What Benghazi Is about: Scandal Envy

If you're looking at the Republican harumphing over Benghazi and asking yourself, "Why are we supposed to be so mad about this again?" you're not alone. Let's review: There was an attack on our consulate that killed four Americans, including our ambassador. Amid confusing and contradictory reports from the ground, President Obama waited too long to utter the magic incantation, "Terrorism, terrorists, terror!" that would have ... well, it would have done something, but it turns out that he did say "terror," so never mind that. But that's not the real scandal! The real scandal is that Susan Rice went on television soon after and amid all kinds of "based on the best information we have"s and "we'll have to see"s, said one thing that turned out not to be the case: that after the protests in Cairo, there was some kind of copycat protest in Benghazi, which was then "hijacked" by extremist elements using heavy weapons to stage an attack.

A sane person might say, OK, she was obviously given some incorrect information at that time, but it's not a particularly meaningful deception. As people have been pointing out for weeks now, it's not as though not using the word "terror" or saying there was a protest before the attack gave the White House some enormous political advantage. If you're going to have a cover-up, there has to be something you're covering up.

But now, some Republicans, particularly John McCain and Lindsay Graham, are essentially saying that this horrifying cover-up was quite possibly the greatest crime in the history of the United States government, and if we're going to get to the bottom of it nothing short of a select committee—a "Watergate-style committee," as it is being referred to by reporters—will do. Who knows what it might uncover? Were there CIA whistleblowers whose bodies are now lying at the bottom of the Potomac? Was David Petraeus being blackmailed? Are William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright involved? Did Susan Rice fly to Tripoli, have a steamy liaison with a clone of Ayman al-Zawahiri created in a secret underground laboratory, then go to Benghazi where she personally killed Ambassador Chris Stevens with a hat pin? We won't know unless we spin this out into a multi-week story!

So what's going on here? I can sum it up in two words: scandal envy. Republicans are indescribably frustrated by the fact that Barack Obama, whom they regard as both illegitimate and corrupt, went through an entire term without a major scandal. They tried with "Fast and Furious," but that turned out to be small potatoes. They tried with Solyndra, but that didn't produce the criminality they hoped for either. Obama even managed to dole out three-quarters of a trillion dollars in stimulus money without any graft or double-dealing to be found. Nixon had Watergate, Reagan had Iran-Contra, Clinton had Lewinsky, and Barack Obama has gotten off scott-free. This is making them absolutely livid, and they're going to keep trying to gin up a scandal, even if there's no there there. Benghazi may not be an actual scandal, but it's all they have handy.


This scandal is about three primary issues Paul.

1. The state department security personal in Libya were requesting additional security help for months before this attack. This was based on intelligence and actual events. The attack on the British Ambassador before hand, several probing attacks on our own embassy and increase terrorist activity in Libya in general and Benghazi in particular.

Why were they denied their request? Was it incompetence or was it because the administration feared news getting out about increased security would ruin their false narrative about Al Qaeda being on the run?

2. The administration repeatedly mislead the American people about the nature of the terrorist attack. they blamed it on a little distributed YouTube video when they knew full well it was a terrorist attack. The UN Ambassador's Sunday talk show tour is the most blatant example of this.

Again the question is were they really so incompetent that they actually believed this was a riot that got out of control? Or did they intentionally and repeatedly mislead the American people in their attempt to win an election?

3. The victims repeatedly requested help after the attack began over several hours. Reports are they were denied that help despite resources being near enough to provide support. This could have saved lives. The president coincidentally was receiving his daily briefly from the Secretary of Deffence and other members of his national security team while this attack was on going. He claims "as soon as he heard the news, he ordered his team to take all measures necessary to rescue the Ambassador and others who were under attack".

Several questions come up here. At exactly what time was he told about the attack?

When did he give this order?

Who did he give this order to?

Why was this order not followed?

Did the president monitor the attack at all? (we know there was a live video feed being sent back to the State department and anyone else with security clearance to watch if they chose to). Did the President choose not to watch this video and ask his team what was going on, while an American Ambassador was being killed?

Was he preparing for his fundraiser in Las Vegas?

Did he go to sleep?

What was the secdef doing all this time?

There are numerous other questions which have not been answered yet. Thank god some within our government are going to keep demanding we get those answers.

I for one don't envy any scandal. I wish we knew these details and could trust that our President did everything he possibly could to save an American ambassador under attack. Until those questions are answered, I am going to withhold judgment on the severity of this scandal.

