🙂

      • howa4x

        I guess if you learn how to steal cars you know about alarms

  • nana4gj

    The age when he engaged in criminal behavior is significant because it does reflect, perhaps, the character formation of the man we see today, serving in the US Congress, heading this very important Congressional Committee. I see no evidence that he has learned anything that might have turned that character formation toward a different path.

    He still has a devious, criminal kind of mind, and, indeed, has been the subject of suspicion in his adult business dealings. While he may have cleaned up his overt acts, his mind remains in the gutter, assigning to others the motivations and defects that is all he knows; the slick use of words to get others into trouble…or attempts to….without facts, just enough implications, slanders, slurs, and hints that his allegations are possible and, indeed, probable. He is not alone in this. Ted Cruz does that as well. Throw an accusation out there and some of it will stick.

    Issa will not be removed from his position, nor will he be censured or chastised by his colleagues in the GOP, for this is an identifiable pattern and tactic they all use, to some degree and extent, having perfected it in pitch and pervasiveness over the past 5 years. In this respect, he is the poster boy for the GOP. I venture to say they are proud of him and his performance.

    While it may drum up emotions, it does nothing for getting any of the work that really needs to be done, done. They have, therefore, become incompetent because they cannot do anything else but drum up emotions in the uniformed or those already jaded who are ready to believe whatever is fed to them, for their own reasons. They will always have an audience but the rest of us must work diligently to override that audience at the polls, no matter how the Supreme Court, working at the behest of Koch Bros., and others, tries to undermine us.

    I am thinking all of the exhortation to “take our country back” from “the dark forces of those who seek to abuse the Constitution, impose government into our private lives, and turn our democracy into a dictatorship”, is one that should be heeded, only I am of the opinion that it needs to be directed at those who have exhorted us to do just that.

    This man, Issa, is just a symptom, a tool, the criminal they chose to assign criminality onto others. John Boehner would not be a strong and capable Leader of the House even if he had a decent House contingent to lead. I, unlike others, do not engage in all of the excuses used for why he cannot lead. He simply is incapable of leadership in any situation. It’s too hard, in any case. He is passive, lazy, and is unfit for leadership positions. He is not motivated to public service. He likes the position and will do whatever it takes to retain his position, which isn’t much. He simply needs to sit by and let the House run amok and blame everyone else for it.

    In fact, no Republican in Congress or in State Government, other than Chris Christie, is motivated to public service. They want the power and the position. While I do not agree with Christie’s position, I do believe that if push comes to shove, he will be less ideological and more practical in solving problems, though I prefer not to risk this theory if there is a more viable option.

  • FT66

    Not only Issa should be investigated BUT also Fox News who has been reporting lies as if they were the truth. In a society we are living in, one has to report the truth, if you lie, why not people should take action against you. You lie, get ready to face the consequences, whether it is Issa and Fox News, must altogether face the music. We can not allow this kind of behaviour to continue.

    • RobertCHastings

      Fox is a subsidiary of News Corp, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, the British media mogul who just last year was investigated by Parliament for illegally wiretapping, etc. As a result of the investigation, at least one of his papers was shut down. At the time, there were indications the investigations might be taken up here, although we have heard nothing further on that point. I am sure Issa would decline that one.

  • elw

    Issa has a criminal mind and a record to match. People with criminal minds believe they will never get caught, that they are smart enough to get away with it and the people they hurt deserve what they get. He clearly has never really paid for any of his crimes and has gotten away with behaviors that should have brought the full force of the House Ethic Committee down on his head. Instead the leaders of the GOP give him one chair position after the other and allow him to use his powers to make one witch-hunt investigation after another. Yes he should be investigated, but I doubt that will ever happen unless there is an outcry from the public. Call you congressional representatives and let them know how you feel, use your vote and your time to get these people voted out of office, write the house of of ethics, do whatever you can to make the voice of the people heard. It happened in Texas, it can happen on the National level as well.

    • RobertCHastings

      Are you describing Representative Darrell Issa, or former president George W. Bush? We hear a lot about his college days and the drinking he was involved in, and the pranks, and the drinking, and the bought and paid for business degree, and the drinking. At least the drinking rubbed off on his daughters.

  • idamag

    Darrel Issa said from day one he was going to have more hearings. He is a person with a personal dislike for the President and will do anything to hurt him. I think he is a racist. He sits there with a magnifying glass looking for “gotchas.”

    • RobertCHastings

      Much like another Republican representative, from the 1950’s. Joe McCarthy, the junior senator from Wisconsin, did much the same as Issa is doing today. Maybe Issa’s name will be enshrined along with McCarthy’s, with an -ism at the end.

