Hillary’s Benghazi Hearings: “Don’t Look at Me!”

What we learned from Hillary Clinton’s Congressional hearings on Benghazi was nothing. What was revealed was a combative, arrogant Secretary of State, who thinks she’s above reproach or accountability and was especially miffed she had to  be questioned by members of Congress about why four Americans were killed at the US Consulate in Benghazi under her watch.

Hillary’s attitude toward the entire “Benghazi affair” is summed up well in her irritated response to Senator Ron Johnson’s (R-WI) question about what caused the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi. “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?” she shouted.

For America’s Secretary of State to dismiss the cause of Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens’ death and those of three other Americans as irrelevant is beyond shocking when her job is to ensure the safety of diplomats abroad as they pursue US policy. The reason why the  cause of their deaths makes a DIFFERENCE is because Ambassador Stevens and other US diplomats sent numerous cables and emails warning the State Department security at the Benghazi consulate was inadequate.

It matters that  the Obama administration mislead the American people from the start about the attack, suggesting for weeks, most notably through UN Ambassador Susan Rice, that the attack was caused by a spontaneous protest over an American produced anti-Muslim video. After killing Osama bin Laden, the Obama administration wanted us to believe the threat of al Qaeda and Islamic radicals was diminished but the Benghazi attack blew an inconvenient hole in the President’s narrative.

The CIA confirmed numerous times to Congress , including former CIA Director David Petraeus, the agency knew immediately the Benghazi attack was planned and implemented by terrorists. But the real “difference” this all makes is the State Department’s Accountability Review Board’s report, commissioned by Madame Hillary herself, concluded the attack on Benghazi resulted from the State Department’s gross negligence in security.  Translation: “big screw up.”

This all makes a “difference” because it makes Secretary Clinton look incompetent. When she flippantly declared with a smirk during the Senate hearing that she couldn’t be bothered to read the 1.4 million cables that came through to the State Department last year, including those from Ambassador Stevens, Senator Rand Paul  expressed the collective disgust of America.

“Had I been president at the time and I found that you did not read the cables from Benghazi, you did not read the cables form Ambassador Stevens, I would have relieved you of your post,” said Senator Paul.

Despite Democrats in the Senate and House Foreign Relations Committee thanking  Clinton for her “candor,” she showed none.  Instead, Madame Secretary spent the entire day oozing contempt for Congress and distancing herself from blame.

“I wasn’t involved in the talking points process,” said Hillary before the Senate hearing and reiterated the “Intelligence community is the principle decider of talking points.”  (Reminder: the talking points was the misinformation Susan Rice recited chapter and verse on several Sunday morning talk shows, declaring without question the Benghazi attack was caused by a protest. Of course this cost Rice Hillary’s job. )

Before the House, Madame Secretary threw the CIA under the bust again, saying “the intelligence community failed to recognize the threat in Benghazi.” I thought the State Department’s mission is to pursue American foreign policy and protect our interests abroad along with identifying threats to the US, thus making it part of our “intelligence community.”

The gist of Hillary’s testimony was “Don’t look at me, it wasn’t my fault.” But Hillary said last year as Secretary of State she would take full responsibility for Benghazi? Perhaps the stars in her eyes, contemplating a run for president in 2016,  made her rethink all that Benghazi culpability stuff.

After hearing our Secretary of State drone on all day January 23, 2013, we, the American people, were left scratching our heads with more questions than answers on Benghazi and thank goodness Senator John McCain (R-AZ) had the guts to point that out.

“The answers, frankly, that you’ve given this morning are not satisfactory to me,” declared a testy Senator McCain.

Meanwhile Democrats couldn’t stop their effusive praise of Hillary for visiting over 100 countries. Traveling around world racking up frequent flier miles doesn’t make you a good Secretary of State but implementing effective foreign policy does! Democrats also kept praising Hillary during her hearings for doing “such a great job.” If the Secretary did such a great job, why are four diplomats dead and Islamic extremists and al Qaeda taking hold in Mali and other parts of North Africa?

“When America is absent, especially from unstable environments, there are consequences. Extremism takes root; our interests suffer; our security at home is threatened,” exclaimed Secretary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton couldn’t have described her job performance any better as chief promoter of Obama’s “absent” from the world, lead from behind foreign policy. It seems Hillary spent a lot of time flying around the world thinking about how great her travels would look on her 2016 presidential resume but little time on the basics of running the State Department. Bon Voyage Hillary!

