No, Conservatives, Benghazi Is Not Worse Than Watergate

On Friday, I got into a little Twitter tete-a-tete with Jim Treacher of the Daily Caller over this post I wrote last week, which argued that the reason conservatives are acting as though the aftermath of the events in Benghazi is the scandal of the century is that they're frustrated that Barack Obama hasn't had a major scandal, so they're making as big a deal as possible out of whatever's handy. What ensued opened my eyes to something I found surprising, though I suppose I shouldn't have been so naïve. It turns out that many conservatives not only believe Benghazi is far, far more serious than Watergate was, they seem to have no idea what Watergate was actually about or how far-reaching it was. After the number of Treacher's followers tweeting me with "How many people died in Watergate? Huh? Huh?" reached triple digits (each tweet no doubt considered by its author to be a snowflake of insight), I decided that since the story broke 40 years ago, we all might need a reminder of why Watergate was, in fact, a really big deal.

The first and most important thing to remember is that when we say "Watergate," we aren't referring only to the break-in at the Democratic Party headquarters in the Watergate hotel. The break-in was merely the event that triggered the investigations that would eventually reveal the full magnitude of Richard Nixon's crimes and the crimes committed by many of the people who worked for him. As Jonathan Bernstein has written, for starters, imagine if Barack Obama were suspicious of some former Bush administration officials now working at the American Enterprise Institute and repeatedly ordered Rahm Emanuel to get people to break in to AEI in order to steal files that could be used to embarrass or blackmail those officials. Nixon did that (the Brookings Institution was the think tank in question). Bernstein goes on:

The president's men, sometimes at Nixon's instructions, sometimes with his knowledge, and sometimes perhaps without his direct instructions or knowledge but always in keeping with his general orders to his top staff, also planted spies in the camp of Democratic campaigns; broke into Democratic headquarters, photographed documents, and planted bugs; broke into the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist in order to learn things that could be used to destroy his image in the press; attempted to plant left-wing materials in the home of the guy who shot George Wallace; planned to (and perhaps did) selectively leak classified materials about foreign policy in order to hurt the Democrats; forged materials about foreign policy (the death of South Vietnam's President Diem) in order to plant false stories in the press that would hurt the Democrats; wiretapped government officials; paid a private investigator to tail Ted Kennedy; performed other dirty tricks such as forged letters intended to manipulate the Democratic presidential nomination process (efforts that may indeed have been successful); and other illegal, abuse and unethical actions -- this is not a comprehensive list.

Those were the original crimes. What followed was obstruction of justice as the White House, with the active leadership of the president, lied to FBI investigators and grand juries, destroyed evidence, suborned perjury by prearranging false testimony; suborned perjury by paying off witnesses and either promising or at least hinting at the promise of presidential pardons in exchange for false testimony, and using the authority of the presidency to derail and undermine FBI investigators and prosecutors. Again, the president was personally actively involved in all of those things.

The scandal also revealed so many repugnant statements and acts, some of them illegal and some of them not, that I suppose it's hard to keep them all in your head. For instance, Judeophiles that conservatives have become, they may like to forget that the White House tapes showed Nixon to be a vicious anti-Semite ("The government is full of Jews. Second, most Jews are disloyal") who ordered his staff to assemble lists of Jews working within the executive branch so he could identify his enemies (the aide who carried out a Jew-counting operation in the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Fred Malek, is to this day a major Republican fundraiser). Of course, there was also the "enemies list" of Nixon opponents targeted for harassment; one memo detailed "how we can use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies." Among the crimes planned but never executed, the most colorful has to be G. Gordon Liddy's plan to murder columnist Jack Anderson. Liddy was convicted of conspiracy, burglary, and illegal wiretapping; today he is a popular conservative radio host. Among those who ended up going to prison for their crimes in the Watergate scandal were the attorney general, the White House chief of staff, and the president's chief domestic policy adviser. The scandal was so damning that facing impeachment and almost certain conviction, the president of the United States resigned.

The point is "Watergate" was not just a break-in. It was a panoply of government malfeasance and outright criminality the likes of which the country had never seen before and will probably never see again.