  • old_timer_37

    The political Issas’ of the world get these leadership positions because of gerrymandering and a seniority system practiced by both parties. Gerrymandering creates an excessive number of safe districts-some would occur with party neutral redistricting -where a party’s nominee almost automatically gets elected and re-elected. Safe districts elect party extremists more often than moderates. Safe districts produce the most senior members of Congress who, when their party has a majority, inherit committee chairmanships without any consideration for competence or expertise. The seniority system promotes party loyalty and minimizes fights within the party, it does nothing for the good of the country. Party loyalty, not loyalty to the USA or to an oath of office, becomes the primary requirement to make it to leadership positions. Although the Republicans, who are currently dominated by extremists and who used gerrymandering after the 2010 census to retain their control of the House and of 30 State Legislatures, are obviously damaging the nation today, Democrats have had their times as well.
    We will continue to endure incompetent, extremist chairpersons like Issa until we have a nationwide, party neutral, redistricting system and eliminate the seniority system in Congress.

    • sigrid28

      I think term limits would also put a stop to the outrages of career politicians like Issa. The seniority system loses its efficacy with term limits. Perhaps, there is a way for public outrage at the Supreme Court’s hampering of voting rights this week to bring about regularization of voting practices nationwide and limitations on the exploitation of redistricting. The ballot box is to voting what the Pony Express is to communications: hopelessly out of date. Fixing that might also spell the end of government run by criminals.

      • RobertCHastings

        Term limits are an excellent idea. A very few politicians have been honest enough to see the need for this and have voluntarily limited themselves to no more than two terms. While one side of this is the loss of great experience (look at Lyndon Johnson and Ted Kennedy, as well as Robert Byrd) that develops power structures based upon mutual trust and understanding over years of service, the other side is the chumminess that comes with the tem “familiarity breeds contempt”. Politicians, over time, tend to look at their positions as hereditary, and look upon those who vote to put them in office with contempt. While several great legislators have, after long careers in the House or Senate, gone on to become Presidents (or at least candidates), the sense of volunteerism that motivates some beginners to perform to their best vanishes over time, to be replaced with a sense of “let me hang on and get a few more millions from donors.” Yeah, the time for term limits is here.

        • Russell Byrd

          I am not sure Robert, won’t the Kock Bros. and Faux Noise types just get younger men that are just as easy to buy. Look at Issa, Cruz, etc. for instance.

          I really think getting back to one man, one vote by putting a reasonable cap on what on individual may give each year. I am talking about a couple of hundred dollars, not millions. Close all government venues to lobbyists and bar institutions – ALL institutions – from giving more than an individual, if not bar them completely. Until a corporation can go to jail for its crimes, just for instance, it is not a person.

          If anyone really wants to give more money, then all monies can go into a general fund that is doled out to all candidates in a bi-partisan manner. Of course, elections may have to be government funded to some extent, but the amount of money saved would be immense, and worth it.

          • RobertCHastings

            You know that will never happen until the Supreme Court overturns the “Citizens United” decision, and THAT won’t happen until Alito, Roberts, Scalia or Thomas is replaced by someone with good sense. You are absolutely right about corporate “personhood” – it is really hard to imagine what they were thinking. REQUIRING all of those running for public office to do so with public funds is a great idea – it levels the playing field and may even draw in some people who absolutely would never have thought of running for office (good and bad, there).

          • Russell Byrd

            That is exactly what I am waiting for, just one of those IDIOTS to die. I realize it can work against us as well, but I think the “odds” are definitely in our favor. It is against my nature to hope for someone to die, but that will not make me any worse than our “oppostion.” At least when it happens, I will get over that, unlike our “Tea” brethren who HATE just about everyone.

            The problem I have with term limits is one of quality of the replacement. After so many years we may wind up trading a Ted Kennedy for a Darrel Issa. If we had some reasonable, bi-partisan standards, then my view would change considerably. Of course, that is “pie in the sky” hoping for anything reasonable with the lot in power now.

            To be honest, I would prefer a Democrat, but anyone that worked WITH the rest of our elected officials for the common good would be acceptable. Unlike the Tea drinkers, I realize that everyone has a different point of view and a right to express it. But too many of our newer legislators, and I am pointing straight at the Teacons, have brought a no compromise, fascist agenda with them.

          • RobertCHastings

            Remember “The Pelican Brief”? Anything can happen where money and influence are concerned.
            When Eisenhower appointed Brennan to the Court, everyone expected a good conservative, NOT the judge who brought about school integration.

          • sigrid28

            It is not just “no compromise,” it is no functioning government whatsoever. The result is doubling interest in student loans, at a time when more need them than ever before. No jobs act but repeated efforts to repeal the ACA. No legislation written into Dodd-Franks to give it teeth, leaving us exposed once again to the antics of Wall Street. A sequester that impedes all functions of government except those that have to do with helping members of Congress fly back and forth to their several residential manors during their lengthy recesses. They have all but brought the U.S. Postal Service to a halt, and underfunded the VA at a time when its services to veterans was never more needed. I find the Tea Party caucus in Congress anarchist rather than fascistic–though their obstruction is certainly no better than manipulation by tyrants.

