By Joe Conason

Watergate Amnesia, The ‘Nixonian’ Slur, And Other Big Lies

May 30, 2013 11:29 pm Category: Memo Pad, Politics 314 Comments A+ / A-
Watergate Amnesia, The ‘Nixonian’ Slur, And Other Big Lies

Let’s state this very simply, so everybody will understand. The notion that Barack Obama is “Nixonian” — or that his administration’s recent troubles bear any resemblance to “Watergate” — is the biggest media lie since the phony “Whitewater scandal” crested during the Clinton presidency.

Fraudulent as it is, we have listened repeatedly to versions of this bogus comparison uttered by figures as diverse as former Fox News commentator Dick Morris and Bob Woodward of the Washington Post, alongside a phalanx of Republican politicians, including Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) – whose latest attack ad directly links Obama with Nixon.

Only in a country afflicted with chronic historical amnesia could they issue such accusations without shame or embarrassment. Only under those circumstances could the Republicans continue their fitful fabrication of a “Democratic Watergate” without fear of being laughed off the stage. It is a project that they will never grow tired of pursuing.

Coming from figures such as former White House political boss Karl Rove and Fox News chief Roger Ailes — both of whom worked for Nixon and defended him with vigor — the hypocrisy is stunning. They can only say words like “Watergate” or “Nixonian” because most Americans have forgotten who they really are behind the respectable masks – or never knew.

The last time we heard Obama mentioned in the same breath as Watergate was in 2009, when Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) – the same Issa who has labored for months to pump air into the Benghazi “scandal” – decided that a job offered to a potential political candidate had erupted into a Constitutional crisis. Is it necessary to note that nothing of consequence ever emerged from Issa’s investigation back then? Yet somehow, he maintains credibility with the Washington media.

So does Graham, who slandered Susan Rice over the Benghazi talking points, which he deemed “worse than Watergate” – an assertion since proved entirely wrong, irresponsible, and vicious. Nevertheless Graham is treated as someone worthy of airtime and quotation, rather than a discredited blowhard.

But certain liberals in the media have fretted loudly over Obama’s “scandals,” too. Is it reasonable to compare the Benghazi incident, the vetting of abused tax exemptions by the IRS, or the Justice Department’s leak investigations with the Watergate crisis? Or is it all just trumped-up hysteria? To answer those questions, it helps to remember what Nixon and his gang actually did to America – and why they were driven out of Washington and, in many cases, sent to prison.

Pages →  1 2

Watergate Amnesia, The ‘Nixonian’ Slur, And Other Big Lies Reviewed by on . Let’s state this very simply, so everybody will understand. The notion that Barack Obama is “Nixonian” -- or that his administration’s recent troubles bear any Let’s state this very simply, so everybody will understand. The notion that Barack Obama is “Nixonian” -- or that his administration’s recent troubles bear any Rating:

More by Joe Conason

Feminist Fighters: Kurdish Women Battling ISIS In Kobani

Courageous Kurdish women, answering the Islamic State's abuse of their gender with force.

Read more...

Why Bush Rejected A Travel Ban In Avian Flu Pandemic

Did Republicans attack the Bush administration for rejecting an avian flu travel ban?

Read more...

Ebola Politics: Let Obama — And Frieden — Do Their Jobs

Now is not the time to distract the Pentagon and the CDC from the difficult task at hand.

Read more...

Tags

Comments

  • Lynda Groom

    There is whole lot of projection taking place in the ranks of the GOP these days. When you’ve got nothing constructive to offer finger pointing is the next best thing. They are hoping that they can keep all the nonsense alive until November of 2014. They just might keep their fellow travelers in line, but that is not enough to win elections. If the direction of the economy, the housing market, the improving job market and the stock market continues in a favorable direction they (the GOP) will be stuck eating crow and looking more foolish than they do today.

    • Jeffrey Darmstadt

      The only reason the sins of the 2006 Democrat wealth destroyng Congress have not come home to roost is they Obama and Bernanke are printing money faster than a Clinton can stain a blue dress. Sooner or later the laundry has to be cleaned and sooner or later you DO run out of other people’s money. Later is now in case you haven’t noticed. The age of the social parasite is coming to a close.

      • mah101

        You are aware that the deficit is half what it was three years ago, right? You are aware that under Obama the government spending has grown a whopping 0.6 percent – the smallest amount in years, right?

        And by social parasite, I assume you mean big banks, corporations, and all those people who actually dare to use government funded roads, call the police when they need help, rely on fireman to save their houses (the audacity! Are there no buckets? Are there no hoses?), or actually dare to go to schools funded in part by government? Or those people who eat hoping that their food doesn’t make them sick, or breath air with the belief that it should not give them cancer? Or pray that someone saves their home from an oncoming wildfire, or helps them rebuild after a devastating tornado? Or perhaps you just mean those “other” people who had the audacity to be born poor, with no access to good education and little hope of a better future. Or the elderly who have worked their entire lives to raise you and generations like you who now want to deny them the benefits that they worked hard for, or the healthcare they need to live. Those parasites, right?

        I’m so sorry that reality is different than your simplistic bigoted version of of, but do try to get some perspective.

        • RickA

          Delusional!

          • mah101

            Ok, but it seems to me that if that is your response then you don’t have any factual basis for disputing my points and you are instead operating to confirm you preconceived bias.

            If I am wrong, I’m sure you will point out in detail just how the deficit has “grown” under this administration, and how government spending is “out of control”. I gave you numbers, I’ll expect some in support of your argument.

            And then, in detail please explain how this country of “moochers” is structured. Who is gaining benefits that they do not deserve, what social groups, age groups, classes, are involved? Who is benefiting the most?

            So, if you want to call me delusional I expect a strong counter argument. Lacking that, I must conclude that you have none.

          • RickA
          • mah101

            Ok, I peeked (and for the record, I must state that I believethat the bubble analogy was reversed – seems I was peeking INTO the bubble). I found an article in the Examiner about a study examining the deep roots of financial problems of 2008 that stretch back to Carter.

            First, no one has disputed that the roots of our financial problems are deep and have multiple branches. That was not the discussion at hand.

            Second, I asked for YOUR argument. Instead I received a non-responsive link to a blog article. Your link doesn’t even address ANY of the points I made.

            Sorry, total failure. Where is YOUR argument? Where are the facts? And please make sure that you actually address the subject at hand.

          • RickA

            After the epic FAIL in federal overspending initiated by the Pelosi/Reid congress starting in 2007, and agrevated by Obama’s totally wasteful stimulus, government deficits have ballooned. now, after a huge tax increase, the continual $trillion/year deficits have been projected to “shrink” to a little under $trillion/year and that is supposed to be GOOD NEWS?

            The deficit for the 2013 budget year is expected to be $845 billion, according to analysis by the independent Congressional Budget Office. That’s down from $1.1 trillion in the 2012 budget year and the lowest since 2008.

          • mah101

            Well thank you. We now have a point of agreement. The deficit is shrinking and we both agree on that. We can certainly disagree over how we feel about it, but the facts are now undisputed.

            Now, please demonstrate how government spending has grown dramatically under the Obama administration.

            And then, please show how this shrinking deficit that we agree upon, combined with any out of control government increases in spending that you can demonstrate, add up to support the role of “parasites” made in the previous claim that it is “spending other people’s money” (hence the parasite analogy) that is ruining the nation’s economy to the exclusion of a) the economy is actually improving, or b) other causes that don’t rely on the role of greedy “social parasites” other than say, big banks and corporations.

          • RickA

            After Budget surpluses resulting from savings by a Republican congress (which left out the will of President Bill Clinton), the economy eventually entered a serious dot com recession where tax recepts lagged until the Bush/Republican congress recovery got under way. spend was shrinking down to surplus levels once again until 2007 when the Pelosi/Reid congress eliminated the President from the budgeting process and drove the country over the cliff, as clearly demonstrated by the accompaning chart. Patting OBAMA on the back for the deficit dipping slightly below his trillion dollar a year raids on the treasury is a far twist of reality.

            2000
            $236.4 Billion Surplus
            $320.76 Billion Surplus
            D
            R
            R

            2001
            $127.3 Billion Surplus
            $168.16 Billion Surplus
            R
            D
            R

            2002
            $157.8 Billion Deficit
            $205.2 Billion Deficit
            R
            D
            R

            2003
            $377.6 Billion Deficit
            $479.8 Billion Deficit
            R
            R
            R

            2004
            $413 Billion Deficit
            $511.14 Billion Deficit
            R
            R
            R

            2005
            $318 Billion Deficit
            $380.84 Billion Deficit
            R
            R
            R

            2006
            $248 Billion Deficit
            $287.7 Billion Deficit
            R
            R
            R

            2007
            $161 Billion Deficit
            $181.51 Billion Deficit
            R
            D
            D

            2008
            $459 Billion Deficit
            $498.37 Billion Deficit
            R
            D
            D

            2009
            $1413 Billion Deficit
            $1539.22 Billion Deficit
            D
            D
            D

            2010
            $1294 Billion Deficit
            $1386.92 Billion Deficit
            D
            D
            D

            2011
            $1299 Billion Deficit
            $1350.31 Billion Deficit
            D
            D
            R

            2012
            $1100 Billion Deficit
            $1120.16 Billion Deficit
            D
            D
            R

            2013
            $900 Billion Deficit
            $900 Billion Deficit
            D
            D
            R

          • mah101

            Ok, so again you have demonstrated that the deficit is shrinking. However, we have already agreed on that and the remainder of your graph has no bearing on the issues under discussion. Let me restate the position that I was disputing – the claim was that Obama is spending us into ruin and that is for the benefit of redistributing wealth from higher incomes to a class of moochers the poster identified as “social parasites”

            Such a claim relies on a) government spending is out of control, b) deficits are growing that will bankrupt our nation, and c) there is a class of “social parasites” who are benefiting from this out of control borrowing and spending to the detriment of the virtuous other.

            I pointed out that the deficit was, in fact, shrinking under this president. I then pointed out that government spending was not growing inordinately under this president, and in fact is increasing at a lesser rate than we have seen for years. I further illustrated that this class of “social parasites” is, in reality, the American people. It is we who benefit collectively and individually from the government.

            You then called me delusional.

            Yet, when asked to counter my points, you have so far managed to agree with me on the deficit, and not respond on the others.

            So again, please tell me how government spending is “out of control” under this president, and then – as an added benefit – please demonstrate how this is driven by a class of “social parasites” rather than more parsimonious hypotheses.

            I remain, as always, waiting.

          • Independent1

            I’ve seen some morons in my time but you take the cake. George Bush took a 4.9 trillion deficit with a 236 billion surplus and in 8 years turned it into a 12.3 trillion deficit by 1st, spending between 350 and 500 billion/yr in deficit spending; and then negotiating TARP and the Auto Bailout before he left office and creating a budget that took affect on 10/1/08 and ran to 09/30/09 that included 1.6 trillion in deficit spending. No GOP president since Nixon’s second term has governed without significant deficit spending; especially when the biggest drunken sailor of them all, Reagan started the ball rolling by virtually tripling the deficit in 8 years. Reagan inherited an 800 billion deficit (which Carter had decreased the deficit by cutting government spending ascompared to GDP to the lowest levels in the 20th century – to 34% -he’s the only president who got it below 50%. Reagan took that 800 billion and turned it into 2.3 trillion. Bush Jr. learned from that and by keeping 250 to 500 billion of spending out of his budgets, drove it to over 12 trillion in 8 years.

            And don’t give me any BS about Pelosi and the Democrats affecting spending – Over the past 18 years, the Dems have only had control of the Senate for 7 months – from January of 2009 until August of 2009 when Ted Kennedy died. When Mass chose to elect Scott Brown, the Dems control of congress ended. The Dems have had virtually no effect on government policy over the past 18 years – so take your idiot comments about what Pelosi may have done and stick them. The Dems used the 7 mos they had control to push forward with the auto bailout which kept America from another GOP created Depression and to get Obamacare passed. And just to clarify things – every GOP president since Nixon’s second term have governed with significant deficit spending AND EVERY Dem president has actually reduced the deficit spending – with Obama reducing it faster than any president since Truman; Obama actually reduced Bush’s last budget with 1.6 trillion in deficit spending to what the CBO is pojecting today – 685 billion: that’s a reduction of 1 trillion/yr in spending in 4 years!!!!!!!!!

          • Lisztman

            And imagine what Mr. Obama could have accomplished (or even Mr. Bush, Jr., for that matter) had Mr. Bush not put us into an Iraqi war that was neither warranted (by the alleged reasons) nor funded.

          • BDC_57

            like the repugs failures

          • Robert P. Robertson

            Damn, is that your answer? You’re on the wrong site, buddy! Go back to WND.

          • Sand_Cat

            Try looking at something other than the lining of your colon.

          • 4sanity4all

            he cannot refute your facts. Wait for it…..his head is exploding! What he has heard on Faux news does not compute……..KaPOW!

          • Lisztman

            RickA. I presume you have some genuine DATA… or a legitimate source for your allegation? (Journalism. Or academia. Not a blogger.)

        • Robert P. Robertson

          Wow, mah101, you’re bringing that fool to class called Social Conscious 101!

      • charleo1

        First of all, The President, is not authorized to print money.
        And Ben Bernanke, is not buying toxic assets still on the
        books of various financial institutions, and banks, to increase
        the food stamp allotment to poor families, and children. The
        world’s largest economy, defies the laughable hamster wheel
        descriptions invented by the Right Wing. To enlist the help
        of their clueless lemmings, to prevent economic improvement,
        for political purpose. Not, encourage it. The Fed, headed by
        the same man, Bush appointed, is still charged with the same
        mission. to protect the assets of, and enact monetary policies,
        that strengthen the fiscal conditions of the Country. If that
        hurts Republicans, we’ll file that under, who cares.

      • ChristoD

        Jeffrey: Let me see….which is more damaging to the country, Clinton’s staining a blue dress’ and getting impeached by a GOP controlled house bent on revenge for Nixon’s mis-dead’s and Nixon’s self created subsequent disgrace OR Bush (er rather, Cheney) starting and then totally mismanaging an UNNECESSARY Iraq war based on ATTEMPTING UNSUCCESSFULLY to link Iraq with Al Qaeda and 9/11 where thousands of American’s were killed and tens of thousands wounded and mentally scarred for life and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s were killed and wounded (not to mention the free reign that Iran’s has without the neutralizer Iraq to keep them in a box)……which one would you think is more detrimental to our country Jeffrey ? Fugedaboudit, I know what your answer will be….change the subject and spew yet more Republican rubbish. Nauseating best describes folks like you, simply NAUSEATING.

    • RickA

      Debasement of the language is one of the few tricks the left has in it’s bag. The administration intentionally misled the American people about the Benghazi attack for strictly political purposes. This same administration also used the DOJ to keep tabs on the media and keep them in line, again, for political purposes. It has now become clear that this criminally corrupt administration employed a huge and powerful government agency in a massive voter surpression effort. Once again, for it’s own political goal. None of those facts are being disputed, the administration is content to merly deflect and play the “we didn’t know” game.
      It is a serious mistake for Republicans to play by the administrations rules, in a vain attempt to find a smoking gun and place BLAME on someone for these crimes. Instead, they should just confront the obvious; the 2012 election was totally corrupted and the results cannot legally stand. A new election must be scheduled and all orders and actions and appointments by the current administration will be suspended.
      Obama, Holder, et al will continue to play cat and mouse with who was responsible, but they have not denied that these events have happened. These events clearly had a profound effect on the election, so the only honest recourse for tainting a federal election is to void that election (determining WHO was responsible for tainting the election does not make that election any less tainted).

