• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

Time to consider "Worst Administration Ever"?

Started by Sardondi, May 14, 2013, 01:43:25 PM

NowhereInTime

Quote from: Sardondi on May 19, 2013, 12:50:10 PM
When Obama advisor Dan Pfeiffer appeared on face The Nation, Bob Schieffer, ordinarily a great admirer of Obama and a friend to his Administration, demanded to know why the White House Chief of Staff had not appeared to, answer questions, since the scandals are serious matters. Schiffer went on to say,

“I have to tell you that is exactly the approach that the Nixon administration took. They said, ‘These are all second-rate things. We don’t have time for this. We have to devote our time to the people’s business.’ You’re taking exactly the same line they did.”

That comment should chill the bones of Barack Obama. But they won't. Because 5-to-1 he's out making those 6's, 7's and snowmen out on the links, because it's a beautiful goddam day.
Surprise, surprise.  Schieffer, Woodward, et al grandstanding.  Trying to wring one last Pulitzer out of already overwrought careers.  Yet Woodward, Schieffer, and the rest have failed to inform us, the viewing public, as to what the hell exactly anbody did wrong?  My frustration is that this ongoing "coverage" is more like sports commentary than investigative journalism and to blame the administration for not handing them scandals neatly wrapped on silver platters is deplorable and lazy journalism.  When Woodward turns Axelrod or Plouffe into Deep Throrax let me know...

NowhereInTime

Quote from: Sardondi on May 19, 2013, 01:37:48 AM
Yup. Well, except for the VA, although it is horrendously run. But the states have no one but themselves to blame for the federal government's usurpation of their powers: in most cases the states simply abdicated their responsibility.
To take it a step further why do some people view the states as the ultimate political unit?  Do we pledge allegiance as "one nation, under God, indivisible..." or as "however many states, as they may or may not wish..."?  Wasn't this whole conflict really settled in the 1860's?  Didn't we, as a nation, realize that there are issues that transcend local polity that require all of our participation?  I get opposing unfunded mandates on states for fairness sake but, as stated above, states neither could nor would see clear to handling the many responsibilities our nation now handles as a whole.

Quote from: NowhereInTime on May 19, 2013, 02:26:04 PM
To take it a step further why do some people view the states as the ultimate political unit?  Do we pledge allegiance as "one nation, under God, indivisible..." or as "however many states, as they may or may not wish..."?

Nice try.

But last I checked, the pledge isn't a ratified part of the Constitution. It holds as much weight in policy as the inscription on the statue of liberty. It's literature, not law.

It seems pretty clear to me that certain passages of "literature" are, indeed, more than just literature in this country:  consider the 10 Commandments.  Similarly, The Pledge was something a lot of us oldtimers had to recite every morning at school for years on end.  We sure didn't have to recite "The Song of Hiawatha"...  The Pledge (like the 10 Commandments) to a large number of people is an oath of loyalty and is infused with patriotic and moral meaning.  Do sessions of Congress begin with the Pledge? I wouldn't be surprised if they did.  So, does it have as much legal weight as The Constitution... no, of course not.  But let's not pretend that it has no more cultural weight than Joyce Kilmer's "Trees".

analog kid

Quote from: West of the Rockies on May 19, 2013, 08:51:21 PM
It seems pretty clear to me that certain passages of "literature" are, indeed, more than just literature in this country:  consider the 10 Commandments.  Similarly, The Pledge was something a lot of us oldtimers had to recite every morning at school for years on end.  We sure didn't have to recite "The Song of Hiawatha"...  The Pledge (like the 10 Commandments) to a large number of people is an oath of loyalty and is infused with patriotic and moral meaning.  Do sessions of Congress begin with the Pledge? I wouldn't be surprised if they did.  So, does it have as much legal weight as The Constitution... no, of course not.  But let's not pretend that it has no more cultural weight than Joyce Kilmer's "Trees".

Yeah, but a version of the Ten Commandments originally instructed one not to boil goat meat in milk, and let's be honest, most of the commandments are superfluous and they can ultimately be boiled down to the golden rule, which Confucius gave us 300 years before Christianity existed. And the pledge was altered in the 50s to add God as a means to thwart communism. If we were purists about the commandments and the pledge, it would probably be a different country, at least in terms of religion and politics.

