Those very puzzling moderators are at it again... MinnPost Bengazhi
"Why didn't Cheney and "Scooter" and their ilk use the standard email system? Conservatives sometimes have short memories." Phil
"Emails, really ??? What is this really about then--is this the "House Committee to investigate email procedures of Hillary Clinton"? What about all of the other departments and department heads who followed similar wmails procedures? What about security at Benghazi? Nope, emails, emails, emails. Keep beating dead horses--they can't get away." Neal
"Curious where is the partiality from the writer? What additional analysis/perspective was missed? Or did we see an early agreement that the 8th time around was similar to the last 7? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is akin to insanity. Should the arriving at the insanity part required additional analysis?" Dennis W.My points in response seemed pretty tame to me, however 3 different wordings were REJECTED...
- It is likely that Liberals found the behavior of Cheney and Scooter questionable and suspicious. Why doesn't Hillary's poor choices seem poor too Liberals? Does the fact that another politician did something questionable set the new standard lower for future politicians?
- Labels and tone matter. I would not expect to see a professional political analysis saying this. "The day was driven by the Obama/Clinton Derangement Syndrome afflicting the Republicans on the committee. "
- There has been a big change since the previous investigations. Hillary had for some reason neglected to turn over all of the related emails immediately during the previous investigations. The big question is why didn't she turn over her server when the first investigation opened? Instead it took years for her to make her public governmental emails available to the proper authorities.
27 comments:
give it up, John, maybe they are rejecting your comments because Benghazi is boring.
besides The consensus now is the hearings were a waste of time.
move on.
Could be. Though I did not see that in the MP moderation guidelines.
I still am very curious if Liberals would be saying boring and waste of time if it was a GOP candidate... I just can not see that being the case. To this day Liberals accuse Bush of "lying" to get us into Iraq.
No need to speculate. We have history to guide us.
How did liberals investigate the Beirut attacks under Ronald Reagan? Congress turned out a bipartisan report on security and policy failures that achieved broad bipartisan agreement ... in two months.
During the Bush Administration, 21 Americans were killed in attacks on our embassies or consulates. How were those investigated by liberals? There have been more Congressional committee hearings on Benghazi than on 9/11, for cripes sake.
The only reason this has been dragged out for so long is because Republicans are trying to submarine Clinton's candidacy for President. That was evidenced by the often-bizarre lines of questioning from the Republicans on the committee last week.
Sean, I sense a lack of discernment in your examples. Did the Reagan Administration actively thwart those investigations for three years? Is there a difference between investigating a President and one who WANTS to be President?
The Bush Administration actively attempted to shut down investigation of 9/11. Heck, Hillary Clinton's time on the stand last week was 5x more than the combined time Bush and Cheney testified (in private session, no transcripts) regarding 9/11.
"Is there a difference between investigating a President and one who WANTS to be President?"
There shouldn't be, but that's clearly not the case here.
I guess I am a bit with the Right on this one. To me it just seems like Hillary has been doing everything she could to avoid opening her books and being transparent with Congress. Of course that tends to draw attention and suspicion.
This whole mess could have been done with the first investigation if she had turned over her server on day 1 to the proper authorities who had equalivalent security clearance... For some unknown reason she chose to do otherwise... And the hounds got the scent.
Can we look forward to this kind of poor transparency if she becomes President? Or did she learn something from this example of poor judgement?
Being the proactive sort, I think it is more important to thoroughly investigate candidates. I mean once they are President it is a bit late to start second guessing their every action and character. It is a bit like picking apart your spouse after you are married and have 2 kids. There is a lot of downside and almost no upside.
"This whole mess could have been done with the first investigation if she had turned over her server on day 1 to the proper authorities who had equalivalent security clearance."
Listen, I think Hillary's private e-mail serve was a poor decision, but I'm not naive enough to fall for that line. Recall, this 8th investigation of Benghazi began before anyone knew anything about said server.
"Can we look forward to this kind of poor transparency if she becomes President? Or did she learn something from this example of poor judgement?"
Are you going to make the same demands of Republicans?
