60 Minutes’ retracts, apologizes for Benghazi report

What was George W. Bush's response when told that Osama bin Laden was planning to strike America on our home soil?

He continued his vacation, hopped in his golf cart and played 18.

What was George W. Bush's intelligence communities response when they were warned, months in advance by their own field operatives, that suspicious arabs were learning to fly jet airliners but had no interest in learning how to LAND them?

Those operatives were completely ignored....those warnings went completely unheeded.

3000 folks died in one horrible morning because of Bush's inattention. Republicans NEVER talk about that... it's as if it never happened.
 
Big money said:
Hilarious. If you don't want to discuss Benghazi, why start a thread about it?


189654d1363885092-hva-lytter-du-til-i-dag-del-3-20120622052737-rofl.gif
189654d1363885092-hva-lytter-du-til-i-dag-del-3-20120622052737-rofl.gif
189654d1363885092-hva-lytter-du-til-i-dag-del-3-20120622052737-rofl.gif
189654d1363885092-hva-lytter-du-til-i-dag-del-3-20120622052737-rofl.gif
Click to expand...
This is about Benghazi and the GOP and right wing supporters being hypocrits. So why are you running away from the question? Why is this important to the GOP now when far more consulate people died under the Bush administration and the GOP didn't make a peep?
 
evince said:
NOPE this was started by Bush


Now why do you pretend there is validity to this being used in a political manner when you have no proof of it?


Bush politicized the DOJ for crap sakes.


from fucking top to bottom.


all so he could CHEAT in elections and get republican off and Dems smeared.

There a mountain of proof fro that
Click to expand...

evince said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy


Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy





The dismissal of U.S. Attorneys controversy was initiated by the unprecedented[1] midterm dismissal of seven United States Attorneys on December 7, 2006, by the George W. Bush administration's Department of Justice. Congressional investigations focused on whether the Department of Justice and the White House were using the U.S. Attorney positions for political advantage. Allegations were that some of the attorneys were targeted for dismissal to impede investigations of Republican politicians or that some were targeted for their failure to initiate investigations that would damage Democratic politicians or hamper Democratic-leaning voters.[2][3] The U.S. attorneys were replaced with interim appointees, under provisions in the 2005 USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization
Click to expand...


Its Bush's fault....? It was only a matter of time for that canard to raise its ugly head....

And desh...you forgot to mention that Clinton FIRED 93 US Attys. when he took office....while you whine about Bush replacing 8.....

unprecedented ?....thats like complaining because it happened on a Monday , when firings always to took place on Fridays....
 
maineman said:
What was George W. Bush's response when told that Osama bin Laden was planning to strike America on our home soil?

He continued his vacation, hopped in his golf cart and played 18.

What was George W. Bush's intelligence communities response when they were warned, months in advance by their own field operatives, that suspicious arabs were learning to fly jet airliners but had no interest in learning how to LAND them?

Those operatives were completely ignored....those warnings went completely unheeded.

3000 folks died in one horrible morning because of Bush's inattention. Republicans NEVER talk about that... it's as if it never happened.
Click to expand...


Why did all the 9/11 pilots enter the country under Clintons watch ? Before Bush was even elected...

Yeah, they spent the year 2000 learning to fly jet airliners, right under Clintins nose.
As early as 1996, hijacker Hani Hanjour attends CRM Airline Training Center in Scottsdale, Arizona for three months.
Florida Flight Training Center, where Ziad Jarrah, the alleged pilot of Flight 93, will begin flying lessons in summer 2000 (see (June 28-December 2000)
 
Last edited:
NOVA said:
Its Bush's fault....? It was only a matter of time for that canard to raise its ugly head....

And desh...you forgot to mention that Clinton FIRED 93 US Attys. when he took office....while you whine about Bush replacing 8.....

unprecedented ?....thats like complaining because it happened on a Monday , when firings always to took place on Fridays....
Click to expand...