      • mah101

        “None of these facts are being disputed.”

        I dispute them. Show me, in detail, just how the administration deliberately misled the public about Benghazi with the express goal of serving their political interests. In detail. Show me the president’s role in this, and link it directly to your thesis with detailed factual information.

        Same with the DOJ, and the IRS. In detail, please. Show the president’s and White House’s explicit actions with regard to these events and how they were used to deliberately suppress dissent or votes with the express purpose of serving the personal advantage of the president.

        In detail. With facts.

        I’ll be waiting.

        • Lynda Groom

          You want facts. Well there aren’t any that come to the conclusions RickA claims.

          • RickA
          • Independent1

            Rick, if you’re so convinced about Benghazi being some kind of travesty, were you saying the same thing when Benghazi occurred 14 times during Bush’s 8 years in office – and it occurred 3 times at one consulate – Karachi – without the Bush administration ever doing anything to prevent or help the attacks! And it wasn’t 4 killed, it was 18 killed including a diplomat and more than 50 injured

            Bush Years there were 14 attacks with more than 3,050 deaths including more than 3,000 Americans:
            2001 – World Trade Center, New York and Pentagon, DC; 3,000 Americans killed
            2002 – US Consulate Calcutta, India attacked, 5 Killed
            2002 – US Consulate in Karachi Pakistan attacked, 12
            killed; 51 injured. 2002
            – US Diplomatic office Denpasar, Indonesia bombed, no one
            killed
            2003– International Compound, Saudi Arabia, 17 killed .
            2003 – US Consulate, Karachi, Pakistan, 2 killed.
            2004 – US Embassy bombed in Uzbekistan, 2 killed 9 injured.
            2004 – US Consulate Saudi Arabia, 8 killed.
            2006 – US Consulate, Karachi, Pakistan, 4 klled including US diplomat.
            2006 – US Embassy, Syria, 4 killed and 13 wounded.
            2007 – Grenade launched into the US Embassy in Athens.
            2008 – US Embassy, Serbia, attacked by thousands, no one killed.
            2008 – US Consulate, Turkey, 3 killed.
            2008 – US Embassy in Yemen bombed, 13 killed.

          • mike

            Just so you acknowledge all events. Since Obama has been in office the Homeland has been attacked twice. Fort Hood and Boston by Islamic radicals.

            Also, to keep everyone honest there have been 7 attacks on Embassies/Consulates under Obama in his first 4 years, lots of time to go before his term is up.

            Just as important, in the last 52 years our Embassies/ Consulates have been attacked 44 times. I am not sure how you can put International Compound on the list. That attack targeted Westerners.

            More importantly the Obama Administration left a Ambassador and 3 others to die without any effort to help.

            Go back to 2011 when a F-15 went down in Libya and the 6th fleet within minutes had the MEU’s and aircraft launched to rescue the pilot. The big question is where was the 6th fleet and MEU’s this time. Remember the 6th fleet is based in Italy. In a very volatile time and region why were there no assets to pull from.

        • RickA

          Susan Rice on 5 Sunday talk shows and Obama at the UN demanding that the Benghazi attack was a protest over a youtube video.
          Or did you MISS THAT?

          • mah101

            Ok, you leave several requirements unmet in your argument.

            First, show that Susan Rice was factually incorrect in linking the opportunity created to attack our consulate to the outrage and riots in Egypt and elsewhere that were responding to the video. In your response please clearly isolate the attacks in Benghazi from the larger outrage in the Arab world about the video, and show how this attack by a terrorist group was in no way associated with the confusion and anger and riots taking place in North Africa at the time. Also, please show how the Ambassador did not give credence to the role of terrorist organizations in this attack.

            Second, show that any factual incorrectness that you can prove was actually deliberate.

            Third, show that any deliberate misrepresentation of the facts that you can prove was actually designed to serve the interest of the President in his campaign of 2012.

            Fourth, show how, in clear detail and disproving any reasonable doubt, how such a) incorrect, b) deliberate misrepresentations, and c) presidential interest that you can prove were directed by, or approved by, the President.

            Now, as usual, I’ll be waiting. Do try to address the points here.

          • Sand_Cat

            Sounds like you’ve missed quite a few things.

      • Robert P. Robertson

        I’m scratching my head about that 2012 election being corrupt. Now we know the 2000 election was corrupt, but the 2012 election? How can winning the popular and the electoral vote be corrupt? That sounds like a landslide vote to me. Romney/Ryan took a serious beating. How could that be corrupt? I don’t get it.

        • Independent1

          Robert, it’s only corrupt in the demented, figmented mind of someone like Rick.

      • Lisztman

        RickA:

        By what measure do you consider the 2012 election “tainted”? Which state(s) do you feel should have had their electoral votes go to Mr. Romney rather than Mr. Obama, and WHY? Data, please. A simple “they stole it” or “dead people voted” WON’T cut it.

        What’s with the Benghazi thing? You mean, a remote diplomatic outpost in an unstable, unfriendly country was attacked? Surprise, surprise. It happens regularly. I’ll point out for the umpteenth time that requests to Congress for funds for increased security were denied. You seem to be unable to process this information. Here’s pretty much the whole story. From the Washington TIMES (no, not the Post) — an acknowledged Conservative Right-Wing mainstream newspaper.
        http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/2/house-gop-leaders-diplomats-sought-more-security-b/?page=all

  • Daniel Jones

    Everyone knows that Bob Woodward has sold out and did so years and years ago.
    To actually demean his greatest triumph, the Watergate mess, by facetiously trying to manufacture Barack Obama’s “guilt” of similar shenanigans is insipid.
    We can only assume that Bob is insipid for having done so.

    • Jeffrey Darmstadt

      Bob Woodward goes after prevaricating coverup criminal politicians now matter what they party. Had the half American Half Truth President but the needs of his country before the needs of his party, he would understand the jugernaut that is coming his way. Obama will soon come to understand he Constituion does trump the Koran or the Democrat Party talking points.

      • Dave Brown

        Jeffery; We will see during the election cycles of 2014 and 2016 just who learns about “The Constitution”. Your parties lies, fabrications, war mongering, hate filled, fear machine is what is ending. The Majority has spoken but they (The party of angry old white men) are gearing up to bring down the duly elected government of our country through Treason and or armed insurrection. Their stated goal to bring down Obama, and make a him a one term President, is a remarkable failure, the only contribution the GOPeer’s have made to this country in the past 5 years. Holding the public good and the Peoples business hostage to that lame un-American goal, is an unconscionable political act! By the way in your world what color is the sky? White perhaps?

        • RickA

          With what has come out on all the VOTER SUPRESSION the IRS has admitted, I would hardly reffer to the 2012 election winners as “duly elected”.

          • Dave Brown

            Another Boogieman from the GOPeer’s Voter suppression! from the IRS! LOL! Just like the U.N. invading Maine with tanks!! I’ll ask again, in your world what color is the sky?

          • Dave Brown

            The IRS questioned the tax except status of groups, both Liberal and conservative, spending more than 51% of there money on political causes! This is their job, and in my humble opinion, need to do more of it. The claim that the tea party is not active politically is absurd. How is taxing a political contribution Voter suppression? You would not know your contribution was not tax free until the next tax year!

          • RickA
          • ddffdfff

            All these sites are part of the CECC, Conservative Entertainment Complex Circle. They all have 1 thing in common. To remove money from your wallet. And they all move you from site to site in an assembly line fashion making many of these people rich with your ignorant dollars.

          • RickA

            And Benghazi was all over a Youtube video too.

          • Independent1

            Fake videos on Youtube just like the faked emails that the GOP manipulated. The only way the GOP knows to win is by cheating and lying because they know they have mindless sheep like you to believe their lies and distortions.

          • BDC_57

            yeah they like lying and cheating to win but did it does not work.

          • metrognome3830

            If this is your reading list, I can understand why you are so completely and totally misinformed.

          • RickA

            Coming from you , that is a compliment.

          • metrognome3830

            Coming from you, that’s in intelligent reply.

          • Independent1

            If the IRS had some kind of conspiracy against the conservative organizations, why is it that not one conservative organization’s application was denied?? Only the applicationof one Dem related organiization was denied – forcing the Dem organization to pay a penallty on top of the taxes it owed – sounds like a worthless witch hunt to me!! But then that’s all the GOP knows anything about – worthless witch hunts.

          • ddffdfff

            Voter suppression? Like needing ID’s because of this huge voter fraud problem? LOL

          • Lisztman

            Ummm. WTH does the IRS have to do with “voter suppression”? You mean, because applications for tax-exempt status were delayed because the rules said you couldn’t be “primarily a political group” and the applications said “Tea Party”?
            If you’re looking for “voter suppression” try the reduction in voting hours. Changing Voter ID regulations 10 weeks before the elections. Gerrymandering of Congressional districts so that despite winning the popular vote, candidates lose… Hmmm. Methinks you doth protest too much.

    • ddffdfff

      Wasnt Woodward the guy who figured out how John Belushi died?

    • plc97477

      I was just assuming at his age we were seeing a little dementia.

  • invader3k

    Republicans are addicted to lying because it’s all they have left. They have no policies or constructive arguments to stand on any longer, so they simply lie and then lie some more, hoping to distract enough people from their terrible agenda.

    • Fern Woodfork

      They Have No Agenda Besides Gutting Out Our Country And Screwing Over The Middle Class And Poor Working People Oh Yeah And Starting Some More Wars!!!!

      • Jeffrey Darmstadt

        The only people gutting out our country are those Liberal Progressive social parasites who refuse to pull their weight and live on Team Consumption instead of team Creation refusing to accept they were created in the image of a crator to create wealth not consume it. Team consumption is just a disguise for team destruction which is all the social parasites can accomplish with their failed ideology and courage to only spend other people’s money. Wake up fool, maybe the rich are rich because they got off their butts and went out and earned it. This is America and if you fail you have nobody to blame but your lazy self.

        • BillP

          You may want to check and see which states get more Federal money than they send (try a number of Southern states). More assistance is paid to these states than the Northeastern states which tend to be “blue states” or at least moderate (sane) Republican states. Your last sentence is at best a vast overstatement, people have lost jobs for no reason other than the company going bankrupt, moving jobs overseas or from fraud like Enron, Bernie Maddoff , etc.

          • Independent1

            Bill, just to back up your comments with some statistics; of the 5 states that get over $2 in federal money for every $1 they pay in taxes, 4 of them are run by the GOP. Of the 5 states that get between $1.75 and $2 for every $1 they send to Washington in taxes, again, 4 of them are run by the GOP. No Red State gets less money in federal support than they pay in taxes, It’s all Blue States that are supporting the country by getting back less in federal support than they pay in taxes, for example, New Jersey only gets .61 back for each dollar it sends to Washington as income tax.
            And another neat statistic that Jeffrey should be aware of: there are 21 states in America that have 15% or more of their residents living below the poverty level (sucking welfare dollars); 19 of those 21 states are run by the GOP; the only two Blue States with more than 15% of their populations living below the poverty level are California and New York. (Given that there were 24 states who voted for Romney in the last election – that means there are only 5 Red States that have less than 15% of their residents living below the poverty level.)

          • 4sanity4all

            One other fact to add to your excellent summary- the education that children get in the red states makes them unable to think or reason. Hence, their devotion to the GOP. They stand for nothing, because they fall for anything their despicable leaders tell them.

        • mah101

          Tired, stupid, vacuous meme.

        • charleo1

          That’s hilarious! Maybe you, and Mitt ought to get together,
          and discuss how well that bunch of hooey worked on the
          campaign trail for him. And do you know why? Because,
          it’s crap. The poor are not stealing from the rich. Other-
          wise, the bottom 133 million wouldn’t be struggling, eking
          out a living on less collective wealth, than the richest 400.
          The poor are not the glutinous hogs at the public trough,
          It’s the top end. The trust fund cry babies. The group that
          if they only had what they earned, and not what they had
          stolen from their Country, and it’s citizens. They’d be living
          in a homeless shelter. They are nothing but, societal cancer
          cells. Slowing sucking the life out of the places, unfortunate
          enough to be infected by them. God, created them to create?
          What a laughable hoot of an idea. And, a blasphemous,
          accusation against God. They have no God, but the God
          of avarice, and greed. Where every unselfish act, every
          sacrifice, and altruism, or contribution for the common good, must be slaughtered at the alter of the bottom line.
          If you succeed, you can keep what you’ve created.
          Because, it won’t be fit for human habitation anyway.

        • ChristoD

          Jeffrey, thanks for your ‘Liberal Progressive social parasites’ OBJECTIVE rant…..now go back into your alternate reality world, otherwise known as your hole in the ground, PLEASE. Your ‘rich are rich because they earned it’ comment. WTF is your point ?

        • Sand_Cat

          Well, at least you got something partly right: your brain was created in the image of a crater.

          • plc97477

            Not much else right though.

          • Robert P. Robertson

            Just the crater in his brain

        • plc97477

          Did you know that the red states (republican ones) are the biggest users of welfare. The blue states pay more in taxes than do red states because the libs are the hard workers and the repugs are the takers.

        • Fern Woodfork

          LOL Don’t You Get Gas Blown In Your Face While You Suck On All Those Rich People Butts!! I’m A Working Nurse Fool, I Get Off My Butt Everyday And Work My Butt Off!! Half These Wealthy People Wouldn’t Know Work If It Came Up And Bite Them In The Ass!! I Know Who Worked And Who Gutted, Lied And Thug Their Way Thru Life To Make Their Money!! And Also The Ones Who Just Sat Back And Waited For Mommie And Daddy To Die!!!

        • Lisztman

          Sorry, Mr. Darmstadt. Half of the rich people got that way because they chose to be born to rich people. Another large segment got to be very rich by working hard — but then got substantially richer by gaming the system to avoid paying a decently fair share of taxes. And giving gajillions to Congresspersons to make sure it stays that way.

          “Your lazy self.” Hmmm. Tell THAT to the employees working their tails off for WalMart for $15,000 a year. Assuming, of course, that they’re sufficiently fortunate to be full-time employees. A significant portion of WalMart employees are part-time — so that the company can avoid paying vacation time, sick time, health benefits, and the like.

          Go back to your mansion and cuddle up on the couch with your concubines and watch Fox “News” some more. I’m sure you’ll feel better.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dominick.vila.1 Dominick Vila

    The efforts being made by the GOP to establish parallels between the many examples of wrongdoing, deceit, and ineptitude shown by Republican Presidents in the past and what is happening today is a manifestation of desperation. They know their record is unacceptable to most Americans, and the only recourse left for them is to compare Benghazi to 9/11 and all the terrorist attacks that took place when they were in control of the White House and Congress, and compare an unauthorized IRS investigation into suspected acts of perjury by political organizations seeking tax exempt status to some of the worst examples of abuse of power in the history of the USA, namely, Watergate and the deceit used to invade Iraq. This is what happens to political parties and individuals who lack the intellectual acumen to propose solutions and a positive vision of the future.