Sardondi

Another Sardondi Wall of a 100-Billion Pixels. I grew up in a politically engaged family. We weren't nuts by any means. Nor were we insiders of any party or connected to anyone, just always up on what was happening in our community, state and in the nation. My people were actually fairly well divided on political loyalties, at least when I was a kid. For example my grandfather, who for 30 years was the head official for our local voting precinct of maybe 2,000 total voters, was a strong and loyal Democrat until 1968. and he sort of wandered lost until he became one of those Reagan Democrats. My parents first voted Republican in 1952 for Eisenhower's first term. Some older aunts and uncles remained Democrats until their deaths in the 80's and even 90's, when their refusal to sync their political party preferences with their life principles was becoming a minor local embarrassment well into the any election was always exciting, as we kids got to hang around the community center where voting was held and got to see the votes gathered and counted. So I always saw elections as something exciting and vital, and in a very real way saw elections as the single event that brought our community together as a physical entity.

My first national political memory is watching President Dwight D. Eisenhower introduce his VP and the 1960 GOP Presidential candidate Richard M. Nixon at that year's GOP convention. Beginning in 1964 I began 30+ year tradition of watching both parties' national conventions. I remember being gobsmacked that the GOP would hold something as august as their national convention (I had a lot to learn about the real nature of conventions and political parties) in a facility with the name of "The Cow Palace".

But for breathtaking political theater and history-in-the-making the Dems' 1968 convention disaster in Chicago has never been equaled. I mean, seeing a baby-faced John Chancellor come on live and tell Chet Huntley and David Brinkley that the convention was considering shutting down for the night because so much tear-gas had been released to disperse thousands of rioting utes a mere block away that it had leaked into the convention site, and fumes were so strong that delegates and speakers were beginning to choke, was just electrifying. It was also unprecedented in broadcast history, because the networks extended their nightly coverage of the Democrat convention to as late as 11:00 p.m. or even midnight. (It was a different world then.)

And then in 1972 seeing Sammy Davis Jr. hug Nixon and almost pee himself in excitement, well, what could top that? What a shame that the conventions have become meaningless borefests which the networks might give 30 minutes a night to. Oh, unless Barack Obama is involved, then it's all hands on deck for religious services.   

All to say that I've paid close attention to national political events for 50 years, longer actually than I could really understand them. And that includes scandals. Without a doubt Watergate was the greatest scandal. Then I'd rank scandals as President Clinton's perjury and the impeachment which followed. I'd have to say Iran-Contra was a far distant third. Savings and Loan Crisis, of which the "Keating Five" bribery scandal was a part. Then a score or more of lesser ones. There have been scads of flaps and stinks which didn't even rise to the level of hearings which could reasonably have led to criminal charges or impeachment.

With that as background, I'd have to say the debacle that is Obama's second term, which really is still in its very early stages as far as investigations go, already ranks right under Watergate for seriousness and threat to our confidence in government and our leaders. One of the reasons for this is the sheer number of major incidents worthy of their own "-gate" suffix,whether they have them or not, whether they've been successfully stage-managed or not, like Barney Frank's crimes with Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. From far more ethically disqualified appointees in this Administration than any other in modern memory; to the shameful race-based protection which the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, who even at this stage looks to me like the most corrupt in that position we've ever had, gave to the New Black Panther Party stemming from their intimidation of white voters at Philadelphia voting boxes in the 2008 presidential election; to the almost forgotten Operation Fast and Furious conspiracy, which seems just about to break wide open with testimony from agents and their superiors that they were ordered by political functionaries to let firearms go to Mexico.

That doesn't even get us to the Trinity of Scandals which has erupted all over Obama in the last two weeks. So much has happened just today which is shocking and startling that I just don't have the spirit to even fully list them. I mean, the head of the IRS division charged with investigating tax-exempt applications - the division which ran the abuse and intimidation of conservative groups - will take the fucking Fifth Amendment when she testifies Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Affairs. Jeez Louise, man. IRS and Dept of State employees who have been positioned for scapegoatage in the tax abuse and Benghazi scandals, respectively, are readying to give it up in self-protection. The Administration's tapping of phones of journalists is much broader and involved than originally feared...and looking more and more like it was targeted at Fox News in particular. And now there is supposedly entirely new testimony forthcoming from a State Dept. diplomat which is "devastating" to Hilary Clinton. It's just too much. Like trying to drink from a firehose.