You raise an important issue about embassy security. However it was not the Administration that bungled this, but the Republican Party in Congress. They voted to cut embassy security funding by $500 million below what the Administration requested in 2011. You should be addressing your question to Speaker John Boehner and Senate Leader Mitch McConnell.


Sorry, But that has already been stated as not a factor, by the State Dept. Some of you are so good at repeating false talking points.

I'm assuming you are referring to the Heritage Foundation, that bastion of unbiased information, article that said the fact that Congress cut funding for embassy security was not a factor. Or you could be referring to one of the many other right wing blogs who said the same thing. Who is repeating false talking points? Lets pretend that it didn't play a factor. The people who are irrationally pointing fingers at the administration for the lack of embassy security and trying so hard to create a scandal are the same people who voted to cut over $300 million from embassy security despite the State Departments requests. This is a fact, it actually happened.

We also have Republicans making fools of themselves by trying to somehow make the Benghazi attack a scandal by our President and his administration. Each one of their nonsensical conspiracy theories are being shot down. John McCain demands answers for Benghazi and misses the Congressional briefing on Benghazi so that he can hold a news conference demanding those answers on Benghazi. It is obvious what the he and the right is doing. They are trying their damnedest to find a path to impeachment since they lost the election. They are on a witch hunt just like they were on a witch hunt during Whitewater after Clinton won reelection.

And attacking Ambassador Rice? That was amazingly ridiculous. The woman in no way deserves these attacks. She had nothing whatsoever to do with Benghazi and simply presented the CIA's unclassified talking points at a news conference. It is clearly a preemptive strike on Obama's possible nomination for Secretary of State.

Republicans got a wake up call on election day, at least some of them did, and they need to start valuing the truth and begin marginalizing the fringe elements in their party that promote nonsense like this. There are legitimate questions to be asked about Benghazi but they are all being pushed to the back because of unwarranted and unsupported nonsense. I certainly hope the GOP gets their act together because I would love to have the robust and factual debate about issues that this country deserves. Until they stop marginalizing those who show a little rationality, like John Huntsman, and start marginalizing the fringe nutjobs ,like Michelle Bachman, Ralph Hall, Paul Broun, Glen Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, and anyone else who puts partisanship and hyperbole before truth and reason, I'm afraid we won't be able to address the issues we so desperately need to.

This has been debunked so many places that I hesitate to respond, but 2 things are particularly absurd.

"Was it incompetence or was it because the administration feared news getting out about increased security would ruin their false narrative about Al Qaeda being on the run?" Don't you think you should settle on one theory? All your following comments seem dependent on which hypothesis you choose. BTW, terrorists are a bit like cockroaches. You can have them on the run, but you can't kill them all.

Point 3: Yes the president simply went to sleep. He watched this alleged feed, but there was a better program on cable TV. He knew that Reagen often used fiction to replace fact. The picture on the 'feed' was blotchy and lacked coherence. So he started watching Homeland, but he fell asleep. When he woke up, he was so upset at missing the ending to the Homeland episode that he ordered the CIA to get him the ending to Homeland. Not just to that episode, but the entire series. He also demanded that the writers change the ending so that he would have a featured part. He totally forgot about Benghazi. So he decided to call it a riot because a riot is so much more politically advantageous than a terrorist attack.

You are still spewing the same psycho-babble, spewed the psychotics that are refusing to accept reality. Check out Petraus testimony given a little over a hour ago.

I think this post does a good post on why this is indeed a scandal (well other than conservatives hate for Obama)

I keep hearing elevates language comparing this to WATERGATE... and while I am sure that there are many many Conservatives who are upset that the American people returned Barack Obama to the Presidency and who hope/wish that a scandal might do what the electorate would not; I really don't see the stark similarities.

I have no doubt that the death of a United States Ambassador is a crime of a much higher order than a "third rate burglary" as Watergate is oft said to have begun...but what I think Conservatives and conspiracy buffs quickly forget is that "third rate burglary" was COMMITED ON BEHALF of the President. The Murder of our Ambassador and other brave souls was COMMITTED BY TERRORISTS. So Watergate and Benghazi depart from the onset,....