It is true, as my conservative friends point out, that no one actually died in Watergate, while there were four deaths in Benghazi. Those deaths were a terrible tragedy. But unless some evidence emerges that President Obama or somebody else in his administration, through some act of corruption or misconduct, actually caused those deaths, the deaths don't raise the magnitude of the "scandal" past that of other scandals that weren't related to any deaths. For instance, 241 service members Ronald Reagan sent to Beirut were killed in the bombing of Marine barracks in October 1983, but I'll bet that not one of my angry Twitter correspondents considers that a "Reagan administration scandal" (nor, by the way, did almost any Democrats at the time, rightly or wrongly).

For the record, I agree with Kevin Drum on this point: Let's go ahead and investigate what happened in Benghazi. If that investigation helps us improve security for our personnel operating in dangerous places, that would be a positive outcome. But let's be honest: Republicans aren't worked into a lather about this because of their long-standing passionate commitment to security at our embassies and consulates. They're hoping that if we keep digging, some kind of nefarious behavior will be discovered, and they'll be able to use it to embarrass the administration. That's politics, of course, so it isn't all that surprising. But that's all it is. And the idea that Susan Rice going on television and delivering some slightly inaccurate talking points constitutes a "cover-up" on par with the Nixon administration suborning perjury, paying hush money, and obstructing justice in a whole variety of other ways? That's just insane.


Actually, I think scandal envy is only part of what's behind the Republican motivation. I suspect its also their way of trying to minimize Obama's record in fighting Al Qaeda. Its a chance to harp on the idea that Obama didn't want Americans to know that Al Qaeda was still active in the region even after all the hype about killing Bin Laden.

This is PRECISELY why Bengazhi is worse than Watergate, and you're so wrapped up in your 'smarter than thou' condecension that you don't even see that you've made the point for Conservatives/Republicans/Anyone Else That's Sick of the Coverups.

The point, my elite, effete intellectual, is that there has been NO investigation worthy of the name on Bengazhi, whether you want to admit it or not. And this is simply the natural extension of a corrupt media that is either too lazy or too much in lockstep with this Administration to do its job.

And yes, we would like to see the sort of investigation that resembled the undressing of the Nixon Administration. Is that too much too ask? Are you so worried that 'investigative' reporters might actually find more than just a treasonous and impeachable offense; you know, something that extends WAY past Bengahzi?

You liberals are sickening.

Do as you say, and just shut up.

Does that about some up your philosophy?

Shorter PJR: Bengazhi is worse than Watergate because of all of the terrible things that will be uncovered by the investigation that has not yet occurred.

Totally agree, liberals think their idol can do no wrong. Nobody was murdered because of Watergate. This administration watched while a American Embassy was attacked, then repeatedly lied to America about it, to coverup this up, yet you liberals calibrate this administration's incompetence. In October 1980 I was one of 2 people in the selection for medical coverage in the Iran Embassy, SFC Donald R. Hohman who was a good friend of mine was the other. He wanted to go I didn't. This lead to his 444 days as a hostage due to the second worse president in history. You lunatic liberals make light of attacks on sovereign US territory. You should be charged with treason for aiding the enemy, and your Messiah obama should be charged with dereliction of duty and accessory to murder.

When you say things like Messiah obama you give yourself away as someone who is not seriously concerned about what happened to the Ambassador. You just want the President out. Not one time have you called for an investigation on who planned the attacks or how we can prevent them in the future or even how to bring these attackers to justice. You're solely concerned about what the president called it after the fact. You're so dense. If you had any sense you would call for the investigation into the attacks themselves. Because if there's going to be a scandal it would have to involve the actual killings, not what the killings were called afterwards. Stop letting your hate guide your common sense. That is if you have any common sense.

The reality is that (A) there is an investigation into the attacks themselves, which I am reasonably confident will be handled competently by the military and intelligence communities and (B) the results of that investigation - IF it is successful - is will be significantly less important than finding out the details of how the Obama administration handled security for our diplomates in the Mideast - ie. was there a cover up (or more accurately, given that there pretty obviously was a cover up, who was involved, when did key people know about it, etc). Therefore, calling for said investigation is not necessary AND not germane to this thread. This is a thread about the cover up and its comparison to Watergate.