        • Allan Richardson

          As long as political “capital” is a product of financial “capital” the term limits would make things WORSE. Instead of Congressmen and Senators learning over decades how to get compromise legislation, you would have perpetual newcomers acting as puppets for the money people, and depending on staff members inherited from their predecessors for the technical details of how to work the system. The staff members and big donors would be, and to some extent already are, the real legislators, and the public faces just their spokespeople.

          • sigrid28

            You forget how incomparably fast information flows today, compared to even the last decade. Candidates with term limits won’t need the staff of legislators who came before them. They will have their own staffs working at lightning speed to address questions with a high level of specificity, and with the capability of making long-term comparisons and predictions public servants in the past only dreamt of–except maybe for Al Gore. As for donors, the sooner Citizens United is overturned the better. A populace angry enough to insist on term limits is not going to stand for Kock brothers influence pounding the American economy into the dust. And who says “term limits” means only two terms–maybe it would be three, or for some appointments, ten years, as in the Supreme Court, rather than a lifetime?

          • RobertCHastings

            On our Tax Returns, we all have a box we can check off to contribute $3 to the public campaign fund. I would be willing to put in a little more if it became mandatory and the ONLY source candidates for federal office had available to them. I honestly feel as you do that the root of our current evil in Washington is money. My wife has come up with the idea of isolating Congressmen entirely from lobbyists, PAC’s, etc. while Congress is in session. Add to that, a watchdog/oversight that closely monitors the assets of Congressmen (which the Ethics Committee should be doing anyway) and we will be a long way on the road to making this government ours once again.

      • old_timer_37

        I agree wholeheartedly!

        • sigrid28

          Thanks. I wish a simpler solution than imposing term limits and overturning Citizens United were possible.

    • RobertCHastings

      I’m an Old Timer, too, and we both know better than that. At least in Texas, some of their redistricting is receiving a second look by their courts. This will probably occur in some other states as well as time goes on and local voters understand how redistricting has affected them. 2010and the debacle of redistricting that followed is an excellent reason for revisiting the Voter Rights Act of 1965 and extending the Act to include the entire country and the process of redistricting that Constitutionally occurs after every Census.

      • Russell Byrd

        The Pubs are a totally vile AND stupid party. The should have tried to make peace with the majority of the American people in a some reasonable way. Granted, a crazy person thinks everyone else is crazy.

        Yet, if they continue to alienate large groups of the population, in as little as ten years, maybe, gerrymandering will be of no value. Texas for instance, already has an anglo population that is under 50 %. You can marginalize the majority with gerrymandering, but it is only a stop gap measure.

        Eventually, the “great state of texas,” will have all the Pubs gerrymandered into just a few districts. Wonder what they will do then. I don’t think there will be a Pub party for many more years. I am sure there will be a replacement, likely formed from more moderates from both existing parties. However, the current mob will probably be a small radical splinter that I will style the “TeaPub” party.

        • RobertCHastings

          If we are lucky, they will all move to one district, and they can elect whoever they wish, even George W. Bush, and his election will be meaningless because he will be virtually alone in the House. Jim Hightower is one Texan I love, and not only because he IS NOT a Republican. He has a handle on the origin of the Tea Party, and it wasn’t just a few years ago. While many of the Tea Party members actually believe they are independent of the power structure in Washington, they are the minions of the Koch brothers, who orchestrated MANY bad things in this country’s past.

        • old_timer_37

          You seem to underestimate the power of gerrymandering coupled with voter suppression and wealthy backers feathering their own nexts.
          Texas is a prime example of these three corruptions working together. Overwhelming majorities of Republican legislatures in a State with fairly equal percentages of Democrats and Republicans. They can keep this going for at least the next decade, and fear plus desperation and money will keep them going far beyond that.

          • Russell Byrd

            That was my point. They will continue for a while. I actually said “as little as ten years” before their fall, but I realize it could be longer. My point is, without a major change in the Pubs outlook, they will become out-numbered enough that gerrymandering will cease to be effective. The fact is, the Pubs are trading away their entire future for a few more years of control. This is a very corrupt control that they may never be forgiven for sustaining. The more stir-fried crazy laws they pass now, the worse the backlash will be for them in the end. Unless, they make major changes that they not only refuse to make, but cannot see a reason to make. As is said, “time waits for no man.” Everyday that goes by they are weaker.

          • old_timer_37

            We agree. Glad you elaborated.

