Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Republicans Desperately Need a Scandal
20 views
Skip to first unread message
unknown
Nov 17, 2012, 9:02:43 AM11/17/12
to
Republicans Desperately Need a Scandal
by Kevin Drum at Mother Jones
Paul Waldman explains why Republicans have gone batshit crazy over Benghazi:
So what's going on here? I can sum it up in two words: scandal envy. Republicans are indescribably frustrated by the fact that Barack Obama, whom they regard as both illegitimate and corrupt, went through an entire term without a major scandal. They tried with "Fast and Furious," but that turned out to be small potatoes. They tried with Solyndra, but that didn't produce the criminality they hoped for either. Obama even managed to dole out three-quarters of a trillion dollars in stimulus money without any graft or double-dealing to be found. Nixon had Watergate, Reagan had Iran-Contra, Clinton had Lewinsky, [and don't forget that Bush had the Plame affair and the Abramoff scandal! –ed] and Barack Obama has gotten off scott-free. This is making them absolutely livid, and they're going to keep trying to gin up a scandal, even if there's no there there. Benghazi may not be an actual scandal, but it's all they have handy.
Yep. They're just convinced that Obama runs a gang of Chicago thugs who are lying and cheating behind the scenes at every opportunity. It's a foundational story on the tea-party right. Unfortunately, the reality is that whatever else you think of Obama, he's one of the straightest arrows we've had in the White House since....forever. He runs a tight ship organizationally, and on a personal level he's so intolerant of personal peccadilloes that he sometimes seems almost inhuman. It would be astonishing if he could actually avoid a serious scandal for an entire eight-year term, but if anyone can do it, it's probably Obama.
And yes, it's driving Republicans crazy. Even the ones who don't want to impeach him at least want to bring him down to earth a bit. So they latch onto anything they can. It's all starting to seem kind of desperate, but I doubt they're going to let that stop them. After all, it eventually worked against Clinton.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/11/republicans-desperately-need-scandal?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
by Kevin Drum at Mother Jones
Paul Waldman explains why Republicans have gone batshit crazy over Benghazi:
So what's going on here? I can sum it up in two words: scandal envy. Republicans are indescribably frustrated by the fact that Barack Obama, whom they regard as both illegitimate and corrupt, went through an entire term without a major scandal. They tried with "Fast and Furious," but that turned out to be small potatoes. They tried with Solyndra, but that didn't produce the criminality they hoped for either. Obama even managed to dole out three-quarters of a trillion dollars in stimulus money without any graft or double-dealing to be found. Nixon had Watergate, Reagan had Iran-Contra, Clinton had Lewinsky, [and don't forget that Bush had the Plame affair and the Abramoff scandal! –ed] and Barack Obama has gotten off scott-free. This is making them absolutely livid, and they're going to keep trying to gin up a scandal, even if there's no there there. Benghazi may not be an actual scandal, but it's all they have handy.
Yep. They're just convinced that Obama runs a gang of Chicago thugs who are lying and cheating behind the scenes at every opportunity. It's a foundational story on the tea-party right. Unfortunately, the reality is that whatever else you think of Obama, he's one of the straightest arrows we've had in the White House since....forever. He runs a tight ship organizationally, and on a personal level he's so intolerant of personal peccadilloes that he sometimes seems almost inhuman. It would be astonishing if he could actually avoid a serious scandal for an entire eight-year term, but if anyone can do it, it's probably Obama.
And yes, it's driving Republicans crazy. Even the ones who don't want to impeach him at least want to bring him down to earth a bit. So they latch onto anything they can. It's all starting to seem kind of desperate, but I doubt they're going to let that stop them. After all, it eventually worked against Clinton.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/11/republicans-desperately-need-scandal?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
BAR
Nov 17, 2012, 10:11:02 AM11/17/12
to
In article <a2f36e7d-a413-4ec6...@googlegroups.com>,
defangeda...@gmail.com says...
The fact that the "White House" changed the story from an coordinated Al
Qaiada attack to a spontaneous protest about an obscure video that less
than 500 people had viewed means that they are trust worthy is beyond
belief.
defangeda...@gmail.com says...
>
> Republicans Desperately Need a Scandal
>
> by Kevin Drum at Mother Jones
>
> Paul Waldman explains why Republicans have gone batshit crazy over Benghazi:
The assassination of an ambassador is not to be taken lightly.
> Republicans Desperately Need a Scandal
>
> by Kevin Drum at Mother Jones
>
> Paul Waldman explains why Republicans have gone batshit crazy over Benghazi:
The fact that the "White House" changed the story from an coordinated Al
Qaiada attack to a spontaneous protest about an obscure video that less
than 500 people had viewed means that they are trust worthy is beyond
belief.
gpsman
Nov 17, 2012, 10:23:55 AM11/17/12
to
On Nov 17, 10:11 am, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> In article <a2f36e7d-a413-4ec6...@googlegroups.com>,
> defangedandneute...@gmail.com says...
ignorance, just because Usenet has the capacity of holding it all.