The painfully obvious point that the author is trying so strenuously to avoid is that in the early weeks of Watergate, no one knew all the details he so luridly describes above. They were only discovered after a thorough investigation into the Watergate break-in. In comparison, the break-in was insignificant (its not like McGovern was going to win - for those of you who keep thinking Obama's margin of victory was significant, please look at how badly Nixon beat his opponent in 1972 and for those of you who don't know the history, the breakin was foiled and no crucial campaign information was secured that would have changed the course of the election).

What we have here that makes this a fair parrallel to Watergate is (1) orders came from the administration that indicate criminally bad judgment (the creation of the "plumbers" by Nixon, the refusal to provide adequate security to Mideast diplomats by Obama - apparently out of concerns for his political image); (2) based on the specific orders and the climate under which such bad judgment existed, something unnecessary and immoral happened (the burglary and the ASSASSINATION OF 4 US CITIZENS REPRESENTING OUR GOVERNMENT ), and (3) there was an attempt by both administrations to cover up the scandal to assure their success in an upcoming election. The major differences are twofold (A) 4 PEOPLE WERE MURDERED vs an office was broken into and (B) prompt media outrage and thorough investigations happened in 72 (the Washington Post reported Nixon's complicity a full month before the election) and failed to change the overwhelming defeat of McGovern while a complete "What, me worry?" attitude of the MSM failed to provide a serious review of the facts before Obama's narrow 2012 victory (this is particularly egregious in an era with 40 years of advancement in news technology).

So, basically, you and the author are saying the same thing - "nothing to see here, move along" despite the huge disparity in the two events. Benghazi was far worse on its surface than Watergate and both give off the same stink of corruption. It has to be investigated with the same vigor and doggedness as Watergate and those who take your attitude about it do so out of fear of what may be found about a President that many of you treat as messianic

Your use of the phrase "criminally bad judgment" obscures an important distinction. Watergate and assorted criminal activity were the intentional results of the decisions made by the Nixon Whitehouse. The aim of these acts was to burglarize DNC headquarters ("something unnecessary and immoral" didn't just happen-- they were actions planned and executed by the Nixon crew). Are you saying that the Obama Whitehouse intentionally murdered four Americans. Were their deaths the aim of the acts by the Obama Whitehouse? By analogy, you are equating the actions of parents whose child may have died as the result of lack of attention with the actions of parents who murdered their child. Certainly this would count as a "major difference."

perfervid: You said, "In October 1980 I was one of 2 people in the selection for medical coverage in the Iran Embassy, SFC Donald R. Hohman who was a good friend of mine was the other. He wanted to go I didn't. This lead to his 444 days as a hostage due to the second wors[t] president in history."

I gotta call BS on some of this, and here's why. I too was stationed at 97th in 1979 (not 1980) when SP5 (not SFC) Hohmann was deployed to Iran for six months' TDY at the Embassy. I and several other co-workers from 97th's ER and Ambulance Section were at his going-away party at Tony's. (Remember Tony's, right outside the back gate and make a right?) This was in July of '79. It sounds as though he got promoted after he was released, because he was up for E-6 when he left for Iran. I wasn't there at Wiesbaden to greet him when they got back; I had PCS'd to Ft. Gordon in September 1980.

By October of '80, Desert One was a done disaster, and the Iranians were working the deal with Reagan/Bush to release the hostages, including our mutual friend Don, on Inauguration Day, laying the groundwork for more deals down the road. How ironic in retrospect-- we used to proudly thump our chests and say, "We don't negotiate with terrorists." That was true-- we didn't negotiate with them-- we made illegal arms deals with them.

Granted, it was a long time ago-- but if you're going to come here and regale people with your 'war stories', please get your chronology straight. You weren't the only one who was close to events.

PJR, well said!

