What kept Watergate alive as opposed to Benghazi is that the mainstream media did not try to protect Nixon and there were only a handful of stations available, with all of them following the story front and center. I will agree that the cast of characters was fun to watch.

 

Watergate involved a criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice in the investigation over who paid the "plumbers" who broke into the DNC headquarters. It ranged from the highest levels of government to the president's re-election campaign in not only who knew what was going on with the attempted spying on the DNC (which was a very big deal in and of itself), but the conspiracy to manipulate the investigation as well (and that went very deep). What's being alleged here is just not in the same ballpark. It's not even the same sport. We've hashed out the administration's reluctance to say "terrorism" in the wake of the attacks for almost eight months now. At worst, they tried to spin the aftermath. That is just not what happened in Watergate and it's not even close.

 

Since then we've had every relevant actor I can think of brought before Congress to testify on the matter. There's been a review of the State Department's performance by Admiral Mullen, a former Joint Chief of Staff, that was fairly scathing and led to a handful of personnel being fired and a list of reforms to undertake. What else are you asking for? Did you disagree with Admiral Mullen's report? Who else would you like to hear testimony from?

 

While I certainly don't think polls should dictate what is investigated or not, I think they do shed light on how convincing the arguments being made here are. Considering we've essentially had the same information since before the debates and election, which Obama won easily, and the polls since then show very few are buying this "cover-up" argument, that maybe the bluster being brought forth here doesn't match up with what actually happened. Even the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee says he's satisfied with what the investigation and is ready to move on. People have been wondering about what the Republicans have to do to form a winning coalition again. This kind of thing might be a case study. The hyperbole has been unhinged.

"Cover-up" is not an "argument". It happened. Its fact. Undisputed at this point. Polls can not change that. From the very moment of the attack everyone knew it was an attack. No demonstration. There was NEVER a demonstration underway. The demonstration/video story is not only false, it is not a 'fog of war' event. There was never any doubt what was happening. The 'demonstration/video' story is a complete manufactured fabrication of the events. Manufactured. By whom? Why?

 

Susan Rice never talked to the highest remaining ranking State Department official left in Libya before going on her rounds of talk shows. She did not want the facts. Her job was to lie and distort with the story handed to her. This is not some argument, this is a fact.

"Cover-up" is not an "argument". It happened. Its fact. Undisputed at this point. Polls can not change that. From the very moment of the attack everyone knew it was an attack. No demonstration. There was NEVER

 

They "covered-up" something I read in the New York Times and BBC? Where is the illegality used to keep information from coming into the open? At worst, it was spin. At best, it was poor PR.

Interesting the people who are fine with just leaving it go. Watergate would have been let go if the media had stayed on the sidelines like they have with this one. We don't know what we don't know. Has there been criminal activity? I don't think there's been any indication of that, at least as far as I know no one has impacted testimony to Congress and I don't think there will be. But if the media had reacted the same way during Watergate as they have this time, we would never have known what we now know on that either.

Interesting the people who are fine with just leaving it go. Watergate would have been let go if the media had stayed on the sidelines like they have with this one. We don't know what we don't know. Has there been criminal activity? I don't think there's been any indication of that, at least as far as I know no one has impacted testimony to Congress and I don't think there will be. But if the media had reacted the same way during Watergate as they have this time, we would never have known what we now know on that either.

 

Woodward and Bernstein kept finding evidence that kept getting deeper and deeper into the administration. Once they tied the burglars to the White House and found it went to the top the whole thing broke open (and the Senate hearings and all that followed it, once everyone was already well aware of the criminal activity). What equivalent is going on here? What kind of information do we not have that would be a game-changer?

 

And by all means, keep investigating. But acting like this is "worse than Watergate" is just bizarre to me.

Woodward and Bernstein kept finding evidence that kept getting deeper and deeper into the administration. Once they tied the burglars to the White House and found it went to the top the whole thing broke open (and the Senate hearings and all that followed it, once everyone was already well aware of the criminal activity). What equivalent is going on here? What kind of information do we not have that would be a game-changer?

 

And by all means, keep investigating. But acting like this is "worse than Watergate" is just bizarre to me.

I can't help but to think of Walter Duranty whenever you shrug your shoulders.

They "covered-up" something I read in the New York Times and BBC? Where is the illegality used to keep information from coming into the open? At worst, it was spin. At best, it was poor PR.

 

They covered-up the facts that lead to material negative impact to the work of the State Department in the days following the incident. They manufactured a lie. Blatant, manufactured lies are not 'spin'.

 

I guess some subscribe the notion that Robert Redford's character at the end of 'Three Days of the Condor' ask of his CIA boss:

 

"Do you think not getting caught in a lie is the same as telling the truth?"

Woodward and Bernstein kept finding evidence that kept getting deeper and deeper into the administration. Once they tied the burglars to the White House and found it went to the top the whole thing broke open (and the Senate hearings and all that followed it, once everyone was already well aware of the criminal activity). What equivalent is going on here? What kind of information do we not have that would be a game-changer?