    • TZToronto

      I re-read All the President’s Men last year, and what struck me is that the crimes of Watergate are now, in some cases, legal. The illegal fundraising that took place in the Nixon campaign of 1972 was amateurish when compared to legal fundraising of the Romney and Obama campaigns. The PACs of today, along with Citizens United, have made Watergate look very lame. What the Republicans don’t seem to realize is that the “follow the money” advice given by Deep Throat was the crux of the Watergate scandal and should be remembered by those who want to smear the Obama administration. There is no money to follow in what the GOP and their media mouthpieces are crowing about now. No one is getting paid to cover up anything–because there is nothing to cover up.

      • RobertCHastings

        They are legal now simply because of an entirely TOO CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court, and decisions like Citizens United. While Justice Roberts was applauded by the left for his courage in the decision he handed down regarding the Affordable Care Act, one of his fellow justices, Antonin Scalia, is roundly criticized for his part in at least two highly suspect decisions – the one in 2000 that allowed the election of George W Bush, and the one that bypassed almost 200 years of Supreme Court decisions against the undisputed right of private gun ownership, a decision based on unusually faulty logic, as well as Scalia’s penchant for failing to recuse himself when the situation warrants it.

      • Lisztman

        Except that the “real” crimes were the actual break-in (burglary) — and the fact that it was orchestrated by the highest offices, including the Oval one. There were others, too, but that was the biggie.

    • RickA

      Deceit used to invade Iraq? You must be reffering to Operation Desert Fox, when the president announced that Saddam had advanced his nuclear weapon program to the critical point and that the US needed to INVADE that country immediately because his use of WMD’s was imminent.
      That presidents name was CLINTON. Remember ?

      • charleo1

        Now, how could anyone forget Clinton, when it comes to Iraq?
        Because, President Cheney took the Country to war, while his
        little Buddy, George, was playing President. We have no idea
        of the cost. Which at this point is measured in trillions, with the
        hundreds of billions being rounded up, or down, depending on
        whether you’re like Cheney, and would do it all again. Or, are
        a normal person, watching education be cut, bridges fail, jobs
        flow out of the Country. So, don’t feel as though you need to
        make excuses, for Bush, and Cheney. Bush is happily ridding
        his mountain bike, and playing with his paint by the numbers
        kit. They don’t need excuses. They’ve got all their limbs. And
        all their children, alive, and well. It’s the American people left
        with the clean up.

        • RickA

          In other words, you would prefer that everyone FORGET that it was President Bill Clinton who LIED about saddam’s WMD’s and invaded Iraq. That really doesn’t fit the LIBERAL narrative, does it?

          • Independent1

            What you’re failing to keep in mind is that George Tenet made it clear to Georgie boy that Iraq DID NOT have WMD’s long before Georgie authorized the attack on Iraq based on a LIE – that Iraq had WMD’s which HE KNEW it didn’t!!! See this article:

            Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction

            On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons ofmass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

            Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military
            Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.

          • RickA

            And lets tell Canada that the 200 tonnes of yellowcake uranium we shipped there from Saddams stockpile doesn’t exist either. Just like Joe Wilson said it didn’t exist!

          • Independent1

            Actually, it was 500 metric tons – and possessing yellowcake with no WEAPONS to use them in is absolutely no evidence that Iraq had WMDs; especially when all the yellowcake had been created more than a decade before Georgie Boy was looking for an excuse to attack Iraq. You do realize that Bush and Cheney had planned to invade Iraq before even the election. They had charged General Frank with coming up with an Iraq war plan within 2 weeks of moving into the Whitehouse in February of 2001. George wasn’t going to believe any intelligence that would keep him from his main objective – fulfilling his vendetta against Saddam for having tried to kill his dad in Kuwait after the 1st gulf war. And his second objective was to create something for the defense industry that would allow them to pocket trilllions in taxpayer cash by having Georgie Boy and Tricky Dick give out no-bid contracts to the defense industry companies they had ties to: like Haliburton that was caught once charging $100/gallon for jeep fuel.

            Here’s a little on that yellowcake that Iraq sold to Canada:

            According to published reports including CBS news, the United States secretly moved a huge stockpile of yellowcake over a two week period, from Iraq to Canada, partly to keep it from falling into the hands of either terrorists or foreign governments such as Iran. The operation was reportedly more than a year in the making and took three months to execute. It included carrying 3,500 barrels of yellowcake by road from Baghdad, then flying them on 37 military flights to an atoll in the Indian Ocean, then carrying them aboard a U.S. ship bound for Montreal. In all, it added up to more than 500 metric tons of material from Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program.

            The Iraqi government sold the yellowcake to a Canadian uranium company and it will be used in Ontario, Canada, for use in nuclear reactors. The news report went on to say that the yellowcake “had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991.”
            updated 11/17/08

          • charleo1

            I find the entire run up to the invasion, an incredible, misuse
            of the power of the office. It reads like a cheap dime store,
            novel. The plot seems so unlikely, the reader might decide
            to cut their losses after the first few pages, and move on to
            more interesting reading. Or, perhaps if the author had
            changed the venue, in which the events took place. The
            story of a maniacal despot, in war torn Namibia, rises to
            power, and attacks it’s neighbor to seize it’s vast store of
            Tantalum. But, The United States of America? The old
            Soviet Union, perhaps. So, in all the ways one might
            measure the success, or failure of any war. What were
            the stated goals of the war? To what degree were those
            goals accomplished? Using the clarity of hindsight, was
            the war necessary? Or could those stated goals have been
            achieved by other means? In total, has the ratio of cost to
            benefit, been a net positive, about equal, or has the losses
            outweighed the gains. I think by all these measures, the
            Iraq war, was a colossal failure. But, perhaps the place
            where the darkness is the most profound, is the fact, that
            it was not just any Country, in was us. The U.S. Even,
            considering the maimed, and the dead. The deepest cut.
            The wound that will be the most difficult, and require the
            most time to heal. Is the sullied reputation of America around
            the world.

          • Robert P. Robertson

            Bush/Cheney are home grown domestic terrorists who nearly destroyed their own country for the incredible amount of wealth that they profiteered from 9-11, Pakistan-Afghanistan-Iraq-Katrina, and robbed America of trillions of dollars through the no-bid contracts gifted to Haliburton and blackwater by Cheney. Charleo and Independents1, you are so on point!

          • BDC_57

            Bush and Cheney have been found guilty of war crimes in spain

          • lana ward

            OHitler has been found guilty of crimes in America

          • lana ward

            OHitler is destroying the country right now. OHitler got wealthy off of Haliburton, Fu*king hypocrite

          • Robert P. Robertson

            I have no idea what you just said, anal. You should never talk with youir mouth full.

          • lana ward

            Your queer boy got scandals much : )

          • Robert P. Robertson

            Well said, my friend!

          • Independent1

            And you do realize don’t you that Georgie Boy and Tricky Dick should both be in jail for dereliction of duty (if not for the manslaughter of more than 8,000 Americans and countless Iraqi’s). A president and vice president have to be guilty of dereliction of duty in protecting America when they allowed their
            obsession with attacking Iraq to totally override any semblence of good sense. How else can you explain deliberately ignoring 7 warnings from the CIA (between 4/30/01 and 8/6/01) that Osama bin Laden (al Qaeda) was planning an imminent attack on the homeland?? All the CIA wanted was persmission from Bush and Cheney to put aside momentarily the charge Bush and Cheney had given the agency to find them an excuse for attacking Iraq, and focus on trying to prevent the imminent attack from al Qaeda that they had intellignece leads on. Seven times they asked for permission and 7 times Bush and Cheney refused to let them focus on preventing the attack. Bush was even so callous as to go on a 30 day vacation right after the last briefing about the imminent attacks on 8/6 and didn’t return to his office until just days before the attack happened on 9/11. And to top that all off, he had the nerve to so totally disregard the 7 warnings, that he had changed the briefings to be ‘deputies only'; meaning that he and tricky Dick didn’t even sit in on the September intellence briefing by the CIA. Now if that’s all called DERELICTION OF DUTY!! And these two turkeys should be rotting in jail.

          • Robert P. Robertson

            They should be investigated by the DOJ, tried for treason, and imprisoned at hard labor. They should put them both in cells with two huge, hairy Mullahs and spend the rest of their days plaiting beards! WE WANT OUR MONEY BACK FROM BUSH/CHENEY!

          • lana ward

            Trust the DOJ!!! Your a freak, it’s run by terrorists right now

          • Robert P. Robertson

            From my hips to your lips, Great Dic-taker!

          • lana ward

            These scandals got you in a good mood too I see : )

          • Robert P. Robertson

            Not scandals in the sense of what scandals are, lana. More like melodramatics or asininities.

          • lana ward

            You’re hillarious and dead wrong, as usual

          • RickA

            That’s your response to the 200 tonnes of yellowcake uranium from Iraq being stored in Canada? That 200 Tonnes that you claim doesn’t exist?
            Yeah, you BETTER change the subject FAST!

          • Independent1

            Nobody denies it existed – I even admitted that it wasn’t 200 tons but actually more than 500 tons – but that having yellowcake is no evidence whatsover of having WMDs. You read my reply on that which just happened to appear a little later in the blog stream. Get a life!! you’re so clueless it’s absurd!!!

          • BDC_57

            can he read something smart or can he read only the lies on fox fake news

          • lana ward

            OHitler is going to make it a crime to offend muslims (his family) on the internet. How is that for free speech

          • http://www.facebook.com/dominick.vila.1 Dominick Vila

            Former President Reagan did provide WMDs to Saddam Hussein, along with training and military intelligence, during the Iran-Iraq war. The WMDs were destroyed, a fact verified by the IAEA. Facets of the military intelligence provided to Saddam, such as alleged collusion between the Kurds and the Iranians, resulted in a massacre of Kurds and was used to execute Saddam.

          • metrognome3830

            You’re right up-to-date with your information aren’t you, RickA. That whole piece of fiction was completely de-bunked in 2008. Yet, here you are 5 years later, still using it. Actually, there was 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium in Iraq. It had been there since well before the Gulf War and had been identified, catalogued and put in sealed containers by UN weapons inspectors. The uranium was purchased for a project to build a nuclear reactor, but the project never came about. It was stored, sealed and removed from Iraq because of the instability of stored uranium and the unstable political situation in Iraq. At the time Cheney/Bush used the information to start the Iraq invasion, the uranium was long gone. Furthermore, in the condition it was in at the time it was found, it was not in the form it would have to be to build nuclear weapons or even a small “dirty bomb.” And for reporting there was no yellow cake uranium nor any plans to purchase any, Joseph Wilson was retaliated against by having his wife outed as a CIA operative. An action that went totally unpunished. By anyone.

          • http://www.facebook.com/dominick.vila.1 Dominick Vila

            IAEA inspectors did the same to no avail. The decision to invade Iraq has little to do with WMDs and a lot to do with projecting an illusion of revenge over 9/11, the need to transform a pathetic president into a war president, and taking advantage of the chaos to help Friends of Bush.

          • lana ward

            Pathetic is the thing in the WH right now. Pile of shit

          • ChristoD

            Actually, RickA (aka Revisionist Historian), Hussein HAD a nuclear program but it was destroyed by Israel and then he ATTEMPTED to reconstitute it under Clinton and then Bush I Presidency’s. And for your feeble mind, Clinton NEVER went to war with Iraq you lamebrain, it was President Bush I. Remember Desert Storm ? WTF man, get your head out of your ass and stop the damn lying. Respect is EARNED in life and Republicans of today deserve zero respect because they are creating nitwits like you who don’t know what the hell they are talking about and spew nothing but lies.

          • plc97477

            You don’t get out much do you?

          • BDC_57

            No he probably sit home all day listening to fox fake news

          • Sand_Cat

            When did Clinton invade Iraq or lie about WMDs?

            You’re not only delusional, you’re an idiot.

          • RickA

            Clinton administration officials said the aim of the mission was to “degrade” Iraq’s ability to manufacture and use weapons of mass destruction, not to eliminate it. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked about the distinction while the operation was going on:[5]
            “I don’t think we’re pretending that we can get everything, so this is – I think – we are being very honest about what our ability is. We are lessening, degrading his ability to use this. The weapons of mass destruction are the threat of the future. I think the president explained very clearly to the American people that this is the threat of the 21st century. [. . .] [W]hat it means is that we know we can’t get everything, but degrading is the right word.”

          • Lisztman

            You’re right about one thing. Secretary Albright’s quotes. Except that the main thrust of Desert Fox was in the fall of 1998. The Iraqi invasion started by GWBush occurred in 2003. A lot changed across nearly five years, a fact you conveniently ignore.

          • RickA

            Yes, it was called 9/11

          • BDC_57

            Quit your lying only the bush’s went to war with iraq get your facts straight.

          • RickA
          • charleo1

            No, it doesn’t fit the Liberal narrative, I guess.
            But, what I would prefer, is everyone remember
            the historical facts. Because, if we don’t correctly,
            remember where we have been. How do we know
            we aren’t just going in circles?

          • Robert P. Robertson

            charleo, RickA had scampered back to WND. He realized he was on the wrong site.

          • charleo1

            Well, that’s too bad. Because if he had stuck around, he
            might have learned something, or questioned his own facts.
            What is most distressing to me, is their lack of even a general understanding of the subjects, or events. That the information
            they’ve been given, that they absolutely believe to be true,
            runs contrary to the basic facts, that are not in dispute, by
            any other sources, with the exception of Fox News, and it’s
            cohorts of misinformation, conservative talk radio, and these
            often blatantly, false, Right Wing websites. So, they really
            do arrive with their own, well honed, conclusions. Corrupted
            from the get go, on the basis of garbage in, and garbage out.
            Today, Fox was as usual, giving short shrift to the events
            of the day. Preferring to run the so called, scandals, one after
            the other, on more or less a constant loop. The theme,
            closely mirroring the GOPs theme of the day. That Obama,
            and, “his,” scandals were not only, reminiscent of Nixon,
            they were much, much worse! Plus, they don’t worry about
            a credibility problem. They have their audience trained.
            Bachmann, which was in the loop today Describes
            Benghazi, as the incident where our embassy was attacked,
            Obama tried to cover it up, and 4 Americans lost their lives.
            So, the terrorist mob, didn’t kill the men. Barack Obama
            did, when he tried to cover it up. So, if you’re RickA, and
            you believe President Obama killed the Ambassador, and
            we’re still supportive of him. It is, what it is. But disconcerting
            none the less.

          • mah101

            charleo1: I agree. It is indeed unfortunate that we have so many well intentioned, honorable people operating from deliberate misinformation and misdirection to come to well intentioned but factually unsupported conclusions.

            I’d like to be able to have a decent conversation, or debate the issues, but the rhetorical vehemence and willful blindness prevents any meaningful discussion. When you are “evil” because of the conclusions you reach then it is difficult to see how one could take you seriously.