If you enjoyed this article, Get email updates (It’s Free)

51 Responses to “Hillary’s Benghazi Hearings: “Don’t Look at Me!””

  1. JEFF TURNER says:

    You could not be more correct.

    What is even more scary is how the Media reported Mrs. Clinton’s performance. They heaped praise on her and noted how “strong” she was and how she stood up to those mean old Republicans. Most Americans will get that twisted report from the media. The media has fallen in love with her, and want to help her be our next President. She is replacing President Obama as the object of their affection.

    I was done with Hillary when I saw that she was not even strong enough to handle her own husband’s numerous womanizing. They were not affairs, they were womanizing – the women were just used by Bill and thrown away. Well each time, time after time, when Bill would hunt is next woman, Hillary’s handling of him would consist of, “Now Bill don’t do that again, I am warning you, no more this is your last warning”. This went on time after time. Wonder how that would work when another country is droping bombs on us? Now I am warning you, do not do that again.

    The idea that the Queen of Darkness could be our next President should shake every true American to the bottom of their feet.

  2. Wes says:

    @ CBC

    I think you nailed it. Not having enough money is a poor excuse for not keeping people safe. That’s one thing I can say for the W Bush administration. It had no problem spending money it didn’t have.

  3. Moose says:

    You just set her up for a perfect run in ’16.

    “Look at all the work she had to do for Barack cause he wasn’t doing it. She was already acting like President!”

    That being said I never expected anything to actually come out of this. She’s had a third of a year to prepare and the media just doesn’t care.

  4. the unit says:

    Inadequate funding? Congressperson and Senator just wave the proposed and passed budget before her and ask where in here did you ask for it? Would that help explain things and make a difference? That would be like the old ad, “where’s the beef.” But would probably hear, “help I’ve fallen and I can’t get up.”
    Oops, I heard there hasn’t been a budget proposal passed in quite some time.

  5. Scott says:

    Hillary asks “What difference does it make???” and the press loves it! Wow, I care. And I bet their families care. Does that not reflect on how our government plans our future? Who cares? Anyone with a heart and anyone with a mind!

    What Difference? = Who Cares? !!

  6. Dave says:

    Same old, same old. I’ve lived in Little Rock since the mid 80′s and observed she is long on power and ambition but short on character and credibility. Mrs. Clinton’s past is littered with Benghazi-esque incidents and unanswered questions such as Whitewater, Vince Foster and the removal of Whitewater documents from his White House office after his passing, missing Rose Law firm billing records magically appearing in the White House Map Room to name a few of the many. She is the ultimate Washington insider whose personal political ambition drives her job performance rather than her ability to lead, govern, and implement effective policy. A woman President…absolutely! Mrs. Clinton in that role…absolutely not!

  7. Pam says:

    What difference does it make that she is a contemptible liar (like her boss) who only thinks of herself. I don’t know how she can look the families of these victims of her selfish incompetence in the eyes. Much less herself in a mirror.

    Saw “Argo” last night. One thing that made me crazy is that the same newspeople who radiated anger and contempt for Jimmy Carter and his incompetence are now licking the boots of Obama. What has changed?

  8. Wes says:

    @ Jeff,
    I realized Hillary was married to the Prince of Darkness when he started quoting from the Bible in his 1992 democratic convention nomination acceptance speech. However I didn’t know that that makes her the queen of darkness …

  9. Benghazi was not a defensible position and under the circumstances the Ambassador shouldn’t have been there. Benghazi was a mini 911 and let’s not forget on whose watch that occured.

  10. JEFF TURNER says:

    President Obama said that the people that took the lives of 4 Americans at Bengahzi would be “brought to justice”. How is that going? Will that be in this lifetime or the next. It might help if you looked for them. Just a wild suggestion. Certainly you were not playing politics with the lives of 4 dead Americans, were you Mr. President.

  11. Noel says:

    Well said, again.

    “We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate”, said Obama in his second inaugural speech.

    Substitute spectacle for politics? Didn’t Hillary just do that during the Benghazi hearings? She made a spectacle of herself…no pun intended.

    We cannot mistake absolutism (i.e. universally valid principles) for principle? So we must substitute subjectivism for principle? He seems to imply just that when he says in the same speech, “it does not mean we will all define liberty in exactly the same way”.

    In the same speech, “preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action”.
    No Mr. President it requires YOU and your government to act and protect one’s right to their property; that’s the proper role of government that you are trying to ignore when you say in the same speech,
    “Progress does not compel us to settle centuries-long debates about the role of government for all time”.