How do the very stones not cry out?


Quote from: Sardondi on May 21, 2013, 11:23:58 PM
... With that as background, I'd have to say the debacle that is Obama's second term, which really is still in its very early stages as far as investigations go, already ranks right under Watergate for seriousness and threat to our confidence in government and our leaders. One of the reasons for this is the sheer number of major incidents worthy of their own "-gate" suffix...


While not scandals, I still don't understand how people can be surprised that a typical Lib Leftist from the typical inner city wing of the typical big city political machine, like Obama, turns out to not understand how the economy works, or how someone with that background wouldn't have the usual foreign policy that attempts to further American interests, or be surprised that his appointments and advisors share his same views.

Or be surprised that someone that grew up (politically) and emerged from the top of the heap of a corrupt political machine would be equally corrupt, bring his equally corrupt cronies and advisers to DC, and revert to the same corrupt tactics from back home as needed.  Especially when we very recently had 8 years of the same thing from the same party under the Clintons.  How can people be surprised by any of this. 

It would be as if after the Obama presidency is over the American people were to elect a big spending, tax cutting, deficit building, smirking incompetent Republican from a self-sure blustering big state, eager to start foreign wars before exhausting diplomatic solutions - then acting all surprised when that repeats.

The only real surprise here is that the Media blackout on the real Obama might finally be beginning to crack.

Sardondi

Quote from: Paper*Boy on May 22, 2013, 03:19:57 AM...The only real surprise here is that the Media blackout on the real Obama might finally be beginning to crack.
Even though the media's slavish devotion to Obama so far has reduced me to being grateful that they might finally be waking up to what has been going on with this administration, it took the abusive snooping into the AP's phones to get them hot. Then suddenly the media is outraged. It's all about whose ox is being gored, eh? Even when they might finally be doing their job I can manage contempt over what it took to bring them around.

The AP debacle is disgraceful, but the treatment of James Rosen, of FNC, is truly disturbing. He`s being treated no better than a Soviet era SPY for God`s sake!


Conspiracy charges? Are you kidding me? Every American should be outraged! Under Caesar Obamus, we have become no better than East Germany.   

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: FightTheFuture on May 22, 2013, 07:31:37 AM
The AP debacle is disgraceful, but the treatment of James Rosen, of FNC, is truly disturbing. He`s being treated no better than a Soviet era SPY for God`s sake!


Conspiracy charges? Are you kidding me? Every American should be outraged! Under Caesar Obamus, we have become no better than East Germany.   


Although you've managed to integrate two separate totalitarian regimes, two thousend years and two separate countries apart; to compare the USA today (or in fact at any time) with the former East Germany is fallacious nonsense. It's either deliberate hyperbole or it shows a  depressing and wildly erroneous grasp of historical facts and reality.

Sardondi

Well, it only took 9 months, but the Washington Post thinks Bengahzi is a major problem now. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/05/22/benghazi-turns-out-to-be-a-big-deal-and-not-for-just-republicans/

But here's the startling bit in the article, at least for me: the most recent Washington Post/ABC poll finds that while 56 percent of Republicans polled believe the White House is engaged in a cover-up of Benghazi, 60 percent of independents say it is. Wow. Either the Post 1) polled a mere handful of Republicans (a real possibility, since Post employees are so innocent of familiarity with Republicans they could be reduced to defensively claiming that, "one of my best friends is a Republican"); or, 2) the Republicans polled were John McCain and staff.

I've never been a fan of the WaPo/ABC poll, because any errors it makes ordinarily are found leaning the other way. Which makes the indication that slightly more independents than Republicans think Obama is engaging in a coverup a real eye-opener. That figure alone promises bad times ahead for Obama.

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on May 22, 2013, 08:27:42 AM

Although you've managed to integrate two separate totalitarian regimes, two thousend years and two separate countries apart; to compare the USA today (or in fact at any time) with the former East Germany is fallacious nonsense. It's either deliberate hyperbole or it shows a  depressing and wildly erroneous grasp of historical facts and reality.







