FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Rich writes: "The Hillary-haters have not found another Watergate but another Whitewater. It should keep them very busy through 2016 even if the public continues to turn a deaf ear."

House Oversight And Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa is striking out on Benghazi (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
House Oversight And Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa is striking out on Benghazi (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)



Benghazi Isn't Watergate It's Whitewater

By Frank Rich, New York Magazine

15 May 13

 

he House's Inspector Javert, Congressman Darrell Issa, held a hearing on the Benghazi attack yesterday at which a State Department official, Gregory Hicks, charged the administration with incompetence and worse. Mike Huckabee said that Obama will be impeached for Benghazi. Others suggest it'll badly damage Hillary Clinton's presidential prospects. Is anybody, Fox News included, going to be talking about this story six months from now?

It's not entirely clear that anyone is talking about it even now once you get beyond the Beltway and the GOP's Fox News base. Even Hicks's emotional testimony yesterday was overshadowed on television by a different kind of horror story emerging from Cleveland. Why are the Republicans getting so little traction with this story? After all, they have been pounding it for eight months. They believed that Benghazi was figuratively as well as literally the 9/11 of 2012, and that its fallout would usher Romney into the presidency. In fact, it barely registered as a concern in any polls. Now they believe (in Lindsey Graham's characteristically understated judgment) that Benghazi is "every bit as damaging as Watergate," a gateway both to the president's impeachment and to a GOP victory over Hillary in 2016. Yet no one else does. There are several reasons: Clinton has taken responsibility for the systemic failures that occurred on her watch; Republicans in Congress have not been able to deflect their own share of the blame, the budget cutbacks that shortchanged embassy and consulate security; Susan Rice's endlessly parsed talking points notwithstanding, no one to the left of Sean Hannity seriously believes that the Obama White House was trying to cover up a terrorist attack. But the main explanation for Benghazi's inability to catch fire with the public has to do with the American intelligence failure that led to the original 9/11 in which 3,000, not four, Americans were killed: Bush and Cheney's inability to heed such warning signs as the President's Daily Brief of August 6, 2001, "Bin Laden determined to strike in US." Many of the same voices who are pounding Obama and Clinton on Benghazi - Graham, for instance - are the same ones who defended that lapse and then cheered on an Iraq War that drained resources from the battle against Al Qaeda and the search for Bin Laden. They have no credibility. And they are overselling the failures of Benghazi much as they oversold Saddam Hussein's nonexistent WMD. If you read the intricate conservative briefs vilifying Hillary in the aftermath of yesterday's testimony - check out this one - you can see that the Hillary-haters have not found another Watergate but another Whitewater. It should keep them very busy through 2016 even if the public continues to turn a deaf ear.

Former South Carolina governor Mark Sanford won back his old Congressional seat on Tuesday. Sanford's chances looked poor last month after news leaked that his ex-wife had filed a trespassing charge against him and the National Republican Congressional Committee pulled its support. Was this simply a reliable conservative winning a reliably conservative district, warts and all? Or should we read anything into Sanford's victory about the declining importance of a candidate's personal values to the U.S. electorate?

Yes, and yes. Even if Sanford's Democratic opponent, Elizabeth Colbert Busch, had eked out a victory in this special election, she likely would have lost the seat to a Republican, whoever it was, in this conservative Dixie district's next regular election. And Sanford's victory does demonstrate once again that the religious right is spent as a force in the 21st-century GOP. A Republican can mock "family values" and "traditional marriage" as much as he wants and still win even in what used to be Christian Coalition country as long as his conservative ideology hits every secular benchmark.

The Senate Judiciary Committee takes up the immigration-reform bill today, after a week in which Jim DeMint's Heritage Foundation argued that the law would cost taxpayers trillions and Marco Rubio, the leader of pro-reform Republicans, returned the fire and questioned Heritage's analysis. Meanwhile, the Times reports that GOP opponents of the bill are planning to hijack it during the amendment process. Rubio has staked a lot of political capital on this bill. Is he going to get it passed?