Don't you dumb conservotards get it? When we play dirty tricks, when we plant stuff to make you look bad, it's just to prove what we already know is true! But when you investigate us for things we really did, why, that's criminal because it might make us look like hypocrites or something.

Look, if a few ambassadors had to die just to protect Obama from the likes of you, that's the price we've got to pay. This election was too important to hand off to rMoney just because the economy's in the tank and doesn't show any signs of recovering.

Comparing the tragedy that occurred in Benghazi to the premeditated criminal conduct of the Nixon Administration with respect to the Watergate fiasco is a classic case of "false equivalency".

The Libya tragedy was not part of a deliberate attempt to undermine U.S. law. It would be akin to blaming the Bush administration for not preventing 9/11.

A more apt comparison -- one involving deliberate premeditated deception of Congress and the American people, leading to massive casualties and contributing heavily to our national debt -- would be the Bush/Cheney regime's fear-mongering about WMD's in Iraq to justify the U.S. invasion of that nation.

This is what I'm talking about! These conservotards just don't get it. It's not possible for Obama to break the law, because he gets to write it as he goes along. Nixon could have just wrote up a bunch of waivers, but just like all Rethuglicans he's too dumb.

The lack of curiousity by the liberal-dominated media on not only Benghazi, but the appalling Fast and Furious scandal as well, is both breathtaking and typical. And by the way, it's not up to Twitter posters to investigate such's up to YOU, journalist.

But here's what's going to happen: The press will simply be stenographers for whatever they get from congressional hearings. That's it. No enterprising work. That's too hard, right? Might turn up something, you know...interesting?
Vigilance requires real work. Can't have that can we?

Investigative reporting is DEAD as far as looking into this adminstration. Let's be honest about it. Thru tons of resources looking into Sarah Palin's email or the latest sex scandal. But raise a few questions about oh for example:

1. Why was there no security to speak of in Benghazi? Who decided to create a "kumbaya" policy in a totally unstable location? There has to be a paper trail.

2. Why were requests for more security denied again and again? Was this formal policy? And if so, who crafted and approved it?

3. What do SURVIVORS of the attack say? Were there requests for military support? If so, to whom and what do the communications logs show?

4. And the obvious: what motivation was there to continue to put out a transparently absurd story about a video trailer? For two weeks?

5. And finally, why do you send out someone, Rice, who the President himself said was unknowledgeable? Obama made her position CABINET LEVEL in 2009. Did she simply miss the meetings, as she has so many others involved her primary job at the UN?

But no, let's not have an independent look at this stuff...Let's wait for the congressional geniuses to look at it. We know how non-partisan they are...

1-2: The Benghazi mission was a CIA front operation, not a normal State Department outpost. The CIA was responsible for security, not the SD.

Officials confirmed last week that the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was essentially a front for a much larger CIA base about a mile away. Most of the 30 Americans evacuated after the attack were CIA employees or contractors, not diplomats.,0,3214858.story
The CIA's secret role helps explain why security appeared inadequate at the U.S. diplomatic facility. State Department officials believed that responsibility was set to be shouldered in part by CIA personnel in the city through a series of secret agreements that even some officials in Washington didn't know about.
Among U.S. diplomatic officials in Libya, the nearby CIA force and the secret agreement allayed concerns about security levels. "They were the cavalry," a senior U.S. official said of the CIA team, adding that CIA's backup security was an important factor in State's decision to maintain a consulate there.

3: Irrelevant. They are CIA personnel and don't talk about their missions and objectives.

4: The attacks WERE engaged due to the video, as was reported from the scene by international media who quoted what the attackers said themselves and later what their spokespeople told the media afterwards.

Published: September 12, 2012
Interviewed at the scene on Tuesday night, many attackers and those who backed them said they were determined to defend their faith from the video's insults. Some recalled an earlier episode when protesters in Benghazi had burned down the Italian consulate after an Italian minister had worn a T-shirt emblazoned with cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad. Ten people were reportedly killed in clashes with Colonel Qaddafi's police force.