            And I don’t just mean RickA and some of the others here today. Not that I want to promote false equivalency by any means, but some of the left and centrists do this too. The people we talk to hold heartfelt honest convictions. They are our neighbors, friends, and family. We all love our country, so lets try to remember that in our conversations (I’m as guilty as anyone, so this late night ramble is directed at myself as much as anyone else)

            The problem is not with their heartfelt convictions, it is with the fracturing of information today. When you can exclusively rely on sources such as Fox and the Examiner (or National Memo and Washington Post, to be fair), you will have your biases confirmed – that feels good. It makes it seem as though you are on top of a complex and otherwise scary and unpredictable situation. It gives you a sense of control in an otherwise dangerous world. But it does not give us a common base of information upon which we can base disparate conclusions. Instead, it gives us a fractured landscape in which some interests can manipulate, filter, and use allegations as facts in order to present a predetermined perspective.

            That means that if you disagree, you are either a) stupid, b) misinformed, or c) evil. No longer are disagreements due to different views of the same information, disagreements now fundamentally pit virtue against evil, patriot versus tyrant, american versus unamerican. There seems no common ground.

            Yet it is common ground that we must seek. Push for understanding. Reach for points upon which we agree, explore the differences, and above all recognize that those who disagree with you are generally good well intentioned honorable people (not all, I will grant you but most).

            That’s it for me today. Its late and I’m signing off. Just a few last minute late night thoughts.

          • charleo1

            I must say, your comment, in my opinion, ranks at the top
            as being one of the most well thought out, beautifully stated,
            and, in my opinion, undeniably true, comments I’ve ever
            read on the subject. Bringing light to the issue, which
            we all need. Without all the heat, which a lot of us, (Myself included,) need to dial it back, a notch or two. That’s if the
            intent of the conversation, is to have the other guy listen to
            one’s own point of view. While, on the other hand, a lot of
            us, (myself included,) could stand to do some work on our
            own listening skills. As often times, I find the comments of
            the readers of the article, far more, enlightening, and infinitely
            more interesting, than the article itself. Your comment, being the perfect example of that. So, thanks again, for the super post!

          • mah101

            Thank you. I wish I could live up to my own comments

          • Robert P. Robertson

            I wonder if Farts News is covering the scene with John McCain hob-knobbing with alQaeda affliliates in Syria? That’s something worth paying close attention to.

          • charleo1

            I’m not sure what McCain is doing. Is he trying to be helpful?
            Pulling a political stunt? He has been outspoken in favor of the U.S. arming the rebels. So, as best I know, Obama has not ruled the subject in, or out. Deciding instead, to send only humanitarian aid. They are being armed, just not by us. The
            concern, as I see it, is we don’t actually know who the rebel
            army is. Or, perhaps just as important, what any new Gov’t.
            would look like, once Assaud is ousted. In that, we haven’t
            seen the kinds of Gov’ts installed, we would have preferred,
            in any of the places, where the dictator has been overthrown.
            Now, if coming out strongly in support of the uprising, would
            for sure, produce an ally, that would be one thing. But, what
            we’re seeing so far, is these newly formed Gov’ts, have tended to basically be, Theocracies. I think what President Obama would like to see, is a brokered cease fire. Where Assaud, agrees to step down. However, the chances of that happening, are as remote as ever. In fact, if anything, the
            war is widening. The Iranian supported, terrorist group Hezbollah, is reported to be joining the Assaud backed
            Syrian troops. And any thoughts of establishing a no fly
            zone, a la, Libya, to bring the conflict to a swifter end. Just
            became a lot more risky, with Russia delivering to Assaud
            a sophisticated, ground to air missile system. Making what
            was Syria’s civil war, into much more of proxy war, with
            Iran. Which accounts, I believe, for President Obama’s
            very cautious handing of the situation. So as to not allow
            the circumstances, where we are dragged into a war, the vast majority of war weary America, does not want. But, I
            do believe this is one to watch. That has the potential to
            change everything, should it go the wrong way. Glad, we
            have President Obama, and not Mitt Romney in the White
            House. The only bright spot in the whole mess, I can see.

          • lana ward

            OHitler is going to make it a crime to offend muslims on the internet. How is that for free speech

          • RobertCHastings

            At the time of the Clinton “invasion”, the UN had found large caches of WMD around the country. By the time W invaded, these had either expired in their efficacy or had been destroyed, all of which W knew about. The UN had requested and item by item statement regarding all WMDs that had previously been found in Iraq. Hussein responded with an accurate accounting of the destroyed or defunct WMDs, and Bush still used that as a legitimate excuse for a preemptive invasion. After the UN weapons regime had been expelled from Iraq, Bush managed to get American inspectors in, and even they determined there were no WMDs. but Cheney and Wolfowitz, like some Germans from the WWII era that we are all familiar with, were able to lie to the American public and Congress well enough to get Congress to authorize the “Use of Force” Resolution, which was obtained along with the UN’s approval after Powell’s masterful deceit before that body. Revisionist history, such as you have presented, is easily disproved simply by reading – history. You should try it sometime, it can be very enlightening.

          • RickA

            Distraction from Clinton impeachment scandal [edit]

            Some critics of the Clinton administration expressed concern over the timing of Operation Desert Fox.[19] The four-day bombing campaign occurred at the same time the U.S. House of Representatives was conducting the impeachment hearing of President Clinton. Clinton was impeached on December 19, the last day of the bombing campaign. A few months earlier, similar criticism was levelled during Operation Infinite Reach, wherein missile strikes were ordered against suspected terrorist bases in Sudan and Afghanistan, on August 20. The missile strikes began three days after Clinton was called to testify before a grand jury during the Lewinsky scandal and his subsequent nationally televised address later that evening in which Clinton admitted having an inappropriate relationship.

            The Operation Infinite Reach attacks became known as “Monica’s War” among TV news people, due to the timing. ABC-TV announced to all stations that there would be a special report following Lewinsky’s testimony before Congress, then the special report was pre-empted by the report of the missile attacks. The combination of the timing of that attack and Operation Desert Fox led to accusations of a Wag the Dog situation.

            Criticism of the extent of the operation [edit]

            Other critics, such as former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said the attacks did not go far enough: “I would be amazed if a three-day campaign made a decisive difference,” Kissinger said just after the operation ended.

            [W]e did not do, in my view, enough damage to degrade it [Iraq's programs for weapons of mass destruction] for six months. It doesn’t make any significant difference because in six months to a year they will be back to where they are and we cannot keep repeating these attacks. [...] At the end of the day what will be decisive is what the situation in the Middle East will be two to three years from now. If Saddam is still there, if he’s rearming, if the sanctions are lifted, we will have lost, no matter what spin we put on it.[20]

            There were dozens of Iraqi civilians killed by missiles that missed their targets, possibly as many or more Iraqi military, and no U.S. or British casualties.[21]

            While the bombing was ongoing, the Vanguards of Conquest issued a communique to Islamist groups calling for attacks against the United States “for its arrogance” in bombing Iraq.[22]

            According to Charles Duelfer, after the bombing the Iraqi ambassador to the UN told him, “If we had known that was all you would do, we would have ended the inspections long ago.”[23

          • RobertCHastings

            Based on that, I guess it is reasonable to assume that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were little more than a distraction from possible impeachment proceedings?

          • Robert P. Robertson

            It wasn’t really , RickA. Sadam was building Scud missiles that he announced had nuclear capabilities to reach Israel. They were testing uranium they had bought from Russia in what they claimed was a “baby milk factory”. Clinton wanted to send in U.N. Inspectors to investigate, Sadam refused, and vowed to destroy America with the fire. Clinton sent in jets to destroy the “baby milk factory.” It wasn’t an “invasion”. As a matter of fact, right after that, Sadasm test fired his Scud and it turned out to be a dud. That ended Sadam’s nuclear program. Hell, Republicunts criticized Clinton for not acting quick enough.

          • RickA

            Accusations of U.S. interference in the U.N. inspection process [edit]

            Iraq stopped cooperating with the U.N. special commission in the first month of the year, but diplomacy by Kofi Annan brought fresh agreement and new modalities for the inspection of sensitive sites.[8] Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz had earlier accused UNSCOM officials of acting as spies for the United States,[9] charges later supported by Scott Ritter and Bill Tierney.[10]

            According to Ritter, inspectors acted covertly on behalf of the United States to deliberately provoke Iraq into non-compliance, thus providing U.S. war planners with a justification for war.[citation needed] Ritter accused Butler and other UNSCOM staff of working with the U.S., in opposition to their U.N. mandate. He claimed that UNSCOM deliberately sabotaged relations with Iraq by insisting on gathering intelligence unrelated to prohibited weapons, some of which was to be used in the forthcoming bombing.[citation needed]

            Inspectors not thrown out [edit]

            The claim that UNSCOM weapons inspectors were expelled by Iraq has been repeated frequently. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, in his February 5, 2003 speech before the U.N. Security Council, called for action against Iraq and stated falsely that “Saddam Hussein forced out the last inspectors in 1998″.[11] The claim has appeared repeatedly in the news media.[12] However, according to UNSCOM inspector Richard Butler himself, it was U.S. Ambassador Peter Burleigh, acting on instructions from Washington, who suggested Butler pull his team from Iraq in order to protect them from the forthcoming U.S. and British air strikes: “I received a telephone call from US Ambassador Peter Burleigh inviting me for a private conversation at the US mission… Burleigh informed me that on instructions from Washington it would be ‘prudent to take measures to ensure the safety and security of UNSCOM staff presently in Iraq.’ … I told him that I would act on this advice and remove my staff from Iraq.”[13]

            Facilities not known to be producing WMD [edit]

            Gen. Anthony C. Zinni briefs reporters at The Pentagon following Operation Desert Fox, December 21, 1998.

            Former U.S. Army intelligence analyst William Arkin contended in his Washington Post column January, 1999 that the operation had less to do with WMD and more to do with destabilizing the Iraqi government.

            It is clear from the target list, and from extensive communications with almost a dozen officers and analysts knowledgeable about Desert Fox planning, that the U.S.-British bombing campaign was more than a reflexive reaction to Saddam Hussein’s refusal to cooperate with UNSCOM’s inspectors. The official rationale for Desert Fox may remain the “degrading” of Iraq’s ability to produce weapons of mass destruction and the “diminishing” of the Iraqi threat to its neighbours. But careful study of the target list tells another story. Thirty-five of the 100 targets were selected because of their role in Iraq’s air defense system, an essential first step in any air war, because damage to those sites paves the way for other forces and minimizes casualties all around. Only 13 targets on the list are facilities associated with chemical and biological weapons or ballistic missiles, and three are southern Republican Guard bases that might be involved in a repeat invasion of Kuwait. The heart of the Desert Fox list (49 of the 100 targets) is the Iraqi regime itself: a half-dozen palace strongholds and their supporting cast of secret police, guard and transport organizations.[14]
            According to Charles Duelfer, after the bombing the Iraqi ambassador to the UN told him, “If we had known that was all you would do, we would have ended the inspections long ago.”[23]

          • Lisztman

            Sorry, Rick. You keep forgetting to notice that it was nearly five years between the major thrust of Desert Fox in December 1998 and President Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003. In between, Saddam’s WMD program went away. Died. Got destroyed. This fact was ignored by Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney — and they had all sorts of reasons for invading Iraq — not the least of which was “they tried to kill my daddy.”

          • lana ward

            Iraqs’ WMDs didn’t die or go away, they’re in Syria

          • Lisztman

            BTW, nice of you to provide those long quotes. Complete with footnote numbers. It would help if you’d tell us where they came from.

          • Lisztman

            No. RickA — maybe someday you’ll grow up and read a history book.
            In the ’90’s it was generally acknowledged that Saddam Hussein was building, or attempting to build, chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. And he threw out UN weapons inspectors. But Desert Fox was, for all practical purposes, 4 days of intense targeted bombing raids to reduce that capability. The country (Iraq) was not invaded. Tens of thousands of American (and other) soldiers were not sent off to war. Saddam Hussein was left in power, although a reduced power.
            A rather detailed analysis, with bibliography:
            http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2012/08/how-operation-desert-fox-finished-off.html

          • RickA

            Bill Clinton to the rescue. What an effective use of force to defeat Saddams WMD program.

            According to Charles Duelfer, after the bombing the Iraqi ambassador to the UN told him, “If we had known that was all you would do, we would have ended the inspections long ago.”[23
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(December_1998)

        • Robert P. Robertson

          And all of the trillions through Haliburton and Blackwater

      • http://www.facebook.com/dominick.vila.1 Dominick Vila

        President Clinton was not in office when a case to invade Iraq was made by Cheny and his neocons, and he was long gone by the time the invasion took place.

        • RickA

          Clinton administration officials said the aim of the mission was to “degrade” Iraq’s ability to manufacture and use weapons of mass destruction
          From Wiki article on Operation Desert Fox.

          • Independent1

            And the mission did just that: Degraded Saddam’s ability to create WMDs so he stopped trying. Which is why there were none when Bush was looking for an excuse to attack Iraq and had to lie his way into going forward with an unnecessary attack on Iraq that ended up killing almost 5,000 Americans and countless Iraqis. What point other than that are you trying to make?? Or are you still just plain clueless???

      • RobertCHastings

        Interesting that both Bushes encircle Clinton, on having the good sense to get a coalition of virtually all of our allies and most of the players in the region, the other getting a coalition of the basically unwilling, and totally against the wishes of both the UN and whatever allies we had in the region. The first Bush invaded Iraq with just cause, with universal support and acclaim, and left after he had met his limited aims. The second one was based entirely on deceit and, truth be known, SHOULD have led to impeachment.

        • RickA

          With all the “evidence” you claim exists to support the impeachment of Bush, why didn’t the Democrat congress impeach him? I suppose Pelosi and Reid are just to nice to do soemthing like that?

          • RobertCHastings

            So you think that what I have said is, shall we say inaccurate? Try reading a little history. This is not stuff that you have to fill out an FOIA form for. Apparently you weren’t around while it was going on, or, like most Republicans, thought it was all okay because we were at war.

          • Independent1

            You really aren’t that stupid are you?? To make a comment like” Why didn’t the Democrat congress impeach him?” When any idiot would know that would have been a totally fruitless effort with the GOP holding both houses of congress. And even though the Dems held the House in 2006 they didn’t hold the Senate, so again that would have been a worthless effort; And when they had control of both houses for 7 months in 2009, Bush had so trashed the economy that the Dems had the good sense to focus on trying to fix the country – which is something the GOP has never had – “Good Sense”. Just look at how they’ve allowed millions of even their own voters languish in unemployment for years, refusing to pass any of Obama’s job creation legislation; which had they voted for 3 years ago, millions of Republicans (and Democrats) that have been languishing on unemployment would be working today. But again: REPUBLICANS HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE FOR DOING ANYTHING GOOD!!!! Their focus is always about seeing how much of the middleclass taxpayers’ money they can rip off and stuff into the pockets of people that already have more money than any person on earth ever deserved to have.

          • RickA

            Wow! You actually posted this in a public forum. I hate to break it to you but George Bush left office in January 2009. Democrats took over the congress in Jan. 2007. That gave them 2 YEARS to apply all this “evidence” you have compiled against Bush to his impeachment. For some reason, they didn’t see such an open and shut case as you do. But what did you expect from such nice, go along to get along democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?
            Also note that presidents cannot be impeached AFTER they leave office, they can, however, be charged with crimes they committed while in office. Bush has been out over 4 years now, where are the indictments?