I wouldn't bet on it. The battle between the former close allies DeMint and Rubio crystallizes the larger "rebranding" battle in the GOP since Election Day. And it's going to get ugly. Republicans with national ambitions like Rubio are desperately hoping to win back a fast-growing Latino electorate that in general regards his party as a haven for nativist bigots. But there are many in the base who still want an electrified fence, not "amnesty," for undocumented immigrants. DeMint is their champion (as is virtually every right-wing talk-show host), and now that he is at Heritage, he can concoct bogus pseudo-academic research to buttress the anti-reform argument. Indeed, it turns out that a co-author of the Heritage economic analysis that DeMint pushed this week is also the author of an earlier scholarly paper warning that "new Hispanic immigrants will have low-IQ children and grandchildren." That's further evidence, if any was needed, of what I wrote in my essay in New York this week: The modern GOP, for all its talk of new outreach to minorities, is still haunted by the ghost of one of DeMint's immediate predecessors as a South Carolina Senator: the white supremacist Strom Thurmond.

New Jersey governor Chris Christie revealed on Tuesday that he has undergone "Lap Band" surgery, which, of course, doesn't necessarily say anything about his political ambitions. After all, Christie is too liberal and too admiring of President Obama to win GOP primaries, and now Michelle Obama has called him "terrific." Still, polls show him cruising to reelection and the party has a thing for nominating Establishment candidates. Could he? And, maybe more important at this juncture, do you think he thinks he could?

Christie is very popular in New Jersey, a fantasy president to the dwindling ranks of  moderate Republicans (many of whom are next door in New York, particularly its financial sector), and an egomaniac who certainly thinks he could be president. (His speech at last summer's Republican convention was widely regarded, and reviled, as an advertisement for himself, not Romney.) But I'd say his presidential prospects are about the same as that other centrist-Republican heartthrob of elites in the Northeast, Michael Bloomberg - nil. That said, once they've both graduated from local office, Christie and Bloomberg would make for a highly entertaining odd-couple pairing if any network wants to offer a fresh morning-television alternative to Kelly and Michael, Mika and Joe, and Hoda and Kathie-Lee.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
-20 # MidwestTom 2013-05-15 09:39
Who will play the role of Les Foster?
 
 
+11 # Billy Bob 2013-05-15 10:55
I don't know, but there's no shortage of current republicans wanting to play the roles of Henry Hyde and Newt Gingrich.
 
 
+6 # hammermann 2013-05-15 19:40
Dumbass, it's Vincent Foster + Les Aspin. Oh, sorry, Mr. Dumas.
 
 
+5 # Michael Lee Bugg 2013-05-15 21:36
Hammermann, sorry to accidentally give you a 'thumbs down' but RSN puts the icons too close together for big fingers on an iPhone! The real comparison should be: Benghazi to 09/11/2001! Bush had 42 warnings from the CIA (PDBs) that terrorists were planning to attack us here by hijacking airplanes. Bush also got warnings from the departing Clinton Administration and possibly from foreign intelligence agencies. He was definitely warned by the Italians in early July of 2001 that terrorists were planning to try to kill him by crashing an airplane into the G-8 Summit meeting later that month in Genoa, Italy. A 'no-fly zone' was established over the meeting site and anti-aircraft missiles were brought in but no attack was made. In spite of over 42 warnings Bush did nothing to try to prevent an attack or even prevent the hijacking of commercial jets. Instead, Bush flew around the country prior to 9-11 screeching about the urgent need for the anti-ballistic missile shield, costing an estimated $200 billion, to protect us from nuclear tipped missiles fired by "rogue nations" someday in the future, if these unnamed rogue nations ever have missiles capable of reaching us and be armed with nuclear warheads, small enough to fit on a missile, that they still don't have! After 9/11 Bush tried to prevent any investigation, tried to bury his criminal negligence by forgetting Osama and invading Iraq! In the eyes of delusional, hypocritical Republicans, Benghazi equals 09/11/2001!
 
 
+6 # hammermann 2013-05-16 06:19
Yeah, I know. Though I think the people who think Bush caused it are nuts (nothing he ever did worked that well), I think there is some possibility that they were so criminal and intent on invading Iraq (from first day) that they allowed it to happen. Because he wanted to go into Iraq first! Not Afghanistan! Supposedly, Blair talked him out of it with the promise England would help. Treason by any name- 250K PTSD + TBI, 35K seriously wounded, 4500 dead, 2-3 $trillion- but the Dick got his $40 bil to save Halliburton.
 
