Polonius wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
But when they happen to hold political views I find abhorrent, I'm all about hoping they get nailed for it each and every time.

Fair enough. But it really doesn't look like its gonna happen here.

Dunno about that... depends on how Gowdy handles the investigation.

If he goes apegak crazy, then it'll be easy for the Democrats to discredit this.

I guess I mean... what will happen? Does Obama have to put his head on his desk for all of the fourth period or something?

What is the goal for the Republicans here, other than try to damage Hilary's chances in 2016?

“I was told a few things and they were all lies,” Smith said. “Obama, and Hillary, and Panetta, and Susan [Rice] all came up to me at the casket ceremony – every one of them came up to me, gave me a big hug – and I asked them what happened.”

“And every one of them says, ‘it was the video,’ and we all know that it wasn’t the video,” she continued. “Even at that time, they knew it wasn’t the video.”

“So, they all lied to me,” Smith continued.

 whembly wrote:

Benghazi is not an ordinary scandal... I'm mean, let's face it... it's nothing like a President getting a BJ in the Oval Office, or even some political aides breaking into the opposition's office.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Benghazi is not an ordinary scandal... I'm mean, let's face it... it's nothing like a President getting a BJ in the Oval Office, or even some political aides breaking into the opposition's office.

Watergate is much worse than Benghazi as far as democracy goes*. In the Benghazi case, no one is trying to systematically undermine the ability of political adversaries to conduct politics and ultimately subvert democracy itself. You're using Watergate as a bat to give weight that doesn't exist to a scandal that isn't anywhere near as serious.

*Just to be explicit, that doesn't mean I think that the people killed doesn't matter or anything similar, only that overall Watergate was a much bigger threat to the US than Benghazi.

 whembly wrote:

How about some fething mea culpa?

 whembly wrote:

It involves, by definition, an act of war in which our ambassador, was murdered along with three other Americans under circumstances where security was appallingly inadequate for unknown reasons...

 whembly wrote:

It also involves the administration did not just lie about what happened to the american public for two weeks... oh no, but actually trumped up a prosecution that violated the First Amendment in order to bolster this lie.

 d-usa wrote:
Dead people are bad politics, except when you are using them to raise money?

http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2014/05/07/rep-gowdy-calls-on-nrcc-to-stop-benghazi-fundraising/

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Benghazi is not an ordinary scandal... I'm mean, let's face it... it's nothing like a President getting a BJ in the Oval Office, or even some political aides breaking into the opposition's office.

Watergate is much worse than Benghazi as far as democracy goes*. In the Benghazi case, no one is trying to systematically undermine the ability of political adversaries to conduct politics and ultimately subvert democracy itself. You're using Watergate as a bat to give weight that doesn't exist to a scandal that isn't anywhere near as serious.

*Just to be explicit, that doesn't mean I think that the people killed doesn't matter or anything similar, only that overall Watergate was a much bigger threat to the US than Benghazi.

 whembly wrote:

And yes I'm using watergate as a bat because I can. Something to think about though... I bet you a million space bucks that the Nixon aides are looking at how the media generally treats the Obama Administration with such envy.

EDIT: dammit iPad autocorrect messing me up

 Polonius wrote:

 whembly wrote:

And yes I'm using watergate as a bat because I can. Something to think about though... I bet you a million space bucks that the Nixon aides are looking at how the media generally treats the Obama Administration with such envy.

EDIT: dammit iPad autocorrect messing me up

Probably not, actually. They're probably thanking their lucky stars that blogging wasn't a thing back then, or the story would have broken far, far sooner.

 whembly wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 whembly wrote:

And yes I'm using watergate as a bat because I can. Something to think about though... I bet you a million space bucks that the Nixon aides are looking at how the media generally treats the Obama Administration with such envy.

EDIT: dammit iPad autocorrect messing me up

Probably not, actually. They're probably thanking their lucky stars that blogging wasn't a thing back then, or the story would have broken far, far sooner.

That's true... It would broke regardless.

So where's the Walter Cronkite now? Sheryl Akitssin????

 Polonius wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 whembly wrote:

And yes I'm using watergate as a bat because I can. Something to think about though... I bet you a million space bucks that the Nixon aides are looking at how the media generally treats the Obama Administration with such envy.

EDIT: dammit iPad autocorrect messing me up

Probably not, actually. They're probably thanking their lucky stars that blogging wasn't a thing back then, or the story would have broken far, far sooner.

That's true... It would broke regardless.

So where's the Walter Cronkite now? Sheryl Akitssin????

Have you ever considered that there might not be anything to break?

 whembly wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 whembly wrote:

And yes I'm using watergate as a bat because I can. Something to think about though... I bet you a million space bucks that the Nixon aides are looking at how the media generally treats the Obama Administration with such envy.