          • Independent1

            Sorry, but the Dems did not have enough in the Senate to prevent the GOP from using the filibuster to stop anything they didn’t want passed until January 2009, and only then until Ted Kennedy died in August, then Scott Brown being elected to replace Ted kept them from their 60 vote majority – better go back to your search board. And even now when the Dems have had more than 50 in the Senate since Obama was elected, Mitch boy has used the filibuster more than 400 times to prevent the Dems from getting ANYTHING PASSED!!! You’d better wake up!! You’re showing just how clueless you are!!!! And about the indictments – Dems don’t have the 60 votes to get the indictment.

      • RobertCHastings

        There was no invasion, per se, merely an extended aerial assault, not much more serious than that executed by Reagan against Libya in the 80s. No American boots hit the ground and there were no liberation celebrations. Congress did not even appropriate weapons for the exercise, they just authorized the president to deplete already existing supplies and weaponry. Your comparison is rather inaccurate, especially since Republicans along with Democrats approved of the action, even after all repercussions had passed, unlike the backlash from Congress after the invasion of Iraq and the discovery of the Bush lies.

      • Lisztman

        You’re grossly oversimplifying the situation. And, FYI, Desert Fox ran through the ’90’s (yes, primarily during the Clinton administration, although it was started during that of Bush, Sr.). The Iraq war (Bush, Jr’s child, or Cheney’s, if you prefer) was not started until 2003 — so you’re missing a bunch of years of data.
        http://www.defense.gov/specials/desert_fox/timeline.html
        http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2012/08/how-operation-desert-fox-finished-off.html

    • kdisg

      Hey Dominick: you sure hit it right but you must always remember every republican now is a bullsh_t artist, all they want now is to get Obama hated even more than they are and make up stories kind of like FOX make it all up news does on a daily basis. Fake wars, not paying taxes for friends and the criminal list goes on and on for these criminals. and we pay them over $190 grand a year EACH!!! sick aint it

    • mike

      Will Benghazi be another Watergate? Only time will tell, just remember it took months for all the facts to be known. Only after people were put under oath did the facts emerge. IRS scandal keeps growing, as does Holder’s attack on Freedom of the Press.

      What I find humorous is Conason statement: “thoroughly investigated by independent board”. That is just not true. Another example of misinformation by the left.

      The Inquiry Board only REVIEWED Security issues and recommended changes. Titles of the final report: Overarching Security Consideration, Training and awareness, Security and Fire Safety, Intelligence and Threat Analysis, Personnel and Accountability, Staffing High Risk and High Threat Posts.

      What is unknown is all that went down at the White House, Depart. of State, CIA, FBI during the hours of the terrible tragedy and what looks like cover ups after the attack. The American people desire the truth.

      Dom, show us the suspected perjury documents, you must know where to find them, or is this another falsehood like the MM maligning, insulting, threatening Obama since 2009? I am still waiting for the proof you so vociferously claimed happened.

      • Independent1

        Pure BS!! Bengazhi is nothing more an just another GOP conspiracy theory that they’ve even gone to the extent of modifying the Whitehouse emails in just one more attempt to justify a witch hunt. And if you’re so up in arms about Benghazi, where were you when there were 14 attacks on the U.S. during Georgie Boys’ 8 years, many of which were far worse than Benghazi. In fact there were 3 attacks on one consulate that resulted in 18 people being killed including a diplomat (not 4) and 51 were injured – where was the GOP outrage about those attacks??? HUH!!! Talk about hypocrites – noone could be bigger hypocrites than the GOP!!!

        Here’s the record of the last 3 GOP administrations – lets see you explain the 31 attacks and more than 3,500 dead away!!!! Including the 241 Marines that were killed in their barracks while sleeping during Reagan’s second term.

        Bush Years there were 14 attacks with more than 3,050 deaths including more than 3,000 Americans:
        2001 – World Trade Center, New York and Pentagon, DC; 3,000 Americans killed
        2002 – US Consulate Calcutta, India attacked, 5 Killed
        2002 – US Consulate in Karachi Pakistan attacked, 12 killed; 51 injured.

        2002- US Diplomatic office Denpasar, Indonesia bombed, no one
        killed

        2003 – International Compound, Saudi Arabia, 17 killed .
        2003 – US Consulate, Karachi, Pakistan,2 killed.
        2004 – US Embassy bombed in Uzbekistan, 2 killed 9 injured.
        2004 – US Consulate Saudi Arabia, 8 killed. 2006 – US Consulate, Karachi, Pakistan, 4 killed including US diplomat.
        2006 – US Embassy, Syria, 4 killed and 13 wounded.
        2007 – Grenade launched into the US Embassy in Athens.
        2008 – US Embassy, Serbia, attacked by thousands, no one killed.
        2008 – US Consulate, Turkey, 3 killed.
        2008 – US Embassy in Yemen bombed, 13 killed

        – Under George HW Bush, there were 12 Embassy attacks with 60
        being killed.
        – Under Reagan, there were 7 Embassies attacked with 31
        being killed including 17 Americans; not
        to mention 241 Marines killed in their barracks in Beirut Lebanon .

  • docb

    Well and succinctly said.Total screaming meme liars obsessive compulsive repub baggers waste of time and tax payer $$$$! National Security is the issue..Last year the baggers were screaming to stop the leaks..DOJ is doing just that..Shut up and do your job of creating jobs and helping the economy, dumb puck Congressional repubs!

    • gotroy22

      Really? Link where Mitt and the Republicans made that a campaign issue. I love exposing D Bag liars like you.

      • docb

        June 10 article in the Washington Times:

        “Sen. John McCain ripped the White House again Sunday over national security leaks, putting the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of President Obama.

        “I have no idea whether the president knew,” Mr. McCain, Arizona Republican, said early Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “The president may not have done it himself, but the president is certainly responsible as the commander in chief”.

        Now who is the dissembling prevaricator, roy?.

        • BillP

          When you provide those “liberal” things like facts and the truth the right wing trolls seem to disappear. Goo comment.

    • ddffdfff

      Wait till we Blue staters refuse to keep subsidizing the red state takers.

      • RickA

        All those financially sound blue states like New York, California, Illinois, MIchigan…… Don’t let the door hit ya……

        • Lynda Groom

          California is projected to have a surplus this year of over $1 billion dollars according to Brown and over $4 billion from independent economic studies. What is your point?

          • RickA
          • Independent1

            I’d certainly go there before I’d go to the Cesspool of America – the Red State in total disrepair – TEXAS!! I defy you to find a blue state that even comes close to matiching the disaster that Texas is. Here’s some stats on Texas for you:
            ·
            Texas is 49th in the country in tax revenues collected per capita and 50th in revenues spent.
            .It’s 44th in tax progressivity, which means it collects most of its taxes from working people and it comes in 50th in the percent of its population that have a HS diploma.
            .It ranks 46th in the overall SAT scores it’s students get on entrance exams; and 49th in what it pays its teachers.
            .It ranks dead last (50th) in having the most people without health insurance and also dead last in the number of children covered by insurance.
            .Its 49th in the support it provides to women & children in the WIC program, and it leads the nation in teenage births.
            .It ranks 6th in the nation in the number of people living in poverty and 50th with regard to the affordability of homeowners insurance.
            .Texas ranks 45th in the overall health of its population and 47th with respect to mental health.
            .The quality of the highways in Texas is ranked 42nd and its parks and recreation facilities are ranked 48th and environmental protection 46th
            . Police protection is ranked 49th and government administration 50th.
            .Texas comes in 3rd in the nation in the number of public officials that are convicted for a crime; while being dead last in the percent of voters who turn out for elections.
            .It’s 46th in the hourly earnings of its workers and 48th in the payout of worker’s comp benefits.
            .And Texas ranks as having the most polluted environment in the nation due to all the oil spills and all the refineries and coal fired power plants spewing toxic fumes..

            By what other measure does Texas have to turn up
            close to last before people realize that by moving there they’re simply moving to what is really the cesspool of the nation. And I’m also amazed, that with a dismal record like the above, Rick Perry would even consider running for president of the US???

            And I’d go to California before I’d go to the Red States of Mississippi or Louisiana – the murder capitals of the nation. The only two states with more than 10 murders each year/100,000 population; And the two states with the highest percent of their populations living in poverty and sucking the most welfare in the nation.

          • RickA

            Guess that explains why everybody abandoning the liberal states and moving to Texas! Funny, I seem to recall OBAMA travelling to Texas last week to point out the great economy there. Guess he didn’t get your talking points.

      • docb

        Hear Hear, ddff! It will not happen… Dems are Pro-American not anti-american as has been exhibited by the repub do nothings that voted against Sandy relief, and jobs, and infrastructure, etc etc!

    • RickA

      DOJ is DOING that?? Really?
      Better check your time frame.

  • Wale

    At some point you’d think the GOP would be like “wait a minute, lets not make our state of desperation too obvious. Let’s put a dash of legitimacy here and there to mix things up a bit”

    • Robert P. Robertson

      You’re exactly right, Wale. We have yet to see a legitimate claim made by any Republicunt/neo-Confederate Tea Bag. They dig deep in their Acme Bag O’ Tricks for gadgets only to have them blow up in their faces, or to have an anvil, a boulder, or a piano drop from the sky onto their heads.

    • plc97477

      But then it wouldn’t be the gop.

  • latebloomingrandma

    I get so tired of comparisons to Nixon or Hitler. Only Hitler was Hitler, and only Nixon, (the most paranoid person to ever occupy the Presidency) , was Nixon. Nixon should be a case study in schools of psychiatry. Obama is a lot of things, but unbalanced is not one of them.
    This column reminds me why the elephant is such an appropriate symbol for Republicans. Elephants are intelligent animals, but are notoriously near-sighted, and usually can’t see beyond the end of their noses. I guess they just thunder almost blindly through their jungle life.

    • Robert P. Robertson

      Or maybe their symbol is the elephant because of the big steamy dumps they leave behind them.

    • The_Magic_M

      Elephants should be a symbol of an excellent memory – but that doesn’t say elephants don’t pretend to have forgotten things, or that things were different it if suits their purpose. ;)

  • disqus_ivSI3ByGmh

    You know. Maybe the Republican Party should have listened to Eisenhower back in ’52 and nominated someone like Bob Taft or Earl Warren as his Veep. Nixon would have continued on his path of being the House equivalent of Joe McCarthy and retired to a well-deserved obscurity.
    Just think. The Federal Interstate Highway act would have been sent back to the House and Senate to be rewritten the way Ike wanted it. The executive order that sent “military advisers” to assist the ARVN would not have been signed. Nor would any of the other actions approved by Nixon while he temporarily held the power of the Presidency during Ike’s recovery.

  • Jeffrey Darmstadt

    Let’s state this very simply, so everybody will understand. Nobody died in watergate like they did in Benghazi,,,and Nixon got nixed over one scandle while Obama tries to duck and cover up three. It was the coverup that got Nixon, which will also bring down Obama. WE THE PEOPLE do not long suffer a fool, let alone a prevaricating deceiving fool who seeks to rule behind closed doors in his and Holder’s Furher bunker.

    • charleo1

      You’re an idiot. And you don’t speak for, WE THE PEOPLE.

      • RickA

        Now THAT’S a profound response!

    • The_Magic_M

      > Nobody died in watergate like they did in Benghazi

      Newsflash: not even Darrell Issa entertains your RWNJ folly that Obama’s actions or inactions caused the death of four people. The GOP trumps up the aftermath of the event, not the event itself.

    • Ron Cram

      You are absolutely right Jeffrey. Why did no one testify “We tried to save those people. We got to Benghazi as fast as we could!”? Because the Obama Administration insisted no help be sent to save American lives. This is contrary to our values, ideals and history. It is inexcusable. Where was Obama? The WH claims his location is irrelevant which is why some people are suggesting he was high on cocaine at the time. Was he high? I can’t prove it, but the WH can’t, or won’t, discuss where he was and that leaves him open to all kinds of speculation and rumor.

      • Lynda Groom

        Where do you get this crap that the Obama administration insisted that help not be sent? Please pay attention to the facts and stop listening to Beck et al.

        • Ron Cram
          • mah101

            Ron, please note the following, and repeat after me:

            Unsubstantiated allegations are not facts.

            For example: I claim, and according to me my sources are credible, that John Boehner is a closet transvestite and that he and Mitch McConnell dress in drag on saturday nights and make the rounds of the transvestite bars in the DC area.

            That is an unsubstantiated allegation. Even I don’t think it is a fact (though I would find it highly amusing should it prove to be so).

            Next time someone asks for facts, remember this difference and DO try to respond with facts. Those of us in the reality-based world really do like our facts.

          • plc97477

            breitbart is even less believable than you. At least try to find some some source that is not totally debunked.

      • plc97477

        Because the repubs voted down the money to hire security forces to go in and help.

    • itsfun

      Why has Carney given 5 different time frames on what happened in Benghazi?

  • Flyoverman

    GOP this, crazy tea baggers that. Fine. Heard that all. What McConnell, Issa, Noehner, et al, have to say? i don’t care.
    Since the assumption by most out here is that these are all trumped up charges then you will have no problem with having an independent investigation of the IRS, the EPA, HHS, the State Department and the President’s staff.
    We can start will all incoming and out going communications and all staff logs for Africa Command , as well as, those of its subordinate commands for the period 24 hours prior to and 72 hours after the attack on Benghazi. Let’s see what they contain.
    By law any records they posses are the PEOPLE’s records. During Iran Contra, Reagan ordered all of his subordinates to coooperate and did not once invoke executive privilege once. Let’s see the “most transparent administration ever” Cowboy up.

    • The_Magic_M

      > Since the assumption by most out here is that these are all trumped up charges then you will have no problem with having an independent investigation

      … whose propaganda value the GOP will reap even if nothing comes out of it.

      The old “if you don’t have something to hide, open up your bedroom, your diary and your bank account to the world” fallacy.

      > During Iran Contra, Reagan ordered all of his subordinates to coooperate and did not once invoke executive privilege once.

      So you are saying because Reagan cooperated with investigating a real scandal, Obama should cooperate with investigating a trumped-up one? Is this RWNJ logic 102?

      • Flyoverman

        Your evidence that the charges are trumped up is what? Because you say it is? Here is a hard fact.
        Flight time for an AC-130 Spectre gunship from Aviano, Italy to Benghazi, Libya s 90 minutes. The two ex-navy SEALS who were killed died 7 hours after the intial report of an attack on that location. Anyone want to tell me why Spectre never showed up?
        Well none of you Obama defenders can say why it did not. I and every sngle military veteran in the country wants to know why that asset or all of the other assets at Africa Command’s disposal did not show up.
        So let’s have an inquiry and see why.

        • The_Magic_M

          What exactly does a gunship do if shots are fired within a civilian city? Just rain fiery hell from the sky?

          Gotta love those “war is just something I win on my PC every day” types who have no concept of military ROE or rescue strategy.

          > I and every sngle military veteran in the country wants to know

          Quite telling that you say “veteran”, not “soldier”. Maybe those who are in the armed forces now know a little more about such situations than people whose claim to faim is “I burnt some bushes in Vietnam, Napalm FTW!”?