 
+6 # Michael Lee Bugg 2013-05-16 09:12
Hammermann, I agree. The "MIHOPs" miss the point that Bush & Company avoided treason and possible execution by keeping their hands clean to the extent they did not "Make It Happen On Purpose"! I am a "LIHOP" person who believes they knew some kind of attack was coming, the magnitude of which they could not envision, so thinking it would be one or more routine airplane hijackings with at worst the loss of a plane half full of passengers (the airlines were already in a major slump because of the sinking economy BEFORE 9/11) they Let It Happen On Purpose because they desperately needed a pretext to launch their long sought invasion of Iraq. They got far more than they bargained for, hence Bush' 'deer in the headlights' look when Andy Card told him the second WTC tower had been hit on a perfectly clear day! Bush was thinking, "If the American people ever find out how many warnings I have had and that I did nothing, they will do more than impeach me!"! Alas, Bush lied that he had no warnings, stonewalled the timid initial investigation by Senate Democrats, was lionized by the lapdog news media, too many Democrats crawled into a hole out of fear of Bush, and Bush used his criminal negligence to get his unjustified invasion of Iraq! Then, even though he delayed the formation of the Kean/Hamilton 9/11 Commission, he used his 'War on Terror' to effectively protect Republican seats in Congress in 2002, and then used Iraq to get reelected in 2004. See, just like Benghazi, NOT!
 
 
-43 # MidwestTom 2013-05-15 09:45
Democrats have a lot at stake here, that is not being discussed. I cannot avoid sterotypes in this discussion so do not slander me for that.

Ask any employer who employs illegal Mexicans, and you will hear that they really work hard, are very dependable and have great physical skills. These same qualities are frequently absent in available minority communities who vote 99% Democratic. Legalize all of the Mexicans, and you will further lower the job prospects of America's present poor minorities. Something to consider.
 
 
+24 # Billy Bob 2013-05-15 10:57
You'll have to take up the whole "we don't want no stinkin' Mexicans" rant with the Republican Party. They've already decided for you that they can no longer compete nationally while losing 85% of the minority vote. They hope they can get that down to 75% and the rest can be taken care of by new Jim Crow laws.

Apparently you didn't get the memo?
 
 
+21 # dkonstruction 2013-05-15 11:51
Quoting MidwestTom:
Democrats have a lot at stake here, that is not being discussed. I cannot avoid sterotypes in this discussion so do not slander me for that.

Ask any employer who employs illegal Mexicans, and you will hear that they really work hard, are very dependable and have great physical skills. These same qualities are frequently absent in available minority communities who vote 99% Democratic. Legalize all of the Mexicans, and you will further lower the job prospects of America's present poor minorities. Something to consider.


And your evidence that these "same qualities" (work hard, are dependable and have great physical skills) "are frequently absent in available minority communities"? I would also be interested in the scientific/medi cal source for your claim that illegal Mexicans "have great physical skill" and does this mean that "legal Mexicans" do not have these skills and if so to what do you attribute the difference in "physical skill" between "legal" and "illegal" Mexicans? What about others from Latin America or is all of this limited to Mexicans? Are there any other racial or ethnic groups that you also believe have "great physical skill" and if so what is the source of that information? And, where do you put Asian Americans (or just Asians) in all of this (and is there a difference in "physical skills" and the other traits you mentioned between "legal" and "illegal" Asians?
 
 
+17 # Billy Bob 2013-05-15 12:47
Wow! You actually took the time to take apart his rant, bit by bit! I was too frustrated to even bother. I'm glad you did. Thank you!

Notice how efficient his rant was? It took you about 2 times as many words to take him to task about the b.s. than it took him to spout it off in the first place.
 
 
-19 # MidwestTom 2013-05-15 13:05
Both legal and illegal Mexicans work really hard. When they apply for work their only concern is what and when they will be paid. When we interview other minority candidates they want to know how much break time they get, is there a quota for the work, how many sick days do they get, etc. It is a totally different mentality, from those who simply want work.

I know that this is not a scientific study, the basis for my comments come from more than 10 years in our business; and discussions with other area employers who indicate that they see the same thing.

The risk to the party is alienating either group. My fear is that the realities of the employment world will eventually force a major,lose of one group or the other.
 
 
+9 # dkonstruction 2013-05-15 14:06
Quoting MidwestTom:
Both legal and illegal Mexicans work really hard. When they apply for work their only concern is what and when they will be paid. When we interview other minority candidates they want to know how much break time they get, is there a quota for the work, how many sick days do they get, etc. It is a totally different mentality, from those who simply want work.