Jeb! didn't fully turn over all of his private e-mails to Florida authorities (and like Hillary, he self-selected those he disclosed) until seven years after he left office.
Marco Rubio used private e-mails to conduct business when he was in a leadership position in the Florida state legislature. When open records requests were filed -- Poof! -- they were gone.
Christie, Kasich, and Huckabee all have e-mail shenanigans in their past, too, in one form or another.
Why doesn't Hillary's poor choices seem poor too Liberals?
First of all, there wasn't anything particular awful about the choice. Government email systems open to the public aren't in any way secure, and no one claims that they are. Hillary's private email system was roughly comparable to the government's in terms of security. Back then, and even today, it is appropriate to assume that any email you send to anyone is open to hackers. The problem is that Hillary completely candid about her reasons for choosing a private email server. But then Jeb Bush hasn't been completely candid about the impact of his tax proposals on the budget. Which matters more?
--Hiram
The big question is why didn't she turn over her server when the first investigation opened?
I believe she turned it over when asked. But this establishes the point about politics. Hillary's server isn't sentient, and it wasn't at Benghazi. It can tell us nothing about what happened there. What it can tell you is a little bit about what various people were willing to commit to email. But how significant is that? I, for one, communicate a lot, with hundreds maybe even thousands of people about politics and issues. If I turned over all of my emails to a Congressional hearing, they would learn virtually nothing about my political activity or thinking. They would receive an extraordinarily incomplete understanding of what I think and do. Is it really all that different with politicians? Lindsay Graham tells us he never writes emails. Does that mean he never thinks or acts, politically or otherwise? I really doubt that Hillary committed very much at all relative to her actions with respect to Benghazi, because that's just not what people do. Republicans and indeed all of us are distorting the importance of emails not because they are in fact important, but because they provide a permanent record, however insignificant that record might be.
--Hiram
Hiram said
"The day was driven by the Obama/Clinton Derangement Syndrome afflicting the Republicans on the committee. "
This is literally true. A personal vow I made to myself when President Obama took office was that I would never do what I felt Republicans did way too much when President Bush was in office, which was to attribute opposition to the president to some form of mental illness. I would not Krauthammer Republicans. I would not accuse them of narcissm. And of course, the above is incorrect in factual terms. Republicans opposition was driven by largely by partisanship, not by any mental illness.
--Hiram
I am happy to question the judgement and character of any politician who does not turn over relevant emails when an investigation is on going. We are not asking her to give them to the general public, just the proper authorities.
House Bengazhi committee launch - May 2014
"In late April 2014, Judicial Watch—a self-described "educational foundation" concerned with "transparency, accountability and integrity in government"[7]—made public previously-unreleased White House emails showing administration adviser Ben Rhodes coordinating a public response strategy after the attack for then-United Nations ambassador for the U.S., Susan E. Rice, recommending she emphasize the attack was “rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”[5] The email was part of materials, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, that were more comprehensive than those the White House had given congressional panels.[8] A person whom Roll Call identified as a "senior GOP leadership aide" stated that this had been “the straw that broke the camel’s back” for Boehner.[5][8]
Frustrated with what he considered "stonewalling" from the White House, Boehner proposed creation of the special committee May 2, 2014.[5] He stated: “it’s clear that questions remain, and the administration still does not respect the authority of Congress to provide proper oversight. This dismissiveness and evasion requires us to elevate the investigation to a new level.” Wiki source
Detailed Timeline
So we needed the 8th investigation to dissect the talking points? What is the benefit of that?
I am happy to question the judgement and character of any politician who does not turn over relevant emails when an investigation is on going
And I guess I am happy to question the judgment of someone who lies about his tax plan. Which character failing matters more?
==Hiram
Hiram,
One is a choice to reveal what they know or not.
whereas
One is highly dependent on one's beliefs, assumptions, and crystal ball. They may be lying, naive or wise. No one can be certain about the future.
Please share the details of why you believe he is intentionally misleading people.(ie lying) And what your proof is that his view of the future is impossible.