Sardondi

One of the charges most used by Democrat national figures against Republican leadership is that it is elitist and disconnected from the lives of "regular people". Republicans, so the usual accusation goes, simply have no idea what the people are thinking. It's a favorite political attack, regardless of how much truth there is to it.

If you want to see a political party leader who is truly elitist and disconnected from average people and what they they think is important, you have to go to Howard Dean, former head of the Democrat National Committee: "Benghazi is a laughable joke". He made the remarks on the Kudlow Report last week. Juxtapose this with my post immediately above, with reference to the WaPo poll which finds 56% of Republicans and 60% of independents think the Obama Administration is pulling a coverup on Benghazi.

It's not a mistake, it's not taken out of context. Several times Dean minimizes the investigation into Benghazi and the Administration's herculean efforts to stonewall Congress, calling it "silly" and "ridiculous". It takes about 90 seconds to watch this -

Dean: 'Benghazi is a Laughable Joke'

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: FightTheFuture on May 22, 2013, 09:38:34 AM




And? Your point being? If the above were correct, it's failure, not fail.


Tell me (using,  mmmm, Oh I dunno; evidence?) how the former east Germany compares with the USA at any time since it's inception.

Quote from: Sardondi on May 22, 2013, 10:13:11 AM
One of the charges most used by Democrat national figures against Republican leadership is that it is elitist and disconnected from the lives of "regular people". Republicans, so the usual accusation goes, simply have no idea what the people are thinking. It's a favorite political attack, regardless of how much truth there is to it...



Right now there is plenty of truth to it.  Who exactly do the Establishment R's in DC represent?  A LOT of those Independents used to be R's.  Of course the D's in DC are always disconnected from middle America, but that's a different topic.

Having said that, holding hearing and perhaps finally standing up to Obama and fighting him on policy would do wonders for the R's.

Sardondi

This is unfortunate, because it gives those "low-information" folks a bitch point, but I saw it coming tpday when the former IRS tax-exempt chief made an exculpatory statement to the committee and then claimed a Fifth Amendment right to refuse to testify. But Chairman Issa (R_CA) has no ruled she waived her 5th  rights by making that statement, and will be recalled to testify. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/darrell-issa-irs-lois-lerner-91755.html?hp=t3_3

He's got a point. That's not the way it works: you can't say you'll refuse to testify then use the hearing as your bully pulpit. There is legal precedent that such a statement constitutes a waiver, but I dunno if I would compel her to testify. I don't know if she was under oath yet. If she was, she's screwed up badly. If not, meh. 

Quote from: Sardondi on May 22, 2013, 05:18:11 PM
This is unfortunate, because it gives those "low-information" folks a bitch point, but I saw it coming tpday when the former IRS tax-exempt chief made an exculpatory statement to the committee and then claimed a Fifth Amendment right to refuse to testify. But Chairman Issa (R_CA) has no ruled she waived her 5th  rights by making that statement, and will be recalled to testify. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/darrell-issa-irs-lois-lerner-91755.html?hp=t3_3

He's got a point. That's not the way it works: you can't say you'll refuse to testify then use the hearing as your bully pulpit. There is legal precedent that such a statement constitutes a waiver, but I dunno if I would compel her to testify. I don't know if she was under oath yet. If she was, she's screwed up badly. If not, meh.


Apparently she has a history of being a political hack as an attorney at the FEC, abusing her position there on behalf of the D's before heading over to the IRS.  Probably fancies herself as a sort of junior Hilary.  Just the sort of person the country needs at Internal Revenue, right? 

I really wonder how many cockroaches like this exist out there, hiding amongst the bureaucracy,  pulling in fat government salaries while doing the Party of Government's dirty work behind the scenes - thousands?, 10's of thousands?, 100's of thousands?

And they tell us there is nowhere to cut, other than public safety and school kids tours of the White House.

I watched the committee hearings gavel-to-gavel today :'(, and while I was somewhat surprised Ms. Lerner chose to make an opening statement, I can't say I was shocked. One must remember that testifying in front of Congress is not the same as a court of law. 