I know that this is not a scientific study, the basis for my comments come from more than 10 years in our business; and discussions with other area employers who indicate that they see the same thing.

The risk to the party is alienating either group. My fear is that the realities of the employment world will eventually force a major,lose of one group or the other.


I have worked for non-profit housing organizations for the past 20+ years and being a person of no color have always been the "minority" in my offices. My experience (which is as "scientific" as yours) is that people from all races, ethnic backgrounds etc., work equally hared (or not) and that one cannot make any truthful correlations between race, ethnicity and the "work ethic."

If your business has a human resources dept that is responsible for recruitment and hiring fire them as they clearly are totally incapable of finding "qualified" "hard working" minority workers of which there is no "shortage" in this country. The shortcoming seems to be in your recruitment and hiring practices.
 
 
+7 # Todd Williams 2013-05-15 14:16
Yea, it's those damn unions that influence those whining workers. Damn their pesky demands for better health care, living wages, sick time and paid vacations. How dare they! At least those Mexicans don't complain when we make them work 12-hour days for shitty wages. Hey man, they're grateful to have job unlike those shifty, lazy, good for nothing American workers.
 
 
+6 # Timaloha 2013-05-15 17:34
"I know that this is not a scientific study, the basis for my comments come from more than 10 years in our business; and discussions with other area employers who indicate that they see the same thing."

So basically you're saying that you and your colleagues have been violating US law by hiring illegals for at least ten years?
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2013-05-15 18:03
Pretty much.
 
 
+5 # Billy Bob 2013-05-15 18:02
MidwestTom, The following comment was meant for you. Apparently I misplaced it at the bottom of the thread:
-----------------------

Nobody "simply wants work" except ants and bees.

HUMANS don't "want" work. They DO work to FEED THEIR FAMILIES and SURVIVE.

When humans do that, the things human being are concerned with become concerns.

Your fear is that you might have to pay a fair price for a fair amount of work.
 
 
+5 # Todd Williams 2013-05-15 14:12
Everybody knows Asians have little fingers and are skilled at miniture assembly line work and working on Asian cars. Right?
The longer a minority remains here and is paid better wages, the more their inherent, genetic skills disapear. For example, hard working Mexicans once becoming legal citizens, will becoime lazy and wards of the Welafare State. Right? Hey, ask any Rethug or TPer and they'll agree.
 
 
+10 # Billy Bob 2013-05-15 18:07
Hey, it's even happening to boxers. Remember when black guys were genetically programmed to fight and white guys didn't stand a chance. Anybody looked at the Heavyweight Division in professional boxing lately? It looks pretty white.

Eminem is actually a pretty good rapper (although rap still sucks in my opinion),

Tiger Woods is still a pretty good golfer,

Yow Ming is pretty damn tall,

And President Obama was a WHOLE HELL OF A LOT smarter than either of his white opponents from the Republican Party.

-------

I LOVE IT!

Before you know it, we'll all just be human beings.
 
 
+3 # obrien1950 2013-05-15 12:39
#Midwest Tom...too many stereotypes, Tom. I totally agree with the first half of your discussion. BUT.....c'mon! The second half glosses over some real substantive issues and lumps all into the same stereotypical bucket. Lets be real honest and say that our failing or nonexistent policies regarding entrpreneurial investment and new industry creations are the prime obstacles to our job issues. We have also failed our citizens, both legal and immigrant, with lousy education on the elementary and secondary levels. Lets tackle those isues first. Sorry #Midwest Tom...I do not agree with you!
 
 
+4 # Todd Williams 2013-05-15 14:17
Hey, lay off Midwest Tom. He just wants some cheap labor that'll work their asses off for shitty wages. Can you blame him?
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2013-05-15 18:08
That's called "supply side economics". He supplies the shitty wages and they supply all the work.
 
 
-15 # HowardMH 2013-05-15 10:00
WHERE is that Retired Army Col. the State Department hired to go to Benghazi and analyze the security situation over a year ago??? He was a security expert in the Army and that is why the State Dept hired him. He was on CNN or MSNBC ONE TIME (on a weekend) just after the attack. He stated the State Dept pulled out one squad of marines (about 10 of them) in Feb or Mar 2012, then another squad in May or June 2012 and the third squad in Aug 2012. All the time he was telling the Ambassador not to let them go but the State Dept said pull them out.
 
 
+38 # thekidde 2013-05-15 10:04
Doesn't Issa have the kind of face and arrogant attitude you just want to kick in the balls?
 