Additionally and at its heart, Watergate had, at minimum, three separate crimes

1. The Burglary itself... A CRIME
2. The attempted cover up ... Conspiracy to conceal a crime is also a crime
3. The White House's tampering with evidence (most specifically the tapes)... tampering with evidence is also a crime

So three crimes were at the basis of the Impeachment Articles which led to Nixon's resignation and the now famous "No One is Above the law"


1. The murder of our people was a crime ... BUT IT WAS NOT COMMITTED ON BEHALF OR BY THE WHITE HOUSE (this difference is actually fairly basic...but oh so important...)

So now I will jump to your three rationales for this being a scandal

1. The Decline of Security for the Consulate... I have lots of questions about this. Some of them are the same as yours...Who made the request for increased security? When Did the Make it? To whom was it sent? Who made the decision to deny the request and why? I believe these are legitimate questions for Congress to ask after ALL TRAGEDIES. Investigating and analyzing what went wrong is a huge part of making sure that it never happens again. I have more questions though, that are context related... How many requests do we get each year for additional security at our consulates/embassies? How often are they turned down or granted? What were the other requests for security that had to be dealt with on 9/11/2012? I believe that without context it seems foolish for requests to be turned down...but dollars are finite so context matters. George Bush once said something to the effect that "we can make the right decision nearly all the time, but you only hear about the times we don't"

So i am in total agreement that this should be investigated...but at this point we have no reason to believe that there was any CRIME committed in the lead up to terrorists killing our people.... So this is not like Watergate at all or the Monica Lewinsky "affair"

2. "The Administration repeatedly misled" ... a very interesting way of putting it and ironic coming out of the mouth of conservatives. This was the exact same line that the Democrats used when discussing the Weapons of Mass Destruction snafu. The White House said they "went on the best info they had"...Dems say Colin Powell and Condi Rice "deliberately misled the Country". That was almost a decade ago. we had all kinds of hearings on that...and we STILL do not know which side was telling the truth. You say the administration "misled:... David Petraeus testified otherwise. The President says otherwise. Maybe they are telling the truth, maybe they are lying....but at this point your statement is not factual...it is speculation stated as if it were absolute fact. History says this "Best information available" nonsense works...it worked for the Bush Administration and I bet it works for the Obama administration. I have no problem however with Congress attempting to get to the bottom of this...just as the Dems attempted to get to the bottom of WMD's (payback is in fact hell)

But I will point out that even if your point is true...that the Administration misled the American People intentionally....Mitt Romney and numerous members of the conservative media...as well as members of Congress made this point BEFORE the election. Do you actually believe that voters didn't hear that the republicans thought the Obama campaign had covered this up to be re-elected? The voters didn't care. They still might not care but for the sideshow of the Petraeus sex scandal going on right next to the Benghazi hearings

Again...I think it is fair that Congress should attempt to see if there was a cover up or willful attempt to deceive (I also believe that history shows this is toting at windmills)... But again this departs from Watergate, Irancontra and Monica Lewinsky because it will not be conspiracy to cover up a crime...which again, is a CRIME ITSELF . i do note that if it was willful, there are targets for lying to Congress charges

3. I don't know what to do or say about this. If it is true, that there was the ability to get help to the consulate and that help was denied...then the questions of who made that decision and why are legit paths for Congress to follow. If you are asking me to believe what I have read on other blogs that The President, watched this while eating popcorn unaffected that HIS APPOINTEE was dying...then I will just say...WE DO NOT AGREE.

I don't know what to make about your "preparing for a fundraiser" nonsense. We all know that the Presidency is a full tie job, yet for more than 150 years we have accepted the sititng President taking time away from his overwhelming duties to run for re-election. We accept the same from our legislative branch as frequently as every two years. So yes...In an election year...if ANY crisis happens, there is a high probability that the President was campaigning or preparing to campaign. And to somehow make that sound surprising or perverse is pure nonsense. Additionally, the questions you ask here will only be answered if Obama chooses to answer. Congress has limited ability to compel the President to answer questions about how he does his job or acts in his duties of Commander in Chief.... this is why Reagan never testified on Irancontra...why Bush never got grilled about why he believed there were WMD's... and it WILL NOT HAPPEN HERE... so all your questions at the end are trivia...and trivia you are unlikely to get answers to unless the President CHOOSES to give them..

So I agree, there are many questions which can be asked. I even agree there are questions which SHOULD be asked, as they might prevent another tragedy like this from happening...

I am sick of the blow up of this scandal as if the questions we have...are actually true. As if they have been answered.