None-the-less, I look forward to the drama of seeing Issa dragging her back in front of his committee. Will he hold her in contempt? Will she invoke her 5th amendment rights again? Or, maybe she'll acquiesce to the pressure and answer questions. One thing is certain, former Director Shulman is probably praying she does answer questions, as he has been rsked over the coals. I almost felt sorry for him today...well, maybe not so much.




Sent from my HTC MyTouch 4G slide...please excuse any typos

Sardondi

Quote from: FightTheFuture on May 22, 2013, 06:36:02 PM...None-the-less, I look forward to the drama of seeing Issa dragging her back in front of his committee. Will he hold her in contempt? Will she invoke her 5th amendment rights again? Or, maybe she'll acquiesce to the pressure and answer questions. One thing is certain, former Director Shulman is probably praying she does answer questions, as he has been rsked over the coals. I almost felt sorry for him today...well, maybe not so much.
It would be tremendous political theater. But it appears Lerner has already been measured for the scapegoat coat: both Josh Marshall and Ezra Klein...both major "Journolisters" and absolute Obama loyalists, who, so very curiously, were sneaked into the West Wing yesterday with other trusted O-team members, have said today that "Lerner must go" and "heads must roll" at the IRS. http://minx.cc/?post=340246 My goodness, what a coincidence!

Lerner is already a dead duck. And she'll be thrown under the bus with backroom promises of a great future if she's a good soldier and remembers who her friends are.

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: FightTheFuture on May 22, 2013, 06:36:02 PM
One must remember that testifying in front of Congress is not the same as a court of law. 






Or in fact, the Stasi. (East German secret police). Or I would imagine a Roman Emperor.  ::)

Sardondi

 And from the What A Surprise Dept., we learn that Lois Lerner didn't begin her abuse of authority and political intimidation with the IRS: she was also abusing and intimidating conservatives, as far as I can tell to the exclusion of any other political ideology, when she was the head of the Enforcement Office of that abortion known as the Federal election Commission in the 80's and 90's. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/irss-lerner-had-history-harassment-inappropriate-religious-inquiries-fec_725004.html

Also, below is from an email a friend sent me. Ordinarily I hardly pay attention to forwarded emails, much less pass them on myself. But this has the ring of authenticity to me. It concerns the mechanics of rescuing the American personnel trapped and left to die in the Benghazi consulate. Its source is someone claiming to have been a retired US Navy Captain (the equivalent of a colonel of the air or ground forces) who had experience with cross-border insertions, and reading between the lines I would say that means experience delivering or picking SEALs...or being one. It's interesting, and logical. Here it is:
______________________________________________________________________________

  "The Benghazi debacle boils down to a single key factor - the granting or withholding of "cross-border authority." This opinion is informed by my experience as a Navy SEAL officer who took a NavSpecWar Detachment to Beirut.

  Once the alarm is sent - in this case, from the consulate in Benghazi - dozens of HQs are notified and are in the planning loop in real time, including AFRICOM and EUCOM, both located in Germany. Without waiting for specific orders from Washington, they begin planning and executing rescue operations, including moving personnel, ships, and aircraft forward toward the location of the crisis. However, there is one thing they can't do without explicit orders from the president: cross an international border on a hostile mission.

  That is the clear "red line" in this type of a crisis situation. No administration wants to stumble into a war because a jet jockey in hot pursuit (or a mixed-up SEAL squad in a rubber boat) strays into hostile territory. Because of this, only the president can give the order for our military to cross a nation's border without that nation's permission. For the Osama bin Laden mission, President Obama granted CBA for our forces to enter Pakistani airspace.

  On the other side of the CBA coin: in order to prevent a military rescue in Benghazi, all the President of the United States "(POTUS)" has to do is not grant cross-border authority. If he does not, the entire rescue mission (already in progress) must stop in its tracks. Ships can loiter on station, but airplanes fall out of the sky, so they must be redirected to an air base (Sigonella, in Sicily) to await the POTUS decision on granting CBA. If the decision to grant CBA never comes, the besieged diplomatic outpost in Benghazi can rely only on assets already "in country" in Libya - such as the Tripoli quick reaction force and the Predator drones. These assets can be put into action on the independent authority of the acting ambassador or CIA station chief in Tripoli. They are already "in country," so CBA rules do not apply to them.