          • Flyoverman

            You have no idea what an AC-130 can do. I do. Oh yes, fiery hell, but very precisely laid down hell. The same AC-130 that was denied the Rangers in Somalia in 1993. That turned out well too, didn’t it? Never have a Democrat on your flank.
            That was one of dozens of “tools” available. Yes, I am a veteran and a soldier. 25 years all in combat arms, mostly infantry with two years exereience in a command similar to Africa Command. I know the tools, I know the capabilities and limitations and I sure as h@11 know how the chain of command works.
            So my Progresive friend, tell me, who has the authority to tell the commander of Africa Command to stand down? The answer is two people, neither of them is a military officer. Want to go there? By all means, let’s go there.
            And being a soldier, I also have a BS meter. And it has been going off since 9/11/12.

          • mah101

            Libya.

            Sovereign nation.

            Libya responsible for security of embassies and consulates.

            Invading other countries with AC-130 gunships raining fiery hell from the skies in a civilian area – that’s called violating their sovereign territory, really pisses off the locals, and is likely to taint any relations we have with the newly forming government.

            So, yes, sure we can rain fiery hell from the sky. We’ve been able to do that for decades. Yet it is not fiery hell from the sky that is how you grow fragile and tenuous relationships with a new government in a country with whom you hope to develop friendly and productive relationships.

          • Flyoverman

            I have seem Rules of engagement that were one page. I have seen them as thick as a phone book. They always end with the same sentence. “However, the right to self-defense is never denied.”

            That “civilian area” is the same as a mosque. A mosque is a mosque until someone from inside it is trying to kill you. Then the mosque comes a target area.

            At the point in time that Americans are enduring an UNPROVOCKED attack be a force equally two infantry companies, anything outside the perimeter is a target area. If you are a civilian and you have not left the area by then, well Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection comes into play.

            Trust me when those terrorists moved in to prepare for their assault the civilians got out of there.

          • mah101

            We were not at war with Libya, and the right of self defense is balanced with other needs such as the need to maintain fragile relationships with a new government in Libya.

            These postings are hazardous duty. The people that died in Libya knew that. They gave their lives in the service of this country. We should give them the respect they deserve – and that is a hell of a lot.

            Do we need answers? Sure. We don’t want to create situations like this again in the future. Is that what the current investigations are about? Not even close. Its a political witch hunt.

            Frankly, I think you dishonor their sacrifice by calling to undermine the causes that they died for, but that’s just me…

          • Flyoverman

            We are not at war with Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, New York City, Foot Hood, or Boston either.

            Americans go into harms way every day, but they all know that one thing is certain. I knew that one thing was certain. I would never be left behind, I would never die without someone coming to get me te “H” out of there..

            I have seen soldiers do near suicidal things to go after someone in trouble. I want to know why these people were left. There may not have been time to save the Ambassador and his assistant. But the other two who died and the other 20+ wounded were needless casualties.

            I find it incredible that you don’t care to ask. I find it incredible after nine months we cannot even talk to the survivors. I do not care why they were there or why their security was inadequate. I’ll give them a pass. But there is no excuse for not coming to their aid when they were attacked. Not once in our military history has that ever happened. You willingly accept leaving people to die when there are assets to save them and people willing to go?

            You do not find it odd the Secretary of State and Commander in Chief SUPPOSEDLY vanish during an attack? Hillary knew Chris Stevens as a personal friend. She disappears when he’s in imminent danger. You find that behavior normal. I have never met you, but I know you would never do that nor would I nor would anyone I know regardless of political persuasion.

          • plc97477

            No you can’t be bush he couldn’t spell and made up words when he couldn’t spell the one he wanted. You spell fairly well so you are not bush. Had me going there for a while though.

          • mah101

            I believe you will find that we are in a declared state of conflict in Afghanistan and Yemen, we have thumbed our noses (perhaps appropriately) at Pakistan, and if anyone EVER flew a AC-130 over, and rained fire from the sky upon, New York City, Fort Hood, or Boston you would have a constitutional crisis of a scale not seen in 150 years. So lets DO keep some perspective.

            Further, I never said I don’t care to ask. I would like to know what happened and what can be done to prevent it in the future. That, however, is not the GOP’s goal. They have not shown any real interest in that issue, only in trying to link the president to some supposed cover up.

          • Flyoverman

            I believe you missed my point. When rounds start heading your way the “law” goes out window and you use what you need to use to save the lives of the people in danger, Also you fire back with what you have at hand and can call for. Further, everyone who can shows up wih everything they can bring.

            On 9/11/ 2001 after the Trade Denters and Pentagon were hit, NORAD fighters received orders to shoot down any airliner in bound. The civilians on those airliners were considered to be expendable to save others. That is the kind of decision one makes when “war in fact” comes knocking.
            Firemen accept the risks of their profession, but other fireman do not leave them to die in a birning building becasue they do not have the owners permission to come on to his property. And the fire chief sure as “H” wuld not order people to stand down. If he did everyone would want to know why.

          • mah101

            Nope, didn’t miss your point. Sometimes your objective is best achieved by means other than shooting at everything.

            Did that occur to you? That there might be more to the decision than just some John Wayne cowboy shoot out?

        • ddffdfff

          Where does the gunship land?

          • Flyoverman

            Good question.

            Ideally, back in Italy, if it needs fuel it can refuel in the air. In a pinch most anywhere in the region. An AC-130 only needs 700 feet or so, not sure. They can land on any number of surfaces.

        • plc97477

          In fact flyoverman reminds me of the way bush looked at the problems of our country.

      • RickA
        • The_Magic_M

          Only about the IRS,. not Benghazi which I was referring to.

          • RickA

            Clearly you ignored the poll results.Speaking of Benghazi, you should also be aware that the Benghazi scandal is quickly sinking Hilliary as well.
            http://washingtonexaminer.com/hillarys-approval-ratings-plummet-benghazi-scandal-blamed/article/2530890
            Down, down, down they go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • The_Magic_M

            > Clearly you ignored the poll results.

            No, you do:

            * Only 24% consider Benghazi important.

            * “But voters say 73 – 22 percent that dealing with the economy and unemployment is a higher priority than investigating these three issues.”

            So why doesn’t the GOP do that first?

          • darkagesbegin

            well, that is the whole point, isn’t it. Let’s just keep stirring until we cook up something we can destroy Hillary with, and therefore the Democratic Party, because, God knows, we won’t be able to win on our own ideas and our own record. Everyone can see what 30 plus years of Republicanism has done to the country and to the people–the real people that matter- the middle class. The middle class that work hard and build wealth are the real job creators and wealth makers in this country. Wealth does not trickle down, it wells up. Quit taking money from the middle class and giving it to the undeserving–corporations and the rich.

          • RickA

            Republicans are powerless to destroy Obama or Clinton. They are doing it all by themselves.

      • itsfun

        What is trumped up about the IRS SCANDLE? The IRS reports directly to the executive branch of our government. Obama is the executive branch of our government. He says he knows nothing about a agency that reports directly to him. This makes him either a incompentent manager or a liar.

        • The_Magic_M

          First, it’s “scanDAL”, my homophonically challenged RWNJ friend.

          Second, you assume that because an agency reports to someone, that someone has to know every detail and every internal regulation.
          That’s like claiming the CEO of Chrysler knows when his technical team replaces a chip manufactured in France with one manufactured in Spain.

          Third, you base your “scandal” on partial information. Claiming that only conservative groups were “targeted” as potentially violating their tax-exempt status is like claiming only men were arrested for murder in NYC last year. Of course it looks that way if nobody is reporting how many women were arrested.

          • RickA

            Are you aware WHO is responsible for the EXECUTIVE branch of the Federal government?

          • The_Magic_M

            Now you are talking political responsibility, not “being guilty”.

            Since you brought up Reagan, did he take responsibility for Iran-Contra? Did he resign? Was he impeached?

            Yeah, I didn’t think so.

          • itsfun

            Seems like they must have talked about something during the 157 visits

            From The Daily Caller:

            Publicly released records show that embattled former IRS Commissioner
            Douglas Shulman visited the White House at least 157 times during the
            Obama administration, more recorded visits than even the most trusted
            members of the president’s Cabinet.

            Obama officials who’ve visited the White House (As prepared by The Daily Caller)

            Shulman’s extensive access to the White House first came to light
            during his testimony last week before the House Oversight and Government
            Reform Committee. Shulman gave assorted answers when asked why he had
            visited the White House 118 times during the period that the IRS was
            targeting tea party and conservative nonprofits for extra scrutiny and
            delays on their tax-exempt applications.

            Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/29/irss-shulman-had-more-public-white-house-visits-than-any-cabinet-member/#ixzz2Uu9WUXZ4

          • plc97477

            Maybe they talked about the giants or the mets or which beer goes best with pizza.

    • Monkey-Wrench

      You’re an idiot, you’re the kind of person that rants against wasting tax payer dollars until it’s convenient for you to want to spend tax payer dollars… then it’s necessary… Keeping fishing for turds moron.

      • Flyoverman

        The GAO reports that the Executive Branch wastes $125 billion annually. Their report not mine. We can afford it.
        You have no answer for my post other than a personal atack. Which shows what you have for facts regarding these allegations. All leftists have in this instance are personal attacks.
        Here’s my personal attack. This administration is corrupt to the core and you know it. You’re too intellectually dishonest to admt you were an idiot to believe all of the nonsense they have spewed since 2007. The facts are starting to come out and you can’t handle it.

      • RickA

        Another well reasoned and informative response from the left!

        • plc97477

          I was pretty impressed with it also.

    • plc97477

      “cowboy up” reminds me of a really horrible president. Did you ever hear of him? bush. In fact I wonder if you might be him.

  • Jeffrey Darmstadt

    Obama will just do what he has done in the past. Call another behind closed door meeting chaired by Eric Holder from whom he gets HIS advice which just ADDS VICE to our American Government. This is what you get when you elect the weak of the collective to rule over the individually American Strong. When you know you and your ideology are weak, you can only survice and thrive through deception in deeds done in the dark and pray the media does not bring them into the light which will wither you. These shrinking violets had better get ready for the Constituional tanning booth which will reveal their political melanomas and warts that reside beneath their soiled political undergarments.

    • charleo1

      What does “We the people,” mean to you? Your ideology needs some
      work. America is not, nor has it ever been, a Country where the will of
      an individual superseded the will, and common good, of the people.
      We are not strong by the credo that states every man for himself. I’ve
      got mine Jack, so everyone else can go to blazes. That’s the mentality
      of the dictatorship. It legitimizes the position of the ruthless. That by
      his own ability, after eliminating all that stood in the way, he has
      demonstrated his strength. And reaffirmed our belief in the natural
      correctness of our single, guiding principal. That to the victor belongs
      the spoils, Where only the strongest survive. So, congratulations!
      You’ve just won an all expense paid, one way trip to Somalia!

  • Fred Elliott Sr.

    Benghazi had nothing on how many died from Bush and Cheney lies about weapons of mass destruction. You can’t compare a few deaths too hundreds of thousands dead or seriously injured. Cheney said he’d do it all over again. Republicans voted against funding for more security, then cry when security can’t protect an embassy.

    • The_Magic_M

      Especially since nothing the administration did about Benghazi resulted in a single death.

      Not even the GOP claims that (only the right-wing blogosphere); the GOP is “only” claiming the administration tried to cover up a terrorist background (and their argument is because the admin didn’t trumpet “al-Something did it!” at once, this was some nefarious cover-up instead of protecting an ongoing investigation – I mean, did the Boston Marathon bombing investigation name the bombers on the very day the bomb exploded?).

  • charleo1

    It is fact, the Conservative Right has been working very diligently over the past
    25/30 years now, to attempt to rewrite history. And use their corrupted version
    of it, to support their ideology. For example, public school students in Louisiana,
    thanks to their Governor Bobby Jindal, will be learning from texts that have man-
    kind, sharing the planet with dinosaurs. And, depicting, the Founding Fathers,
    as a group of Bible toting, Christian Fundamentalist. That through divine Provi-
    dence, wrote The Constitution, and it’s accompanying Bill Of Rights. So, there-
    fore, by all Rights, America’s correct name should be The United Christian,
    States Of America. The Koch Foundation, headed by Charles, and David Koch,
    are making the rounds to many cash starved colleges, and universities, offering
    an endowment, if the schools will, “tweak,” their curriculum, to put labor unions,
    in a much less favorable light. While touting, and lionizing free market ideologues,
    like Ayn Rand. And the dangers posed to businesses, by a large overbearing,
    Federal Government, and disparaging the social safety net, as enabling poverty.
    So, in today’s America, things that once preceded tumultuous changes in the
    past, like the wholesale burning of books, is unnecessary. Just write new ones,
    that teach, and promote a specific agenda, and simply hand them to America’s innocent children. And allow the propaganda to do the rest.

    • Robert P. Robertson

      As usual, charleo, you’re on point, my friend.

      • charleo1

        Hey. I’m going to place a, “like,” on that superb comment.
        Sir: You are obviously, a gentleman, and scholar!

        • plc97477

          He is good at seeing points too.

          • charleo1

            Indeed.

          • Fern Woodfork

            I Totally Agree With You Both!! :-)

  • Fred Elliott Sr.

    creating a scandal is the only way to take the shine off Obama kicking GOP butt twice and worst the second time. mitt even lost the Mormon vote. now you’re realizing YOU’RE the new minority and you don’t like it. LIVE WITH IT !

    • RickA

      And how much did the recently exposed VOTER INTIMIDATION program advanced by the IRS have to do with Obama’s “victory”? Without ACORN around to throw the election, he needed some massive vote fraud scheme to avoid another 2010 LANDSLIDE defeat! Recall all the questioning last year, Where is the TEA party vote? Well, now we know!

      • mah101

        RickA: Just what was the result of that ACORN investigation again?

        The tea party vote is a small minority of the American voting public. I’m sorry if the only people you ever talk to share your perspectives thus making it seem like there are more of you than there are. That is on you – get out and meet some more people. Stop listening to others only long enough to confirm your biases.

        The only person to steal the vote recently was George W. Bush in 2000

        • RickA

          And the 2010 LANDSLIDE never happened either, right?

          • mah101

            Past glories…

            Don’t count on it happening again in 2014

            Or do, I really don’t care what you count on. Just know that it is quite unlikely to happen again anytime soon.

          • RickA
          • plc97477

            You are right finally.

          • Independent1

            First of all, polls are notoriously wrong, but considering the poll was taken at the height of the GOP’s and medias misinformation on each of the purported scandals – wait a couple weeks until the news gets out that these were ‘ manufactured scandals’ by the GOP and aren’t really systemic government problems. And I guess you just chose to overlook the fact that despite the “scandals” the Dems negative rating is only a 5 point spread whereas the GOP is still viewed negatively by a 15 point spread and the Teaparty by a 10 point spread. I don’t see where you have anything to be feeling good about.

  • TZToronto

    I sometimes get the feeling that GOP members of Congress draw straws every once in a while to see who is going to say stupid things about the Obama administration. . . . Of course, some members keep drawing the short straw.

    • plc97477

      I think the ones with diarrhea of the mouth are freebies. They just like saying stupid things.

  • alphaomega80537

    Nixon had the decency to resign. Obama is too power hungry. I thought Nixon and Bush were horrible presidents, then we were given this “gem” which is Obama. He’s taken all the bad ideas and implemented them. He’s done more damage to this country in 4 years than all other administrations combined. Sad.

