GOP scandal machine swings into full power

[Michchamp]

Everyone needs to be outraged, OUTRAGED I tells ya about Benghazi, and the IRS' targeting of the funding of some Tea Party groups.

never mind the fact that in the latter case nothing ever actually happened, the IRS head was still a Bush appointee when the scrutiny was ordered, and the IRS under Bush did exactly the same thing to political groups it didn't like... this is OUTRAGEOUS.

and Benghazi... it was a tragic error. we already know what happened... someone at State ignored the calls for increased security. That's the end of the story. it was at best reckless, at worst negligent.

jeez... they didn't hold this many hearings about the Iraq War, or the collapse of the mortgage industry amongst widespread fraud, and those were much bigger problems.

 

[Michchamp]

tStupid and his ilk are probably going into conniptions every time they click on Fox News, visit Free Republic, Glenn Beck, or tune into O'Reilly...

those clowns might need to tone it down. their viewers/listeners are getting older, and they are at serious risk of heart attacks now.

 

[byco42]

Let the investigations proceed and see what happens. It's what the government does. But you apparently are willing to believe one faction of government and not another faction of it. I think the obfuscation makes for more questions. The dems raked Petraeus over the coals in regards to his prosecution of the Afghan War; now they have to face the same scrutiny for this.

 

[Michchamp]

... The dems raked Petraeus over the coals in regards to his prosecution of the Afghan War; now they have to face the same scrutiny for this.

they did?

he was nominated for CIA director. he should've been subject to scrutiny. so should any appointee.

I would have no problem of the IRS scrutiny if only the GOP had been consistent in their criticism when the IRS was doing the same thing to the NAACP, liberal churches, and anti-war groups under Bush.

the Benghazi thing is just stupid too. all this outrage, and something like a majority of Republicans can't even locate the city, let alone the country on a map. they already had hearings about it, and all the facts are known. there isn't any "conspiracy" here, and even if there was, what was the possible reason for it? What could the Obama administration possibly have to gain from it? it makes no sense.

 

[byco42]

they did?

he was nominated for CIA director. he should've been subject to scrutiny. so should any appointee.

I would have no problem of the IRS scrutiny if only the GOP had been consistent in their criticism when the IRS was doing the same thing to the NAACP, liberal churches, and anti-war groups under Bush.

the Benghazi thing is just stupid too. all this outrage, and something like a majority of Republicans can't even locate the city, let alone the country on a map.

I'm talking about when he was commanding general of the MNF in 2007. So it was Iraq, not Afghanistan that was the topic. The "Benghazi thing" is not stupid. The administration was trotting out an explanation for it that rings hollow. Some spontaneous demonstration that never actually happened. 'All this outrage' over the fact that we, once again, hung our own out to dry. Can't happen, no matter who is president.

 

[KAWDUP]

they did?

he was nominated for CIA director. he should've been subject to scrutiny. so should any appointee.

I would have no problem of the IRS scrutiny if only the GOP had been consistent in their criticism when the IRS was doing the same thing to the NAACP, liberal churches, and anti-war groups under Bush.

the Benghazi thing is just stupid too. all this outrage, and something like a majority of Republicans can't even locate the city, let alone the country on a map. they already had hearings about it, and all the facts are known. there isn't any "conspiracy" here, and even if there was, what was the possible reason for it? What could the Obama administration possibly have to gain from it? it makes no sense.

DISCLAIMER for the coming stupid comments from clowns like michchamp: I have no idea what Obama had to do with anything, and in my book he gets the benefit of the doubt as any president should until proven otherwise. Also I agree the IRS targetting conservative groups is not much of a story.

Now the response:

. . . and of course a majority of Democrats know exactly where the city is, but don't care that Americans died at an American embassy? Same kind of stereotype.

Not so sure the location on the map is as important as the loss of life and the apparent reasons for it.

The administration is being forced to answer questions probably more due to the apparent cover-up - not because of any consipiracy. It is always the cover-up, or the lying to Congress in the aftermath, that ends up getting the politicians in hot water.

Even for us lesser folks - that is true. Martha Stewart didn't go to jail due to insider trading - it was lying under oath that got her incarcerated.

 

[Michchamp]

Well, you'd like to have seen Darrell Issa get as upset over the same things - or worse things - when the prior administration did them, at least. But he has a "job" to do.

as far as the "apparent" cover up goes, it does even appear to be apparent. once you get past all the screaming and outrage, there's nothing.

 

[Michchamp]

This is a real scandal. I'm guessing the GOP won't go after Obama for this one though.

Wonder why? Can anybody guess?

 

[byco42]

Well, you'd like to have seen Darrell Issa get as upset over the same things - or worse things - when the prior administration did them, at least. But he has a "job" to do.

as far as the "apparent" cover up goes, it does even appear to be apparent. once you get past all the screaming and outrage, there's nothing.

Says you, with no access to anything official. It's worth a look. Otherwise, why bother?

 

[Michchamp]

Says you, with no access to anything official. It's worth a look. Otherwise, why bother?

they already looked. they had hearings last October. they did a lot of yelling and bloviating over them, but never found anything.

I guess after both parties put aside their "differences" to kill the background check measure they felt we needed an adversarial sideshow to "reassure" the public that there are some real differences between the two.

 

[KAWDUP]

they already looked. they had hearings last October. they did a lot of yelling and bloviating over them, but never found anything.

I guess after both parties put aside their "differences" to kill the background check measure they felt we needed an adversarial sideshow to "reassure" the public that there are some real differences between the two.

bloviating - good word.

. . . and so apropos.

 

[KAWDUP]

This is a real scandal. I'm guessing the GOP won't go after Obama for this one though.

Wonder why? Can anybody guess?

. . . because two wrongs make us . . . even?

 

[byco42]

they already looked. they had hearings last October. they did a lot of yelling and bloviating over them, but never found anything.

I guess after both parties put aside their "differences" to kill the background check measure they felt we needed an adversarial sideshow to "reassure" the public that there are some real differences between the two.

I recall a lot of stonewalling and avoidance, information vetting and virtually no press coverage. Now we've learned more, especially, though promising a different administration, Obama's has fallen in line with his predecessors.

 

[tinselwolverine]

This is a real scandal. I'm guessing the GOP won't go after Obama for this one though.

Wonder why? Can anybody guess?

Because since the story is being reported in Salon it must be bullshit?

 

[kalinecountry]

Darrell Issa is another POS.

 

[TheVictors]

For some reason this thread has me thinking about ......

 

[tinselwolverine]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

tsjc99's good buddy

 

[byco42]

You'd think he'd be smaat enough to return with a name that has no association with the previous one. Or not.

 

[byco42]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

tsjc99's good buddy[/....QUOTE]

Wtf?...I'm confused

Tell us about it.

 

[Michchamp]

You'd think he'd be smaat enough to return with a name that has no association with the previous one. Or not.

I would never think that.