  How might this process have played out in the White House? If, at the 5:00 p.m. Oval Office meeting with Defense Secretary Panetta and Vice President Biden, President Obama said about Benghazi: "I think we should not go the military action route," meaning that no CBA will be granted, then that is it. Case closed.

  Another possibility is that the president might have said: "We should do what we can to help them . but no military intervention from outside of Libya." Those words then constitute "standing orders" all the way down the chain of command, via Panetta and General Dempsey to General Ham and the subordinate commanders who are already gearing up to rescue the besieged outpost. When that meeting took place, it may have seemed as if the consulate attack was over, so President Obama might have thought the situation would stabilize on its own from that point forward. If he then goes upstairs to the family quarters, or otherwise makes himself "unavailable," then his last standing orders will continue to stand until he changes them, even if he goes to sleep until the morning of September 12.

  Nobody in the chain of command below President Obama can countermand his "standing orders" not to send outside military forces into Libyan air space. Nobody. Not Leon Panetta, not Hillary Clinton, not General Dempsey, and not General Ham in Stuttgart, Germany, who is in charge of the forces staging in Sigonella.

  Perhaps the president left "no outside military intervention, no cross-border authority" standing orders, and then made himself scarce to those below him seeking further guidance, clarification, or modified orders. Or perhaps he was in the Situation Room watching the Predator videos in live time for all seven hours. We don't yet know where the president was hour by hour.

  But this is 100 percent sure: Panetta and Dempsey would have executed a rescue mission order if the president had given those orders. And like the former SEALs in Benghazi, General Ham and all of the troops under him would have been straining forward in their harnesses, ready to go into battle to save American lives.

  The execute orders would be given verbally to General Ham at AFRICOM in Stuttgart, but they would immediately be backed up in official message traffic for the official record. That is why cross-border authority is the King Arthur's Sword for understanding Benghazi. The POTUS and only the POTUS can pull out that sword.

  We can be 100% certain that cross-border authority was never given. How do I know this? Because if CBA was granted and the rescue mission execute orders were handed down, irrefutable records exist today in at least a dozen involved component commands, and probably many more. No general or admiral will risk being hung out to dry for undertaking a mission-gone-wrong that the POTUS later disavows ordering, and instead blames on "loose cannons" or "rogue officers" exceeding their authority. No general or admiral will order U.S. armed forces to cross an international border on a hostile mission unless and until he is certain that the National Command Authority, in the person of the POTUS and his chain of command, has clearly and explicitly given that order: verbally at the outset, but thereafter in written orders and official messages. If they exist, they could be produced today.

  When it comes to granting cross-border authority, there are no presidential mumblings or musings to paraphrase or decipher. If you hear confusion over parsed statements given as an excuse for Benghazi, then you are hearing lies. I am sure that hundreds of active-duty military officers know all about the Benghazi execute orders (or the lack thereof), and I am impatiently waiting for one of them to come forward to risk his career and pension as a whistleblower.

   Leon Panetta is falling on his sword for President Obama with his absurd-on-its-face, "the U.S. military doesn't do risky things"-defense of his shameful no-rescue policy. Panetta is utterly destroying his reputation.

  General Dempsey joins Panetta on the same sword with his tacit agreement by silence. But why? How far does loyalty extend when it comes to covering up gross dereliction of duty by the president?

  General Petraeus, however, has indirectly blown the whistle. He was probably "used" in some way early in the cover-up with the purported CIA intel link to the Mohammed video, and now he feels burned. So he conclusively said via his public affairs officer that the stand-down order did not come from the CIA. Well - what outranks the CIA? Only the national security team at the White House. That means President Obama, and nobody else. Petraeus is naming Obama without naming him. If that is not quite as courageous as blowing a whistle, it is far better than the disgraceful behavior of Panetta and Dempsey.

  We do not know the facts for certain, but we do know that the rescue mission stand-down issue revolves around the granting or withholding of cross-border authority, which belongs only to President Obama. More than one hundred gung-ho Force Recon Marines were waiting on the tarmac in Sigonella, just two hours away for the launch order that never came."