This isn't Watergate for the reasons i mention above. It does feel an awful lot like the WMD discussion.... and I gelt strongly that there were questions to be answered back then. While I do not wish to trivialize this tragedy...it did not end as many American lives as that decision. And we were never able to get to the bottom or confirm suspicions in that case either....my bet is that we get left wanting again

This isn't going to end in impeachment...it will not be a lasting scandal like Watergate, or Iran Contra, or Monica....it will be like WMD's...and leave abad taste in many mouths...especially since those suspicions...didnt lead to electoral defeat as planned

It will be like that.....well unless it isn't

The only difference between this and WMD's which you and most of you jokesters will never admit is that every jerk that now disputes it voted for it.....They saw the evidence that was presented to that administration. This bunch will never show evidence, will never say ANYTHING about it EVER, without these hearings. Obama may not be forced to resign but I wouldn't bet again him being impeached, especially if the Senate were to go GOP in 2014


Impeach him for what, exactly?

Ronald Reagan broke the law on Iran Contra
Bill Clinton Broke the law... in lying to a grand Jury
George Bush... chose biased information over the views of on the ground inspectors and over competing and differing information about WMD's.. Thousands of Americans died.....

None of these men were impeached....there is ZERO chance of impeachment or resignation..... but keep on hoping that what the people wouldnt give you at the balance box, you might still get through conspiracy...

I am betting against it... (P.S. I bet against Romney too, on both Intrade and IEM and made about $10, 000) I like my bets better than yours

I am sorry.... Clinton WAS impeached....lol

I should have said...None of these men were kicked out of office...

Maybe the idiots in the govt should attend the closed door meetings when information is brought to them by three branches of govt instead of HOLDING PRESS CONFERENCES & SCREAMING & LYING TO GET ATTENTION & INFORMATION LIKE MCCAIN. HE MISSED THE INTEL BRIEFING!! THERE IS NO SCANDAL EXCEPT FOR FOXNEWS & GOP HACKS EXPLOITING A TRAGEDY. WHAT IDIOTS!

Saw a headline yesterday, "McCain Scolds...." It occurred to me that John McCain has done nothing BUT "scold" since he lost the 2008 presidential election.

seems to me that Obama has done nothing other than things worth being scolded over.

Almost all of bwrick "questions" are the same right wing falsehoods spewed on Fox everyday, which kind of makes Waldman's point even stronger.

There was no live feed, there was no turned down requests, fundraising quip is not true and on and on.

The House GOP did cut billions from the state department's budget dealing with resources for embassies and consulates. SHHHH, wouldn't want facts in a good right manufactured scandal.

The entire republican party now gets all its "facts" only from fox news and rightwing websites, just like Romney's election team did. Thank god this election showed me that ignorance does not run through the majority of our population.

Well gratefully none of us had to hear Chris Matthews give thanks and praise for a hurricane.. Oh and Sidnay, the majority of our population ARE saddled with ignorance, as your babbling clearly substantiates. If Mr. Matthews and Mr. Sharpton are the alternatives we should be listening to, you so deserve the inept man you got

Anyone with a brain could have seen that this is much ado about nothing. Petraus testified today that he received information that the video caused the demonstration and that terrorist could have escalated the demonstration to the attack. That's the information that was given to Rice. And, that's exactly what she stated on TV, with bundles of qualifying language that this was the best information she had AT THE TIME. However, people suffering from psychosis do not tolerate reality well.

Its much ado about nothing because its a Democrat, otherwise it would be worse than Hitler's rise to power, as you idiots liked to refer his predecessor to being. I love how the tune changes from scandal to scandal based on whoever is in power.

Ridiculous canards like this have entirely too much currency on the right. You're still willfully blind to what actually happened in the previous administration; you have to be, or else even bringing it up makes you look like an idiot. This "scandal," even if we assume the absolute worst, even if we assume wanton corruption from top to bottom, is nowhere near the abomination perpetrated on the American people by the previous president. Maybe if Obama had spent several trillion dollars more, gotten several thousand more of our soldiers killed, and brazenly broke a few more international and domestic laws against torture, you'd have a slightly more apt comparison.

Talk about changing tunes; I don't seem to recall you guys all upset at Bush when the numerous embassy bombings that occurred under his administration took place. Oh, right: when it happens with a Republican president, being critical of it is treasonous and un-American.