  12. Scott says:

    @Truevoice Let’s see: these hearings don’t matter and besides the Republicans are trying to rig elections by modifying the electoral college…. I think you are changing the subject. The subject is: Obama and company are not governing well. Regardless of what the Republican sideshow is about, the Obama administration is not governing well, not governing well, not governing well. And they do not care about their citizens.

    And the press is also doing nothing to get real debate. The absence of the press is getting very scarey!

    We will need guns to defend ourselves from an oppressive government, the real argument for assault weapons and the real reason for the Second Amendment. I may have to join the NRA….

  13. James says:

    What Truevoice said!

  14. JEFF TURNER says:

    I think, if you saw President Obama and Hillary on 60 Minutes, Sunday night, you saw Love in bloom. Watch out Michelle! Obama and Hillary are now 100% taken with each, in their own twisted way, they are in love. Watch the President eyes as he gazes at Hillary with that torn up hair and eyeglasses, as he annoints Hillary as, “the best Sec. of State, our Country has ever had”. What a laugh, these two are really scary.

  15. Scott says:

    @Truevoice Do you think we did 9-11 to ourselves?
    I have been discussing since I thought you were rational. I apologize for the error.

    Having said that, you are right about firepower, but still the Minutemen had their way with the Redcoats. Kind of fun watching your reaction …..

    I still am not a Republican, so your name calling comments are pointless.

    Hilary and Obama – wow two self centered, posturing egomaniacs. Unfortunately they are skillful politicians. Would that they would put similar efforts into solving our problems.
    The Obama economy is a chimera. I have never been as afraid as I am now. Talk to me in 2016. Can’t tell if it will be inflation or depression, but am leaning toward inflation. See what that does to your 401K.

  16. Wes says:

    @truevoice
    I was recently called a conservative, however I’m not sure what I should be called. I know I support socialized medicine. I do not believe in the supply side economic myths as I believe trickle down economics is more like trickle on economics. Does that mean I support legalized abortion and gay marriage? No I do not! As far as I am concerned, this whole “left vs right” struggle is nothing more than a game of smoke and mirrors hiding the truth.

    The truth as I see it is that this is a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. That is set in stone in the Declaration of Independence and 87 years after the fact, Lincoln called it into question in the Gettysburg Address. Then another 90 plus years after that, MLK again questioned it in the “I Have a Dream” speech. This nation has all the documents in place to preserve liberty for ALL men. However you know as well as I that the historic track record leaves a lot to be desired.

    As I see it, The Bill of Rights is a way to protect our liberty. I don’t believe 911 was an inside job, but after that, Congress passed law enabling the government to conduct searches without warrants on anybody they deemed a “terrorist”. Each member of Congress swears an oath to defend and protect the constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. Nevertheless that Patriot Act or whatever you want to call it nullifies the 4th amendment for anybody deemed to be a terrorist. It’s easy to say, “Then just don’t be a terrorist and you won’t have any problems”. However who determines who is called a terrorist? I can be called a conservative. Does that make me one? When they first invaded Iraq, they had the audacity to call the Iraqis trying to stop them “terrorists”. After a week or so, they figured that wasn’t passing the smell test so they called them “insurgents” ever since. A few years ago Congress passed another law allowing the government to detain any US citizen deemed a terrorist indefinitely without right to a speedy trial (you know like they do in Guantanamo Bay for the non US citizens). Now this trashes the 6th amendment for anybody deemed a terrorist. Now personally, I don’t believe Obama would do anything like lock people up in concentration camps, but we just had an election that Romney could have won and I wouldn’t put anything past Romney. I mean we can’t even count on Romney to say the same thing at the end of the debate that he said in the beginning.

    Voting rights are very precious. However what good is the right to vote when a person can’t get to the polls because he or she is locked up and his or her family can’t even petition the courts because the case is never even brought before a judge?

  17. Scott says:

    @Truevoice right, sir! I believe there are conspiracies and all from the right and especially the bad Bush boys! thank God for Hillary and Obama to save us with their purity. Repetitions finally equal facts.

  18. Wes says:

    @ truevoice
    I don’t believe the official story either. However they have actual film footage of at least one passenger airline flying into the tower. Why would the US pay somebody to hijack a plane? I know a lot of people didn’t show up for work so it would seem some people knew it was coming, but an inside job? Why would they do it? To have an excuse to take away our rights?