      • old_timer_37

        Unfortunately, judges are appointed by the party in power. Extremist politicians tend to appoint extremist judges ( for the Supreme Court, Scalia, Thomas and Alito are cases in point on the right). They also block moderate appointments up and down the judiciary. We may have a few brave and moderate judges now in Federal Courts, but not for long if the Right Wing takes over the Presidency. Again, this is a problem of the right wing today, but its a universal problem in the long run. 30 years, or so ago, a panel of judges was submitted to the President by a judicial review board of some sort. They used competence and judicial moderation as qualifiers, not party loyalty. When Presidents selected from this list, perhaps then giving preference to party loyalty, we got more moderate and more capable representation.
        We need to return to a pre-qualifying review of potential judicial candidates from which President’s select judges. It wouldn’t be perfect, but it would weed out most of the doctrinaire extremists like Scalia and the judicially ignorant like Thomas.

        • RobertCHastings

          However, “the best laid plans of meece and men gang aft aglay”. I believe it was Brennan who Eisenhower appointed to the Court who was expected to be a good, unobtrusive conservative, and immediately fell into the role of deciding the case that overturned the “separate but equal” ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson. Rehnquist turned out to be someone not even Reagan could have believed. Thank God Obama has made some choices that are proving to be excellent. Both Scalia and Thomas should be impeached, Scalia for refusing to recuse himself in several cases that involved personal friends. In the case of Thomas, you cannot impeach someone for stupidity, although incompetence might fly.

          • Russell Byrd

            “I hates meeces to pieces.”

          • old_timer_37

            Although we agree in general, I tend to respect someone who surprises those who appoint him/her. It indicates a degree of personal courage that is lacking in most appointees.

          • RobertCHastings

            We pretty much knew how Rehnquist and Thurgood Marshall would vote. It was a pleasant surprise to see Brennan

        • plc97477

          Gerrymandering does not help in presidential races. The repugs have no chance of taking the presidency as long as they continue being the stupid party.

          • old_timer_37

            Voter suppression and massive inflows of capital can and do help in Presidential races. Never underestimate an opponent, especially a desperate one.

          • plc97477

            The best thing about this last election (apart from Obama being reelected) was that big money did not make that great of a showing. I thought it was pretty funny that roves backers were upset that they did not get the results they wanted.

      • plc97477

        Great idea. I hope we can get it implemented.

        • RobertCHastings

          The Constitutional structure for Amendments would allow for the elevating of the Voting Rights Act to the level of Constitutional Law. More people would support it than seems apparent to the Republicans.

          • plc97477

            Nothing outside of their alternate reality seems apparent to republicans.

  • Mr Wiseguy

    Is it not possible to charge Issa with wrongdoing? He is playing fiddle while America sinks under lack of governance by the house. Republicans should be most aggrieved of all because Issa has done nothing to help their cause – and in fact hurt it with all reasonable people – of which we are still a large majority in this country.

    • RobertCHastings

      Are we? Since 1980 more years in the White House have been under Republican presidents, and more Congressional sessions have been dominated by Republicans than by Democrats. And we know what direction this country has gone with that record. That doesn’t sound like a country of reasonable people to me.

      • Russell Byrd

        Even though I would vote for him again in a heart-beat, we had the best republican president since Teddy Roosevelt: CLINTON! (No offense to Ike.) He did everything the Pubs claimed they wanted to do and they despised him for it.

        Seriously, the only decent Pub presidents were the first, Abe Lincoln, who would not even recognize the current mob as any of his own. Teddy Roosevelt, which was declared NOT a Repub by the elite robber barons. They hated Roosevelt. And maybe Eisenhower, who was a life long Democrat until he was “seduced” into running as a Pub.

        • RobertCHastings

          The Constitution was amended after FDR to impose term limits on the presidency – that amendment should have included ALL federal elective offices. That being said, I, too, would vote again for Clinton. Why the Republicans were so upset with 8 years of peace and prosperity is beyond me, even though Clinton deployed more US troops to more places around the world than anyone since Lyndon Johnson, and eliminated the BUDGET deficit. And look at the thanks the Republicans gave him, just because the beat old man Bush AND Bob Dole. ‘Teddy Roosevelt was one of the first genuine Progressives.

          • Russell Byrd

            I think it is beyond our discussion, but Pubs have always seemed to me to be power hungry, mostly men, mostly big in size or with “little man” tendencies, mostly self-important, definitely big ego, mostly bullies, at best average intelligence types, or physically or emotionally dependent on such individuals.

            They hated Clinton, because he was reasonably successful, in spite of the roadblocks they constructed. As well, they felt the American people should have given them the Presidency as well. Rather than ramble on interminably, I will suggest that they wanted that return to the white middle-class paradise of the 1950’s. And above all, Clinton was very, very smart. Pubs hate that.

            And then there was the sex scandal. I think a few were truly outraged, but the majority were crazy enough to think Clinton would merely resign. Just because they wanted him to. What was so disgusting about the Pubs is there insistence that a blow-job makes someone unfit to lead the nation. Of course, starting wars costing trillions of dollars, thousands of lives, with many, many more people ruined for life, is totally okay.

            I am a white man myself, but I do not think the world as a whole is going to miss us when we finally are in the minority. That kind of mentality needs to be eliminated.