 

And by all means, keep investigating. But acting like this is "worse than Watergate" is just bizarre to me.

 

It is now on the record that 'Stand down' orders were issued. If those explicit orders came from the White House that would easily put this on level with Watergate. We already know that CBA was not issued and was needed. Why? Who made that decision. CBA comes from a single office - that of President. There was no alternate plan in place for rescue. Had the Tripoli diplomatic mission failed nothing else was in motion. Tripoli military assets were told/ordered, explicitly to 'stand down'. Who issued that order? Who approved it?

There is no evidence of that. In fact the prevention and fixing depend on something that is not yet at hand - the detailed and specific facts. What is in hand is lies and deceitful actions. This is why the lies and misleading actions matter - they obscure and invalidate any attempt to fix anything going forward.

 

I think Sulzberger captured it best

 

 

Obviously, a man's judgement cannot be better than the information on which he has based it. Give him the truth and he may still go wrong when he has the chance to be right, but give him no news or present him only with distorted and incomplete data, with ignorant, sloppy or biased reporting, with propaganda and deliberate falsehoods, and you destroy his whole reasoning processes, and make him something less than a man.

- Arthur Hays Sulzberger

 

Until the lies and distortions (accidental and deliberate) are sorted out and put aside there can be no real prevention or fixing in the future. So this is step 1.

 

 

But that's my whole point. Your first paragraph says we don't know the detailed and specific facts but yet we do know they are all lies? How do we know what is a lie and what is the truth and if the truth hasn't been said? Why should I believe it is going automatically appear and if it does why should I then believe it is the truth? All I see is one group trying to make the other look bad and the other trying to cover its butt. Blame game. That's all I see. As long as this has been going on I have seen nothing but speculation and finger pointing. Why would I believe or why should I believe that the story on tonight's news about Bhengazi is any more truthful than what is already out there? We'll never know the real truth and that is why this is an exercise in futility.

 

 

Washington D.C. sucks.

It is now on the record that 'Stand down' orders were issued. If those explicit orders came from the White House that would easily put this on level with Watergate. We already know that CBA was not issued and was needed. Why? Who made that decision. CBA comes from a single office - that of President. There was no alternate plan in place for rescue. Had the Tripoli diplomatic mission failed nothing else was in motion. Tripoli military assets were told/ordered, explicitly to 'stand down'. Who issued that order? Who approved it?

 

Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey already gave their reasons for the military response to it in front of Congress. You apparently disagree with them. OK. Not Watergate.

But that's my whole point. Your first paragraph says we don't know the detailed and specific facts but yet we do know they are all lies? How do we know what is a lie and what is the truth and if the truth hasn't been said? Why should I believe it is going automatically appear and if it does why should I then believe it is the truth? All I see is one group trying to make the other look bad and the other trying to cover its butt. Blame game. That's all I see. As long as this has been going on I have seen nothing but speculation and finger pointing. Why would I believe or why should I believe that the story on tonight's news about Bhengazi is any more truthful than what is already out there? We'll never know the real truth and that is why this is an exercise in futility.

 

 

Washington D.C. sucks.

 

We now know that Susan Rice's stories told days after the event of a demonstration and a video are manufactured lies. Of that there is no doubt.

 

But the big question is do we accept our role in an Orwellian world where truth is only what the government says is truth?

Woodward and Bernstein kept finding evidence that kept getting deeper and deeper into the administration. Once they tied the burglars to the White House and found it went to the top the whole thing broke open (and the Senate hearings and all that followed it, once everyone was already well aware of the criminal activity). What equivalent is going on here? What kind of information do we not have that would be a game-changer?

 

And by all means, keep investigating. But acting like this is "worse than Watergate" is just bizarre to me.

 

I have never said it was worse than Watergate. I just want the investigation to play out. If you'll recall Watergate happened in early Summer of one year and the burglars were sentenced at the beginning of the next year. I believe the conspiracy information began to come to light during the confirmation hearings on the guy who was supposed to replace J. Edgar Hoover later that spring. Until then it was a simple botched break in. So it took a year for the truth to begin to come out.

We now know that Susan Rice's stories told days after the event of a demonstration and a video are manufactured lies. Of that there is no doubt.

 

But the big question is do we accept our role in an Orwellian world where truth is only what the government says is truth?

Compare Susan Rice's comments to the WMD speech delivered by Colin Powell to the U.N. in '03. Were both "lying"? Or were they simply fed bad intelligence?

Compare Susan Rice's comments to the WMD speech delivered by Colin Powell to the U.N. in '03. Were both "lying"? Or were they simply fed bad intelligence?

Colin Powell was fed bad info, Susan Rice was never once told by anyone in Libya that there were protests of any sort and the entire video thing was completley fabricated by the state dept. that night. Huge difference.

Colin Powell was fed bad info, Susan Rice was never once told by anyone in Libya that there were protests of any sort and the entire video thing was completley fabricated by the state dept. that night. Huge difference.

 

Is that what you know as 100% truth or is that what you believe?