Benghazi Index
Posted on 11/14/2012 1:45:09 PM PST by NKP_Vet
Mitt Romney proved to me in this campaign that he is an extremely fine, decent, honorable man.
He would not stoop to Obama’s gutter tactics.
Sadly that also confirms my fear about him that he was too nice a guy for the task at hand.
Cantor did the right thing by passing it to the FBI Director who may have been unaware that Kelley and the agent were fiddling around.
If he thought it was credible to pass onto the FBI, why didn’t he pass it
Onto his committee chairmen? Failed leadership.
Interesting possibility.
I would think that Benghazigate would have to be FAR worse than we thought for several dozen electors to change their designated vote from Obama to Romney.
I think they’d rather let Obama be impeached and let Biden take over, than vote for a Republican.
Don’t be ridiculous.
Probably thought the FBI agent was a 2-bit lowlife who needed to be reprimanded by the FBI Head.
How was Cantor to know how credible the shirtless agent was?
I don’t think I made my point clear.
The scandal has, to date, been a Petraus scandal, not an Obama scandal.
I strongly suspect that it will be a huge Obama scandal IF everything comes out, but you will notice that is a big IF.
Watergate would been no big deal if the media had been intent on protecting Nixon.
If Eric did, he should be FIRED and let the TEA PARTY run the house!!
Romney was a much better candidate than his campaign.
Unfortunately, Obama’s campaign was much better than Obama.
This is the bottom line for 2012.
Great post.
I totally underestimated Axlegrease, Pluffy, and Gibbs.
I figured 2008 was just a special set of circumstances and they lucked out.
Maybe the Romney folks made the same mistake.
True, but one benefit of a mushrooming scandal would be to help slow down or kill the worst of an aggressive 2nd term agenda.
Cripple him. Lame duck.
Everybody made the same mistake. Romney himself was convinced he had won on election day. He performed extremely well, perhaps brilliantly under the circumstances.
Nobody knew Obama’s team had been going block-by-block for 4 years.
That he was liberal wasn’t anyone’s fault but his own.
That is the reality of the situation.
My question is simply this: Is Petraeus going to paint a picture of a lawless president who uses mob tactics to topple military careers and get ambassadors killed just to save his own job? If so, how does one shame an Elector into not endorsing that tactic as the way to win the White House?
How do we shame anyone who thinks they can publicly endorse a blackmailer and career ruiner for president?
This is all predecated on Patraeus testifying that Obama was behind it all, or was so incompetent and disengaged that he let others run the White House for him while he played figurehead, and then hid from the consequences until after the election.
The testimony has to be so bad that even Democrats won't be willing to certify the election to such a bastard.
If Petraeus doesn't go there and instead backs up everything that Obama said, then this idea is all washed up.
-PJ
It might have made a difference if he hadn't went before congress and lied his @ss off.
Honorable and liar don't belong in the same sentence.
Wishful thinking, if Rape, BJ's from interns in the Oval, and lying under oath did not phase them, just what do you think it would take?
-PJ
It can’t be just Petraeus word. He also must have a few “blue dresses” to back himself up.
I wonder if Romney was told. He backed off the Benghazi issue for some reason. What was he told?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.