 
+14 # reiverpacific 2013-05-15 10:46
Quoting thekidde:
Doesn't Issa have the kind of face and arrogant attitude you just want to kick in the balls?

If you could find 'em!
 
 
+9 # Cassandra2012 2013-05-15 12:33
The persistent sneer is reminiscent of Darth Cheney's.... do you need to have this kind of sneering arrogance to be a Republican?
 
 
+2 # Todd Williams 2013-05-15 14:22
Just do a Google search on Issa. You'll find some very troubling issues about his past in Cleveland. Great reading.
 
 
0 # larrypayne 2013-05-18 20:26
Issa's past includes weapons charges, car theft and suspicion of arson.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/01/11/report-media-ignore-rep-issas-alleged-criminal/174997
 
 
+2 # hammermann 2013-05-16 06:42
That is what's needed- some good thrashings of the Repubs like that psycho SC Senator who almost beat another Sen to death w his cane before the Civil War. Issa is scum- he was directly involved with the incredible scam to jack up Cal energy prices 90x and use it to overthrow Davis.. for himself, he thought. Why none of these vermin go to jail is mystifying. Cleveland- what, was he kidnapping girls too???

http://hammernews.com/caenergyripoff.htm

Did you hear the incredible exchange where Holder slapped him down, calling him a disgrace? Search for it.
 
 
0 # Pickwicky 2013-05-16 16:43
Looking at, with difficulty, Issa's picture the following caption popped into my head: "We got Obama and Hillary by the balls now, boys!!"
 
 
+15 # myungbluth 2013-05-15 10:48
Issa's contemptible desire to exploit anything and everything Democrat was stated before he ever took the reigns of power. He's just another Mitch McConnell, with another method of obstruction. Obstruction is all the ReThugs have - they have no policy ideas, and no conception of how to govern - except when they can get the planes to run on time to take them to their vacations!
 
 
+4 # Cassandra2012 2013-05-15 12:35
Agree, just one note: I think you mean took the 'reins' of power (as in leading that dead horse?)
 
 
+6 # angelfish 2013-05-15 11:38
The ONLY thing these Cretins know how to do is beat a dead horse! STOP the Bull-Puckey and GET to Work HELPING Americans!
 
 
+7 # obrien1950 2013-05-15 12:31
A tempest in a tea-pot (don't let the IRS see that....) The one note GOP is really getting tiring. At least they have focused on this and given up the more politically charged Equal Marriage proposals. What I enjoy seeing is the sanctimonious outrage on the faces of Issa, McConnell, Graham et all as they try to come up with poor management issues and throw this on top of the smoldering fire that is their 2012 elections. There is no there, there.
 
 
-19 # lnason@umassd.edu 2013-05-15 12:52
Damning Republicans for having "political motivations" is about as reasonable as damning Democrats for having "political motivations" in their accusations against, say, Mitt Romney for teenage bullying, for being too rich, for being a closet chauvinist, for hating black people, etc., etc. If the media did not report on politically motivated actions and accusations, we'd never get any news out of Washington DC.

But I think Frank Rich is whistling past the cemetery in his claims that Americans don't have much interest in the issue. Even my local paper (with a strong progressive bias and unending support for Obama and all state Democrats), has editorialized on Benghazi and the two more recent scandals involving DOJ spying on the AP and the IRS discriminating against conservative non-profits.

Personally, I think that anyone who was surprised that the IRS "goes after" selected taxpayers has had his or her head in the sand but I think it is a good thing that this issue is being aired. I am withholding judgment on the IRS scandal until we find out more of the circumstances of the spying. But Benghazi is a classic "cover-up" at least (not too surprising since both major candidates lied a lot during the election season) but, for me at least, the failure to mount a rescue effort over the 8 hours that the Benghazi casualties were incurred, amounts to negligent homicide or manslaughter.

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
 
 
+7 # Todd Williams 2013-05-15 14:28
Last time I checked it is a matter of IRFS protocal to investigate any groups filing for tax exempt status who purport to be a social welfare organization. Red flags go up and the shit goes down. Remember the old scam of applying for a fake preacher license and then starting a phony church and applying for a religious exemption? The IRS got onto that scam too.
 