That assault was led by a brigade of Islamist fighters known as Ansar al-Sharia, or the Supporters of Islamic Law. Brigade members emphasized at the time that they were not acting alone. The brigade praised those who protested as "the best of the best" of the Libyan people and supported their response to the video "in the strongest possible terms."

5. Susan Rice happened to be available to go on television that Sunday morning as the "official" representative from the government who would disseminate the non-classified information that the House Intelligence Committee requested from the Intelligence agencies. ALL parties had signed off on the release of the talking points used by Amb. Rice including DCIA, Petraeus. He stated that the name of the faction thought responsible for the attacks was purposely left out of the non-classified points so as to not tip them off that the US was tracking them.

Link for #4:

"And the idea that Susan Rice going on television and delivering some slightly inaccurate talking points ... "

Slightly inaccurate?

My college dissertation was on Watergate some 23 years ago. The key component of Watergate is that we didn't know where all the layers went and led to. Perfect example was the secret of Deep Throat - not learning it was Mark Felt until 05 or 06. The comparison to Reagan's Beirut disaster is a non-sequitir: Reagan did not send his national security team out to say it was not what it was. More importantly, he did not describe it in American political ideological terms - a youtube video??? This is the "Not-Ready-for-Primetime-Players." Yes he won re-election. Yes he ordered the mission to take out Bin Laden. But our foreign policy is a disaster, and is unraveling every day. Don't insult the public with a left-wing trope about videos and offending Islam while Americans are being killed by terrorists. The terrorist have to be laughing their a---- off!

Perhaps Benghazi is not much like Watergate, but how will we know if no one investigates? That is my greatest concern with this and many other "bumps in the road" that the Obama Administration has hit. How long did it take to uncover all of the wrong-doing associated with Watergate? The media has NOT questioned or investigated what happened in Benghazi. Imagine if the reporters has 'gushed' over Nixon like they do with President Obama and just accepted the Nixon Administration's 'story' as they do the Obama Administration's?
There may be nothing there, but we won't know unless someone looks, will we?

I don't think it's a matter of whether or not Benghazi was worse than Watergate. It seems pretty clear that the administration was deliberately misleading the country about Benghazi, using an anti-Muslim video as a red herring. Bringing up Watergate is another red herring. The real question is whether the administration's actions constitute a criminal, that is impeachable, offense.

I wouldn't say it is pretty clear the administration was deliberately misleading. But let's say they were for the sake of argument: no that is not a impeachable offense. It's dishonest maybe, galling, even. But it's not a crime. If it were, all our politicians would be locked up. ALL of them. And it's certainly not worth a special committee or as some on this site are shouting--serious investigative reporting. No reporter will be spend valuable time to find out that a politician invoked some politics into a tragedy. People want a witch hunt because they hope something more seedier may turn up. Heck, maybe something seedier may turn up anywhere if you cast a large enough net. But, I wouldn't cast my net over this area because there doesn't appear to be enough biting fish. I know some Republicans wish otherwise, but that's just the case. The president may have been playing politics here. They may be callous and just wrong. But it wasn't against the law. Sorry, ya'll.

By all means lets not be too hard on the POTUS & Admin. After all, we are only talking about deadly incompetence and ineptitude resulting in the easily preventable loss of our best and brightest.

The constant stream of lies coming from the White House is worse that Watergate. The distortion of Constitution is worse than that and the purchasing of votes using taxpayer money, is the worst of all.

You gotta love Waldman's line about Susan Rice "going on television and delivering some slightly inaccurate talking points." Hey, she merely went on FIVE different shows and lied outright to the American people at the behest of her superiors. No cover-up there. How dare you suspect the most transparent administration ever of stooping to playing politics with American lives! Why, you must be a racist.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried:

The intelligence community - not the White House, State Department or Justice Department - was responsible for the substantive changes made to the talking points distributed for government officials who spoke publicly about the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, the spokesman for the director of national intelligence said Monday.

The initial version included information linking individuals involved in the attack to al Qaeda, according to a senior U.S. official familiar with the drafting of the talking points. But when the document was sent to the rest of the intelligence community for review, there was a decision to change "al Qaeda" to "extremists." The official said the change was made for legitimate intelligence and legal reasons, not for political purposes.