EDIT: dammit iPad autocorrect messing me up

Probably not, actually. They're probably thanking their lucky stars that blogging wasn't a thing back then, or the story would have broken far, far sooner.

That's true... It would broke regardless.

So where's the Walter Cronkite now? Sheryl Akitssin????

Have you ever considered that there might not be anything to break?

Sure...

Have you considered that something will break??

Relapse wrote:
Then we have this lawmaker offering a well thought statement:

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/05/07/dem-cracks-a-flip-joke-about-benghazi-james-woods-dana-loesch-others-step-up-to-shred-her-117461

 Polonius wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 whembly wrote:

And yes I'm using watergate as a bat because I can. Something to think about though... I bet you a million space bucks that the Nixon aides are looking at how the media generally treats the Obama Administration with such envy.

EDIT: dammit iPad autocorrect messing me up

Probably not, actually. They're probably thanking their lucky stars that blogging wasn't a thing back then, or the story would have broken far, far sooner.

That's true... It would broke regardless.

So where's the Walter Cronkite now? Sheryl Akitssin????

Have you ever considered that there might not be anything to break?

Sure...

Have you considered that something will break??

Sure, which is why I haven't really formed an opinion on the issue yet.

Relapse wrote:
Then we have this lawmaker offering a well thought statement:

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/05/07/dem-cracks-a-flip-joke-about-benghazi-james-woods-dana-loesch-others-step-up-to-shred-her-117461

 whembly wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Then we have this lawmaker offering a well thought statement:

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/05/07/dem-cracks-a-flip-joke-about-benghazi-james-woods-dana-loesch-others-step-up-to-shred-her-117461

Da fuq!?!?!

O.o

She's my rep...

 whembly wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Then we have this lawmaker offering a well thought statement:

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/05/07/dem-cracks-a-flip-joke-about-benghazi-james-woods-dana-loesch-others-step-up-to-shred-her-117461

Da fuq!?!?!

O.o

She's my rep...

 daedalus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Then we have this lawmaker offering a well thought statement:

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/05/07/dem-cracks-a-flip-joke-about-benghazi-james-woods-dana-loesch-others-step-up-to-shred-her-117461

Da fuq!?!?!

O.o

She's my rep...

I'd hate her for it, but it's the kind of callous and flippant joke I'd make, to be honest. I never claimed to be a good person.

I understand holding "them" to a higher standard, but it actually makes them almost seem more human, in a strange way.

 daedalus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Then we have this lawmaker offering a well thought statement:

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/05/07/dem-cracks-a-flip-joke-about-benghazi-james-woods-dana-loesch-others-step-up-to-shred-her-117461

Da fuq!?!?!

O.o

She's my rep...

I'd hate her for it, but it's the kind of callous and flippant joke I'd make, to be honest. I never claimed to be a good person.

I understand holding "them" to a higher standard, but it actually makes them almost seem more human, in a strange way.

 whembly wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

I understand holding "them" to a higher standard, but it actually makes them almost seem more human, in a strange way.

I can understand she's frustrated... The state Rupublicans are running circles around them...

 daedalus wrote:
Missouri, actually. One of these days I'm going to challenge Whembly to a 40k game... TO THE DEATH!

 Jihadin wrote:
We've been at war with them for like over ten years. Al Qaeda

 Polonius wrote:

Also, remember the rule: nobody identified in a headline as a "lawmaker" has any real importance.

Here comes Watergate, 21st-century style—except this time around, innocent people died.

When the White House, in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by the fearless private watchdog group Judicial Watch, turned over an email about constructing the appropriate narrative response to the tragedy at Benghazi written by Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser to President Obama, and investigators from the House of Representatives realized that they had subpoenaed that email and not received it, they knew that there was far more to learn about the affair than met the eye.

The affair consisted of an organized, fatal assault on the American consulate in that Libyan city that resulted in the deaths of the American ambassador and three State Department contractors assigned to protect him. It also includes a White House-orchestrated cover-up involving profoundly misleading statements after the attack, followed by an only-in-Washington cover-up of the cover-up.

The attack on the consulate occurred on Sept. 11, 2012, the 11th anniversary of 9/11, just as the American presidential election campaign between Barack Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney was getting under way. Two weeks prior to the attack, Obama had assured his political supporters for the hundredth time that al-Qaida was on the run, its leadership had been subdued, and that he was the cause of that. The last thing his campaign managers wanted to confront in the middle of September was an al-Qaida-orchestrated attack on American property in the Middle East in which our ambassador was murdered.

Yet, that's what confronted the Obama campaign managers. So, they concocted a narrative that they could comfortably live with and that they believed the American public would accept. Susan Rice, then the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, relayed the narrative. Rice either permitted herself to become a political tool or materially lied to the American public when she told five Sunday morning talk shows on Sept. 16, 2012, that the attacks in Benghazi were not acts of terror and were not aimed at the ambassador, but rather were the spontaneous and unplanned reaction of a street crowd to a cheap, anti-Muslim Internet clip that some jerk in California had made earlier that summer.