Sean,
From my opinion, this whole thing is to determine if Obama or one of his staff intentionally lied to the US citizens in order to get Obama re-elected. (ie poor character) Here is a right leaning version of reality.
NewsMax New Lows
It's not up to me to tell voters how to vote. What I am going argue is that what matters are things like health care, social security, the economy, and whether we wage war in Iraq. What Republicans are going to argue is emails, and that's fine with me.
As for character, George W. Bush was perhaps the most decent, most honorable president in recent history. His integrity was unquestioned, And yet he was also our worst president, ruining our economy, and engaging us in a pointless and disastrous war.
Maybe character is overrated.
--Hiram
"From my opinion, this whole thing is to determine if Obama or one of his staff intentionally lied to the US citizens in order to get Obama re-elected. (ie poor character) "
The chronology of how the talking points came to be has been known since 2013. Nothing has changed there.
There are legitimate questions that could be asked regarding State Department policy that may have contributed to an unsafe scenario in Benghazi. It's too bad Republicans seem unwilling to focus on that part of the story (perhaps because focusing on that would also demonstrate how Congress failed to provide adequate resources for diplomatic security).
"George W. Bush was perhaps the most decent, most honorable president in recent history. His integrity was unquestioned"
I wouldn't go that far. Bush, to me, seemed like a perfectly decent person outside of his work scenario. I have no doubt he is a good husband and father, and he'd probably be delightful to have a beer with. But there's along history -- from his National Guard service to his business dealings to his political career - where he has been ruthless and dishonorable when it comes to "business".
According to that timeline, quite a bit came to light over the past 18 months. So that "nothing has changed" seems somewhat simplistic.
As Laurie said, the topic is actually pretty boring and pointless. The folks on the Left will believe in her no matter what. The folks on the Right will think her a potician with poor judgment who can not be trusted no matter what.
No surprises here.
"According to that timeline, quite a bit came to light over the past 18 months. So that "nothing has changed" seems somewhat simplistic."
What -- specifically -- has changed regarding how the talking points came together?
"The folks on the Left will believe in her no matter what. "
This person on the left will not believe her when there is evidence to suggest that I shouldn't believe her. Do I think the State Department did everything right before and after Benghazi? No. But I have yet to see evidence that there was this sort of evil conspiracy that conservatives are constructing.
As Laurie said, the topic is actually pretty boring and pointless. The folks on the Left will believe in her no matter what.
It's not a matter of belief or disbelief at least where the emails are concerned. We just don't think the issue is important. Just as Republicans don't believe it's important whether Jeb Bush is truthful about the budget or Ben Carson is truthful about his association with drug companies, or Donald Trump's statements about anything.
--Hiram
"But I have yet to see evidence that there was this sort of evil conspiracy that conservatives are constructing."-- Sean
Now THAT I can agree with. It is the classic pattern with the Clintons. Faced with only two reasonable explanations-- criminality or incompetence-- for some scandal, the Clintons will choose incompetence every time. The problem with Hillary is that she doesn't want to admit to incompetence, either. "I never saw those 600 emails from the Ambassador" doesn't pass the smell test, and more perfumed denials aren't going to help.
And speaking of focus, could we, at some great, gettin'-up morning, approach this scandal on its own merits, against some absolute standard, without dredging up and attempting to "grade on the curve" other scandals, unresolved and long past?
A number of the early investigations into Benghazi provided useful information that discussed specific failures by State Department leadership (and others) that contributed to the poor security environment in Benghazi, and recommended changes that could be made to prevent future attacks.
I found this post by kevin drum about benghazi and his review of other pseudo scandals quite interesting. It includes a link to a Krauthammer column, for people who like a conservative point of view. I actually like Krauthammer columns and should make a point to read him more often as he annoys me in an intelligent way. (it is so hard to find an good conservative columnists.)
Head Witch Hunter Now Wants Fewer Witch Hunts
The Hill: Administration Warned
I didn't read this as it doesn't interest me. I believe it says Rubio lied when he called Clinton a liar.
Is Hillary Clinton a ‘liar’ on Benghazi?
Post a Comment