ZeroHedge: No matter the headline, no matter the scandal, no matter how few or how many might be involved, one thing will become crystal clear: nobody that should have known – will have known.
MediaIte: Early this month, when Democrats still hadn’t made up their minds about participation in the Benghazi select committee, Congressman Adam Schiff said there’s no way Democrats would participate in that “colossal waste of time.” Well, funny story: Schiff is one of the five Democrats Nancy Pelosi picked yesterday to actually serve on that committee. And on Rachel Maddow‘s show last night, Schiff explained they decided to participate to keep the Republicans from making it a partisan, stunt-driven affair.
ZeroHedge: There was a time when this art form of creating circumstances as to protect people of influence had its place and was used sparingly and tactfully. However, as of today both the frequency along with how and where it is used has gone from “useful ruse” to a downright childish alibi. No one seems to be accountable today. And I mean nobody!
MediaIte: He (Congressman Adam Schiff) told Maddow that all the Republicans want to do here is “provoke a fight with the administration” they can exploit to their advantage during the midterms, and even though there was some fierce internal debate within the Democratic caucus, they eventually agreed it’s “important to have people in that room to contest the abuse of that kind of power and process.”
And Schiff promised if the Republicans try to keep any information from them, they will “scream bloody murder” about it and expose them for the “sham” proceedings they’re orchestrating.
15 comments:
Everything in politics is all about politics.
Accusing your opponents of acting out of political motives is the equivalent of saying that water is wet.
So, yeah, the hearings are adversarial and political.
Republicans are hoping to find info that damages Obama and Hillary.
This is the way our system was designed to work. The adversarial, political process is the way the parties vet one another.
It isn't nice and it isn't supposed to be.
Translation:
This and the VA could be the final nails in the Demos' coffin this year unless the hacks scream, "Monster squirrel".
Translation: It was the video!
Did Republicans resist the original Watergate like this? I do not know. I was too young to understand anything about politics then. All I knew was that it dragged on forever. But your comments here make me feel a lot better. I was imagining this sort of thing never happened before where one party tries to keep us from the truth. I do recall people resigned. Judges quit or were removed otherwise changed. Other careers were ended.
No, they didn't.
Some Republicans whined, "You can't do this to the President because he is the President", (which I always thought was beside the point) while the Demos piously invoked the Founding Fathers any time actual facts were raised.
The only one who asked the one pertinent question, "Did he break the law?", a Jersey congressman named Charlie Sandman, was rewarded for his efforts by being turned out of office.
But, no, the Rs showed a lot of class throughout the proceeding.
President Nixon was a far different character than Obama.
He wasn't particularly liked even within the Republican Party.
I doubt that the Benghazi thing rises to the level of impeachment, in any event.
IRS persecution of political opponents would, in respect to any other president, justify impeachment proceedings.
That's not going to happen because of the color of Obama's skin. And it's only 2-1/2 years until he leaves office. So, from a practical standpoint, not worth the effort.
It was a long time ago, Chip, but if there were any Republicans screaming bloody murder "this is a sham", it was very few.
So there are apparently quite a few people who actually DON'T want to find out what happened, what went wrong, and who is responsible. Very admirable. Vote for them... again.
When asked whether a select committee hearing on Benghazi would reveal new information, Susan B. Rice answered, "Danged if I know."
They're laughing in our collective face. I hope Trey Gowdy is spitting mad. I sure am.
"When asked whether a select committee hearing on Benghazi would reveal new information,..."
The only appropriate answer to that is "I hope so." Anything else means you either don't care or have something to hide. Both are despicable.
Chip, something else to remember.
When the thing looked like it really would drag on forever, Hugh Scott, Barry Goldwater, and John Tower walked up Pennsylvania Ave and asked Nixon to resign.
Several officials, including the director of the FBI, resigned in the face of the Administration's attempt to manage the damage.
Name any Demos under Willie or the Choom Gang who would who would do the same.
Shouting Thomas said...
I doubt that the Benghazi thing rises to the level of impeachment, in any event.
CinC leaves men to die when reinforcements were readily available in the interests of looking good politically?
That doesn't sound like misfeasance, malfeasance, and/or nonfeasance in office?
All impeachable offenses.
ST, Obama isn't actually that well-liked by other Dems, at least not prominent Dems. But they'd rather a crappy Dem be in power (and probably prefer it, honestly) than have anyone else in power.
IRS persecution of political opponents would, in respect to any other president, justify impeachment proceedings.
That's not going to happen because of the color of Obama's skin. And it's only 2-1/2 years until he leaves office. So, from a practical standpoint, not worth the effort.
Not about the practical effort, it's about civic hygiene. But no one on either side really gives a shit about that concept any more.
Accusing your opponents of acting out of political motives is the equivalent of saying that water is wet.
Yeah, man, but your water is soggier than my water, and that means you suck!
Post a Comment