Benghazi

[T-Dub]

Sure and while they're at it, investigate Darrell Issa.  He is from Cleveland, Ohio afterall so something has to be wrong with him to be worth 450 million and still want a job with the U.S. House of Representatives...

I must've missed something, because it almost seems like you're equating a kinda shady Congressman with bankrupting the entire country to make a handful of people with connections to the then-president and VP filthy rich, and that would be insane.

[|Elflocko|]

I must've missed something, because it almost seems like you're equating a kinda shady Congressman with bankrupting the entire country to make a handful of people with connections to the then-president and VP filthy rich, and that would be insane.

 

Don't forget the mass murdering war criminal thing... 

[|Numbers|]

I must've missed something, because it almost seems like you're equating a kinda shady Congressman with bankrupting the entire country to make a handful of people with connections to the then-president and VP filthy rich, and that would be insane.

 

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_08/the_overlap_among_darrell_issa031536.php

 

 

(2011) Earlier this year, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight Committee, insisted that President Obama is “one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times.” He didn’t even try to defend the absurd claim, and looked pretty ridiculous making it.

 

What may not have been fully appreciated at the time was the extent to which Issa was engaged in projection.

 

Looking back at Issa’s past, we see a politician who appears to have spent a fair amount of his adult life as an alleged criminal, with one run-in with the law after another, including arrests, indictments, and civil suits.

 

And looking at Issa’s present, we see a politician — whose power includes leading a committee committed to rooting out government corruption — with a disturbing amount of “overlap” between his public responsibilities and private enterprises. As the NYT’s Eric Lichtblau reports today, Issa routinely blurs the line between federal funding and the congressman’s “growing financial empire.”

Most wealthy members of Congress push their financial activities to the side, with many even placing them in blind trusts to avoid appearances of conflicts of interest. But Mr. Issa, one of Washington’s richest lawmakers, may be alone in the hands-on role he has played in overseeing a remarkable array of outside business interests since his election in 2000.

 

Even as he has built a reputation as a forceful Congressional advocate for business, Mr. Issa has bought up office buildings, split a holding company into separate multibillion-dollar businesses, started an insurance company, traded hundreds of millions of dollars in securities, invested in overseas funds, retained an interest in his auto-alarm company and built up a family foundation.

As his private wealth and public power have grown, so too has the overlap between his private and business lives, with at least some of the congressman’s government actions helping to make a rich man even richer and raising the potential for conflicts.

 

The whole piece is well worth checking out — it’s as much an indictment as an article — to appreciate the scope of the allegations. Ultimately, though, what we see is a lawmaker whose public and private interests are intertwined in ways we just don’t find very often.

 

The government funding Issa seeks for his district, at first blush, wouldn’t even be especially interesting. A congressman lining up public-works investments for his constituents seems vaguely hypocritical for a far-right Republican who claims to hate government spending, but that’s routine enough to be uninteresting.

 

With Issa, however, these spending measures take on a whole new level of significance given that the investments happen to also boost his own considerable wealth. When he pushed for a thoroughfare earmark, Issa also coincidentally improved the property value for one of his business ventures. When he pushes for looser regulatory measures, Issa is also making matters easier for his own private-sector enterprises.

 

It is sometimes difficult, Lichtblau noted, “to separate the business of Congress from the business of Darrell Issa.” Congress has seen plenty of wealthy lawmakers with extensive business interests, but those members nearly always “lower their business profiles considerably and limit their active dealings to avoid potential conflicts of interest.”

 

Issa has done largely the opposite.

