"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."Excuse me? Four people died so the president could
get re-elected. There may have been incompetence in the response - though this
is still under debate - nothing that is being revealed points to the president
allowing anyone to die for political purposes. To say people sat in Washington
making decisions to intentionally let people die because somehow someone
calculated their deaths would advantage the President in the election is almost
unimaginable. The logic.... that these deaths played to Obamas
advantage....shows a new low in the political debate... it truly has become win
at any cost.
I don't think bengazhi had much to do with the country not liking Mr Romney
or his policies which strongly favored old rich white people.
The delusion that partisans like Mr. Overfelt continue to believe that the
President was re-elected because Ms. Rice's statements on national
television is comical, but the continued comparison of understating the cause of
a tragedy to the criminal act of burglary shows a clear lack of moral certitude.
It's this substitution of partisanship for moral judgment that is making
civil policy debate impossible in this country now.
What was the reason that Nixon left office? Was it because of a
"burglary" or was it because he lied?What was the reason the
Clinton was impeached? Was it because he had sex with an intern or was it
because he lied under oath?What is the "problem" of
Benghazi? Is it the fact the Obama failed to keep those people safe or is it
the fact that he lied, that Hilary Clinton lied and that Susan Rice lied?Obama is not going to be impeached for his inability to function as
Commander in Chief. Obama is not going to be impeached for his failure to act
on behalf of the four Americans where were killed. He will face impeachment for
lying to the American people and covering up the fact that terrorists attacked
our consulate. The fact that he was in the middle of a campaign and
that he thought that the "T" word would cost him votes only adds to his
crime of "bearing false witness". Bearing "false witness" has
been unethical for 4,000 years.
Yes, Obama lied! And, apparently, he is the worst liar in the world. September 12, 2012 - "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of
this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that
we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of
the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that
justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be
done."So if this is Obama's way of lying then, like
everything else according to conservatives, he can't even do that
Thanks for the hyperbolic beating of the terminal horse, Frank. Keepin' the
Watergate was planned, premeditated criminal activity by the White House.
Benghazi appears to be a lot of people interpreting things differently.
There's a lot of space between Watergate and this Benghazi issue.
@ Irony Guy. Thanks for bringing up Watergate. It was promoted as the "crime
of the century" by Democrats and the news media for months on end even
though no one died. A President was forced to resign in disgrace, even though no
one died. People went to prison even though no one died. With Benghazi, 4 people
died and no one in the Obama administration will answer any questions about all
the lies. 4 innocent Americans died and the Democrats and the news media are
accepting stonewalling lying and pretending it doesn't matter, all to
Wow, it must be irrational right-wing extremist morning in the readers'
forum. Who picked the three letters that ended up in today's paper? Good
work, DesNews. If your intent is to illustrate just how shaky the thinking of
ultraconservatives is, you are succeeding. Thank goodness for Barry
Bickmore's sensible rebuttal to Bob Bennett's wishy-washy editorial.
Otherwise today would have been a clean sweep for wackiness.
Do you folks ever get tired of this partisan mud slinging? From birth
certificates to now this. Where are the GOP's solutions to real problems
effecting millions of Americans. Here we are 5 years into this thing and I have
yet to hear or see one. Do we have to wait 3 years for the GOP to offer
solutions? And what if they are elected into the White House? Then will we have
to endure 4 years of more tax cuts for the rich and wars in the Middle East?
Will everything they do be declared as right and if you disagree with them will
you be labeled unamerican? Because that's what happened between
Mountanman - Remind me, which "lie" from the Obama Administration caused
the four people to die? The timeline of events is really hazy to me. Even if
lies occurred, I would submit that you are engaging in what's called
"illusory correlation." However, if lies and subsequent
American death upset you, please tell me how you feel about the Iraq War. Go
into detail about a situation wherein an administration actually fabricated the
scenario, rather than reacted to one, and then the lie literally cost thousands
of innocent American soldiers their lives. Please, demonstrate some integrity
for once and tell me all about your disgust w/ the Bush Administration.In fact, of all the topical discussions this week, the only one meriting a
"gate" addendum would be the DOJ's actions against the AP. That is
an actual issue that justifies true righteous indignation on our part, it is
distgusting. Finally, just as an FYI, I believe there is an
"i" in "mountain." Thought you should know.
Re: "Where are the GOP's solutions to real problems effecting [sic]
millions of Americans."So, a liberal finally admits
"effecting" [meaning "to produce as an effect; bring about;
accomplish; make happen"] millions of new Americans -- presumably from the
millions of illegal aliens present in America -- is a real problem?Interesting.
Why are Republicans determined to find crime in talking points instead of
finding the criminals who killed the Americans?
"He will face impeachment for lying to the American people" The same
way Cheney was impeached for lying about weapons of mass destruction. Yes
Cheney knew, no question. Or maybe Obama will be impeached the same way Regan
was impeached for lying about selling arms to Iran, which in fact was illegal.
Not going to happen Mr. Richards. Covering up a criminal act is a no brainer.
Lying under oath is asking for trouble. Changing talking points..seriously?
pragmastisferlife-Bush and Chenney should be tried and I think convicted
of war crimes. America is hypocritic in the eyes of the world as the facts
support we invaded Iraq under false pretenses, killing thousands of innocent
people and causing pain and suffering for generations of people. The Regan
administration was found guilty in Iran Contra and Ollie served time. He took
the blame for Regan but all know he was informed and supported the
unconstiutional crimes that took place. I have not seen any factual evidence up
to this point that anything Obama did was unconstitional or criminal. Stupid,
yes, criminal no. This is politcs, plain and simple and it should keep BO from
getting anything done in the next 3 years which is the sole purpose of it.