"First, the information about individuals linked to al Qaeda was derived from classified sources," the official said. "Second, when links were so tenuous - as they still are - it makes sense to be cautious before pointing fingers so you don't set off a chain of circular and self-reinforcing assumptions. Third, it is important to be careful not to prejudice a criminal investigation in its early stages."

You a a truly gifted satirist, but don't give up your day job.

It seems to me the only place I see conservatives (or as you put it conservtards) accused of being racists is by conservatives protesting the label. It is certainly true that there are racists in the the movement, but nobody is claiming everyone is.

You are not reading enough liberal websites then - accusing all Republicans (or all but one or two who have just recently decided to step back from a position in opposition to Dem dogma) of being racist is all the rage these days.

People in our govt DIED because of govt negligence that is the difference.
Being a lefty Prog I would not expect you to understand that especially since you are the cover up brigade for "O".

People Died, Obama lied... sounds familiar...

We don't have tapes of Obama's White House, so you have no idea the vile, racist comments he makes. Listen to the "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright for a hint.

Nobody died in Watergate, and the point was the cover-up. We don't yet know if the President - or top advisers under his general Chicago-style orders - black-mailed Petreus with the affair to get him to parrot their lie.

Then they used it to fire him after the election. Obama never liked him and just kept him close to keep him from running against him. That is common knowledge, your deceit aside.

Once Obama won, they used their ace-in-the-hole to get rid of him, without looking like they were firing a respected hero for crass partisan reasons.

Moreover, like Clinton earnestly wagging his finger at us lying, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman . . . " Obama indignantly took offense at the suggestion that he played politics on Benghazi.

But that's exactly what he did. But you're right. This is not like Watergate. In Watergate, no one died, and no one in the administration suborned perjury.

A full-fledged investigation is called for. Fortunately, since we're dealing with the "most transparent administration in history," President Obama will cheerfully order full cooperation with the duly empowered Oversight Committees. Yeah. Right.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the President of the United States, Secretary of State, UN ambassador, press secretary, likely the CIA director and whichever of his political appointees changed the CIA and State intelligence summary repeatedly lied to Congress and the American people over weeks to cover up the most successful al Qaeda attack on the United States since the original 9/11 in order for the President to get reelected.

This is not a crime because the lies were not made under oath.

Whether or not this is worse malfeasance than the coverup of a third rate burglary, I will leave for others to decide.

Speaking as a lib, while it's fun watching fools salivate while chasing this pseudo-scandal like a cat after a laser pointer...
But it gets better- just like Birthegate, Fast & Furious-gate, Wrightgate, Ayersgate, etc, not only is there no 'there' there, but by repeating it over and over in their echo chambers conservatives effectively take themselves out of the national conversation. They waste their energy documenting these conspiracy theories, and when they emerge from those echo chambers they find that the vast majority of Americans view eg Birtherism as a proxy for being dim or mildly deranged, rather than as a revelation.

So, by all means, continue to retweet unsubstantiated rumors from your friend's brother's cousin who overheard from a Dem Congressman's staffer eating lunch how Rice forced the CIA to mislead her. Continue to stridently proclaim that this is all worse than Watergate, that it's treason, that it makes the actual treason of Iran-Contra look like pattycakes. Continue to force square facts into round holes because you just know in your hearts that Obama is a Bad Man.
Continue to remove yourself from the ongoing conversation of mainstream America. We won't miss you.

Conversely, has it escaped your notice that your refusal to objectively consider any criticism or accusation against the president is telling? Your attitude is a perfect match for the kool-aid stains on your mouth.