 

[|Numbers|]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/23/rep-darrell-issa-suggests_n_934463.html

 

 

Darrell Issa Targets Eric Lichtblau In Spat With The New York Times

 

Lichtblau responds:

 

The notion that I was never really in San Diego in reporting my piece is ludicrous and demonstrably false. I spent two days in northern San Diego on June 21 and 22 to get a better sense of how Congressman Issa’s many outside business interests have intersected with his congressional duties. I observed more than a dozen commercial properties that Mr. Issa has acquired in Vista, Carlsbad and Oceanside to better understand how they were impacted by congressional earmarks he secured in the area; I went to the third floor of his office building to see just how close his congressional office sits from his property management office (it is directly across the bank of elevators); I spoke with tenants who lease from his property management company; I took photos on my cell phone of a Hooters that rents from him, a vacant lot he owns next door, and other properties; I visited the medical plaza that sits directly along a road-widening project for which he secured more than $800,000 in federal earmarks; and I spoke with merchants and local residents impacted by the road widening and other earmarks he has approved in the area.

 

In our story, we discussed some of the past allegations Mr. Issa has made that turned out to be unfounded, including his attacks on government officials in defense of Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch – two firms with which he has had extensive financial ties in his private business dealings. This baseless attack, sadly, seems to fit that same pattern of slinging mud and seeing what sticks. And it’s more than a bit ironic, considering that he has cited a past story of mine on the White House’s contacts with lobbyists as an authoritative source in at least four official committee letters he has written.

 

[Homer_Rice]

I'm gonna guess that Glenn Beck has been talking about Benghazi recently.

[|Elflocko|]

[url=http://s20.photobucket.com/user/lodge308/media/shrubsucksembassies_zpsaec0b3b8.jpg.html][/URL]

[Justice]

How about an investigation into KBR/Halliburton and Iraq's non-existent WMD's? Since they're feelin' all investigate-y..

Sadaam was torturing people and the people wanted a democracy, that is why we went in to Iraq..As far as WMD I thing Sadaam was that..I also think a small percentage of us going in Iraq was oil.

[Jim Finklestein]

Sadaam was torturing people 

 

So was Bush.

[Jamie_B]

Sadaam was torturing people

 

What do you think water boarding is?

[T-Dub]

[|Numbers|]

 

 

Oct. 12, 2000 - A terrorist bomb damages the destroyer USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39.

Aug. 7, 1998 - Terrorist bombs destroy the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In Nairobi, 12 Americans are among the 291 killed, and over 5,000 are wounded, including 6 Americans. In Dar es Salaam, one U.S. citizen is wounded among the 10 killed and 77 injured.

In response, on August 20 the United States attacked targets in Afghanistan and Sudan with over 75 cruise missiles fired from Navy ships in the Arabian and Red seas. About 60 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from warships in the Arabian Sea. Most struck six separate targets in a camp near Khost, Afghanistan. Simultaneously, about 20 cruise missiles were fired from U.S. ships in the Red Sea striking a factory in Khartoum, Sudan, which was suspected of producing components for making chemical weapons.

June 21, 1998 - Rocket-propelled grenades explode near the U.S. embassy in Beirut.

 

July 27, 1996 - A pipe bomb explodes during the Olympic games in Atlanta, killing one person and wounding 111.

June 25, 1996 - A bomb aboard a fuel truck explodes outside a U.S. air force installation in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 19 U.S. military personnel are killed in the Khubar Towers housing facility, and 515 are wounded, including 240 Americans.

Nov. 13, 1995 - A car-bomb in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills seven people, five of them American military and civilian advisers for National Guard training. The "Tigers of the Gulf," "Islamist Movement for Change," and "Fighting Advocates of God" claim responsibility.

April 19, 1995 - A car bomb destroys the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people and wounding over 600.

February 1993 - A bomb in a van explodes in the underground parking garage in New York's World Trade Center, killing six people and wounding 1,042.

 

 

509 Killed

 

 

I do not believe that tallying deaths or incidents of terrorism, torture, death, or conflicts will solve the problem.  The bottom line is that we are still entangled in foreign conflicts and are not out of them but finding new and interesting ways to be involved.

[T-Dub]

^ You make an interesting point - where was the Republican outrage under Clinton? I'm sure it had nothing to do with him being a white good ol' boy.

[|Numbers|]

^ You make an interesting point - where was the Republican outrage under Clinton? I'm sure it had nothing to do with him being a white good ol' boy.