  19. Scott says:

    @Truevoice @Wes
    absence of proof does not equal proof of absence. N. Taleb, “Antifragile”

    you don’t know the answer and pick one out of the infinite possibilities and jump on it. That ain’t facts, that is inference. Inference is great for a theory, but not for conviction.

  20. Scott says:

    @ truevoice

    (sic)

  21. Wes says:

    @truevoice
    Does this mean that you only distrust the republicans and these democrats are so naive to allow such treachery to go on under their noses; or does this mean you think the dems were aiding and abetting? This is important to me because it sounds like you are implying that we should assume that the dems are not up to anything sinister by trying to collect guns and we should trust that they are only concerned for the safety of the children. Logic says the police wouldn’t carry guns if what LaPierre says wasn’t true (The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F584p5kJL-U

    The crash dummie in the video says that everybody for gun control can put a sign in the front yard saying so.

  22. Scott says:

    Well, that grilling interview on 60 Minutes certainly cleared any doubts I had about President Obama and Sec of State Clinton. I just had no inkling that the world was such a dangerous place.

    They certainly answered my questions on what happened and relieved me to know that the person in charge was unaware of the safety concerns of her subordinates.

    We should all thank 60 Minutes for such a hard hitting interview. I guess the guys who uncovered Watergate and exposed 9-11 have a worthy heir!

  23. James says:

    A`good read on the lies that Condi Rice told the 9/11 commission to read the full piece : http://archive.truthout.org/article/condi-rice-911-and-another-nest-lies

    Former Secretary of State Condo Rice may have committed perjury in her testimony before the 9/11 Commission in May of 2004. At a minimum, her testimony was a convenient mishmash of half-truths and omissions which served to paint the White House as innocent bystanders as the attacks of 9/11 unfolded. Certainly, her testimony omitted the fact that the two most senior intelligence officials in the nation delivered a stern warning regarding an impending terror attack two full months before 9/11.

    Sunday’s edition of the Washington Post carried a story titled “Two Months Before 9/11, an Urgent Warning to Rice.” The story described a desperate attempt by CIA chief George Tenet and CIA counterterrorism chief J. Cofer Black to draw Rice’s attention to the looming threat of an al-Qaeda strike against the United States. Tenet and Black insisted on a meeting with Rice on July 10, 2001. This meeting was first reported by Bob Woodward in his new book, “State of Denial.”

  24. Wes says:

    @ truevoice
    I presume your last reply is to me because you specifically addressed the gun control issue. I did not address your reasons why you think the government was behind 911 because I preceded in the dialog under the presumption that your suspicions were correct. I cannot confirm nor deny that which has insufficient evidence to make a case one way or another. Therefore I bowed to your conclusions in the absence of any glaring reason not to do so. On the other hand you are presuming because someone of a certain political persuasion invents a class of weapon and calls them assault weapons that this particular class of weapon is a class that is not needed for whatever the founding fathers thought the people would need when they decided to make some sort of way to protect our rights. It’s like when the republicans attack your right to vote, you hear and become alarmed, but when either democrats or republicans attack your rights that help protect that right to vote, it doesn’t seem to concern you. Your first amendment right is good for do do without the 2nd, 3rd,4th 5th and 6th amendments to back it up. Bush had the power to stop the attack on the 4th amendment and he did not veto. Obama had the power to stop the attack on the 6th amendment and chose not to veto. One by one, the bill of rights are being taken away. If you think the government is capable of masterminding a 911 disaster for God only knows what reason, then you must certainly believe that it is, at the very least, plausible that some special interest is behind the abduction of our inalienable rights.

  25. Wes says:

    @scott
    I did not see the interview on 60 minutes but I detect a hint of sarcasm.

  26. Wes says:

    @James
    I happened to be listening to the radio the morning of 9-11. I’ll never forget Dan Rather reported that there were reports of smoke coming from the whitehouse. Obviously later reports were that one of the fatal flights was delayed and subsequently grounded (crashed or shot down) thereby making that report suggesting that the whitehouse too may have been hit suspicously in error.

  27. Wes says:

    @truevoice
    I was just watching Jon Stewart interviewing Al Gore. He said it was time to take our democracy back from the special interests. I agree with the tone of his statement.