ItsOver

The biggest question of Benghazi is just where was the Commander-in-Chief after punting the ball to Leon and Hillary.  We know exactly where and what he was up to during the Osama take-down, photos and everything.  They made a nice little PR spin out of that situation.  Why the lack of detail about the POTUS's location and activity during the Benghazi burn down?  Can we doubt that if there was anything positive at all to report about his role with Benghazi, we'd have a minute-to-minute account, photos and all?  Was he literally asleep at the wheel?  Far from being "irrelevant," to have the POTUS doing a Waldo is most relevant.



Quote from: ItsOver on May 23, 2013, 11:40:30 AM
The biggest question of Benghazi is just where was the Commander-in-Chief after punting the ball to Leon and Hillary.  We know exactly where and what he was up to during the Osama take-down, photos and everything.  They made a nice little PR spin out of that situation.  Why the lack of detail about the POTUS's location and activity during the Benghazi burn down?...


Well, he did have an awfully long flight the next morning to Vegas for a party and fundraiser.



Sardondi

Worse and worse and worse: not only did the Obamites begin reprisals almost immediately upon seizing power, it was a part of their 2008 campaign strategy and practice to coerce government agencies to abuse and intimidate not only conservative groups, but supporters of Obama's primary opponents as well. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324659404578501411510635312.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

This was accomplished by constant official pressure by the Obama campaign by its general counsel, Bob Bauer to the Department of Justice, demanding investigations of those groups and individuals who displeased and threatened Obama's campaign. The Obama campaign also fought the administrative version of "lawfare", in which a flurry of bad-faith administrative actions with the Federal Election Commission were initiated and maintained. Finally, Obama's campaign counsel coordinated pressure by Democrat senators on the IRS, demanding that it investigate pro-Romney groups.

So this is a huge scoop, right? Wrong. The Obama campaign boasted to the New York Times in August, 2008, that it would harass and intimidate GOP contributors with a view to creating a "chilling effect" on contributions to the Republicans. It created a shell group to do that very thing, Accountable America, through which it sent letters to 10,000 significant GOP donors, threatening them with microscopic scrutiny and vigorous use of the FEC, IRS and Justice Department if they intended to support the Republican candidate.   

Hey, it's the Chicago Way: not only should you never hide the brass knuckles you're going to use - you should brag about using 'em. By comparison to Obama, Nixon was a punk.

We've had a virtual coup in this country. An unprecedented attack on our political institutions and traditions in which the way we've held our elections and chosen our leaders has been fundamentally undermined, and replaced with tactics of intimidation and extortion used by gangsters and thugs. But why are we surprised? After all, it's the Chicago Way.


Sardondi

Now even that fascist rag the Washington Post sees decline and looming disaster with the rise of the 4th branch of government, the branch which controls all others and is itself uncontrollable: administrative sprawl. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-rise-of-the-fourth-branch-of-government/2013/05/24/c7faaad0-c2ed-11e2-9fe2-6ee52d0eb7c1_story.html

We are governed now not by laws but by agency rules. It's been growing for decades, but it has exploded during the Reign of Neo I. It's like kudzu, growing wildly even in a drought - choking, intertwining, ineradicable except by burning and then digging up the root system entirely. 
______________________________________________________________________________

And there's even a new list at Listverse: 8 Arguments for Impeaching the President http://listverse.com/2013/05/26/8-arguments-for-impeaching-the-president/

The scandals will be familiar. The list puts into perspective both the insane number of "high crimes" it appears have been committed by this administration; and the near certainty that each scandal standing alone would probably provide a legitimate basis for impeachment. Although as things stand now, even if all the evidence were in, impeachment would be an exercise in futility. But precedent is set by inaction as well as action, and sometimes actions must be taken regardless of the chance of success. We'll see.

Quantum of proof is an entirely separate issue, and there are miles to go before impeachment might be on the table. But every honest person ought to be able to admit the seriousness of these scandals.

Juan

Quote from: Sardondi on May 26, 2013, 05:58:14 AM
We are governed now not by laws but by agency rules. It's been growing for decades, but it has exploded during the Reign of Neo I. It's like kudzu, growing wildly even in a drought - choking, intertwining, ineradicable except by burning and then digging up the root system entirely. 

I've been trying to find the Roundup for this for decades.

Sardondi

Quote from: UFO Fill on May 26, 2013, 06:45:07 AM
I've been trying to find the Roundup for this for decades.
I think it's called napalm.

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod