No. They just invaded Cambodia and wrecked the infrastructure that led to the Khmer Rouge's reign of terror.

 

Look, there's enough evil to hand out to everybody in power and the Obama administration is the one who is deservedly on the hot seat right now.

 

Going into the past and somehow making Spiro and Tricky Dick less guilty than the current administration is in their current coverup is denigrating into partisanship I think. The truth is both are seemingly as corrupt as the other.

 

I agree in general. Focusing on Watergate crimes vs. Vietnam though people were ultimately held accountable. Two Attorney Generals served prison terms. As of yet, no one had been held accountable for almost anything at any level in the current administration. In the case of F&F the trail clearly leads to inside Holder's immediate office. Yet, no accountability. In the case of Benghazi is all but certain that Hillary will take the pipe politically and blame-wise. Yet the authorization for CBA of military assets to come to the defense of over 40 Americans under attack for over 8 hours comes from one office and one office only. And it is not Hillary's. And the cover-up using the very lame 'video' story has all sorts of finger prints on it.

 

The basic question is - will anyone at any level be held accountable for actions or lack of actions and the associated multi-day lying and cover-up that followed?

Illegal? Maybe, maybe not. Incompetent? Yes. Untruthful? Yes.

Darryl Issa and Roger Ailes are keeping this story alive. That's about it. I don't think the allegations that arose from the tragedy have registered much with Joe Public. The main purpose of the hearings is to discredit the Obama administration and, more important, tarnish Hillary's star for her presidential run in '16.

Darryl Issa and Roger Ailes are keeping this story alive. That's about it. I don't think the allegations that arose from the tragedy have registered much with Joe Public. The main purpose of the hearings is to discredit the Obama administration and, more important, tarnish Hillary's star for her presidential run in '16.

 

That's what you think. I think otherwise.

Darryl Issa and Roger Ailes are keeping this story alive. That's about it. I don't think the allegations that arose from the tragedy have registered much with Joe Public. The main purpose of the hearings is to discredit the Obama administration and, more important, tarnish Hillary's star for her presidential run in '16.

 

Do you think that's a good thing or a bad thing?

This is false equivalency run amok. Watergate led to 43 persons sent to prison from charges ranging from obstruction of justice to conspiracy, including Nixon's Attorney General, the President's Chief of Staff, the President's Council, the Directors of the President's re-election campaign, members of the CIA and FBI, and likely the President himself if he weren't pardoned. It just isn't comparable to any scandal since. There have been scandals, terrible decisions, and a lot of lying, I'm sure. But, comparing every negative thing to Watergate is just false equivalency.

 

I'll likely tune into the latest Benghazi hearings today, but I haven't had anyone yet tell me what illegal activities took place or are alleged to have taken place in this case.

 

'False equivalency'? That may be correct in that seems to be far worse. No one died due to action or more specifically lack of action in Watergate. But lets look at how these are alike.

 

Both included cover-ups and lies.

Both were for the purpose of retaining power of a current administration.

Both involved high level administration members, including cabinet members of the administration.

Both involve actions or inactions in the case of Benghazi by the office of the President.

Both included direct and blatant lies to the press and American people.

 

It is now clearly known that from the very beginning this was known by all key players that this was an organized military-style attack on American facilities and staff. They knew it was not a 'spontanious demonstration' that 'got out of control'. It is also know that battle lasted for well over 8 hours. A rescue mission was launched by a small in-country force based in Tripoli. Without this rescue mission the death toll without a doubt would have been much greater. General Ham has testified that additional assets were available and ready to engage in the battle. One of the former SEALS was killed many, many hours into the engagement. The other bled to death waiting for back-up forces hours later. Yet the orders were to stand down and no CBA was issued from the office of the President - the only office that can provide that authorization. Real time video from inside the compound and overhead via a supposedly unarmed drone was available.