  28. Wes says:

    @truevoice
    Yes I have reviewed what the policemen have to say. I don’t think that there is a general consensus, but when one wants to be objective, one should always put oneself in another person’s shoes. If you were a policeman would you want to face military style weapons? I’m guessing they wouldn’t want to face weapons of any kind. If you want to keep grenades and bazookas and automatics weapons illegal, I don’t have a problem with that. However to make up a class of weapons, call them assault weapons and then decide these kinds of weapons are too lethal, well that only shows the true colors of the gun control movement.

    I respect your right to disagree. However your reasoning to disagree does not appear to be based upon logical deduction. Every point raised by the crash dummy in the video is based on logical deduction, and you have only offered as a rebuttal, a feeling that he is wrong and that the nra’s motivation is based upon something other than protecting the rights of the people. I am not here to defend the nra. I am here to defend liberty. As a black person I tend to be somewhat paranoid about my rights. However I do not share a concern about the right to vote now because I am fully aware that BOTH sides are bought and paid for. This appears to be a matter that you appear to overlook when you reach the conclusion that your right to vote is more of a concern than all of the rights that protect that right are to you.

    We all want people to be safe. Therefore the real question regarding gun control is if the people are safer in the gun free zones than they are where criminals aren’t sure who is armed and who is not. Clearly the less guns around the less likely someone will be accidently hurt or killed with a gun. However a criminal will generally attack an easy target.

  29. Scott says:

    @Wes last post nicely put. Another way to look at gun control: Number of People in Chicago ~= People in Utah. Chicago has great gun control laws. Utah has much lower level. Yet murder rate in Chicago is way greater than in Utah.

    Obvious Factual conclusion: something other than direct legislation is involved.

    The question becomes: what is that OTHER?

  30. Scott says:

    @Truevoice

    Remember the voice of Martin Niemoeller, German Intellectual and clergyman:

    ” First they came for the socialists,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a socialist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.

    Then they came for me,
    and there was no one left to speak for me.”

    It can’t happen here? Why are you so concerned about 9-11?

    It is this aspect of the current administration that bothers me so much. I can live with socialism if that is what the informed majority wants. It is the willingness to lie and propagandize in order to undermine our freedoms that is scarey.

  31. James says:

    You tell them Truevoice

  32. Scott says:

    @Truevoice I guess I have to spell out the analogy.

    Canons are the socialists…
    Assault weapons are the Jews…
    All guns will be last on the list…

    Come on, you are so good at inference.

    Then how do you go from “this is not Nazi Germany” to the Republicans are….? That is typical liberal changing the subject, followed by slanderous accusations. Besides which you have NEVER heard me defend the Republicans. I am afraid of big government by Republicans or Democrats.

    Your points just for fun:

    All citizens should be allowed to vote. I wish the rule said all taxpayers, but it does not. In my view, any person who speaks any version of American English should be considered a citizen “a priori”. For the record, I think that includes those Americans from native Spanish speaking areas such as Arizona and New Mexico. I do think ID is do-able but that is another debate.

    I do wonder about the Iraq war, but regard it as the result of over zealous wanting it to be, not malicious intent. Perhaps even stupidity. The war was a disaster from justification to execution to expectations of results.

    Can’t answer the 2000 election, there were many democrats there trying to work it their way, too. Both parties are guilty of gerrymandering.

    Birther – unbelievable idiocy. Note that Obama meets my “citizens by dialect criteria.” Birthers are in the same category as 9-11 conspirator theorists…. and end-of-the-world people.

    The Bush financial mess: Much of the the current financial problem, I submit, goes back to the policy of “Equal Lending.” That forced banks to lend to people who they knew could not pay. If you were forced to lend money to a non-credible person, you would try to off load it, too. The banks were creative in doing so. The regulatory environment had to have changed. Like so many things it is not one step to the problem or solution. And yes the banks were immoral. When asked to lend to people of poor credit risk, they should have closed their business. Think about that Mr. Logic.

    Further on Financial Mess. No one seems to remember that the stock market tanked the first year of Bush’s term and climaxed down right near 9-11-2001. Bush’s answer of starting a war using credit was a disastrous choice. But the economy was already having problems when he took over. Read Robert Prechter for some thoughts on this aspect of things.

    Let’s not forget that for two years, Obama had NO effective Republican opposition. His policies led directly to a Tax Protest Group for their overwhelming lack of concern for the common man.

    Personal Axe: hmm, I can honestly say I voted for him first term. Do not like his policies and you have never heard me attack him personally. I feel you are accusing me of something you seem to be doing. An argument technique called deflecting.