Stop LYING! Stop twisting information to fit your narrative! You liberal trying to contort information that fits your mold - smart people do not fall for your BS. This is ridiculous.
"Much do about nothing"
Tell me dear liberal - why was Nixon forced to resign from office - much to do about nothing as far as i'm concerned as not a single American died under Watergate - 4 men died in Benghazi your dam Ignoramous - you liberal never cease to amaze me. Absolute embarassment this article is - absolute shame your comments are - you have rotten gabbage for brains - your distortions will not confuse those in the know! Get It? Got It? Good!

Wow you're not serious right? What a joke. The cuts have to pass house and senate, which they didn't. The senate is controlled by Dems. Further the administration just purchased a fleet of GM fuel efficient diplomatic vehicles instead of providing security in Libya. The article you posted is about one member of congress voting to cut funding. Again wow. Why waste your time with disingenuous, false information. The author of this article obviously doesn't care that Americans died and the administration blatantly covered it up for political reasons. Apparently you don't either.

I am skeptical as to whether Benghazi will amount to a Watergate-sized scandal or not, but there is certainly going to be a mounting body count of dead careers and reputations as it drags out. But as long as we're in the speculative psychobabble phase of the inquiry, is it not a near certainty that the Prospect's collective head would have exploded if it was known that a) there were repeated calls for added security at the consulate that were either ignored or not made a priority ('those cheapskate Republicans cut embassy security funding' is not an excuse given the scale of the DoD budget), b) four Americans were murdered under any circumstances (spontaneous or not), and c) the president's name was Bush?

Also I don't know if it was an oversight or an admission of defeat for past failed scandal mongering, that Waldman left out "Plamegate" in his list of scandals. Scandal envy? Absolutely, but not in the way Waldman intended.

Actually, no, I don't recall the Prospect's collective head exploding when at least 59 people (including American diplomat David Foy) were killed in at least 11 separate attacks on U.S. consulates and embassies in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Syria, Greece, Turkey, and Yemen between 2002 and 2008.

Nah, he hasn't had his major scandal yet, just three brewing in the pot....Fast and Furious, Solyndra, and now Benghazi. Not too shabby for 4 years....yes, Republicans are jealous, they are usually limited to one scandal per Presidency

Fortune Magazine, no friend to the left, had a long, long investigative story on "Fast & Furious."
Turns out the only guy who "walked" guns over the border… was the guy who originally blew the whistle. And he had a big, *big* beef with his superior. So: guy with grudge seeks to get boss in trouble, exaggerates claims.

Solyndra: The stimulus had no waste or fraud in it, far below what was expected:

Bengazi: Asked and answered.

Congrats, Mr. Waldman: You wrote a post that *really* struck a nerve and awakened the trolls from their post-election depression. Btw, Mitt Romney and his millions tried to play the Bengazi card, too. How's that workin' out for him?

Here is what I love about this article. Its simply about Rice saying something a little off kilter. Yet, the author nor the Obama administration will elaborate on exactly what happened, a simply question. WHY? This would have months ago been a tragedy out of the news the next day. Its more because Obama is clearly holding yet another secret. Look for Executive privilege when it gets down and dirty. Nixon de ja vu....Blood is on Obama's hands, although I am positive it is Valerie Jarrett,s hands. Obama for all his supposed intellect hasn't a clue what's going on. Jarrett sends him out like a puppet and provides the ventriloquism.

When I read The American Prospect lately, two words come to mind: cheerleading and hypocrocy. An American Ambassador-a Democrat mind you-is murdered. The White House, or at least its high ranking staff, knew that it was an Al-Quada attack almost immediately. Yet, Americans were told it was a spontaneous demonstration (by Ambassador Rice, by the President, and by others). That is Lie No. 1. The President now says that he made an Order to protect the Ambassador. No such Order evidently exists (if it did exist, the President would produce it and say, "I told you so). That is Lie No. 2. The President, during the campaign, continually stated that the investigation needed to be completed before the facts were known. We now know what this was: stalling. The White House knew the facts. That is Lie No. 3. Why all the lies? There was a Presidential election. A terrorist attack by Al-Quada on 9-11 would damage the President and his narrative that the US was safe and Al-Quada is defeated. Sounds a lot like another President that we despise, doesn't it? George W. Bush. Only, we like President Obama. So, we cheerlead and pretend not to be hypocritcal? Shame on us.

