http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/27/opinion/bergen-gop-benghazi/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
Republican obsession with Benghazi makes no sense
Republican obsession with Benghazi makes no sense
American Politics
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
They've been looking for something to go all Ken Starr on ever since Obama was elected. They tried Fast & Furious, but it's a program that started under Bush, and while it might have been an almighty feck-up, it's no good for them unless they can tar at least Holder with it, and it's pretty apparent that the people responsible for said feck-up were not communicating this feck-up further up the ladder until they were forced to.
They think they have something here, but as near as I can tell, the most awful scenario the Republicans have been able to envision is that Susan Rice intentionally lied to the public. The problem there, is, if true, it's almost certainly because she was instructed to in order to mislead the people responsible for the attack into thinking we knew less than we did.
I don't know what their endgame is. Worst-case scenario is Obama has to nominate his second choice for SoS, (presuming Rice was his first, either way, everyone in the Administration will say she wasn't,) which is a pretty pointless "victory" for the GOP, but I guess the petty ones are the only ones they've got, now.
All of this type of thing strikes me as the politico's version of war, an odd twist on the continuation of politics by other means except that it's the continuation of campaign/election politics by legal means...i.e. we can't wait for the next election so let's do everything possible to remove so and so from office.
I think the GOP is hoping to drum up some kind of coverup so they can impeach Obama.
Yeah that's exactly what I meant. It's not only happening in America.
Doc, where else is it going on?
Canada is really the only other place I pay any attention to...but we're essentially America Jr. so I'm probably wrong.
Toronto's Mayor was ejected from office via the courts this week, over a charitable donation of all things...granted he was an idiot about it so it's his own fault, the fat prick. This after other smear attempts such as photographing him reading while driving, citizens calling the newspaper to report he was taking on his cell phone while driving, etc.
Also, the federal opposition parties were trying to concoct a robo-call scandal after the Conservatives won a majority...in the end it turned out the opposition Liberal party were responsible for the calls.
will never happen because Obama would never ask someone else to take a fall for something he did. Anyways, they had their best shot when Romney got bitch slapped on Benghazi in the debate. So bad he never brought it up in the 3rd and relevent debate.
In fact Clinton stepped in and took responsibility.
I think the real reason is two fold.
One to get Kerry be nominated...which will never happen because all this has done is have Rice become the certain nominee. Secondly to damage Clinton for the 2016 run.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/nate-silver-politico.php?ref=fpb
firstly Politico is Fox Light...a joke of a news organization.
and yes there are a lot of us who study polls and can predict Electoral votes get pretty darn close.
firstly Politico is Fox Light...a joke of a news organization.
and yes there are a lot of us who study polls and can predict Electoral votes get pretty darn close.
I have concerns over the way the early days played out and since but to your point that about the motives, I think you're looking to far down the road. If anything they're hoping to diminish his popularity for the midterms to gain some seats in congress. Mainly the senate. They need some traction and diminishing any potential weak Dems seats might be doable if they can show "their guy" covered up/misled/lied about this whole thing.
They can't worry about Hilary yet. Thats a lifetime away.
I think they were confused about what happened immediately after...but I suspect there were some information that came out since which Rice could not talk about...and which looks like she is hiding something. Clinton did take responsibility before the election. But Obama did not hide behind that as it came out in the debate. I definitely think the attacks on Rice are related to hoping Kerry takes SoS...the Republicans named him. Just the reason I think Obama will not name Kerry and will go for Rice...just because. Clinton is going to testify mid December. If something comes out, it will be then. Doubt it will be anything huge...Petraus has testified anyways.
As to the impact of Benghazi, those who will not vote democrat, will not vote anyways.
Obama should throw the GOP into a tailspin and name Romney the SoS. 
that will throw the world into a tailspin....
It would be a disaster no doubt.
Susan Rice is being questioned over her investments which appear to be a serious conflict of interest.
Who else could Obama pick if Rice is not chosen?
hmmm. still think it will be Rice.
it wont be Kerry.
not sure who it may be if not Rice.
Heard Hagel is being asked to take over Defence. Perhaps Paneta for SoS?
I nominate Raoul for SecDef!
i'd put hagel at state and flournoy at def.
first female sec def, obama breaking barriers.
I don't want what the Republicans want...so no Kerry I hope.
Kerry is already telling those around him that he's interested. I would guess Obama will chose him to avoid a prolonged tussle over Rice.
Powell would make an excellent Defense Secretary.
Powell would make an excellent Defense Secretary.
i think you should put yourself up for the secdef mate.
Kerry can tell what he wants but would O and the D's want to lose a senate seat?
Scott brown could weasel himself back in.
Kerry is more valuable in the senate i would imagine for o's domestic agenda.
The Dems have a decent lead in the Senate (55 including the two independents who caucus with them), so I doubt that would be a consideration. I doubt Brown would be able to get the seat either, as they just went through a laborious election with him.
Can Caroline Kennedy be nominated for the seat?
What do you think this will lead to?
I have no idea.
Nothing will change. It's just hyperbole from the Reddit mouthbreathers.
Senate Republicans want Kerry because Brown was fairly popular in their caucus, and they think he can win Kerry's seat in an off-year election. Off year or no, I'm as skeptical as Raoul is about his chances, because it's hardly likely that the Dems will run someone as liberal as Warren.
FDAA? Maybe NDAA. It legalized a lot (some good some bad) and was passed in the of "protecting and paying the troops". Just following in the footsteps of the Patriot Act of trampling on liberty.
What are Susan Rices conflicts with investments? Couldn't she just liquidate or blind trust her investments?
What about Gen Wesley Clark for Sec Def?
eboue who is that in your picture? it looks like Jason Bateman and Mark Wahlbergs lovechild.
Jason Bateman as Michael Bluth in Arrested Development.
duh, slaps forehead, cheers!
Most of the time he just rips the piss out of conservatives - often very amusingly. But when he can be arsed to do a proper long, researched piece, they're invariably excellent.
And he went to Michigan!
You must've known I'd be all over this...
1. He dug is own hole. He had his opponents and he gave them just what they needed. Your description of him is accurate.
2. The robocall story isn't over yet as far as I know. The latest: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...als-massive-robo-calls-probe-of-2011-election
The House GOP looks like it's realised it has to cave on taxes. They have a new plan - to allow that through while blocking everything else and creating a new crisis over the debt ceiling again. Apparently they're calling it the 'Doomsday Plan'.
Globe and Mail lead story currently is that GOP won't cave in.
To be fair it goes both ways...i.e. Ken Starr. Everybody's done/doing it. It was tiresome with the Lewinsky affair and it remains tiresome.
- Status