You hit on my concern. I think all of these stories that are coming out (IRS, EPA, AP/DOJ) are all meant as diversions because there's something horrifyingly wrong about Benghazi, more than even we think we know.
At what point did the Obama Administration ever make "improving the economy" a priority" How many times have we heard this Administration say "After (insert policy initiative here), we're going to pivot to jobs."? Working on the economy is always over the next hill for these people. I have an idea why, but the reasoning is too craven for me to completely believe.
Their job is to "...preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” It would be pretty sweet if they actually took that job seriously. Instead, our elected leaders seems hell bent on doing what they can to destroy it.
I don't think it's Benghazi. The truth there seems obvious. At a time of the debates, Obama's economic policies weren't popular, but getting Bin Laden and his foreign policy was a perceived strength. Obama had quite a bit of reputation at stake in Libya. The action wasn't ever popular. The administration, and Hillary in particular, argued we must intervene to stop genocide. We aided the rebels to overthrow Ghadaffi. The appearance needed to be that Libya was better off thanks to Obama! The attack on the embassy brought ALL of Obama's foreign policy judgments into question. They fudged the Intel to put the best spin on it. To me, the worst part of the whole thing was blaming it on the YouTube video, then prosecuting the guy who made it. They tossed the guy under the bus. The guy actually deserved our 1st amendment protections.
Don't have to hold them accountable if they do nothing. Short of allowing people to physically abuse one another.
You cannot use the IRS to target your political enemies. In Nixon's Articles of Impeachment, using the IRS in this manner was one of the charges. The issue at hand is that the IRS discriminated against organizations that were hostile to what the IRS viewed as being counter to Administration goals. An IRS agent actually questioned whether or not a pro-Israel group was in tune with Administration policy. They don't get to do that. It's not just "Tea Party" or "Patriot" or "9/12". It was any organization that was interested in limited government, reducing the debt, teaching people about the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Additionally, pro-Israel groups were also targeted. These organizations were asked questions no organization should have to answer to the Government about. Donor lists, Facebook pages, links to websites, friends and acquaintances, etc. Furthermore, they attempted to hide who knew what when. They blamed it on low-level employees in a Cincinnati field office when there is a memo from the IRS general counsel that knew about this activity. The head of the IRS, Douglas Shulman, lied to Congress about activity. After he left, it didn't stop. This shit continued through the election and continued until the activity was discovered and they apologized. The IRS holds a unique place in our government. It is the only agency where we are required to testify against ourselves. We have to provide them with our sources and amounts of income, as well as other financial information. As a result, they should be above reproach. They were not. They were acting as political hacks. It is the job of the superiors of the IRS (in this case Tim Geithner and Jack Lew) to insure that nothing like this occurs. It doesn't have to be an active "we need you to do (x)". It's allowing an atmosphere where this behavior is tolerated. That's the standard for government accountability. For example, Navy admirals lost their job over the Tailhook scandal. People need to go to jail over this one.
What if they left them there to die because they were afraid of having to explain why the Ambassador was there? Remember Iran/Contra? What if they didn't intervene because it would have become an election issue? If he could have saved State Department employees and left them to die, that's criminal. And why haven't we killed/captured the people that admitted attacking the Consulate? Something is not right about Benghazi.
He shouldn't have been there because the country declined into lawlessness - THE failure. They didn't want to admit failure.
One side has much more respect for the Constitution than the other. I'll leave you to guess which one. Hint: To which party do Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Ron Johnson belong?
Use the context of what I said in that post, to clue you into the bigger picture I was presenting. So yes, it does mean what I think it means.
others have danced around this premise a bit, and some feel it could be even worse..all in all, not much of a streach
true, they should have never been there..this alone would havenever caused a ripple amongst the oboma press machine. he got away with anything shy of murder, as this may very well be the case to the point, they were there despite all reasoning to not be...and the question of why has still to be answered