The US intelligence community commonly dispenses disinformation as a
tactic to hide from our enemies what they know.
You, it seems, of all people, should be familiar with
"counterintelligence".
-----
- gpsman
> In article <a2f36e7d-a413-4ec6...@googlegroups.com>,
> defangedandneute...@gmail.com says...
>
>
>
> > Republicans Desperately Need a Scandal
>
> > by Kevin Drum at Mother Jones
>
> > Paul Waldman explains why Republicans have gone batshit crazy over Benghazi:
>
> The assassination of an ambassador is not to be taken lightly.
>
> The fact that the "White House" changed the story from an coordinated Al
> Qaiada attack to a spontaneous protest about an obscure video that less
> than 500 people had viewed means that they are trust worthy is beyond
> belief.
There is no logical reason to continue to publicly exhibit your vast
>
>
> > Republicans Desperately Need a Scandal
>
> > by Kevin Drum at Mother Jones
>
> > Paul Waldman explains why Republicans have gone batshit crazy over Benghazi:
>
> The assassination of an ambassador is not to be taken lightly.
>
> The fact that the "White House" changed the story from an coordinated Al
> Qaiada attack to a spontaneous protest about an obscure video that less
> than 500 people had viewed means that they are trust worthy is beyond
> belief.
ignorance, just because Usenet has the capacity of holding it all.
The US intelligence community commonly dispenses disinformation as a
tactic to hide from our enemies what they know.
You, it seems, of all people, should be familiar with
"counterintelligence".
-----
- gpsman
BAR
Nov 17, 2012, 11:23:16 AM11/17/12
to
In article <e715b8e1-b5f7-4b3e-bb05-
3f5a24...@o8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, gps...@driversmail.com
says...
> The US intelligence community commonly dispenses disinformation as a
> tactic to hide from our enemies what they know.
The death of an US ambassador is common situation and it needed more of
a response than an obscure video caused it.
> You, it seems, of all people, should be familiar with
> "counterintelligence".
Disinformation is for the underlings to disseminate and not the
President. You have been lied to by Obama and the world has been lied to
by Obama.
Obama will forever be linked to Clinton as having stood up in front of
the people of the USA and lied to them. We shouldn't be surprised by
this but, we are.
Obama is too arrogant to let his underlings at, DOD, CIA and State, and
have them do the lying and obfuscation for him. With the exception of
Amb. Rice who was sent out to take one for the team and she was so
blatantly wrong it isn't funny. Then Obama doubles down at the UN and
makes himself a complete fool.
3f5a24...@o8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, gps...@driversmail.com
says...
>
> On Nov 17, 10:11 am, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> > In article <a2f36e7d-a413-4ec6...@googlegroups.com>,
> > defangedandneute...@gmail.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> > > Republicans Desperately Need a Scandal
> >
> > > by Kevin Drum at Mother Jones
> >
> > > Paul Waldman explains why Republicans have gone batshit crazy over Benghazi:
> >
> > The assassination of an ambassador is not to be taken lightly.
> >
> > The fact that the "White House" changed the story from an coordinated Al
> > Qaiada attack to a spontaneous protest about an obscure video that less
> > than 500 people had viewed means that they are trust worthy is beyond
> > belief.
>
> There is no logical reason to continue to publicly exhibit your vast
> ignorance, just because Usenet has the capacity of holding it all.
Are you hosting a cross burning tonight? Did you wash your sheets?
> On Nov 17, 10:11 am, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> > In article <a2f36e7d-a413-4ec6...@googlegroups.com>,
> > defangedandneute...@gmail.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> > > Republicans Desperately Need a Scandal
> >
> > > by Kevin Drum at Mother Jones
> >
> > > Paul Waldman explains why Republicans have gone batshit crazy over Benghazi:
> >
> > The assassination of an ambassador is not to be taken lightly.
> >
> > The fact that the "White House" changed the story from an coordinated Al
> > Qaiada attack to a spontaneous protest about an obscure video that less
> > than 500 people had viewed means that they are trust worthy is beyond
> > belief.
>
> There is no logical reason to continue to publicly exhibit your vast
> ignorance, just because Usenet has the capacity of holding it all.
> The US intelligence community commonly dispenses disinformation as a
> tactic to hide from our enemies what they know.
a response than an obscure video caused it.
> You, it seems, of all people, should be familiar with
> "counterintelligence".
President. You have been lied to by Obama and the world has been lied to
by Obama.
Obama will forever be linked to Clinton as having stood up in front of
the people of the USA and lied to them. We shouldn't be surprised by
this but, we are.
Obama is too arrogant to let his underlings at, DOD, CIA and State, and
have them do the lying and obfuscation for him. With the exception of
Amb. Rice who was sent out to take one for the team and she was so
blatantly wrong it isn't funny. Then Obama doubles down at the UN and
makes himself a complete fool.
gpsman
Nov 17, 2012, 12:38:37 PM11/17/12
to
On Nov 17, 11:23 am, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> In article <e715b8e1-b5f7-4b3e-bb05-
> 3f5a24c2a...@o8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, gps...@driversmail.com
> > The US intelligence community commonly dispenses disinformation as a
> > tactic to hide from our enemies what they know.