"By tradition, U.S. Attorneys are replaced only at the start of a new White House administration. U.S. Attorneys hold a "political" office, and therefore they are considered to "serve at the pleasure of the President." At the beginning of a new presidential administration, it is traditional for all 93 U.S. Attorneys to submit a letter of resignation. When a new President is from a different political party, almost all of the resignations will be eventually accepted.[SUP][172][/SUP] The attorneys are then replaced by new political appointees, typically from the new President's party.[SUP][173][/SUP][SUP][173][/SUP][SUP][174][/SUP]

A Department of Justice list noted that "in 1981, Reagan's first year in office, 71 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys. In 1993, Clinton's first year, 80 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys." Similarly, a Senate study noted that "Reagan replaced 89 of the 93 U.S. attorneys in his first two years in office. President Clinton had 89 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years, and President Bush had 88 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years."[SUP][175][/SUP]

In contrast to the 2006 dismissals, Presidents rarely dismiss U.S. attorneys they appoint.[SUP][173][/SUP][SUP][174][/SUP] Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff at the Department of Justice, noted in a January 9, 2006, e-mail to Harriet Miers: "In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys they had appointed, but instead permitted such U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision" (underlining original).[SUP][176][/SUP] There is no precedent for a president to dismiss several U.S attorneys at one time while in the middle period of the presidential term in office.[SUP][177][/SUP][SUP][178][/SUP]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy
 
NOVA said:
Its Bush's fault....? It was only a matter of time for that canard to raise its ugly head....

And desh...you forgot to mention that Clinton FIRED 93 US Attys. when he took office....while you whine about Bush replacing 8.....

unprecedented ?....thats like complaining because it happened on a Monday , when firings always to took place on Fridays....
Click to expand...

regarding US attorneys, you are comparing apples to oranges. EVERY president routinely releases US attorneys appointed by a previous administration, especially when that prior administration was of the other party. Bush's firing of eight attorneys is different. Bush himself had appointed or reappointed all eight of those... their firing was based, not upon a change of administration, but because the eight were not willing to act as political pawns for the totally politicized Bush justice department.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismis...versy#Changed_interim_appointment_law_in_2006


Changed interim appointment law in 2006[edit]

See also: The appointment process for U.S. Attorneys and Timothy Griffin

As the controversy emerged, U.S. Senators were concerned about a little-noticed provision in the re-authorization of the USA PATRIOT Act in 2006 that eliminated the 120-day term limit on interim appointments of U.S. Attorneys made by the United States Attorney General to fill vacancies. The law permitted the Attorney General to appoint interim U.S. Attorneys without a term limit in office, and avoid a confirming vote by the Senate. The change gave the Attorney General greater appointment powers than the President, since the President's U.S. Attorney appointees are required to be confirmed by the Senate; the law undermined the confirmation authority of the Senate.[27] The U.S. Senate was concerned that, in dismissing the U.S. Attorneys, the administration planned to fill the vacancies with its own choices, thus bypassing Senate confirmation and the traditional consultation with Senators in the selection process. Congress rescinded the provision by very large majorities in March and May 2007, and it was quietly signed into law without ceremony by President George W. Bush on June 14, 2007.
 
NOVA said:
Why did all the 9/11 pilots enter the country under Clintons watch ? Before Bush was even elected...
Click to expand...

there was absolutely nothing illegal about their entry into our country. none of them had broken any laws that would preclude their admission through our INR system.

you're dismissed again.
 
again... let me just say to my fellow liberals here... this constant blathering about Benghazi will be a GOOD thing for our party. Just like birthers were... these wackos on the right who continue to rant about four dead Americans after having cared fuck all for the much larger numbers of dead American diplomatic corps personnel during Bush's years will not stop beating this dead horse. America knows that there was no malfeasance on the part of Obama OR Hillary in this issue. Shit happens sometimes. Sometimes, when folks in the diplomatic corps get stationed in crazy arab nations, crazy arabs kill them. The more the right wails about this, the more the middle of the bell curve will reject them... and their candidate. This might very well be tasty red meat for the right wing fringe base, but they will never deliver the white house to any GOP candidate.... only the middle will do that.. and howling about Benghazi is losing them the middle. I say we encourage this sort of discussion from them. It certainly cannot hurt a Clinton candidacy whatsoever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top