Bottom line, this story, and it's "scandal," are not going anywhere. Won't be remembered a few months from now. There's no there there. The PR team of McCain and Graham have no standing or credibility to advance it. In short, nothing happened. Nothing that is really surprising, or that hasn't happened before, and will happen again.

And John McCain is just embarrassing himself at this point. He looks foolish, petulant, and bitter. His statements on this topic from one day to the next are contradictory and message-killing, even if there were a message to get out in the first place, which there apparently is not.

Excuse me for not getting upset over "Americans that died" when the fools that are complaining about Benghazi looked away at thousands of useless American deaths in Iraq over WMDs that never existed. With all due respect, are you seriously asking us to take you seriously now? Really? No, really?

Your rewrite of history is ludicrous. Dems voted for Iraq in large numbers and we had the support of allies like Great Britain, Australia, and Poland. Saddam thumbed his nose at UN resolutions. You blame Bush for faulty intelligence but this is now in essence what Obama is claiming. But you don't blame Obama? Are you seriously asking us to take you seriously? Really? No really?


You filthy lying democrats caused the needless deaths of American Soldiers and they let your dirt bag leader in the Senate Harry Reid know about it with a letter from the front lines. They contained the above line which speaks volumes about what diabolical fiends your party's leaders are and how stupid and hateful you who believe their treasonous words and lies are.

It's all due to the fact that Democrats have class and the Republicans have none.

Check out the Military Channel's piece on the effort to get Osama Bin Laden.

You'll see how Clinton almost went to the point of needing psychiatric care in his OBSESSION to get Osama Bin Laden after his attack in Africa. How he begged George W. Bush to make in Bush's top priority.

How Bush "humored" Clinton in the changeover meeting at the White House.

How Bush PROMPTLY went out on the air and said "I don't think we should use the resources of a nation just to get one man."

How Bush's people let in several of the 9-11 terrorists EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE ON THE TERRORIST WATCH LIST.

How the Bush people absolutely BUNGLED getting Air Force fighters in the air ALTHOUGH HOURS ELAPSED BETWEEN THE FIRST AND LAST PLANE (incidentally so much time elapsed that the passengers on that crew had heard via cell phone from their relatives that the planes were not being taken to Cuba or some other place but being crashed into buildings).

How Bush astounded his cabinet which almost went into revolt by saying, the day afterwards THAT HE WANTED TO BLAME IT ON SADDAM HUSSEIN.

That Bush's cabinet FORCED HIM TO ANNOUNCE THAT HE WOULD GO AFTER THE TALIBAN IN AFGHANISTAN, the people who had sheltered Osama.

Yeah, I'll admit that Al Queda caught us with our pants down by striking ON THE ELEVENTH ANNIVERSARY of 9-11 and not on the 10th when everyone expected it.

I admit that the security was bungled in Benghazi but Al Quaeda had a THOUSAND TARGETS TO CHOOSE FROM.

We could not have the amount of security necessary to repel a rocket and mortar attack at EVERY EMBASSY AND CONSULATE IN THE WORLD. You probably devote the most security to the more dangerous places,

And Libya was thought to be high on our list as a friendly country,....which is precisely WHY it made a good target to Al Quaeda.


We can have the inquiries proceeding side by side.

How much you wanted bet that the 9-11 facts will MORE HORRIFY the country than one day when we got caught with our pants down.

I am still uhappy about how this election turned out. And i get very tired of people like this author who want to demonize instead of trying to find a way for us to get together. It makes the fabric of our country frayed. I am an Independent, and I'm still feeling blue:


This is easily the worst article I've seen on this subject.

Rice said point-blank that this was a Mob Act about a video. If she had have said "it's a possibility that..." then maybe the WH story would work. She didn't. She stated it like it was a known fact, when it wasn't. Either she screwed up the talking point, which she didn't because she is a Pro, or she was telling a Lie.

The Left is just totally freaking out because Obama very well might get Impeached as a Authoritarian who lied to win an election, which is treasonous.

LOL. Impeachment. The Republicans' "Final Solution" to having lost the election. This time even more ridiculous.

Mr. President you are being impeached because your staff ran around like chickens with their heads cut off when Al Quaeda decided to forego the 10th anniversary of 9-11 to strike and correctly figured we would drop our guard on the 11th anniversary and all kind of officials in the government were issuing all kind of inconsistent explanations of what was happening.