 

Then a blatantly false story was told and retold for days and days to cover-up what reality was. Since the exposure of that lie the new narrative has become additional military assistance was either too far away or would not have been useful. This is in direct conflict with testimony from General Ham. Some have referenced assets in Italy were 'too far away'. Really? Rome is 800 miles from Benghazi. That is less than 2 hours flying time by standard transports. The battle raged for over 8 hours. Fighter-bomber assets from almost anywhere in Europe could have been on-station in less time than that. The 'too far away' narrative is another outright lie. As for 'it would not have helped or made the situation worse' - who can make that judgement and statement. Its a convenient excuse for inaction. But it has no basis in fact.

 

The inaction can be explained politically - it was to ensure there would be no 'Desert 1'. The cover-up and video story was an attempt to down-play and dismiss what happened - an organized attack against Americans and American assets on anniversary of 9/11 - another political hot potato that was a serious problem during an election period.

 

The only lack of equivalency at this point is that Watergate was fully played out - due to the efforts of two extraordinary investigative reporters. This situation has yet to play out. It is like judging two baseball games - one that has finished and is in the books and one that is in the 2nd inning.

 

To catch the hearings you may need to use web. C-SPAN 3 is not carried by most TV networks. It is not on Directv.

 

Live Video - C-SPAN3 | C-SPAN

Jeez, Watergate hearings were on network TV. Used to go home and watch them between two a days.

Do you think that's a good thing or a bad thing?

Poll results show majority of Americans don't think Obama misled on Benghazi, but they are dissatisfied with his administration's handling of what occurred on 9-11-12. That pretty much sums it up. Benghazi didn't have much effect on the '12 presidential election; probably will be a mostly forgotten story in '16. The fact that Issa and Ailes are leading the charge on this issue diminishes credibility. Also, Joe Public is much more concerned with what happens on American soil (Boston bombing) than halfway around the world.

 

I don't look for much to come out of the hearings. Mostly stuff like: "If we had done X, then maybe Y wouldn't have occurred." Who knows, maybe there will be a bombshell, but I doubt it. Just keep your TV dial tuned to Fox.

Where have I heard that before *cough Iran contra cough*?

 

I might be an old liberal, but it's equally troubling to me when something is swept under the rug for political expediency regardless of who is wielding the broom.

 

Hilliary seemed not to be able to recall much during the White Water hearings either.

Darryl Issa and Roger Ailes are keeping this story alive. That's about it. I don't think the allegations that arose from the tragedy have registered much with Joe Public. The main purpose of the hearings is to discredit the Obama administration and, more important, tarnish Hillary's star for her presidential run in '16.

How awful for someone associated with news media report on something significant...........

Remember this is a "transparent" President. Baloney!

Poll results show majority of Americans don't think Obama misled on Benghazi, but they are dissatisfied with his administration's handling of what occurred on 9-11-12. That pretty much sums it up. Benghazi didn't have much effect on the '12 presidential election; probably will be a mostly forgotten story in '16. The fact that Issa and Ailes are leading the charge on this issue diminishes credibility. Also, Joe Public is much more concerned with what happens on American soil (Boston bombing) than halfway around the world.

 

I don't look for much to come out of the hearings. Mostly stuff like: "If we had done X, then maybe Y wouldn't have occurred." Who knows, maybe there will be a bombshell, but I doubt it. Just keep your TV dial tuned to Fox.

Poll schmoll!! We are not governed by polls.

Poll schmoll!! We are not governed by polls.

Isn't that also what Romney said on Nov. 4?

Since I hate on Obama some, I will prove I am not biased. Bush also if I am correct under his watch covered up the Jessica Lynch story. Bush was just as bad as Obama, but at least had some sense.

Remember this is a "transparent" President. Baloney!

 

Best joke of the day.

Since I hate on Obama some, I will prove I am not biased. Bush also if I am correct under his watch covered up the Jessica Lynch story. Bush was just as bad as Obama, but at least had some sense.

Yep. This most certainly proves you're not biased.