          • RobertCHastings

            Joe McCarthy, the junior senator from Wisconsin in the 50’s who did the communist witch hunts is the man you speak of, your ideal white of limited intelligence who rose to power as a bully. He reminds me a lot of Boehner who, like McCarthy, APPEARS to be constantly coming off a bender.
            As I stated in a previous post, the sex-scandal thing with Clinton was the height of hypocrisy for the Republicans. The Speaker at the time, Newt Gingrich, was having an affair while his wife was in the hospital battling cancer. The Rep. who was being groomed to take Gingrich’s place (Newt lost the Speakership due to being censure by the House Ethics Committee for something else), Livingston, has his own long and sordid history of at least five affairs while he was married. And the lead man for the Republicans in the Senate, Henry Hyde, was discovered to have an illegitimate child in his closet. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

          • Russell Byrd

            Yeah, the Pubs set some fine examples ethical leadership.

            I am glad you noticed that about Boehner. I always did think he looked like he had just sobered up from an all-nighter. That might explain his mood swings that bring on the tears.

          • plc97477

            I am convinced that he is a drinker.

          • Russell Byrd

            Too much “juice” is why his face has that flaccid look all the time. I think the leader he most resembles is Leonid Brezhnev.

            Studies have found that an alcoholic’s brain actually shrinks over time. I think Boehner was handicapped in that department from the start and definitely cannot afford to lose any more brain cells. 🙂

          • angelsinca

            “That kind of mentality needs to be eliminated”

            How do you propose to accomplish this? (wait for it…)

        • idamag

          Neither would the founding fathers.

      • plc97477

        I think he could be right. Most of the repugs haven’t won by a majority in the last couple of decades.

    • Russell Byrd

      Yes, it is. But just like Bush and Cheney, with the number of obstructionist Pubs in Congress, it would just be a colossal waste of taxpayer money and time.

      And this demonstrates a fundamental difference between the parties. As with Clinton” impeachment and the thirty-something votes to repeal Obamacare, the Pubs have neither a sense of obligation to the average American nor a sense of shame.

    • plc97477

      I hope you are correct about the number of reasonable people.

  • RobertCHastings

    The reason no one in authority in the Republican party in Congress is going after him is they see nothing wrong with his behavior. Issa is not the only Republican to ever be arrested or convicted of misdemeanors, nor would he ever be the first to be censured by his colleagues in the House. Newt Gingrich, while Speaker, pursued the case against Clinton for Impeachment (surreptitiously for perjury) while doing just what he was accusing the president of doing, cheating on his wife. Except Clinton’s wife was not in the hospital being treated for cancer. Rep. Livingston who was to replace Gingrich when Gingrich lost his position for an ethics violation was turned down for the Speakership for the same reason- cheating on his wife (numerous times). And Henry Hyde, who had set himself up as judge, was found to have had an illegitimate child. Just amazing how in this one session of Congress so many Republicans were doing EXACTLY what they objected to the president doing. From what I have heard about all the Republicans involved in these scandals, they should all be under indictment for weapons charges, that is assault with a dead weapon.

  • JDavidS

    Issa is nothing but a low-life, and together with Lyin’ Ryan, form the strongest arguement I can imagine for retroactive birth control.

  • duanebidoux

    The problem is that Democrats specifically, and the liberal personality generally, just don’t fight back like this. As a liberal I do think this is a mistake. The attitude of “we don’t scoop as low as they do” is a self defeating strategy. Like Obama, too many Dems and progressives keep bringing a knife to a gunfight.

    • idamag

      I am with you. I wouldn’t want the Democratic party to become as angry and hateful as the Republican Party, but I would like to see them with more backbone.

      • sigrid28

        I would like this too–but backbone that Republicans cannot even comprehend. They need to be defeated so they do not even know what hit them.

        • angelsinca

          “They need to be defeated ”

          Good luck with that. The entire public is growing increasingly dissatisfied with their political leadership. Crushing the GOP will only result in what we have now, but with a crushed GOP in the way.

    • JDavidS

      You’re absolutely right. I’m of the opinion that you return fire “in kind”.

      • sigrid28

        But what if you return fire not “in kind” but from a place the other shooter cannot even comprehend? This is more powerful fighting than “fire in kind.” This is fire to win and win once and for all–like Martin Luther King, Jr.’s nonviolent leadership in the Civil Rights Movement. What if Democrats adopted smarter, keener, tougher fighting suited to their temperament–battling like loyal partisans who believe in their cause, revolutionary style. Fighters like these will be needed to oust the aging racists that run the Republican party and their rich cronies, counting on their own omnipotence in the old world where anything can be bought with their money.

        • angelsinca

          Sigrid, as you continue to underestimate your opponent, you continue to give them the advantage. Have a nice one.

