Skip to main content

View Diary: Here's what Republicans are 'willing to concede' to Democrats in upcoming #Benghazi hearing (99 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Indeed, if this is the outcome, a partisan (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DiesIrae, JG in MD

    impeachment attempt, then, it proves they continue to learn nothing about government shutdowns and impeaching Democratic Presidents.

    It will have no credibility with the media and go nowhere, but the question for me is this:  What is their actual end game.  Obama isn't ever running again for President, so he can take the hits on Benghazi, even manufactured ones.  

    Is this the initial attack on Clinton?  I suspect she can handle herself in a hearing, and could use it to springboard to greater credibility by using this opportunity to demonstrate her fitness to serve.  

    Fox News is the window on what the Republican party intends to do.  They are the first line of attack - easy to sacrifice if they boo boo, too soon (Hey, Hannity, you may be out of a job, soon) because their only value is in their immediate usefulness.  They are otherwise disposable, because they are employees, not elected officials.

    I find I am a little on the fence about whether Democrats should participate, Rich, but I take your point and your caution.  It may very well be a trap.  But if you know what the trap is, sometimes you can use that set-up to your advantage.  It's how the mouse in my basement continues to elude me while getting fatter and happy eating the peanut butter out of my death trap.  I thought I was smart, but apparently there is a tiny mouse in my house who is way smarter.

    "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of these United States of America -9.75 -6.87

    by Uncle Moji on Fri May 09, 2014 at 08:24:06 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  It worked out well for them in the 90s (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      daeros

      Within two years of impeaching Clinton, the GOP controlled the White House and congress.  Gore very likely lost the election because he ran away from Clinton's legacy of peace and prosperity (bank deregulation was still under the radar back then).

      If it could get an ass clown like Dubya elected, then I'd say impeachment was a slam dunk.

      "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

      by Subterranean on Fri May 09, 2014 at 08:54:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe.... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Uncle Moji, Ellamenta, Subterranean

        But, more damaging than getting W. elected is that it cheapened impeachment and thus contributed to not being impeached for lying the country into war.

      •  As I recollect W ran as "non-partisan moral man" (0+ / 0-)

        who would "bring back honor" to the White House.  

        So, Bill Clinton exercised poor judgement by cheating on his wife with a young employee.  But more stupidly, Clinton lied during his deposition about the affair.

        The Republicans seized on stupid personal "lie under oath" on adultery as the cause for impeachment, as the "high crimes and misdemeanors" threshold.

        They (including the horrible Miss Lindsey "Benghazi" Graham) attacked and attacked and attacked Clinton for "breaking the law, no one is above the law" and impeached him for it.

        Clinton fought back, and the Senate redeemed itself by not finding Clinton guilty.  The Republicans spent millions and millions of dollars for nothing, except making Ken Starr briefly famous.

        And the nation was bruised and tired of the fighting.  

        The popular vote went to Gore, but W stole the election.  And the Republicans kept control of the House.

        So, what is the takeaway that is transferable here:

        1.  Is it likely that Susan Rice will be found to have lied under oath?  Or Hillary Clinton? in a legal deposition?  (or merely lied at a State of the Union address about "mushroom clouds", and on tv about "WMD")

        2.  Will any failure in providing security fall solely to Democrats or will they include traceable votes by sitting Republicans who denied funding as part of fiscal conservatism?  Is there a cable that proves Clinton was directly and specifically asked by Stevens for more security and denied it for nefarious reasons? (Bin Laden Determined to Attack within the US)

        3.  Did Hillary Clinton or Susan Rice or David Petraeus specifically delay or deny military reinforcements to Stevens that would have prevented the 4 deaths?

        If any of these questions are yes, then there might be a problem in 2016 for Clinton unless she uses any opportunity to publicly stuff it back down their throats.  Obama already won on Obamacare, they don't want to waste more time on him.  But you have actually convinced me that the Democrats should not bother being a party to these "kangaroo court" hearings.  During the Clinton era, the only way an opposing voice got any hearing on the public stage was by participating in the Congressional process.  Now, with the internet and MSNBC, the Republicans don't have the same controlling free media ride they had during Clinton's day.  The opposing public view is us.  and Rachel, Chris, Steve, Chris, Melissa, Joy, Rev Al, Tamron, etc.  We are the counterweight on the scale of traditional media (hey, David Gregory, Mark Halperin, Politico, CNN, I mean youse) kangaroo rush to judgement.  We level the playing field.

        And I don't know about you, but I intend to fight back.  I refuse to sacrifice Hillary Clinton on the altar of Republican shenanigans and media laziness.   We need to hit back simply:  

        "This is an attempt to derail the right of Americans to elect the first woman President of the United States in 2016.

        Republicans can't spend enough of our government tax money to ensure you don't have the right.  This is 2016 Presidential politics."

        Tell the Republicans to stop raising campaign money and spending American Tax Dollars on partisan 2016 electioneering.  

        Let them fight Clinton on their own dime.  Not ours.

        "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of these United States of America -9.75 -6.87

        by Uncle Moji on Fri May 09, 2014 at 11:19:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This isn't very relevant: (0+ / 0-)
          The popular vote went to Gore, but W stole the election.
          The point is that it was close enough to steal, yet based on both foreign and domestic affairs, Gore should have won handily.  Had Gore not run away from Clinton (he barely even mentioned Clinton's name during the campaign), he very likely would have CRUSHED Dubya.

          "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

          by Subterranean on Fri May 09, 2014 at 04:55:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (127)
  • Community (60)
  • Media (32)
  • Elections (32)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (30)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Environment (28)
  • Law (28)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Culture (24)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Hillary Clinton (23)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Science (21)
  • Climate Change (21)
  • Economy (19)
  • Labor (19)
  • Josh Duggar (18)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Marriage Equality (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site