    • The_Magic_M

      The typical RWNJ boilerplate language without a single example of what actually amounts to “Nixonian” dimensions, including a President who basically considered himself above the law, firing the special prosecutor who was supposed to investigate him.

      • RickA

        Who could ever believe Obama or Holder considers himself “above the law”?

        • The_Magic_M

          I’m talking actual proof, not speculation fueled by illogical hatred.

          • RickA

            Actual proof like Obama lying blaming a terrorist attack on a silly Youtube video, or Holder lying to congress about finding out about the F&F program on the news or not knowing about the wiretaps on James Rosen. On a warrant HE signed!
            Is THAT actual proof??????
            Perhaps if the House found Holder in contempt of congress for lying to congress under oath, and passed that contempt charge with a bi-partisan vote, then you would consider THAT to be actual proof……………..Oh, that’s right, they ALREADY DID THAT!

          • The_Magic_M

            > Actual proof like Obama lying blaming a terrorist attack on a silly Youtube video

            How does that prove he “considers himself as above the law”?
            Why, because he didn’t trumpet silly things that might harm an ongoing investigation? Because he didn’t believe anything he reads on Twitter about who “claims responsibility”?
            He’s the President, not the editor of your favourite private blog.

    • charleo1

      Hey, there are millions who have a great admiration for this President.
      That happens to include me. I’m proud of my President. When was the
      last time, you could say that? And, if you need to go back 25 years, to
      Reagan. Maybe the problem is you.

      • RickA

        When was the last time you could say that?
        Not in the past FOUR YEARS!

        • charleo1

          Don’t be speaking for me. You don’t want to be like the
          ignorant T-Party, do you? They don’t know what they’re
          for either. It’s always a lot harder to come with solutions,
          than it is to stand on the sidelines, and throw spit wads.

    • elw

      Nixon had no choice but to resign, his own Party made him. There was real recorded and written proof of his involvement. You are wrong about Nixon and you are wrong about President Obama.

  • Ron Cram

    The slur is an insult to Richard Nixon. The scale of Obama’s scandals are bigger than Nixon’s and they are more in number. Obama’s enemies list is far bigger than Nixon’s and his attacks against his enemies are far worse than Nixon’s. Obama’s frontal attack on the freedom of the press is absolutely unique in American history. The Commissioner of the IRS was in the Obama White House more than any Cabinet member. He’s not a Cabinet member himself. There can be little doubt he was there to update Obama on the attacks against the Tea Party and other conservative groups. There is no other possible explanation for it. Nixon did not abandon our people while they were under attack like Obama did in Benghazi. Nixon’s coverup got him in trouble, but with Obama it is the act itself that cost American lives. Obama is the worst president this country has ever had.

    • charleo1

      Yeah, right. Just like his attack on freedom of religion, when he insisted
      that women, who happen to work for a tax subsidized religiously affiliated
      organization, have the same reproductive choices as women who don’t work
      for The Taliban. Or other such discriminatory operations, like the Catholic
      Church. Do you really believe that claptrap about the worst President? Come on! Get real here. Because, I gotta, tell ya, that certainly don’t say much for your memory. Or maybe you just arrived here from another galaxy, and missed the dude that used to have Obama’s job. You can find him in Dallas, riding
      his mountain bike, and playing with his paint by the numbers sets.

      • Ron Cram

        Nothing you said even relates to the crimes Obama has committed against the Constitution. Yes, Obama is the worst president in our history. Try doing some reading some time. Perhaps you would rather not know why Democrat supporters like Chris Matthews, Piers Morgan, Sen Max Baucus and many others have already turned on Obama.

        • RickA

          Did you really expect a liberal to deliver a comment that was pertinant?

        • charleo1

          Have they got you all excited? Got your bunker finished yet? Traded in your 401, for gold when the currency collapses?
          Nothing you said, or nothing’s been found that remotely
          suggest Obama has committed any crimes whatsoever.
          When you say you’re sure Obama is the worst President,
          ever. You’re now with the fringe. So, maybe you should
          stop reading, whatever it is, that’s put you there.

    • elw

      Where is your proof? Anyone can make accusations. NIxon was pushed out of office, by his own Party, because there was so much written and recorded proof against him they were trying to avoid an impeachment trial that they knew they would lose.

      • Ron Cram

        So your argument is that Democrats have such low morals they will never turn on Obama no matter his crimes? Well, your argument does have some historical support but in this particular case, I think you are wrong. Strong Democrat supporters like Chris Matthews, Piers Morgan, Senator Max Baucus and others have already turned on Obama.

      • RickA

        Nixon also tried to cover-up his involvement with a phoney Executive Priviledge claim. He was over ruled and Obama’s phoney EP claim will be over ruled too.

        • elw

          Well, the difference between me and you is I wait to judge people guilty until after I have seen the evidence not before.

      • BDC_57

        he don’t have any proof he vis a lying troll

    • ddffdfff

      Thats another talking point. The commissioner of the IRS when to the white house complex. If you look at the logs he met with the president maybe 2 or 3 times. Almost all the visits were in another building. Just being logged in at the white house does not indicate you met with the president. This is another right wing talking point.

      • Ron Cram

        I don’t care who he met with. This has never happened before in any other administration and it shows the IRS persecution was directed by the White House. Obama cannot get away from that.

        • ddffdfff

          This has happened before in all administrations. All these sites are part of the CECC, Conservative Entertainment Complex
          Circle. They all have 1 thing in common. To remove money from your
          wallet. And they all move you from site to site in an assembly line
          fashion making many of these people rich with your ignorant dollars..

        • mah101

          You have a strange way of demonstrating proof

          The sun comes up in the east every day, and sets in the west. The stars all rotate around the sky every night.

          This proves that their is a benevolent white bearded deity who created all this and placed man on the earth and the earth in the center of the universe where all the rest of creation revolves around him.

          Some significant unsubstantiated leaps of reasoning just like in your post.

          Proof is not what you think it is…

      • RickA

        Some of us would like to know WHERE the administrations weekly TEA party oppression meetings took place and who attended. We already have the proof that they were very effective. After getting CREAMED by the TEA party in the 2010 landslide, the administrations efforts to surpress the vote of their opposition was a complete success, and highly illegal too.

    • RickA

      We certainly live in “interesting” times. The polls are rapidly turning against Obama. Nixon enjoyed high public approval for many months after the Watergate story broke. Obama has started his rapid slide to the bottom in a matter of a couple of weeks. http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1899
      You KNOW the word has already been passed on to Obama, “Look what we did for Clinton. He’s much more popular today than he ever was in office.”
      With the promise to rehabilitate his record after stepping down, Biden will ascend the throne and then he and Hillary can carry out a 3 year public battle to slime eachother as more connected to the corrupt Obama regime.
      This really is going to be FUN!

  • http://www.facebook.com/rightandwrongradio Jon Matthews

    Though I would agree Obama is “no Nixon” I think writers like this are as delusional as Obama is narcissist, which by the way is the real difference between Nixon and Obama. Nixon acted out of paranoia based on his insecurities as one who grew up unpopular. Obama acts out of his arrogance something he developed in response to his insecurities as a half white man. Both were and are insecure in their being, and both responded in different manners. But both were and are morally corrupt. In that regard they are simply two sides of the same coin.

    • charleo1

      Well thank you Dr. Spock! For your enlightening look at power from
      the perspective of a racist. So, can I be just as honest? I want to
      bloody your nose! I suppose it was Barack Obama’s narcissism
      that brought him, and his solid gold law degree form Harvard, to
      to the South Side of Chicago. One of poorest, and most dangerous
      places in the Country. To help the poor, and try to get the children
      in that Hell hole, financing for an education that would pull them out
      of there. Because, of his insecurities, that caused him to be totally
      incapable, of seeing the real world, over his giant, ego.
      Is that about it, Dr? Now you may go to Hell.

      • plc97477

        I don’t even thing hell would want him.

  • Ron Cram

    I’m amazed at how uninformed so many of the commenters here are. I wonder where they get their news?

    • RickA

      White House talking points, like this article!

    • charleo1

      Where do you guys get all your gall? There is nothing informed about
      any of you. You sit there and lap it up. Even though you know they are
      playing you? Have lied to you before. Have led you to believe things that
      weren’t so. But you, come on all, “amazed,” at how all these people are
      so uninformed. There is a real world outside of Right Wing claptrap.
      You know?

      • Ron Cram

        You are living in the bubble. How can you explain why so many Democrats have already turned on Obama? How can you explain why Piers Morgan says he finally understands why Americans fear their government and demand to own guns? Have you even attempted to look at the evidence that is persuading your fellow Democrats? I didn’t think so.

        • charleo1

          Does Pierce Morgan pay my freight? Besides Morgan is
          a Brit, a huge supporter of gun control. I wonder why the
          tyrants haven’t taken over Britain, yet? But, I’ll tell you what
          I do see from my bubble, I see the T-Party rat bastards, who
          hate their government, on a scale, that is wildly
          disproportionate, to their desire to serve, or contribute
          anything of a positive nature, to their Country. I see other,
          wiser members, try to dissuade them, to no avail. I see a
          Party adrift, in conflict with itself. I watch, T-Party, Jim
          Demint, stab Marco Rubio, and the establishment GOP,
          in the back, over immigration. I see a Party more out of
          touch with the concerns, and interests of Middle America,
          than ever. Serving an ever smaller number of constituents, who’s goals, and vision for the Country, in issue after issue, hold nothing, or have little value to offer to Main Street America.
          I have no illusions as to what you think. I think you’re dead
          wrong.

          • BDC_57

            and teabagger don’t want pay taxes

      • RickA

        “I did not have sex with that woman, Ms Lewinski.”
        Who is lying and who is playing who? Lap it up!

        • charleo1

          And I’m supposed to conclude, what? From something as
          innocuous, or common, as a cheating husband, telling
          lies about his dalliances? 13/14 years ago?

          • RickA

            Sorry I forgot. Anything even remotely resembling dishonesty by any Republican is a federal offence, but a LIE by a democrat is nothing, and any person who even NOTICES lying by a democrat is a racist, bigot, homophobe, nazi, sexist PIG!
            Does that about sum it up?

          • charleo1

            No, that actually doesn’t sum it up. There are all kinds of
            lies. There are lies, that protect people’s feelings. There
            are lies, that cover up what we don’t want people to see
            about us. There are all kinds of lies. Lies Presidents tell,
            because, telling the truth would be irresponsible, or reveal
            a state secret. Or, put a person that’s working on our behalf,
            in danger. All Presidents lie. They are expected to lie. Sometimes for reasons that can’t be explained, until much
            later. Sometimes to get away with a personal misbehavior.
            Like Clinton. And sometimes they lie, because the truth
            doesn’t fit the agenda they have in mind. They lie to Congress,
            and the American people, claiming they know a thing for
            certain. And they can’t tell us how they know this, but they
            absolutely do. So, trust me. If in the course of events it was
            found, that actually the President did not have, nor could
            he have ever been as sure as he said he was. And a lot of
            people were killed. Things went very badly. Would you say
            that is a more destructive lie, than misstating the motives
            of terrorists. Or trying to hide an adulterous affair? So, if
            you use your common sense to determine the proportion
            of one lie, to another one, people won’t think you’re being
            unfair. And they won’t stick a label on your opinion.

          • RickA

            There are all kinds of
            lies.
            telling the truth would be irresponsible
            Clearly there is a HUGE difference between liberals and honest people. Obviously there will be no common ground. To you, LYING to the American people claiming Benghazi was over a Youtube video was the right thing to do to protect Obama’s re-election campaign. If the voters really knew the truth about about the incompetence of his administration, he wouldn’t have been re-elected and we can’t allow THAT to happen, so his LIES had to be sold to the voters. I recall very clearly that anyone who publically questioned the absurd Youtube explanation was instatnly labeled a conspiricy theorist and dismissed as a KOOK, BIRTHER. Only the conspiricy theorists turned out to be RIGHT and all the apologists for Obama’s LIE were, once again, the fools. The very same thing is happening right now. All the Republicans have is lies about this great administration. Republicans are over reaching, the voters are paying no attention to these made up scandals, this will all be forgotten next week, we need to change the subject and get back to the serious matters like gay marriage and gun control. Obama hasn’t been touched by these scandals, he is just as popular today. Only, once again, the administration’s talking points are all going up in smoke, rapidly. Yet you liberals continue to swallow his lies over and over again. All the while calling the people who saw through the lies in the first place tea-baggers and right wing extremists.

          • charleo1

            Look, I know what you think. You think if the attack in
            Benghazi, had been attributed to a terrorist militant group,
            instead of a mob, incensed over a video, it would have
            changed the outcome of the election. Because, the public

            would have blamed Obama for being incompetent, in not
            better protecting the embassy. Tell me, if that’s your theory?
            Because, if so, it is a flimsy, and entirely speculative, one.
            Because, for one thing, the race was not that close. And, much to the Republican’s chagrin, Obama has a very good record on dealing with terrorists. Especially, Al Qaeda.
            Who’s top Lieutenants have fallen like dominoes, thanks to
            an expanded drone program. And Bin Laden, himself,
            was taken out on the orders of the President. And, efforts by the right, to minimize the risks involved, that it was an easy call, anyone could have made. Are not supported by the facts. And quite frankly, the GOP, would have been better
            off in the public’s eye, to simply congratulate the President, on a victory aganist terrorism. And for bringing long over due justice, to one of the world’s top terrorists. And moved on.
            the fact that they refused to do so, I think made them look petty, and resentful. As even in the face of striking a blow
            for civilized people everywhere. They stubbornly clung to their misguided goal, of not allowing Barack Obama, even one success. Without their ever present attempts, to put it in the worst possible light. So, a Party builds a certain reputation, with the plurality, on a high visibility event, such
            as taking out Bin Laden. If you can’t give your opponent credit for a nice shot, ever. Maybe you’re not the kind of people, a lot of other people like to associate with. Does that make sense? So, it’s in spite of, or sometimes, because of
            the hyperbolic way, in which the political Right has chosen
            to deal with this President. The majority of Americans don’t
            see him, as the Right tries to portray him. Publicly stated
            goals about what the priorities of the GOP is going be,
            with this President, that had just comfortably won the election, with the economy of the Country nearly stalled out.
            May please the base. But, promises of more partisian politics,
            is not what the majority of people wanted to hear.

          • RickA

            Like Watergate, Benghazi has several layers. But the most revealing one is the active collusion between this administration and Al Qaida.

            Al Qaida is a Saudi-inspired and Saudi-funded terror gang. Almost all of the terrorists on 9/11 were Saudis. Those facts are always covered up, but they are crucial to understanding the Jihad War.

            In Benghazi we ran arms from Libya to Al Qaida rebels in Syria. The Saudis are funding that rebellion.

            There’s that Saudi link again.

            In Egypt we backed the Muslim Brotherhood against Hosni Mubarak, who kept the peace treaty with Israel for 30 years. Thirty years of peace in the Middle East is a huge achievement. The Muslim Brotherhood assassinated Anwar Sadat the peacemaker, one of the rare Arab moderates who saw the light. Today we are in league with those who assassinated Anwar Sadat. For shame.