    • sigrid28

      I get what you are saying. What if one were to bring aikido to a knife fight, a martial art that specializes in turning the animus of an opponent’s attack upon himself (or herself)–every attack they make turns upon themselves. In the best science fiction, the winners often outsmart the industrial-military complex and its weapons of choice–for example, soldiers develop amnesia and forget how to shoot their guns, etc. Even in a gunfight, the smarter shooter usually wins. You and I really do not know what in the world Democrats have “up their sleeve.”

      Another problem for Republicans in this “gunfight” is a short-term, very unattractive goal (my way or the highway; wealth for me, the scraps for you) for which they require an electorate willing to vote against its own self-interest so that the Republican leadership, who despises its foot soldiers, can have all the goodies it wants. Republicans can only win if the electorate that keeps putting it in power is dumb as a bucket of hair.

      By contrast, Democrats have much more attractive goals for which to fight, and soon will have far greater numbers of voters with which to win elections. Democrats fight exceptionally well behind the lines, French Resistance-style, because their soldiers have more loyalty than Republican soldiers, who are treated like fodder, and more intelligence. In addition, Democrats treat their war veterans better than Republicans, in Congress and in this science fiction future as well.

      • angelsinca

        “Republicans can only win by cheating.”

        That explains why we didn’t win last time.

  • Lynda Groom

    Darrell Issa my favorite con-man.

    • Fern Woodfork

      Yep You Nailed It My Friend Most Of The GOP /Tea Party Leaders Are Con-men And Snake Oil Salesmen!!

      • Russell Byrd

        Snake Oil squeezed out of their own slithery bodies.

        • Fern Woodfork

          Venom!!

          • Russell Byrd

            Now we know what is really in their “tea.”

  • montanabill

    Hey Conason, if you believe the IRS IG or anyone else who has been summoned to appear before Issa’s committee has told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, you win the Neville Chamberlain Award.

    • Russell Byrd

      Stupidity has once again fallen like a pall on our little group. . . .

      • montanabill

        I take that to mean you are perfectly happy with the responses from IRS people thus far, and with the highly informative testimony describing exactly who made the before, during and after Benghazi decisions, and with Holder’s contradictory responses on targeting news reporters. If that is what you are referring to, look in the mirror for stupidity.

        • Lynda Groom

          Why do you always assume the worst of everyone who testifies in opposition to your beliefs? Nothing from the dozen or so hearings has yet to yield any definitive proof of massive wrong doing. Stupid actions certainly, with no direct connection to White House. Issa is just a tool, and not the sharpest in the drawer.

          • montanabill

            Because I have listened to the questions and listened to the responses. It is extraordinarily clear that the people testifying are doing their best not to answer the questions asked. I realize that the committee does not really have the power they need to demand straight answers and their only hope is to catch someone directly lying. Only with a direct lie can they take legal action. That is why we are seeing so much dodging, refusing to answer or simply responding to questions not asked. None of us deserve for public officials to come before a Congressional investigation committee and not be able to simply tell the truth by answering questions directly and completely, especially those in high positions like Clinton, Holder and Werfel.

          • Russell Byrd

            It is extraordinarily clear that Lynda is correct. The difference between us is we look for information to have an informed opinion, while you look merely for information that reinforces your pre-conceived notions.

            Maybe, I will say this a different way: We look for information to form an opinion, you look for opinion to form the information. Thanks for being the “mother of invention.”

          • montanabill

            Please. If you accepted the testimony from most of the people who have testified on Benghazi, the IRS or targeting reporters, and formed an opinion that all was innocent behavior, then you either don’t want to know the truth or are incredibly naive.

          • Russell Byrd

            We can do this forever, or at least you can. Some of us have lives. As I have said, I form my opinions from the best information at hand. You form an opinion and THEN look for information that supports your preconceived notions. And you look in places for that information that cater to give you exactly what you demand. I want to know the truth. You want to feel good by hating your neighbor. SICK.

            As just about every right-wing “tea” drinker I have come across, you still have not answered the questions I asked. Unlike your own, my questions can actually be answered by merely stating the honest truth.

            For instance, during the Bush years we had maybe a dozen embassy attacks, with roughly a hundred deaths. No Pubs carped about that. Why then, when one incident happens under Obama, with no real evidence of wrong-doing existing (just fantasy and suspicion), do the Pubs start foaming at the mouth and go crazy making an inquisition?

            IRS, same thing. The truth there is none of those “tea” organizations are going to do “charitable” work. They should ALL be turned down flat, but the government, and especially we Liberals fear the backlash. Of course, the Teanderthals have no integrity or shame, and are always outraged, even when they get their way.

            To put it “nicely,” the Pubs arguments are based on lies and exaggerations to drive their egotistic desire to control other people’s lives.

          • montanabill

            You are making a totally incorrect assumption about how I form my opinions. You want your assertion to be correct because then it invalidates my questions. Sorry, but I have been in leadership positions long enough to know better about making assumptions and to know when people are giving forthright testimony.

