Posted on 05/25/2014 6:11:37 AM PDT by don-o
Either Darrell Issa is so miffed at Republican leaders for yanking the Benghazi investigation out from under him that he's intentionally undermining the new House Select Committee, or he just vindicated those who believe he wasn't up to the task. Either way he just blew a hole in one big piece of the conspiracy theory.
(Excerpt) Read more at newrepublic.com ...
If you really think it was the video, then site me all the evidence.
I find it hard to pay attention to anyone who doesn't know the difference between two different words that sound the same, but are spelled differently and have quite different meanings. He meant to use the word "cite", but he's apparently too ignorant, too dense, and too dependent on spell check to be taken seriously.
Anyone as ineffective as Issa in a private company would have been fired a long time ago.
The video was a hook that was started earlier in the day in a press release from our Embassy in Cairo that was meant to forestall a planned demonstration against our embassy in Cairo later that day.
I don’t see how this helps the WH, everyone knows the apology for the YouTube video was sent out the day before the terrorist attack.
I’ll also add that the release of the apology could have just stoked already heated Islamic groups to riot for the killing of one of their leaders by a drone.
New Republic works overtime to keep conservatives splintered and riled up against one another.
Issa ran the tables against a stone wall from the beginning, stuck chairing an ordinary committee with no teeth, no enforcement mechanism, no political clout and left with issuing his toothless subpoenas, which served the delighted administration with an opportunity to blow those off too, along with humiliating Issa personally.
No Special Prosecutor, and this is what you get. Five different committees were strategically used to drag this out nearer to election cycles.
A Special Committee has more teeth, tools and track talent, but still, even impeachment is unlikely and the Reid senate removes, nor even punishes, anyone.
Within the confines of Republican strategy to drag this out and within the limits of an ordinary committee, Issa met the goal. Imho.
Do we really know who made the video? (I heard there were actually 4 videos in question)
What if the State Department made the videos?
Hmmmm...
I’m back to shoot holes in Benghazi, again. Please don’t read if t’s too upsetting. And understand that my only interest in any investigations is convincing 67 Senators to stop the bleeding and remove “Obama” from office.
“Obama” is the very meaning of “domestic enemy”. He has committed, or caused to be committed crimes and has also conducted a program, with associates known and (especially) unknown to subvert our form of government. Any Congress worthy of their oaths would have removed him 18 months ago.
“Benghazi” is especially galling to patriots, since it involves abandonment of American representatives to be slaughtered by Islamic fanatics. But it’s key to recognize that most US Senators and a very substantial minority in the House are not patriots and don’t give two sh**s about what happened in Benghazi.
No American President has ever been removed by Congress. Only two have come close (Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon). In both cases, it was proven that they had committed or caused to be committed crimes that would be prosecuted in the ordinary way if they were not President or which disordered the constitutional structure.
So, the de facto standard for removal, the historically proven definition of the undefined “high crimes and misdemeanors”, is the personal commission of felonies, the subornation of crimes by Executive Branch employees, and the use of authority under color of law to injure political enemies.
The IRS scandal and the “fast and furious” crimes are both more than sufficient (once they are properly investigated, by competent authorities) to result in Obama’s removal.
Does “Benghazi” meet this standard? No, for 3 reasons.
First: Obama’s authority to deploy, or not to deploy, light infantry forces into urban combat in a city like Benghazi is undisputed. The position of the Americans around Stevens was known to be perilous (that’s why they hired guards), and whether or not their loss was acceptable given the risk/reward involved was, and is, a purely prudential executive judgement. No President is ever going to be removed for exercising judgement within his proper sphere of authority.
Second: The secret operation at the “annex” (probably shipping weapons to Syria) that was the real target of the enemy action. The conduct of foreign policy is the responsibility of the Executive Branch. Attempts by Congress (other than the ratification or not of treaties by the Senate) to conduct foreign policy are only quasi-Constitutional and have mostly been failures. If Ronald Reagan was not ever in danger from buying hostages freedom with weapons (or trying to), “Obama” can’t be removed for conducting foreign policy in this manner.
