Watergate vs. Benghazi Test

[konradv]

Please explain how the Watergate coverup constituted "high crimes and misdemeanors" whereas the Benghazi coverup (including withholding requested security protection) did not:

The Watergate break in was a felony crime. Covering up is a felony and a "high crime and misdemeanor"

Benghazi was a terrorist attack on the United States. There was no "coverup" only initial misreporting.

1. I'm not sure that a third rate burglary is more important than the preventable murder of four U.S. citizens serving our interests in a hostile environment. If this had happened in a military situation, there would be a general court martial of those involved.

2a. You have ignored the withholding of requested security protection.

2b. By "only initial misreporting" are you asserting that everything has now been disclosed?

Where's the crime in the Benghazi incident? Seems you're the one "misrepresenting" the situation!

 

[theDoctorisIn]

^^^ What a hack.

The Obama administration orchestrated a misinformation campaign to conceal the involvement of Al Qaeda in a terrorist attack prior to the election. This, in combination with the epic fail of Obama's foreign and military policy and the tragic (and avoidable) deaths of four Americans, is far worse than Watergate.

Even if that were true, it still wouldn't be a crime.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Watergate was one of the biggest crimes committed by a president, that the right winger's could care less about because it was done by an (R)

Please stop interrupting while the adults are having a conversation.

Sorry. Teabaggers hardly qualify as "adults".​

Passin'-The-Buck With BIG DICK!!​

​

"In Nixon’s next conversation, with Secretary of State William Rogers at 1:28 p.m., the President does not even mention the Pentagon Papers until after discussing Tricia’s wedding the day before, and then the casualty figures from the previous week. Even then, Nixon seems to take some comfort in the fact that “it all relates, of course, to everything up until we came in… It’s hard on Johnson; it’s hard on Kennedy; it’s hard on Lodge.” Each had been a Nixon rival in greater and lesser degree. But then Rogers and Nixon move on to gossip about former Defense Secretary Clark Clifford.

When the government failed to stop the Pentagon Papers publication, of course, Nixon created his “Special Investigative Unit,” the “plumbers” who were supposed to fix the leaks, who pulled their first break-in at the Los Angeles office of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist in September 1971 and went on to infamy at the Watergate. In this tape, we are present at the creation, or at the beginning of the End."

Maybe, NOW, you Teabaggers will "GET" Watergate.

Sorry about the big-words. They couldn't be avoided.​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Please explain how the Watergate coverup constituted "high crimes and misdemeanors" whereas the Benghazi coverup (including withholding requested security protection) did not:

The Watergate break in was a felony crime. Covering up is a felony and a "high crime and misdemeanor"

Benghazi was a terrorist attack on the United States. There was no "coverup" only initial misreporting.

1. I'm not sure that a third rate burglary is more important than the preventable murder of four U.S. citizens serving our interests in a hostile environment.

Yeah....Big DICK Nixon was ONLY trying to cover-up an UNWINNABLE WAR!!!!!

Stupid Fuckin' Teabaggers​

 

[jwoodie]

Let me spell out a scenario which does not conflict with any currently established facts:

1. Libya was portrayed as a shining example of the Administration's foreign policy prowess, involving the overthrow of an unpopular dictator which was supposed to earn us a new ally in the Middle East. In order to maintain this pretense, we deliberately downgraded the military security of our Embassy.

2. Embassy staff and others on the ground in LIbya knew that the pretended pacification of Libya was a sham and requested additional security. This request was denied for the political reasons stated above.

3. When the terrorist attack occurred on the anniversary of 9/11 and less than a month before the election, the Administration was frozen by political considerations as to whether it should provide immediate military rescue support. At the potential cost of American lives, it was finally decided to concoct a story that would deflect attention away from its prior refusal to provide additional security and the further crumbling of its foreign policy. As a result, the Administration provided false information to the American public in order to manipulate the forthcoming election.

I would argue that if proven this behavior, on the part of the President or his surrogates, falls precisely within the "high crimes and misdemeanors" specified in the Constitution as a basis for removing the President from office. Having said that, the current moral and political climate in this country makes this an impossibility.

 

[del]

obvious hacks are obvious



obama is clearly the antichrist

I want to apologize for asking a question above your grade level.

i want to apologize for not taking such a blatantly stupid question seriously.

if you had to ask it, you're clearly incapable of grasping the answer.

keep up the good work

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Let me spell out a scenario which does not conflict with any currently established facts:

1. Libya was portrayed as a shining example of the Administration's foreign policy prowess, involving the overthrow of an unpopular dictator which was supposed to earn us a new ally in the Middle East. In order to maintain this pretense, we deliberately downgraded the military security of our Embassy.

2. Embassy staff and others on the ground in LIbya knew that the pretended pacification of Libya was a sham and requested additional security. This request was denied for the political reasons stated above.

3. When the terrorist attack occurred on the anniversary of 9/11 and less than a month before the election, the Administration was frozen by political considerations as to whether it should provide immediate military rescue support. At the potential cost of American lives, it was finally decided to concoct a story that would deflect attention away from its prior refusal to provide additional security and the further crumbling of its foreign policy. As a result, the Administration provided false information to the American public in order to manipulate the forthcoming election.

I would argue that if proven this behavior, on the part of the President or his surrogates, falls precisely within the "high crimes and misdemeanors" specified in the Constitution as a basis for removing the President from office. Having said that, the current moral and political climate in this country makes this an impossibility.

Even if your ridiculous fictional story was true, it still wouldn't be a crime.

And how would you "prove" any of that?

 

[tyroneweaver]

Ron Paul has the right idea on the middle east, just get out.

Not a single president has been on the right side of the issue yet in the moslem world. not 1. So what does that tell ya.