          • Russell Byrd

            I now know I was spot on. You are one worthless, self-centered, bullying, SOB. So now your opinions must be obeyed because you merely say so. As far as being in leadership positions, I doubt it, but even if so, that did not qualify you to make that decision. As well, you obviously were under qualified for any leadership position. I guess you got there by getting a brown nose. Sure wasn’t by honesty or hard work.

            As far as invalidating your questions, you need lessons in elementary logic. Answering my questions, does not in anyway invalidate your own. However, the refusal to answer a direct question is profound, because every decent, intelligent person knows you are being evasive because of an incredible amount of bias. You may as well know that you are talking to someone that knows all about those techniques you falsely claim to have experience with. Between Obama, Rice, Holder, etc. and montanabill, the only one that is deflecting and failing the credibility test is “bill.” You have no God given right to control other’s speech or thoughts. As I said before, you do our recruiting for us. We will not convince the mindless “tea” drinkers anyway, but people with a brain and a little decency see right through you.

          • montanabill

            Believe what you will. The hearings are a long way from over. Thanks for the laughs!

          • Russell Byrd

            Nothing will come out of the hearings except more right-wing obstructionism. Any reasonable person would realize, that even if there were something there, your mob is far past any opportunity to “hang” this on Obama. So I guess you will be disappointed. Of course, I realize you will just move on to the next scandal that your ilk will manufacture.

            So, in this case, you are the joke, but you are not funny in the least.

          • plc97477

            And your proof is?

          • montanabill

            The non-answers. Wise up.

          • idamag

            Montana, during the time candidates were running for office. I respected your difference of opinion. I never thought you would sink to approving the thug with the magnifying glass who spends his time looking for gotchas. The IRS targeted more not-for-profit groups than the tea party. Maybe there were things the tparty was doing that invited scrutiny. Today I heard, at breakfast, a woman said the IRS was also targeting book clubs. Well, hello, Book clubs don’t do fund raisers. Either, typically right wing, she is lying or someone else lied to her.

          • idamag

            Montana, when the candidates were running for office, I respected your opinion. However, it is demeaning for you to throw yourself in the thug with the magnifying glass looking for gotchas. Several not-for-profit organizations were being looked at by the IRS. Do you suppose the tp’s fund raisings (illegal for charity organizations and information organizations) invited scrutiny?

          • montanabill

            Scrutiny is one thing. What was happening to conservative and religious groups was quite another thing. I don’t believe anyone in good conscience could look at the treatment many of them received and claim it was just routine scrutiny.

          • Lynda Groom

            Thank you for the reply, however you’ve actually not addressed the point of my question. Is it a surprise that those before committees give incomplete replies? Not really, but of equal importance is the poor quality of the questions being asked. Far too many are preloaded requiring foggy responses. The real problem with your preconceived conclusions is that here we are today and still nothing concrete or definitive to prove real wrong doing. Mistakes..certainly and nothing from the reelection staff or the President. That is what Issa was claiming and still no proof.

          • montanabill

            I don’t assume anything. I listen to the questions and to the answers. The reason Issa looks helpless at times is simply because the only power his committee has is to ask questions that must be answered truthfully. He cannot do much about answers that are incomplete, answers but not to the question asked or compel witnesses to testify. He doesn’t have the legal power of a court. Charles Krauthammer came up with a wonderfully descriptive term for much of the testimony: “word salad”.

        • Russell Byrd

          Actually, yes, I am quite happy with the testimony. You merely work under the assumption that you want everything Holder says, for example, to be a lie. Therefore, it is a lie.

          Since you troll with the Benghazi topic, I will ask why did you mob fixate on it. During the Bush years there were probably a dozen embassy attacks and maybe upwards of a hundred people killed. Admittedly, I do not have the exact figures at my fingertips, but I am not exaggerating. The issue is, NO Pub said anything about the Bush administration being incompetent or negligent. WHY IS THAT?

          • montanabill

            I’ll fixate on Benghazi until 3 questions are answered:

            1) who (by name) refused additional security after it was asked for, and who (by name) even reduced security.

            2) We know have a name for the person who supposedly issued the ‘stand down’ order, but they have yet to testify.

            3) Who (by name) insisted on the bogus talking points and who (by name) sent Susan Rice out to try to mislead everyone.

            The Bush embassy nonsense was created by the left to try to deflect the conversation. Democrats ran Congress during that time and if there was wrong doing, they never created a committee to investigate. It is all smoke. Wise up.

          • Russell Byrd

            To informed, honest people interested in keeping this country whole, you proved my point. And, you still failed to answer the questions posed. As I have said, my questions can be answered. I do realize the answers won’t be spoken by you.

            Really, I am saying you are contriving an argument and then blowing the situation out of proportion.