            Today Egypt is starving, and the people hate the new regime.

            The Saudis are naturally on the side of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood because they share the Sunni war theology.

            So the Saudis have won again, with Obama acting as their American errand boy.

            In Libya, we again made common cause with Sunni radicals against Muammar Gadaffi, a real nutcase, but a man who was able to run Libya’s tribal federation for years. Gadaffi had turned over his nuclear program to the George W. Bush Administration. We still betrayed him to support his enemies, and Libya is in a civil war even now.

            Again, the Muslim radicals won.

            The bottom line is that Obama has consistently supported the most radical Muslim elements in the Middle East.

            Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/06/dangerous_times_benghazi_revealed_collusion_with_al_qaida.html#ixzz2V0bz2Njm
            Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

          • charleo1

            I don’t know where you’re getting all this bunk.
            Barack Obama has killed more Al Qaeda than Bush,
            and Clinton put together. Obama joined the French,
            and the Brits. in a NATO action in Libya. We ran logistics.
            Who put all those people in the streets of Cairo?
            Barack Obama? The election of The Muslim Brotherhood,
            in Egypt happened because the people of Egypt voted
            them in. So Obama didn’t back the Brotherhood.
            The NeoCons of America, thought Mubarak was a
            swell guy. But then, they didn’t have to live under his
            regime. Know what I think? I think for whatever reasons,
            it really doesn’t matter. You have this hatred for Obama.
            And, you’ll obviously believe any bull shit story you happen
            to come across. The worse it is, the more you like it.
            Bottom line, he’s the President because the majority of
            Americans have more common sense that to buy into
            that drivel.

          • RickA

            In other words, when the FACTS don’t fit your narrative, you just IGNORE them. So now, the entire mid-east is NOT being taken over by the radical islam muslim brotherhood, with Obama’s blessing? Is THAT what you believe? Amazing!
            Then again, you willingly accepted outrageous political propaganda like Y2K, global warming and Benghazi over a Youtube video without a second thought. You must still believe targeting of TEA party groups by the IRS was the action of 2 ‘rogue” agents in the Cincinatti office, even after the IRS has ADMITTED that 88 employees all over the country were involved in this massive voter surpression scheme within this government agency (which , of course, happens to be part of the EXECUTIVE branch).
            Willful ignorance is the most dangerous vein of ignorance!

          • RickA

            If you really wanted to know where I am getting all this “bunk” you could have read to the end of my post and clicked on the LINK that was right there in front of your blinded eyes.

          • charleo1

            I don’t care about obscure Right Wing websites. Featuring what are essentially blogs, by unknown writers, with no reputation, or credibility to protect. They make any claim they feel like. I want to read that a member of the GOP leadership, has charged, and has proof Obama is colluding with AQ in Syria. Any of them with anything at stake. Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, even. If this was the case, that Obama backed The Muslim Brotherhood. You can’t just claim something like that, of a sitting President. If you’re Mitch McConnell, John Boehner,
            or Eric Cantor, Ted Cruz, Mike lee. Rand Paul, Marco Rubio.
            You say it, you had better be able to back it up with the facts.
            And you need to ask yourself, if American Thinker claims it,
            and it’s true. Why isn’t Fox running it 24/7? That’s why i ask
            where you were getting this bunk.

        • plc97477

          The truth was he did not have sex with that woman he got a blow job.

    • ddffdfff

      All these sites are part of the CECC, Conservative Entertainment Complex
      Circle. They all have 1 thing in common. To remove money from your
      wallet. And they all move you from site to site in an assembly line
      fashion making many of these people rich with your ignorant dollars.

    • http://www.facebook.com/rich.keeler2 Rich Keeler

      Faux News of course…

    • elw

      The uninformed are called the radicalized right wing of the Republican Party. They give the President credit for having so much control over every tiny little thing that happens in every single department and with everyone of the 100s of thousands of Federal employees that you would think he was a had the mind of a computer, the ability to be everywhere at all times and never slept. They have no idea how uninformed their accusations and argument are. They live in a very black and white world that has nothing to do with reality. And yet, they forgive
      their last President for starting two unpaid for wars, one that was not necessary and implementing an unpaid Medicare Drug program while giving all his best friends big tax breaks and allowing the financial to run wild and crash the economy. Then they top all that by blaming the deficit on President Obama alone.

  • RickA

    Wow! It is amazing to witness the bubble the left has constructed around this administration.
    Obama and Susan Rice and Hillary LIED to the American people blaming a terrorist attack on a Youtube video? That’s not a lie or a cover-up, right?
    The IRS intentionally stalling tax exempt applications to 500 conservative organizations while fast-tracking anything that sounded liberal. That’s just standard operating procedure, right?
    Obama invoking EXECUTIVE PRIVLIDGE to cover-up his involvement in his Fast & Furious scheme after claiming he had nothing to do with the program? How DOES a president claim executive priviledge on something that never involved him?
    The IRS director meeting 157 times at the White House during a 2 year period…..for the WH Easter Egg Roll!
    Eric Holder “judge shopping” to find a judge who will sign his press wiretap order after being shot down by TWO other judges! And then claiming he knew NOTHING about his program.
    That would be the SAME Eric Holder who has already been found in contempt of congress by a BI-PARTISAN vote in the House. Repeatedly LYING under oath to a congressional committee is actually a FELONY.
    Sorry to fill you bubble heads in on reality but the agrieved parties in the IRS scandal have filed a class action lawsuit against the IRS and ALL of the truth and connections to the White House are going to be exposed in discovery in that lawsuit.
    Obama’s baseless Executive Privlidge claim covering-up his involvement in Fast & Furious is hanging by a thread. That thread is about to be snipped by a federal judge who is about to unseal Obama’s concealed documents.
    Nixon’s apologists claimed HE was innocent all the way to the end too.

    • Ron Cram

      Finally an informed commenter! It is shocking how many people only read the Obama approved press. Thankfully, even many in the press are turning on Obama after his frontal assault on the freedom of the press. I guess you can attack every right in the Bill of Rights, but if you attack the freedom of the press – then the press turns on you. That was a huge mistake for Obama – his Waterloo.

    • charleo1

      How do you know they lied? Just because that outfit that is masquerading
      as a real political party told you he did? I’ll say, if you don’t know how they
      know, then you don’t know. You’re on here, as is real consistent of the
      of the knuckle draggers, and mouth breathers. The GOP has eating out of
      their hand. So, how do Republicans know? Did they ask the terrorist? And,
      so, you’re believing, and taking the word of the terrorist then? Great.
      Then do you wish there had been a higher body count, so your act of
      indignation, and outrage would bear more proportion to the actual event?
      By all means, allow the GOP to lead you down the path. They act this way
      when they don’t have their guy in the White House. And when they have
      no policy, no solutions to better the Country. Because, if they don’t have
      the White House, they don’t think they have any other obligations, but
      to try to hold up everything, until they get the Presidency. You haven’t
      noticed? Well, you haven’t been watching them very long, have you?

      • RickA

        How do you know they lied?
        REALLY?
        Call me crazy but maybe Obama demanding the terrorist attack in Benghazi was all a protest over a YOUTUBE video for 2 weeks before admitting that it was actually a TERRORIST ATTACK?
        Maybe you MISSED that part.

        • charleo1

          Obama said it was a terrorist act. But, do you recall why
          Richard Reed, tried to set off a bomb he had in his shoe?
          Or, What was Tim McVey’s motivation? The Cobar
          Towers, in Reaud, Saudi Arabia? Why? Do you know why
          they blew up the Marine headquarters in Lebanon?
          Are you sure? Because you seem to think it’s really
          important to be, exactly sure we have our facts straight,
          when it comes to the reason. And, that is vital to know,
          because….? Frankly, I think the entire issue is typical, of
          the actions of a hopelessly dysfunctional, GOP. Meant
          to mask the truth about their own problems.

        • plc97477

          Proceed governor.

    • ddffdfff

      Rick do you have a job? Walmart maybe?

      • RickA

        Actually, I am a retired school teacher and I work 2 jobs. Why do you ask?

  • elw

    The Radicalized Right and far too many of the people who report the news have lost any right to call themselves honest and moral people. Real Journalists rarely exist in the media. Most are just actors/actresses who look good on camera. They do little of their own research, read what they are given to report and when they move off script commonly making fools of themselves. None of the scandals being discussed, night and day, in the news are truly scandals and just like all the scandals pushed during President Clinton’s time in office will fade, except from the minds of the programmed robots that call themselves members of the Republican Party. The GOP has been losing membership at a steady pace as it has been moving its policies and behaviors into the shades of insanity. I would say that that is a good indication, that like Nixon, the current leadership of the GOP needs to be sent back home to fade into the shadows. They hold the trophy for doing harm to the Country and the people of the United States.

    • RickA

      http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1899
      Comparing Nixon to Obama is not accurate. Nixon stayed up in the polls for many months after the scandal came out. Obama is already sinking like a stone. He will be gone by the end of summer, and his own party will send him packing.

      • elw

        Why do you say things that are not true? Nixon approval average approval rating in his second term was 34%, by August 9 of 1974, the day he resigned it was 24%. These come from the Gallup poll’s historic records. Obamas approval ratings are in the low 50%.

        • demhack

          did you read the blog?? Quinnipiac is a left of center polling group

          • elw

            You guys would call Reagan left of center. My data does not come from quinnipiac. They are from Gallup’s historically records.

    • ddffdfff

      All these sites are part of the CECC, Conservative Entertainment Complex
      Circle. They all have 1 thing in common. To remove money from your
      wallet. And they all move you from site to site in an assembly line
      fashion making many of these people rich with your ignorant dollars.

      • BDC_57

        your saying that these sites lie like teabagger do all the time

        • demhack

          No he’s saying that its part of the State Run Media agenda to protect Obama headed up by old Joe

    • plc97477

      Maybe they should do what Dole said and just put a “closed for repairs” sign on the door.

    • demhack

      I agree in hindsight the Nixon scandals are school boy antics compared to what Barak and his henchmen have done

      • elw

        Did you read what I wrote? I would guess not since your comment is not connected to anything I wrote. However, the biggest difference between Watergate and the current scandals is the simple fact that there was proof of what Nixon was doing and there is no proof that any of the Right’s accusation against the current President are true. They are on another of their tax dollar waste, witch hunts to find non-existing proof.

  • ddffdfff

    Hey when you have a group of people who want to abolish the tax code and
    exist solely to lobby against taxes and desire to use a tax exempt
    loophole status to do just that, you will get attention from Govt
    officials. I assure you if any of them sent emails about terrorism, they
    would have had some police knock on their door. Do you really think
    that targeting a group of anti tax loons is wrong? If you want to do
    your mission do it on your dole, not the Govt. Don’t apply for tax
    exempt status if you aren’t doing it for non political causes. Don’t
    cheat on your tax return by overstating deductions, the computers pick
    that up. This is the same for these groups. They overstepped.

    • demhack

      and yet the 47% who are demanding that others to pay more taxes get a free run and don’t pay a dime. Yep that’s the dem parties philosophy

  • Lovefacts

    I sick and tired of the do as I say not as I do attitude of the Republicans. I wish the people would stop and think about the truth and differences between the two parties, not just believe talking points. Of course, one needs to understand history and the Constitution. By history, I mean what actually happened during the Nixon administration and the truth about Reagan and taxes. IMO, neither of these men would belong to today’s Republican party nor would they be electable.

    As for the Obama admin’s “scandals,” lets take a look.

    Let’s compare Benghazi to not only 9/11 under “W” but also to the attack against the Marines in Lebanon under Reagan. Gee, which was worse? Duh!

    Let’s compare Obama’s IRS problem–they also audited Democratic groups, too–with “W’s” demand to audit the NAACP–twice, along with other Democratic groups.

    Now, let’s compare Obama’s DOJ getting warrants prior to taking any action re the AP versus “W’s” over 3,500 taps without a warrant.

    • demhack

      I sik da ebonics youd on did sit

      • Lovefacts

        Sorry, I have no idea what you said. I write English even on Twitter.

  • Fred Elliott Sr.

    Let’s see Acorn, the organization the GOP infiltrated with fake white pimps in an effort to in trap. McCain the fake war hero who picked the dumbest female in the world besides Michelle ” I quit ” Bachman as a running mate. McCain who no longer has anything to be head of except Indian Affairs. Voter Suppression, you mean what the GOP tried by making less days to vote, longer lines and billboards trying to scare minority voters. That thing you TRIED that only made more people vote ! Keep trying tea baggers you brand new forever more minority voters, nothing you try works any way!

    • demhack

      Voter suppression??? REally??? Every place where folks were required to show their ID’s to vote the turn out was LARGER than the national avg. Unfortunately over 2 million illegals got to vote via absentee ballot while our troops stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq were denied their ability to vote

  • Fred Elliott Sr.

    Ms. Rice read just what the CIA not Obama gave her to read. If you smelled a fart you would blame President Obama and not admit it was your top lip. When it’s all over I hope he’s on Mt Rushmore, just so you can STAY pissed off !

    • demhack

      she read what Obama and Hilary gave her

  • mike

    Will Benghazi be another Watergate? Only time will tell, just remember it took a while before all the facts were known on Watergate. The facts were reveal slowly as people were put under oath.
    What I find humorous is Conason statement: “thoroughly investigated by an independent board”. No it didn’t.
    Board only focused only on the security failures. The titles were as followed: Overarching Security Consideration, Training and Awareness, Security and fire safety, Intelligence and Threat Analysis, Personnel Accountability, Staffing High Risk and High Threat Posts.
    What is unknown is all that went down at the White House, State Department, CIA and FBI during the hours of this terrible tragedy and what cover ups happened after the fact. The American people desire to know all the facts.
    To Dom: 2 terrorist attacks under Obama in the USA. Lets see those suspected perjury, is this anything like the MM insulting, maligning, and threatening Obama since 2009 as you claimed last week? I am still waiting to see all these articles you so vociferously claimed were heaped upon Obama.

  • demhack

    While National Memo is still trying to pull Obama’s tail out of the fire sorry its tooo late. Nixon might have been evil but he never got any killed, he never got his wife a no show job. He did use the IRS just like Obama and is far dirtier than Nixon ever thought of being.
    Obama come up from the Chicago machine and nothing the dem party does is against the law there. Except it is every where else

  • Fred Elliott Sr.

    If every troop you claim was denied the ability to vote voted, it still wouldn’t make up for the almost zero women vote Republicans got. Wives were voting Democrat without their husbands knowledge because of the stupid views you have towards them. I love it. Just keep losing elections.

  • ORAXX

    Those who would equate these current scandals with Watergate demonstrate how little they know about Watergate. Forty people went to prison over Watergate including the Attorney General of the United States. Nixon surely would have gone to prison as well, had Ford not pardoned him. Watergate wasn’t just a cover up, it was a criminal conspiracy that originated with the president. The purpose of the Watergate break in was to recover documents detailing the Nixon/Kissinger treason in their sabotaging the Paris peace talks.

  • Robert P. Robertson

    “I am not a crook!. . . No, really, I am not a crook. I am not— seriously? . . No, no handcuffs, please. . . Wait, don’t taz me, brough! . . Urgh!” Richard Nixon, 1974.

scroll to top