For a while, this seemed successful. The president was able to continue misleading the electorate with his claim that al-Qaida was on the run, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was able to distance herself from the failure of her State Department to protect its own employees, and Romney and the Republicans would not discover the truth, or at least would not develop a narrative sufficient to contradict the White House narrative, until after the election.

It worked.

Now, with the discovery of the Rhodes email, it appears that the White House did use the instruments of government to aid the president's re-election campaign by deceiving the American people and telegraphing that proposed deception to the president's campaign officials. Using government personnel and assets to coordinate a political campaign, even if done truthfully and above board, violates federal criminal statutes.

As if that were not bad enough, it now appears that the State Department had special operations forces in close proximity to Benghazi, and the White House ordered them to stand down rather than confront the attackers, meet force with force, and endeavor to save the lives of the ambassador and others, though at the risk of contradicting the president's political boast.

When the truth—that the Benghazi attack was an al-Qaida-organized assault complete with military hardware and sophisticated planning—became known, and when the apparent deception by the president, the White House, and the State Department was discovered, Republicans were furious.

Then the cover-up of the cover-up began, as the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform learned when it tried to determine who told the U.S. forces to stand down, who dispatched Rice to tell lies, who certified that the Rhodes email did not exist, and who then eventually released it. The committee wanted to know whether Rice was duped or was part of a plot to use the instruments of government to lie and deceive and enhance Obama's chances of defeating Romney.

So, the Oversight Committee issued subpoenas and held hearings and concluded—a conclusion with which even the Democrats now agree—that the Benghazi attack was part of an organized terrorist assault, and the consulate was undefended.

Then Judicial Watch revealed the reply to its FOIA request of the White House, which included the Rhodes email, and a political firestorm broke loose. Speaker John Boehner addressed that firestorm by asking the House to form a Select Committee—one whose sole goal is to get to the bottom of this—and to grant it a serious budget and a full legal and investigative staff, and to set it loose upon the administration's deceivers.

Already, the administration has declared that many of the documents the Select Committee will seek have been classified as top secret, and the president is free to classify any document he wants for any reason he chooses. Legally, that argument is correct. Frustrated congressional Republicans have no one to blame but themselves here, as they gave that legal power to President George W. Bush.

Nevertheless, can the Select Committee subpoena the president and his records to find out where he was during the eight-hour attack, who gave the order to stand down and permit murder rather than suffer political embarrassment, and who concocted the Rice deceptions? Yes. And he will claim executive privilege, and a federal judge will make the call.

And so, here comes Watergate, 21st-century style—except this time around, innocent people died. This time around, will it have the same outcome?

 Polonius wrote:
Where Bengazhi and Watergate are the same (and really, most scandals follow this mold) is that there was some act, followed by a presidential coverup. Come to think of it, that's how nearly all problems happen, but I digress.

The difference is that Watergate wasn't shocking because Nixon tried to cover it up, but because he personally ordered a criminal act to help his own campaign. And not just an abuse of power criminal act, but literal burglary!

In Benghazi, there was a failure. (I get that some see the potential for not engaging in hopes of furthering the message that Al-Qaeda is on the run, but that seems specious. Wouldn't a successful interception of a street gang show how weak Al-Qaeda had become?)

Still, the cover up is, in many ways, the worse part.

And that's where the whole "its like watergate, except people died!" narrative flames out. It's like watergate, in that the White House tried to cover up a scandal, but nobody died because of the scandal. They died because of attack, which the State deparment and/or white house may have had some intel on. And making an executive call, even a bad one, is not a crime. It's so painfully difficult to seperate out legitimate discretion from abuse of power in a situation like that, and the courts have always deferrerd to the exectutive.

So, the question becomes (pre-attack): what did we know? Who knew it? When did they know it?

The answer, as it always is, will be "that's classified, to protect sources and assets in the field."

Which is a good rule for anybody that doesn't want to see George Bush tried at the Hague.

There's seperation of powers, but we have no choice but to trust the executive to make decisions.

 whembly wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

And that's where the whole "its like watergate, except people died!" narrative flames out. It's like watergate, in that the White House tried to cover up a scandal, but nobody died because of the scandal. They died because of attack, which the State deparment and/or white house may have had some intel on. And making an executive call, even a bad one, is not a crime. It's so painfully difficult to seperate out legitimate discretion from abuse of power in a situation like that, and the courts have always deferrerd to the exectutive.

You do have a point... don't get me wrong. But, I think many of us is using the Watergate comparison to convey how serious this is... rather than trying to compare the minute details between the two scandals. Know what I mean?