    MLK: a great man, who probably stopped a civil war. His characterization of the Republican party is spot on. They were hi-jacked by the Radical Religious Right. And it became obvious to the bigoted KKK types that they were not going to have a voice in the Democratic party, where they had been very welcome for many years. Up until that era, Republicans were a party of moderate social conservatism – and very similar in platform to the Democratic party.

    In my view the hijacking of the Republican party led them to tolerating an extreme view. That in turn led to the liberals hijacking the Democratic party. Now we have two relatively extreme groups in charge with the Democrats winning the propaganda wars. I think basically because it is easy to sell one step high sounding ideas, even if they do not always work in human society.

  33. Scott says:

    @James agree Bush administration could well have been negligent reading the signs. no one believed we were vulnerable. kind of like Clinton…

    How do we square this with @Truevoice contention that 9-11 was a Bush conspiracy?

  34. Scott says:

    @Truevoice no it is my way of saying it is so off the wall that it is not worth discussing. There is a major difference in conspiracies and thing coming together in a bad way.

    Who do you think did the “inside job?”
    Why?

    Don’t bother to answer, those are rhetorical…. maybe I am meeting one definition of insanity…..

  35. Scott says:

    @Truevoice

    OK – white supremacists exist. they want to take over the Republican Party. They have not done so. By a long shot.

    The Democratic party is totalitarian in that is allows no debate without vilification and belittling the debaters. They use propaganda to change public opinion. Look at the editing by NBC of some videos in the past year. Liberals want to impose their view in spite of current law.

    Think you are picking nits about filibustering. Notice you feel the need to call the Tea Party “useless,” a pejorative term, not based on facts. I found them pretty useful since they pointed out the tax ramifications of the Health Care package which the Democrats passed over all that filibustering “so that they could read it.”

    Bush did try to deal with the banks, but got nowhere. Clinton did nothing about them at all.

    You seem to blame everything on the Republicans, yet the Democrats have been in the White House 12 of the last 20 years. Can’t pull congressional percentages out of my head, but basically, the Republicans are a minority party. Even if evil, how do they have so much effect? At least they want to change laws (mostly), not ignore them.

    Why does no one look at the corruption of the Democrats? Both parties are bad.

    Most of your arguments to me seem to relate me to Republicans. Why?

  36. Scott says:

    @Truevoice
    You keep repeating the same mantra. And lies about the Tea Party. I disagree with your perception of the Democrats helping the middle class. Sorry I bothered…

  37. Wes says:

    @ truevoice
    While we may see things the same, relatively speaking, when I try to put a number on it, things look a bit differently. On a scale of 1 the 10 I see the republicans at a one and the democrats at a two. Therefore, when I see the vote, I see a choice between getting screwed and getting screwed without lubrication.

    Any politician that puts one hand on the Bible while reciting an oath to protect the constitution against its enemies both foreign and domestic and then subsequently attacks the constitution, not only disrespects the flag and the republic for which it stands, but also shows disrespect for that Bible.

    When Clinton put his hand on the Bible and said he didn’t have sexual relations with Monica, the democrats all gave him a pass because it was about sex instead of something that mattered. Now that they are peeing on the bill of rights, it matters, but they are still giving them a pass.

    Is it not a concern until the people on MSNBC say it is something to be concerned about??

  38. Scott says:

    @Truevoice — you have proved nothing, your facts are repeated assertions, most of your rants are name calling and other irrelevancies. You have however, proved you can distort issues more than I have the tolerance to deal with …

    It appears to me that you comment here to annoy others and to cast aspersions on the Republicans and others who do not adhere to the liberal progressive line.

  39. Wes says:

    @ truevoice
    When Congress passed a law to make it legal for the government to detain US citizens without a right to a speed trial, Obama had the opportunity to veto. He gave an oath to protect the constitution but he chose not to. People not only died for our right to vote. People died so we can all enjoy the liberty that is protected by our constitution. We have a Bill of Rights and our right to vote is implicit within our first amendment rights. I think it is a mistake to give up practically all other rights on the pretense that it will make us more secure while we enjoy our rights protected by the first amendment.