Third: Obama’s presence or absence for a number of hours on the evening of 9/11/12 is irrelevant, because no one can seriously contend that he would have taken decisive action had he been present.
“Obama”’s cowardice and islamic sympathies were well known to the electorate that chose him twice. The problem that Benghazi represents is a problem with the electorate, and, as such will not and cannot result in his removal.
That’s why Boehner has agreed to convene a select committee. That’s why Pelosi has agreed to participate. “Obama” doesn’t have to run again. Whatever facts are uncovered that are not now known MIGHT hurt an Obama re-election campaign, but they will not shorten his tenure by a single day.
New Republic is a leftist rag, ignore their diversionary trash.
“I’ll also add that the release of the apology could have just stoked already heated Islamic groups to riot for the killing of one of their leaders by a drone.”
I agree. The only reason everyone even knew about that video is because of the big advertising push by the WH. If the state department or whatever really thought the video was a cause of violence, why did they deliberately fan the flames? So our freedom of speech could be blamed?
These are all valid points.
However, the issues are the cover-up and obstructionism. Illegal weapons trading probably won’t go anywhere (as you pointed out).
The cover-up is obvious. And Clinton is deep in the middle of it. The Benghazi investigation will end her political career.
Obstructionism is the fault of this administration. This will grease the wheels in the F&F and IRS investigations.
Issa is use LESS
Obama surrendered at Benghazi. What that means is that he cut a deal with Al Qaeda in Benghazi.
Here’s what Al Qaeda gave him:
1. The body of the Ambassador.
2. A cease fire to withdraw the CIA employees.
3. No release of the agreement and details to the press or American public.
Here’s what he gave Al Qaeda:
1. No rescue attempt.
2. No military retribution strikes in Libya.
3. Weapons, armored vehicles and night vision equipment.
4. Five billion dollars.
5. All Americans out of Benghazi.
6. A video with him and Hillary Clinton apologizing to Muslims.
K.
Cover up of what? Obstruction of what?
It's not illegal to tell a story your way, as along as you don't lie under oath or order others to do so.
And it's not illegal to use your political friends to slow down or stop your political enemies, especially when stopping them doesn't require much effort.
The Benghazi posse here seem to believe that "if only the people knew about "Obama", this will all turn out right".
The problem is, the people DO know about "Obama", and they re-elected him.
It's a very big problem, and "Benghazi" is not the solution.
Do you prefer that we just post articles that support conservative viewpoints? If so, why?
All correct.
This helps get rid of "Obama" how?
Your lists are plausible, but if true, I’m not confident that those who know this and have access to the evidence will come forward. Nor will the media report the story which has been the catalyst for public disclosure in past coverups. I’m afraid that lips will stay sealed.
Little barry bastard boy’s regime knows that the more convoluted they can have their media whoredom make the treacherous fecklessness the less likely the average American voter is to actually start paying attention. The most dangerous piece of regime appointmentary is John Brennan to head CIA. And he was approved by too wide a margin thus exposing republicant complicity in the deconstruction of the Republic.
I agree with your point that the Benghazi incident cannot result in impeachment, but none of Obama's criminal activities will either. He will not be impeached, period. To do so requires political power and the Republicans do not have it.
That does not mean that Benghazi, Fast and Furious, Keystone Pipeline, BLM, illegal immigration and all the rest should be allowed to stand. He cannot be removed, but his actions and agenda can be discredited and that is beginning to happen. His lies and the lies of the press can be melted away, but only if the pressure is unrelenting.
“Courage is the foundation of all the other virtues.”
I guess that makes cowardice the foundation of all the vices.
If we have become a nation of greedy, self-serving cowards, then our nation will die, and deservedly so. I don’t think the Democrats will like what it would be replaced with.
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.