Let's see if we can draw some parallels between the Watergate incident and the Benghazi-gate incident. Watergate consisted of a break-in to "steal" some political advantage and was covered up by then-President Nixon. He denied for months that he knew anything about it. Finally he was caught in his tangled web of lies and was forced to resign or be impeached.
Then we have Benghazi-gate, in which we have subsequently found out that virtually the entire administration was involved in covering up the fact that this was a terrorist attack, for which all timely assistance was denied, and as a consequence four Americans lost their lives so we could "save" the president's re-election. To this day the White House states (through Jay Carney, press secretary) that they would have done the same thing over again — because it worked — the president got re-elected and only four Americans lost their lives to pay for it. And Nixon was threatened with impeachment for lying about the knowledge of a "break-in." Where is Bob Woodward when you need him?
- My view: Utah, where do you stand on... 96
- Letter: Bush dilemma 2.0 42
- W. Bradford Wilcox: The new progressive... 42
- In our opinion: Don't 'Army-ize' local... 28
- George F. Will: Obama needs Congress to... 27
- Can you pass the U.S. citizenship test? 27
- In our opinion: How committed are... 26
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Are... 21