    Bush did the same thing Obama did when he allowed (and encouraged) Congress to pass the Patriot Act, which targeted our right to be secure in our possessions (that’s why courts issue warrants). The Patriot Act allows law enforcement to bypass warrants in the name of protecting us against terrorism. Less than two years ago, Congress did it to us again (this time allowing government to hold US citizens indefinitely without our day in court to stand before our accusers). The falsely accused very desperately need this right. Our system was designed to protect the innocent, but legislation passed since 911 has been circumventing that protection. So if you are bound and determined to assert 911 was an inside job, you may wish to speculate that the reason for doing it was to have an excuse to systematically dismantle our liberty. I don’t know if 911 was an inside job, but the empirical evidence is there that our liberty and freedom is under being threatened. It is your choice to ignore these threats and focus on republicans denying certain people’s right to vote and district gerrymandering to skew election results, but once all the other rights are gone, your right to vote won’t be worth a hill of beans.

  40. Wes says:

    @ truevoice
    When Al Gore says the politicians in Washington are beholden to the people who help get them elected, he isn’t just saying that in order to sell a book. It is happening. We can dream that Obama is somehow above all of that nonsense, but that is all it is is a dream.

  41. Scott says:

    @Wes – well said. That is the essence of conservatism in my view. We want to live by laws not presidential decree.

  42. Noel says:

    Ya, well said Wes.

  43. Wes says:

    @ Scott
    I try to avoid making generalizations. If I was to call myself a conservative, people might make certain assumptions about my beliefs. For example, generally speaking, conservatives are against socialized medicine. Yet among them who are old enough to know better, they see Medicare as the treasure that separates them from financial devastation. To me that sounds like a bad case of cognitive dissonance, because Medicare is nothing but socialized medicine, but that’s what I get for making generalizations.

    When people are divided into these left/right camps, it becomes politically strategic to paint Obama as some kind of socialist maniac. In my opinion that doesn’t help solve some of the problems that really need to get fixed. 99% of the citizens of this nation cannot afford to be a patient in the current medical system without some kind of public assistance. The republicans know it but they are so in love with conservatism that they wanted to nominate somebody on the right that could run against Obama from the center. The result was a candidate that was all over the place. In the aftermath, the republicans still believe conservatism is the answer that everyone seeks and if they would have just “sold” or presented their message more effectively, they would have won the whitehouse.

    If I was forced to categorize myself, I would call myself a nationalist. As bad as I sometimes say things are, this isn’t totalitarianism (not yet). The only thing separating us from this totalitarian global machine is the rights we have guarded by our constitution. If Obama is dragging me kicking and screaming toward globalism, as all of his predecessors have, then he is part of the problem. If that makes me a conservative for believing that way, then I believe the conservatives got this one right.

  44. Wes says:

    @ Noel
    When Ed Schultz said that the constitutional was old and outdated, I felt like throwing the remote at the tv.

  45. Scott says:

    @Wes – again, well said.

    I believe many of our problems as a society come from lacking knowledge of what will work and how Homo Sapiens was evolved to live. Political arguments seem to be based on one of 3 things:

    1. what God wants. who is really conversing with him?
    2. some theory without regard to emotions… to me, the flaw with Libertarians.
    3. emotional reaction to some perceived injustice (real or not) with a one step reaction. To me this is the essence of the Democratic party and a big flaw in the Republicans, too.

    I think both sides are for freedom, equality, and opportunity. The issue becomes how to achieve these things taking into account the flaws of humans. VERY Simplistically, I think the liberals tend to be willing to ignore rights for the good of society as they see it. Rightists tend to be willing to live with unjust results from people abusing their power and to want to intrude into private lives.

    I apologize for labeling you with little evidence, but I am overjoyed to see a mind trying to find real answers to sticky problems.

    As far as how close we are to Totalitarianism: One of my brother-in-laws friends is a car dealer and vocally against Obama. He told my brother-in-law that Homeland Security had an armed drill in his facility. My relative is prone to conspiracy theory thoughts, but that is pretty few steps from event to audience (and one more to this forum!)

    I do see the Totalitarianism by bureaucrats in things like 1099′s, pharmacy laws, and over-reactions to things like bullying in schools and kids taking paper hand-guns and getting grilled.

    Increasingly my friends are making business decisions based on the costs of complying with government regulations, and the need to be safe from law suits for perceived injustices from clients and employees.

    There are many examples of abuse of power by business people. They make great headlines. But I could list dozens of examples of well intended laws creating problems for people trying to provide business services. The pendulum has just swung too far.

  46. Wes says:

    @ Scott
    Excellent post! As a self proclaimed philosopher, I like it when people put me into a philosophical box from which there is virtually no escape. Regarding the basis for political arguments:

    1. As a theist, I can’t talk my way out of this. It is my understanding that the founding fathers faced similar challenges and that is why this nation is founded upon deism instead of theism. The inalienable rights cited in the Declaration of Independence are born from arguments that certain spiritual realities are logical and therefore, self evident.