 

It's a larger problem than just being a Republican or Democrat.

[T-Dub]

 

It's a larger problem than just being a Republican or Democrat.

 

 

But wasn't important until a black socialist Muslim got elected, amirite?

[|Numbers|]

 

 

But wasn't important until a black socialist Muslim got elected, amirite?

 

I believe that there probably are people who believe that.  I just can't quite my finger on the larger problem but may be rooted in who America is and the practices culturally ingrained in our system.

 

http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/87_4mcCrisken.pdf

 

 

Ten years on: Obama’s war on terrorism in rhetoric and practice

 

TREVOR McCRISKEN*
International Affairs 87:4 (2011) 781–801
© 2011 The Author(s). International Affairs © 2011 The Royal Institute of International Affairs. Published by Blackwell
Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford ox4 2dq, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

 

Ten years after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington DC of 11 September 2001, the United States remains embroiled in a long-term struggle with
what George W. Bush termed the existential threat of international terrorism.1

 

On the campaign trail, his successor as US president, Barack Obama, promised to reboot the ‘war on terror’. He claimed that his new administration would step back
from the rhetoric and much of the policy of the Bush administration, conducting a counterterrorism campaign that would be more morally acceptable, more focused
and more effective—smarter, better, nimbler, stronger.2 Those expecting wholesale changes to US counterterrorism policy, however, misread Obama’s intentions.
Obama always intended to deepen Bush’s commitment to counterterrorism while at the same time ending the ‘distraction’ of the Iraq war. The continuities in US
counterterrorism do not indicate that Obama is trapped by Bush’s institutionalized construction of a global war on terror so much as that he shares a conception of
the imperative of reducing the terrorist threat to the US, as demonstrated by his pursuit and elimination of the Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

 

This article focuses on the difficulties Obama has had in distinguishing his counterterrorism policy from that of his predecessor and explores how his
rhetoric has been reconstituted as his policy has been translated into action. In particular, attention is focused on the problems associated with fulfilling his
promise to continue combating terrorism while adhering to core moral values and principles. By addressing his policies towards Afghanistan and Pakistan, Guantánamo
Bay and torture, and the use of unmanned drone attacks, it will be argued not only that Obama’s ‘war’ against terrorism is in keeping with the assumptions
and priorities of the last ten years but also that, despite some successes, it is just as problematic as that of his predecessor.

 

Members of Congress were also critical of the administration for effectively outsourcing its interrogations to the intelligence services of other countries.

As the ranking Republican member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Saxby Chambliss, put it: ‘It is a shame that our administration has made the decision to
defer to others to pursue the detention and interrogation of our enemies. Now we’ll have to rely on a foreign government to grant us access . . . to obtain vital
intelligence, if we’re lucky.’

 

Despite the elimination of bin Laden, overall the story of the last two years is one of faltering change. Bush loyalists have been reluctant to praise Obama for
continuing Bush policies for fear that it will make it harder for Obama to persevere in them. However, in private they are shaking their heads with amazement
at how little substantial change there has been.11 How can we explain the distance between the apparent rhetoric of change in 2008 and what has followed? There
are at least three explanations. First and most important is the rhetoric of counterterrorism.  Obama foreshadowed much of his programme in his pre-election
speeches; yet audiences were selective in what they heard, displaying a strange kind of psychological dissonance. Obama repeatedly promised to get tougher
on America’s ‘real’ enemies in locations such as Pakistan, to deepen the war in Afghanistan and to improve intelligence—but the audience was not listening,
seeming to believe instead that Obama would draw back significantly from Bush’s ‘war on terror’ once in office.12

 

[oldschooler]

 

 

But wasn't important until a black socialist Muslim got elected, amirite?

 

 

 

It's sour grapes. As already pointed out in this thread, there were many attacks under previous Presidents

from both Parties and a lot more people were killed. What you stated above I believe is a factor in some

peoples eyes. But the main thing (in my opinion anyway) is that this latest attack happened during a Presidential election.

