60 Minutes’ retracts, apologizes for Benghazi report

maineman said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think most of us know that, maineman. Just like we knew the endless astroturfing about Obama's birth certificate would bite them in the behind. But it's kind of a guilty pleasure to let them know we aren't taken in by the Benghazi meme.
 
Big money said:
If Benghazi is just a meme, why isn't Hillary still SOS?
Click to expand...

Uh, because she suffered a concussion and a blood clot and could no longer travel?

Or...

Because she said in 2011 that she'd resign if Obama won re-election?

Mar 16, 2011 3:07pm

ABC News' Kirit Radia reports:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told an interviewer today that she would not accept a role in a possible second Obama administration.

The executive producer of the CNN show John King USA, Michelle Jaconi, tweeted that Secretary Clinton told the network in an interview in Cairo today that she “would NOT be in an Obama 2nd term cabinet.”


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...-department-if-obama-wins-reelection-in-2012/
 
Last edited:
maineman said:
are thou really saying there were no casualties there from white phosphorus?
Click to expand...

I answered a specific question....its that reading comp. you lack so badly again....

How many babies did Bush Melt to death in Falughia.?.....NONE
 
christiefan915 said:
"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
Click to expand...



"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]"[/SUP]

Lets set the stage some and clarify some things....

Dec. 2006 IS year 2 in Bush's second election win...and as you note, both Clinton and Reagan replaced Attys in the first 2 years...its common to replace US attys. during that first two years...and its irrelevant who hired them in the first place...a red herring.

The only reason a big fuss was made was because Bush was already being demonized by the Democrats and in the press and this new Congress that would 'investigate' Bush was a complete take over by the Democrats, both Houses....so yeah....this was totally political, the investigation, that is, not the firings, which was totally common for every President.
 
evince said:
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.
Click to expand...



It was planned by Bush you fucking lair
 
maineman said:
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.
Click to expand...

I didn't claim it was illegal or that they broke laws....

the fact remains....a 9/11 hijackers entered the country while Clinton was supposed to be "Oh, so very on alert" and "protecting us from terrorists"
and "worried about AQ attacking us in the United States"......

Where was his intelligence ?....The investigation after 9/11 revealed that the hijackers were taking flight training all over the world for the previous 5 years,
entering the US and returning to terrorist country's at will, back and forth and not drawing any suspicion ? Or was suspicion ignored?...

Well, Clinton fucked up, didn't he.....and you want to blame Bush for everything....
 
NOVA said:
I didn't claim it was illegal or that they broke laws....

the fact remains....a 9/11 hijackers entered the country while Clinton was supposed to be "Oh, so very on alert" and "protecting us from terrorists"
and "worried about AQ attacking us in the United States"......

Where was his intelligence ?....The investigation after 9/11 revealed that the hijackers were taking flight training all over the world for the previous 5 years,
entering the US and returning to terrorist country's at will, back and forth and not drawing any suspicion ? Or was suspicion ignored?...

Well, Clinton fucked up, didn't he.....and you want to blame Bush for everything....
Click to expand...

people go to and from America from all sorts of countries around the world all the time. Nothing any of the 9/11 hijackers did was out of the ordinary or cause for increased scrutiny in any way... until they started training right here in America and the FBI got on to them, and told the administration about their concerns and their concerns were ignored so Dubya could continue golfing' and grilling' and cutting brush in Crawford on his month long vacation six months into the job. But you have your nose so far up his ass you'd never call him on any of that.
 
Did the attackers in Benghazi use white phosphorus?

Was George W. Bush in the mob that attacked our consulate and killed 4 Americans who Hillary and Obama failed to help?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top