I havent said anything about what I would or wouldn't consider. You assume that everyone who disagrees with you is an unreasonably rabid partisan before the conversation even begins. It is not difficult to reach the tentative conclusion that this is projection on your part.
My larger point stands- the conservative movement does itself no good with scandals (real or fake) that get no traction with the American public. You may claim that the various right-wing investigative journalism outfits and a GOP-controlled House with subpena power are no match for the alleged bias of the MSM- but they are certainly capable of at least uncovering the facts necessary to get the notice of the public. One doesn't need a national microphone to uncover facts, just to broadcast them one uncovered.
You may claim that those facts are already available. I would say that what's already in the public sphere is rather obvious spin, with nothing remotely resembling a smoking gun. Which is why you'll note that many of the conservative commentators above don't cite such a smoking gun- they put spin on the existing facts and express hope that *if* events were investigated further *perhaps* they would reveal the evil in the WH that you already *just know* is there.
The public does not share your convictions about the obvious evil of the Obama Administration, and so they're quite unconvinced by all these histrionics. All this does is increase the perception that the far right is tinfoil-hat territory, which is something that I applaud. 2012 was an incumbent with a weak economy, 2016 will be a Dem with a strong economy versus another GOP candidate forced to cripple himself by kowtowing to the fever swamps of the far right. Or an actual denizen of those swamps.
Also, *please* *please* try to impeach Obama over this. Something that nakedly partisan while the economy is still trying to get back on its feet could give us a filibuster-proof Senate majority by 2016...

So it is your view that a slim majority of the electorate who doubles down on Obama's foreign policy disasters as well as his fiscal and social insanity causes the significant electorate minority who sees through him to cease to exist? Or we otherwise be eliminated from your definition of the public? Check your own sanity. Not every one in the "public" you boast agrees with you or rejects the sanity of the conservatives. You must also be unaware, or infact willfully ignorant that Obama and all his friends and appointees are fans of Marxist philosophy. That is by definition evil in every sense of the word. But I am sure that to you good is evil and evil is good.

Ok- lots of talk- very little substance...

Obama during the campaign stated that when he learned of the attack that he did 3 things--he ( in so many wordss) said that he did everything he could to secure the embassy, protect American life and find out who attacked us..

When asked specifically about how he did these three things- Obama's answer was to defer to some vague investigation that apparently is under way. Ostensibly, this investigation will enligten the president to his own activities (this only sounds weird to folks who think critically and hold people accountable for what they say)

Are you satified with Obama's response to the question he was asked about his personal response to the attack on the embassy?

Are you sure about those three things?

I thought they were:
- Play another round of golf
- Confirm his date with Jay Leno
- Hop on the gravy plane for Vegas.

Fully exceeding half of the American people, give or take a few million fraudulent ballots, have voted to give Barak and Mrs 4 more years of lavish vacations at the expense of all of us. Actually, if all they are doing is vacationing we would be in much better prospects. Since they are also in the process of deconstructing the greatest and most prosperous republic the world has ever seen there is no real Hope for positive Change at that level.

Let's see:

Watergate - Republican
Benghazi - Democratic Marxist/Socialist

Proof enough. Watergate is worse.

Stop pullling the curtain away! You are exposing Mr. Wizard!

Amen. I have an opinion, which I will cross-post, below, But. I agree. Whatever Obama might be, he is neither as skilled as Mr. Nixon was, nor as evil in his actions. As far as we know, so far.

"Let me see if I get this right. CBS has uncovered the truth but what does it mean? I think it means this.
Intelligence knew in a heartbeat, much as most of us did when we heard the news, that enemies had attacked and killed our people and that it had nothing to do with utube videos. Intelligence told our leaders this also. As if they ought to have needed to hear it. THEN DNI decides, OK, my guys aren’t as sure about exactly what this might mean (presumably as to what we ought to do next; it was abundantly clear from the whole conversation that THAT also was one thing where we ALL were on the same page and in the same heart beat). So let’s OBSCURE THE FACT THAST WE AREN”T SURE. Raises self-interest ask an excuse for a lie, a lie obvious to a person OF intelligence that was going to bite those uttering it, in tender places) to new heights.
Fire the DNI. Fire anyone who believed him or her. Fire anyone who went along with it, regardless. Fire the President too they all work for him so either they are doing what he told them to, it’s his fault, or they weren’t, and if so, that’s his fault, too..
Impeach the sob!"