    2. If I understand your point here, then I agree. One cannot remove the emotional component because nations are born out of revolutions and revolts are almost always emotionally driven.

    3. I think you’ve nailed this one also. A person or movement or special interest can secretly get what it wants, when it uses a very real tragedy to blame the policy its wants to destroy. This is of course the rhetoric that masks the truth and snarls up the debate.

    I am a bit more cynical than you perhaps when it comes down to both sides being for opportunity, equality and freedom. I mean they both talk a good game, but when you get down to the nitty gritty, the truth will come out. For example, the left makes the argument that legalized abortion is all about the rights of the woman. What appears to be closer to the truth is that they are concerned about over population of the planet and consequently don’t give a bowel movement about the rights of the unborn. But since that sounds a bit callous, they argue from a position that sounds more caring. On the other hand, the right argues from the point of view that business is boxed in by regulation so tightly they are unable to thrive. So they exploit the workforce that is easiest to exploit (like one overseas for example) until the regulations protecting the worker are relaxed enough so they can exploit the worker here also. As long as the rich get richer and the middle class shrinks I don’t think the pendulum has swung far enough.

    As long as we have peace and the first amendment that allows us to discuss these matters, we can resolve them if we are forthcoming about our concerns. The black helicopters of the nineties are now replaced by the drones. The difference is now we have the Patriot Act and the NDAA and the AUMF coming at us like a freight train, while we sit on the tracks debating whether the country should be moving to the left or the right. I don’t think it matters if the freight train is coming from the left or its coming from the right.

  47. Scott says:

    @Truevoice
    your “facts” are in your mind, try opening it and letting some light in.

    re “whining” – yet another emotion laden slur without basis. I do find it difficult to discuss with you. I also find it difficult to discuss with my 4 year old granddaughter who has a slanted view on life also.

  48. Scott says:

    @Truevoice
    listen old man: get a life. you have gotten us and me so far off topic on something so irrelevant to today’s issues that I had to laugh. See you next topic.

  49. Wes says:

    @ truevoice
    Am not ignoring the fact that voter suppression will remove my ability to replace these people who are causing these problems. I acknowledge that logical line of thinking. However you seem to ignore the fact that a system that only allows me to choose from a pool of politicians who are bought and paid for BEFORE I cast my vote, that doesn’t give me any realistic hope.

    You indicated to me that there are third party people available from which I can choose, and I must admit when it came to the president, I did just that. However because the majority of people who still bother to vote are sleeping to fox news and msnbc lullabies, my vote is neutralized by an electorate full of consenting adults. I divide the 99% who are getting screwed into four groups:

    1. Those who can’t legally vote

    2. Those who vote for third party candidates

    3. Those who vote for dems and reps

    4. Those who can vote and don’t bother

    The first two groups are not only getting screwed, they are getting raped because they are powerless to stop it. The third group is getting screwed but since they are asking for it, they are the consenting adults. The last group is getting screwed and since they apparently don’t care who screws them, they are the “hoes”.

    Regarding your perceived racism of the GOP, I admit that the treatment of Michael Steele didn’t pass the smell test, but things like that are nothing more than speculation on my part and not conclusive. I prefer to focus my attention on the things that are happening rather than the things that only appear to be happening. You continue to overlook the fact that both parties are bought and paid for so you can assert which bought and paid for party is the better of the two. When both parties are screwing 99% of the people, it doesn’t matter which party you choose because in the end we still get screwed… in the end.

  50. Wes says:

    You may be under the assumption that you are stating a fact, but until you get inside someone else’s mind so that you have undisputable evidence that what a person implies is what you think they mean by such an implication, you are going on pure speculation. When a person states “I don’t like you because of the color of your skin.” That is bigotry, plain and simple. When someone says “Black presidents are unacceptable.” That is racism, pure and simple. However when someone says “Our number one goal is to make him a one term president” and many people ASSUME the reason that person wants him to be a one term president is because he is black, then that is pure speculation based on a lot of common sense and not a fact based on empirical evidence.

    All we have is perceptions. My perception is that no one is trying to put a statesman in charge so we can fix some of these problems. My perception is that people are trying surgically remove the worm from the apple when what we really need is another apple.

    Campaign finance reform might stop the corruption, but until will do that, my PERCEPTION is nothing else will help.

Leave a Reply