 

[del]

there's no right side in the me

 

[Plasmaball]

^^^ What a hack.

The Obama administration orchestrated a misinformation campaign to conceal the involvement of Al Qaeda in a terrorist attack prior to the election. This, in combination with the epic fail of Obama's foreign and military policy and the tragic (and avoidable) deaths of four Americans, is far worse than Watergate.

and yet they got reelected.....
Yeah massive fail....

 

[rightwinger]

Please explain how the Watergate coverup constituted "high crimes and misdemeanors" whereas the Benghazi coverup (including withholding requested security protection) did not:

The Watergate break in was a felony crime. Covering up is a felony and a "high crime and misdemeanor"

Benghazi was a terrorist attack on the United States. There was no "coverup" only initial misreporting.

1. I'm not sure that a third rate burglary is more important than the preventable murder of four U.S. citizens serving our interests in a hostile environment. If this had happened in a military situation, there would be a general court martial of those involved.

2a. You have ignored the withholding of requested security protection.

2b. By "only initial misreporting" are you asserting that everything has now been disclosed?

1. Yes, with Monday morning quarterbacking, everything is preventable.

2a. Republicans in Congress rejected enhanced security budgets for our embassies then bitched that there was not enough protection

 

[Mustang]

Conservatives are desperate for anything, simply anything to discredit Obama. They thought they could get Romney elected. That didn't work. Now, they would like to drive Obama from office with a trumped up cover up about Benghazi. That's not working either.

Here's a clue for conservatives. The general public has lived through the whole birther non controversy and a host of other issues. And they (WE) are sick and tired of this shit. Or didn't you learn anything from the election? Consequently, most people have stopped paying attention to the nonsense that conservatives pass around to each other in emails and on and the Internet. So, by the time all this crap makes it on to ALL the conservative talk radio shows, people have basically tuned it out already. Face it, the only real audience that conservatives have for this crap is one another.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The Watergate break in was a felony crime. Covering up is a felony and a "high crime and misdemeanor"

Benghazi was a terrorist attack on the United States. There was no "coverup" only initial misreporting.

1. I'm not sure that a third rate burglary is more important than the preventable murder of four U.S. citizens serving our interests in a hostile environment.

Yeah....Big DICK Nixon was ONLY trying to cover-up an UNWINNABLE WAR!!!!!

Stupid Fuckin' Teabaggers​

March 9, 2013

Winning At ANY Co$t!!!!

"In the case of Watergate – the foiled Republican break-in at the Democratic National Committee in June 1972 and Richard Nixon’s botched cover-up leading to his resignation in August 1974 – the evidence is now clear that Nixon created the Watergate burglars out of his panic that the Democrats might possess a file on his sabotage of Vietnam peace talks in 1968."

​

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

how can anyone take seriously Republican complaints about Benghazi -

when the Republicans are responsible for a misguided, unprovoked, unfunded 9 year Iraqi war that culminated in the Great Recession.

You do realize that a (D) Congress voted twice to authorize Bush to undertake that operation, right?

And the great recession as you call it was primarily due to the mortgage meltdown which was due to the (D) plan called CRA and the subsequent shenanigans of Wall Street.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I guess President Barry Kardashian was too busy getting ready for his Vegas junket to bother with Benghazi. Nah, nothing to see here...

 

[Sallow]

Please explain how the Watergate coverup constituted "high crimes and misdemeanors" whereas the Benghazi coverup (including withholding requested security protection) did not:

For starters..breaking, entering and stealing stuff is a crime.

Secondly..there was no Benghazi coverup.

Thirdly..one has to wonder why the rightwing is so interested in the unfortunate deaths of 4 Americans while they completely ignored the deaths of over 4000 Americans in Iraq.

 

[BlindBoo]

"Watergate" is now an all-encompassing term used to refer to:

1. political burglary
2. bribery
3. extortion
4. wiretapping (phone tapping)
5. conspiracy
6. obstruction of justice
7. destruction of evidence
8. tax fraud
9. illegal use of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA.)
10. illegal use of the Federal Bureau of Investigations
(FBI.)
11. illegal campaign contributions
12. use of public (taxpayers') money for private purposes

These Watergate crimes began from the moment President Nixon took office and continued until he was forced to resign the Presidency in August 1974.

The Imperial Presidency and Watergate: President Nixon's Grab for Power

 

[Freewill]

Please explain how the Watergate coverup constituted "high crimes and misdemeanors" whereas the Benghazi coverup (including withholding requested security protection) did not:

The Watergate break in was a felony crime. Covering up is a felony and a "high crime and misdemeanor"

Benghazi was a terrorist attack on the United States. There was no "coverup" only initial misreporting.

Yeah, misreporting of the coverup, and the lying they made Rice do.

 

[Freewill]

Please explain how the Watergate coverup constituted "high crimes and misdemeanors" whereas the Benghazi coverup (including withholding requested security protection) did not:

For starters..breaking, entering and stealing stuff is a crime.

Secondly..there was no Benghazi coverup.

Thirdly..one has to wonder why the rightwing is so interested in the unfortunate deaths of 4 Americans while they completely ignored the deaths of over 4000 Americans in Iraq.

No one on the right is ignoring the sacrifice our men made in Iraq or anywhere. But we are not so dispicable to use them as you do.

 

[Sallow]

Please explain how the Watergate coverup constituted "high crimes and misdemeanors" whereas the Benghazi coverup (including withholding requested security protection) did not:

The Watergate break in was a felony crime. Covering up is a felony and a "high crime and misdemeanor"

Benghazi was a terrorist attack on the United States. There was no "coverup" only initial misreporting.

Yeah, misreporting of the coverup, and the lying they made Rice do.

Rice read the talking points provided by the CIA and it came with caveats.

What part of "this is still developing" didn't you folks get?