@mike richards so I thought you were against putting people on trail
through the media Mike?
@ Stalwart Sentinel. Where have you been? Three men who were actual witnesses
(whistle blowers) testified very recently and their version of Benghazi is very
different than we have been lead to believe by the Obama administration's
lies and cover-ups. Wise up, life is short!
HS fan, I basically agree. However, I'm still not quite sure what Obama
himself or his immediate surrogates did other than referee a free for all
between different agencies who were trying to cover themselves. The talking
points that emerged seem to be a compromise based on information that was
evident and some that was accurate albeit speculative at the time.
Re: "four Americans lost their lives so we could 'save' the
president's re-election." Whether you like or dislike
Obama, this is a despicable comment.
Mountanman - Ah, vague generalities; thank you so much, your response was very
helpful. And there I was, lacking wisdom, when I thought that you would
actually have a legitimate response to such a simple question. Let's try this again: Which "lie" from the Obama
Administration caused the four people to die? Direct question, I
expect a direct answer. If you want to continue to obfuscate then please
refrain from responding.Further, in order to ensure you have any
integrity on the matter, please elucidate on what you have done/said, up to this
point, with regards to impeaching/trying people in the Bush43 Administration for
the proactive lying that resulted in the Iraq Qar and thousands of innocent
American soldiers' deaths? I'm sure you have been extremely
proactive on that front, I'm just looking to confirm your consistency.
Obama called it an act of terror one day after the attack and the administration
had it straightened out and was calling it a terrorist attack within 2 weeks of
the attack (notably over a month before the election). For people who are
obsessed with Benghazi, you sure are slow at picking up facts...
obama lied about this from the beginning. He is so full of crap, it is pitiful.
He even lied about his lie in the debate, when Romney had to debate obama and
the moderator. It is sad and funny to see the faithful, bho worshiping, brown
nosing leftists contort themselves anyway possible to defend this sad sack! I
doubt that anything will come of all this. I agree with most of the leftists
about one thing, all these scandals, fabrications, lies, and blatant examples of
moronic incompetence by the anointed one, will not amount to much, once his
adoring media and leftist BL's get this thing pushed down the road and
covered up a little more.
It's interesting to see those who defend John Swallow and complain about
the "judging" of him before the facts come out sure are quick to judge
and condemn the President of the United States.I'm sure you
folks wouldn't be using this for political reasons... Right?
Some people, like Tolstoy, would stop newspapers from reporting the hearings.
Obama would like to sweep the hearings under the rug. Every Democrat who has
ever spoken up for Obama would like to see the hearings swept under the rug.The duty of the news media is not to hold court, but to publish the
facts. Democrats don't like facts. Facts are somehow too permanent for
them. They want to be able to twist things to mean the opposite of what was
said. They want to pretend that Obama, Clinton and Rice never blamed a movie
for the terrorist attack in Bengahzi. They want to pretend that no one on the
Democrat side of the isle ever enlisted the help of the I.R.S. to spy on the
news media and on conservatives. Using their fanciful thinking, they would have
us believe that the news media spied on itself and that conservatives asked the
I.R.S. for an audit.Yes, Tolstoy, cover it all up. Sweep it under
the rug. It's such "old news".
@J Thomas You are perfectly aware of why I called you out Mike. It had
nothing to do with me or a desire to cover up anything it had to do with your
comments on another thread were you decried the Utah attorney general being but
on trial by the media and how you thought that people should wait until the
investigation and any resulting trials ended. If one wants to claim some moral
high ground one would do well to try to be consistent and also not attempt to
d3esive by once again signing in under your various names and pretending to be
J Thompson - Riiight, Democrats hate facts, they just sweep things under the
rug. Great examples. Re: IRS - Dems are "sweeping this under
the rug" by firing the head of the IRS and utilizing the AG to open a
criminal investigation into the matter with the FBI, among other things. Re: AP/DOJ - Dems are "sweeping this under the rug" by
reintroducing the Free Flow of Information Act (Democratic Rep. John Conyers)
and by calling it an "unacceptable abuse of power" and we must "make
sure this kind of press intimidation does not happen again." (ACLU), among
other things. The actual difference is that liberals view a
situation on the merits while conservatives prefer to view a situation through a
political lens. Don't believe me? Why don't you check your facts to
see when conservatives in Congress were given all those emails outlining the
Banghazi talking point edits. They've had them for months and didn't
seem to care one iota until a couple of days ago when people like you suddenly
started to believe there was a cover up. Seriously, check the facts, look to
see when Chaffetz et al received those emails. Talk about opportunists.
@J Thompson"Every Democrat who has ever spoken up for Obama would like
to see the hearings swept under the rug."No. We'd like the
investigative committees to actually be thorough. When you ask someone who
claims that military forces should've been sent, what you're supposed
to do is call up someone who made that decision and ask why they didn't.
Democrats had people they wanted to have speak on these types of things at these
hearings and Republicans said no. I guess actually talking to the people
responsible could detract from the narrative the Republicans want to build.
People.. If you will follow the time line of events leading up to the attack on
the Embassy, you will see clearly the in-action by both State Department and
White House in preparation for the disaster. Since it occured before the
election, it would not be a stretch of imagination to assume that had Obamas
actions been made public, he might not have been elected.
"Which "lie" from the Obama Administration caused the four people to
die? "Exactly.... still waiting......Lets say lies
were told (not sure that is true yet), but that still doesn't point to
these "lies" that were told after the fact caused 4 people to die.I am hoping Moiuntianman et al can provide some clarity here.