So the challenging party jumped on it with both feet. And since their side lost, they continue to stand on it with both feet.

 

I mean seriously. The Repubs act like this is the first time this has ever happened. And they are appalled that such a 

thing could happen. It's ridiculous. 

[Jamie_B]

 

 

I do not believe that tallying deaths or incidents of terrorism, torture, death, or conflicts will solve the problem.  The bottom line is that we are still entangled in foreign conflicts and are not out of them but finding new and interesting ways to be involved.

 

 

Seems to me if we had just listened to Jimmy Carter when he was talking about our need to have a energy policy during the 70s, we might not be in this mess.

[Khatmandude]

I'm gonna guess that Glenn Beck has been talking about Benghazi recently.

 

HAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAA.  It's funny cuz it's true :(

 

Keep Repubelicans and Demorats fighting amongst themselves while this country goes down the shitter.  It's a strategy that has worked marvelously. 

[Justice]

 

What do you think water boarding is?

it does not kill them..they have killed so many of our troops...I am saying why they kill us but we can't do our defense? You said something about Jimmy Carter energy policy..I think if we had listened to Ross Poret we would have not been in this mess either.

[Jamie_B]

it does not kill them..they have killed so many of our troops...I am saying why they kill us but we can't do our defense? You said something about Jimmy Carter energy policy..I think if we had listened to Ross Poret we would have not been in this mess either.

 

Yes we can defend ourselves, but waterboarding is tourture and only emboldens them and gives them more reasons to attack us.

 

Ross Perot has exactly what to do with our Middle East Policies?

[Justice]

 

Yes we can defend ourselves, but waterboarding is tourture and only emboldens them and gives them more reasons to attack us.

 

Ross Perot has exactly what to do with our Middle East Policies?

would not have to rely on oil as much..energy independence!

 

I just think we have a right as Americans to waterboard our enemy..

 

and oil is a big factor!

[Khatmandude]

it does not kill them..they have killed so many of our troops...I am saying why they kill us but we can't do our defense? You said something about Jimmy Carter energy policy..I think if we had listened to Ross Poret we would have not been in this mess either.

 

You are proof that watching television makes you dumb.  I tried to make excuses for you but you are inexcusable anymore.  Your ignorance knows no bounds and the problem with that is that you have conviction in your pre-packaged opinions you have been fed.  You know of nothing you speak of, yet you think you know what you're talking about because you watch news channels.  You claim to be Christian as well but you have spewed some of the most hateful, selfish shit.  I suggest you take a good look at the things you have been fed and re-analyze your 'diet'.  Mental diabetes is fast approaching from the crap you allow into your mind. 

[|Numbers|]

 

Yes we can defend ourselves, but waterboarding is tourture and only emboldens them and gives them more reasons to attack us.

 

Ross Perot has exactly what to do with our Middle East Policies?

 

Ross Perot would have been a very similar politician to Bush junior.  Some of the things he did would lead a person to believe that we would have been involved in a wider mess in regards to the Middle East than what the US is currently experiencing.  Refer back to the days when EDS had employees overseas in Iran and his actions.

[Jamie_B]

would not have to rely on oil as much..energy independence!

 

I just think we have a right as Americans to waterboard our enemy..

 

and oil is a big factor!

 

 

Ok but what does that have to do with Ross Perot?

 

No actually by international laws and the geneva convention that we agreed to, we dont have that right. This makes Bush and Cheny war criminials who deserve to be in prison.

[Jamie_B]

 

Ross Perot would have been a very similar politician to Bush junior.  Some of the things he did would lead a person to believe that we would have been involved in a wider mess in regards to the Middle East than what the US is currently experiencing.  Refer back to the days when EDS had employees overseas in Iran and his actions.

 

 

Yeah I dont doubt that, I remember reading the book "On Wings of Eagles" which detailed that account of the hostage rescue he was involved in, seems he was very hawkish.

 

However I'm not sure we would have free trade deals like Nafta if he were President.