"The intelligence community assessed from the very beginning that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack." DNI spokesman Shawn Turner tells CBS News. That information was shared at a classified level -- which Rice, as a member of President Obama's cabinet, would have been privy to.
An intelligence source says the talking points were passed from the CIA to the DNI, where the substantive edits were made, and then to FBI, which made more edits as part of "standard procedure."
The head of the DNI is James Clapper, an Obama appointee. He ultimately did review the points, before they were given to Ambassador Rice and members of the House intelligence committee on Sept. 14. They were compiled the day before.
The well-planned and well executed attack by heavily armed terrorist-al qaeda agents took place on 9/11 to commemorate the Sept 11 terror attacks against US targets and had nothing to do with the video. Obama Admin still promoting itself as victors over Osama and Al Qaeda did not want a messy revitalization of Al Qaeda ON ELECTION EVE!

Benghazi and Watergate have NOTHING in common and making that kind of analogy or comparison is just another example of Conservative disconnect from reality.

Back in the 1970's we forced a President out of office because he no longer held the public trust. Watergate was not about the break in at WATERGATE, but the fact that A sitting President would lie about it to the American People. What is any different about this circumstance. We now have a President who uses the power of Executive Privilege to cover for his attorney general. This Administration's Attorney General is in contempt of Congress. This act could get the AG disbarred. As I read these idiotic comments that it is fine that an Ambassador of the United States was allowed to be murdered because of incompetent security and because of what is being hidden in that CIA ANNEX in Benghazi, A sitting President's tried to force a world view point that dopes not exist in the Middle East. I think the State Department thought if we show we want to help the new Democracies that they will like us. This is not only dangerous thinking but stupid. And these debacles make us look stupid to the rest of the world. EVen if somehow State was not listening to 3 agencies including DOD's Site Security Lead LT Col Andrew Woods, then what happened once the fight started. Who gave the order to stand down to the CIA people in the Annex. Who decided it was more important to keep the Annex a secret and what were they doing in that Annex that was so bad, a sitting president thought it was better to let an Ambassador die. Were we getting stockpiled hardware to Syria or worse the Palestinians, were we operating a black site and torturing people on the Presidents dispatch list.? It is a good thing those Navy Seal Tyrone Wood went to the Consulate or 20 more people could have been killed. Now after this mission failure, who decided to blame the debacle on a video. No one from any intelligence Agency thought it was a video. So who came up with the idea and who pushed it forward. I remember sitting at the Lincoln Memorial years and years ago. I remember hearing him say it is not the color of your skin it is the content of your character. And when we are no better than they are, what have we won. A lie is a lie. I for one will not forget those who died in Benghazi. And let's hope that our national truth will not die with them.

To perfervid: You said, " In October 1980 I was one of 2 people in the selection for medical coverage in the Iran Embassy, SFC Donald R. Hohman who was a good friend of mine was the other. He wanted to go I didn't. This lead to his 444 days as a hostage due to the second wors[t] president in history."

I gotta call BS on some of this, and here's why. I too was stationed at 97th in 1979 (not 1980) when SP5 (not SFC) Hohmann was deployed to Iran for six months' TDY at the Embassy. I and several other co-workers from 97th's ER and Ambulance Section were at his going-away party at Tony's. (Remember Tony's, right outside the back gate and make a right?) This was in July of '79. It sounds as though he got promoted after he was released, because he was up for E-6 when he left for Iran. I wasn't there at Wiesbaden to greet him when they got back; I had PCS'd to Ft. Gordon in September 1980.

By October of '80, Desert One was a done disaster, and the Iranians were working the deal with Reagan/Bush to release the hostages, including our mutual friend Don, on Inauguration Day, laying the groundwork for more deals down the road. How ironic in retrospect-- we used to proudly thump our chests and say, "We don't negotiate with terrorists." That was true-- we didn't negotiate with them-- we made illegal arms deals with them.

Granted, it was a long time ago-- but if you're going to come here and regale people with your 'war stories', please get your chronology straight. You weren't the only one who was close to events.

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