            1) Who refused? Not proven that someone did. And Obama is NOT implicated no matter how much your racist point of view needs that to be true. Who reduced security? Did they? Not proven either.

            2) If you really know, then why are you so upset and judgmental when you have not heard what they have to say? That is, if they exist.

            3) Mix-ups and mistakes. Of course, to the criminal right-wing mind, that expects others to act like they do, these facts would appear suspicious.

            A dozen attacks versus one attack is not deflection. ANSWER THE QUESTION: Since you troll with the Benghazi topic, I will ask why does your mob fixate on it. During the Bush years there were probably a dozen embassy attacks and maybe upwards of a hundred people killed. Admittedly, I do not have the exact figures at my fingertips, but I am not exaggerating. The issue is, NO Pub said anything about the Bush administration being
            incompetent or negligent. WHY IS THAT?

          • montanabill

            I did answer the questions posed. So I ask, in response, why now, do embassy attacks during the Bush administration warrant your concern, if you were not concerned then. Obviously, as I previously stated, these are resurrected only in an attempt to deflect the conversation and offer a ‘reason’ why we should not be asking serious questions about Benghazi.
            So far, Obama can only be implicated indirectly via Susan Rice and Obama’s continued use of bogus talking points. But the bigger questions still linger about the run-up and actions during the attack. Mix-ups and mistakes happen, but so far, the actions re: the Benghazi episode appear to be far from mix-ups. All people have to do is testify fully and honestly and we will know for sure. But so far, that has been anything but the case.

          • Russell Byrd

            You’re busted bill. I WAS concerned. More to the point however, is why you are concerned now? Like Pubs everywhere, you want to avoid answering those direct questions at all cost. You act repeatedly like you did not see the questions at all. Why is that? These are direct, pertinent questions. The deflection is entirely in your avoidance of the subject. You think you always get to set the rules. Say twelve attacks on your boy’s watch, is less important than one on mine. You are, and have always been, an example of cognitive dissonance.

            Benghazi has at worst been nothing but a group of mix-ups. It is your “desire” that it be more, which is totally worthless from an evidentiary point of view. You cannot really implicate Susan Rice except on the fact that she was misled by preliminary reports. Once again, you want a scandal.

            In your situation, as well as that dirtbag Issa, if everyone told the complete and exact truth, you would still deny it. The whole problem with you, the Pubs in general, and Issa in particular is none of you want the truth. You just want to make a scene to keep Obama tied up. Same as you did Clinton.

            Your view, and that of your party, was summed up by McConnell four years ago. In the end, you would rather the country have no government if it does not entirely bend to your will. So keep dodging, and keep posting untruth. You do our recruiting for us.

          • plc97477

            The question is the part with the question mark. Looks like this????.

          • montanabill

            Just maybe it hasn’t occurred to you, but Bush hasn’t been President for well over 4 years. How about staying in the here and now?

          • plc97477

            The tea party in the senate decided not to add more money for security.

          • montanabill

            That is a really good answer, except that the State Dept. testified that money was not a concern. Maybe they should know.

  • Sick of everything

    One of several example’s of useless GOP elected jack asses that still have a job. Be nice if they would spend this much time and effort getting people back to work, ya know a friggen jobs bill. I hate the Reps. A disgrace to this country along with the ignorant morons that support these useless weasels.

    • Russell Byrd

      That is what is the most painful. Having a bunch of morons, filled with hate, supporting these “useless weasels” that are working against their own interests.

  • ococoob

    Did the voters of his district ever check out his criminal record like employers do for potential employees?

  • JD Mulvey

    The wealthy are not the same as the rest of us.

  • Lynda Groom

    Somebody needs to put the training wheels back on Issa’s congressional seat. The boy is clearly not up to the job, and clearly does not understand exactly what his job requirements are.

  • Sherman

    I visit this site every once in awhile to pity the poor fools who come here regularly
    and expouse their ignorance.

  • middleclasstaxpayer

    Here’s a great summary of the accomplishments of our hero Obama published in the ultra-liberal NEWSWEEK MAGAZINE last week:

    Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world’s largest economy, direct the world’s most powerful military, execute the world’s most consequential job?

    Imagine a future historian examining Obama’s pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League, despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a “community organizer;” a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote “present”); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.

    He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama’s “spiritual mentor”; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama’s colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?

    Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass – held to a lower standard – because of the color of his skin.

    Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) “non-threatening,” all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?

    Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon – affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.

    Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don’t care if these minority students fail; liberals aren’t around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin – that’s affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn’t racism, then nothing is.

    And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.

    What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama’s oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people – conservatives included – ought now to be deeply embarrassed.

    The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that’s when he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth – it’s all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.(An example is his 2012 campaign speeches which are almost word for word his 2008 speeches)

    And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles.Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. Remember, he wanted the job, campaigned for the task. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. (The other day he actually came out and said no one could have done anything to get our economy and country back on track.) But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?

    In short: our president is a small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.