>
> The death of an US ambassador is common situation and it needed more of
> a response than an obscure video caused it.
And it was about to get it, but the immediate manufactroversy had to
be considered to have alerted al Qaeda and scattered them, eliminating
any chance of success of a just and deserved military response.
That one-time extremely time-limited opportunity to be relatively
certain those you kill and capture were involved in such an
incomprehensibly bold move... poof.
Your fundamental assumption that something must be laid eyes upon by
batshit crazy religious k00ks to set them off is of course obviously
preposterous in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
"Lying" is not so black/white bad as any and it seems nearly every
nitwit has to say they "think". There are perfectly acceptable even
honorable lies, lies for purposes that may not be immediately evident.
But, you and Fox News, you know everyfuckingthing...
-----
- gpsman
> In article <e715b8e1-b5f7-4b3e-bb05-
> 3f5a24c2a...@o8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, gps...@driversmail.com
> says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 17, 10:11 am, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> > > In article <a2f36e7d-a413-4ec6...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > defangedandneute...@gmail.com says...
>
> > > > Republicans Desperately Need a Scandal
>
> > > > by Kevin Drum at Mother Jones
>
> > > > Paul Waldman explains why Republicans have gone batshit crazy over Benghazi:
>
> > > The assassination of an ambassador is not to be taken lightly.
>
> > > The fact that the "White House" changed the story from an coordinated Al
> > > Qaiada attack to a spontaneous protest about an obscure video that less
> > > than 500 people had viewed means that they are trust worthy is beyond
> > > belief.
>
> > There is no logical reason to continue to publicly exhibit your vast
> > ignorance, just because Usenet has the capacity of holding it all.
>
> Are you hosting a cross burning tonight? Did you wash your sheets?
Sparkling rebuttal!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 17, 10:11 am, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> > > In article <a2f36e7d-a413-4ec6...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > defangedandneute...@gmail.com says...
>
> > > > Republicans Desperately Need a Scandal
>
> > > > by Kevin Drum at Mother Jones
>
> > > > Paul Waldman explains why Republicans have gone batshit crazy over Benghazi:
>
> > > The assassination of an ambassador is not to be taken lightly.
>
> > > The fact that the "White House" changed the story from an coordinated Al
> > > Qaiada attack to a spontaneous protest about an obscure video that less
> > > than 500 people had viewed means that they are trust worthy is beyond
> > > belief.
>
> > There is no logical reason to continue to publicly exhibit your vast
> > ignorance, just because Usenet has the capacity of holding it all.
>
> Are you hosting a cross burning tonight? Did you wash your sheets?
> > The US intelligence community commonly dispenses disinformation as a
> > tactic to hide from our enemies what they know.
>
> The death of an US ambassador is common situation and it needed more of
> a response than an obscure video caused it.
be considered to have alerted al Qaeda and scattered them, eliminating
any chance of success of a just and deserved military response.
That one-time extremely time-limited opportunity to be relatively
certain those you kill and capture were involved in such an
incomprehensibly bold move... poof.
Your fundamental assumption that something must be laid eyes upon by
batshit crazy religious k00ks to set them off is of course obviously
preposterous in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
"Lying" is not so black/white bad as any and it seems nearly every
nitwit has to say they "think". There are perfectly acceptable even
honorable lies, lies for purposes that may not be immediately evident.
But, you and Fox News, you know everyfuckingthing...
-----
- gpsman
unknown
Nov 17, 2012, 12:38:46 PM11/17/12
to
> There is no logical reason to continue to publicly exhibit your vast
> ignorance, just because Usenet has the capacity of holding it all.
Bert is also intellectually lazy.
> ignorance, just because Usenet has the capacity of holding it all.
.
Hollis2
Nov 18, 2012, 12:58:11 PM11/18/12
to
election doesn't really matter any more, because the election is over.
It's not an issue that most people, other than political wonks care about.
It also tends to keep the focus off the real issue, which is why no one
sent help. The "Situation Room" in the WH was monitoring the attack live
and over an 8 hour period no one made the decision to try and send help.
The people on the ground clearly were asking for help. Who decided not to
send it. My guess is that it was Obama, but he will never own up to it.
BAR
Nov 18, 2012, 9:45:43 PM11/18/12
to
In article <i6knn9x...@news.ezprovider.com>, a3a...@webnntp.invalid
says...
Politoca; expedoency is more important than the truth.
says...
johnty
Nov 19, 2012, 2:11:01 AM11/19/12
to
On Monday, 19 November 2012 02:46:26 UTC, BAR wrote:
> expedoency is more important than the truth.
Yeah!
> expedoency is more important than the truth.
bkn...@conramp.net
Nov 19, 2012, 7:02:55 AM11/19/12
to
On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 21:45:43 -0500, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>Politoca; expedoency is more important than the truth.
:-)
>Politoca; expedoency is more important than the truth.
0 new messages