Great grounds for impeachment. ............NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The entire democrat leadership belongs in prison, not positions of power. Their stupid willing accomplices can join them as well. 85% of felons support democrats. Speaks volumes.

"Rice said point-blank that this was a Mob Act about a video."

Ah, No. she didn't.
If you can't get the basics right, how does that lend you any credibility?

Prove your baseless assertion with a transcript or go back to fox nation and stay there.

Right on S. Adam - this article is ridiculous and these comments even more so - thanks for voicing your opinion - we need more opinions like yours
because truth is becoming more difficult to find - the media is an absolute lying mess!

"You'll see how Clinton almost went to the point of needing psychiatric care in his OBSESSION to get Osama Bin Laden after his attack in Africa. How he begged George W. Bush to make in Bush's top priority. "

You care to back your words with your life? I'll bet my life against yours you filthy lying coward. The criminal organization of democrats are evil classless liars who fiend for power and tax payer dollars. They are seething with hate for those they can never measure up to or beat in elections on merit or honesty.

Obama is serial lying smug arrogant *rick because he knows his cohorts in the corrupt Media will cover for just like they covered for him when they failed to properly vet him.

Any American who doesn't worship the vainglorious creep in the White House who doesn't need the party of democrats to survive is called the enemy. The criminal organization of democrats needs us for their continued existence, Americans do not need squat from the democrat scum. The Communist Party USA caucusing losers produce nothing but hatred and division. Go pound sand.

An extra digit for tea-thuglicans

Be sure and tell your red state friends to quit taking more than they pay in taxes.. More food stamps you name it. Speaking of smug, is Mittens still holding on to that pompous little smirk today? And did he tell the truth more than twice in his campaign? He let the t-nuts like yourself put him behind the 8-ball trying to live with your ignorant ravings. Birth Certificate. Muslim. Socialist ( or is it Nazi this week ?). Look Squirrel!!! idjit

AMEN!!! But it's like wasting breath. They are so far up Obama's ass it's like he's a God or something. These people give no weight whatsoever to the truth. They don't want to hear it, they don't want to see it and they won't trouble themselves to read about it. This man is a boldfaced liar and the evil and deception that resides inside of him is almost scary. But this started many years ago while indoctrinating kids at school with their bullshit. Soon people won't even know what choice is. Watch where this great country is in 25 years, because people have become so damn ignorant it's pathetic. So many people that voted don't even know what they voted for. They voted for him "cause he gives them free phones" or because he's black....AND NO ONE CAN DENY THAT. And if I hear one more word about budget cuts for security I'm gonna scream. Of course there's security budget cuts - Everything goes to people on damn food stamps, and people who get SS cause they're agoraphobics - meanwhile they go out to lunch with their friends and to the gym. It makes my skin crawl how stupid people have become. Is the intentional dumbing down that I have read about for so long now? Or to Nationalized health care - which is completely UNCONSTITUTIONAL!! Have any of his supporters even read the constitution? Do they know it exists? And the second amendment is going to be taken away. Which was put in place to prevent tyrannical governments from subjugating it's people. He's a communist, a socialist.....a Marxist and a disgusting leftist. It's disheartening to think of the world my children will be growing up in.
And go on you tube and watch agenda 21 for dummies. Scary stuff.

Really? Seriously? so your argument is the President abused his power for his own gain and your argument is Its not a big deal? Your hypocrisy so Clintonesque Paul.

Ok, so why were we supposed to be so mad at The Watergate Scandal then? A couple people broke into a campaign HQ and stole nothing? Would Paul Waldman be so cavalier if George W Bush did the same thing?

I guess that's what happens when your party can no longer win elections based on substance.

They want a special counsel so they can do the Whitewater thing. They figured they could catch Clinton in some bimbo eruption and didn't quit until they had something to yell about.

for the Liberal press, to continually give creedence to the lies of the current Admin. is yellow Journalism. The excuses they make are pathetic. They Bully, Mock & make fun of anyone who disagrees with them. The continual dismissing of the facts make you wonder whose payroll, are these people on, or are they trying to undermine America.

this is one of the best articles on this website. definitely excellent information and hope to read more. awesome. this is the information i have been searching. Ecopolitan EC Ecopolitan Executive Condo Ecopolitan vue 8 residence vue 8 condo Tembusu Condo Tembusu Kovan the inflora inflora condo inflora loyang

You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)