 
+1 # karenvista 2013-05-18 15:58
Lee Nason- Part 1----The Washington Post reported on Oct. 10, 2012 that, during a bipartisan congressional committee, a CIA witness testified that Benghazi was a CIA covert op site and the ambassador had come there to meet with the CIA. The chairman of the commission, a Republican, stopped the testimony and said it could only be pursued in a closed session, which it was.

That means that both parties knew that it was a CIA covert op, that the CIA had forces on the ground, and that the CIA, either didn't respond or didn't respond sufficiently, or were, perhaps outgunned and knew that a response would be unsuccessful.

That also means that the Republicans can run around saying that the White House or State are involved in a "cover-up" and they can't say-"Well, it was a CIA covert op. because then the Republicans will accuse them of leaking National Security information.
 
 
+1 # karenvista 2013-05-18 15:59
Lee Nason- Part 2-----Last week, the Washington Post's Glenn Kessler noted that the revised talking points indicated that Obama administration officials in various agencies were inhibited by a key fact as they were grappling with what could be said publicly about the attacks in Benghazi: The assault had targeted a CIA annex in addition to a temporary State Department mission. That made the job tough for the drafters of the talking points. As Kessler wrote,
from the State Department perspective, this was an attack on a CIA operation, perhaps by the very people the CIA was battling, and the ambassador [Chris Stevens] tragically was in the wrong place at the wrong time. But, for obvious reasons, the administration could not publicly admit that Benghazi was mostly a secret CIA effort.
Kessler emphasized an obvious point: The initial talking points drafted by the CIA implied that "State screwed up, even though internally, it was known that this was a CIA operation."
 
 
+13 # Agricanto 2013-05-15 12:58
I expect my post will not be approved because I find Midwest Tom to be a racist in his remarks on Mexicans. His post should not have been approved if "...Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory;..." means anything.
 
 
+5 # TomDegan 2013-05-15 13:05
This is barely even Whitewater. The GOP is beyond redemption. Anyone who ever again votes for that disgusting party ought not to be allowed to partake in the electoral process. Seriously.

http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com

Tom Degan
 
 
+5 # Ray Kondrasuk 2013-05-15 15:11
Tom, pick up a copy of Chris Mooney's "The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science... and Reality".

I'll never change the minds of my Republican relatives, but I can better understand the way they think.
 
 
+8 # Gordon Ourside 2013-05-15 14:05
It's not Watergate or Whitewater. Who cares what the Obama people decided to tell the press and the Republicans, even if it was calculated to deflect scrutiny just prior to the election? After all, it isn't like they went over to Iran asking the Ayatollah to keep American hostages confined until after the election to get a better deal from the Reagan administration than they'd get from Carter, is it?

The most serious thing that can be said is it's like a small scale Tora Bora. Republicans are whining that back up was requested for CIA protection at Benghazi and this would have prevented the death of three Americans.

Maybe so, maybe not, but at Tora Bora, the generals asked for additional troops needed to capture bin Laden in December 2001, when he was all but surrounded. Rumsfeld said no, making sure that bin Laden got away so the Bush administration could keep beating the war drum about Saddam Hussein and Iran.

More than 4,500 American lives were lost in Iraq as a result, plus over 100,000 Iraqi civilian lives. The GOP leadership has never expressed very much concern about the refusal to provide the requested backup at Tora Bora, though. I wonder why. It couldn't be just politics, could it?
 
 
0 # Cassandra2012 2013-05-23 15:10
Finally, a bit of truth!
 
 
+7 # Saintperle 2013-05-15 14:13
Daryl Issa doesn't seem to understand the difference between a Guard Dog and a Mad Dog.
And unless he's a Democratic Mole,he doesn't seem to understand that his posturing and bullying (more resembling an old-fashioned Stalinist-era show trial) empowers President Obama with every nasty word he says. Every time he opens his mouth, he creates more positive attitude toward the President.

I can only be charitable to him in terms of realizing that growing up in a society that -- even before 9-11 -- was hostile to Arab-Americans, he seems to be seriously overcompensatin g to prove his American-ness.

(Or overcompensatin g for the two car-theft arrests that magically disappeared. Would enjoy seeing some equally psycho Democrat lead an investigation into THAT.)
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2013-05-15 15:07
Nobody "simply wants work" except ants and bees.

HUMANS don't "want" work. They DO work to FEED THEIR FAMILIES and SURVIVE.

When humans do that, the things human being are concerned with become concerns.

Your fear is that you might have to pay a fair price for a fair amount of work.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN