(V): What exactly do you think the first eight words of your post mean?

Pedro Martínez: A statement that he did not before.

"he took steps to cover it up afterwards, raising “hush money” for the burglars, trying to stop the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) from investigating the crime, destroying evidence and firing uncooperative staff members."

What do you think that means?

(V): Compare "...historians are not sure whether Nixon knew about the Watergate espionage operation before it happened..." with "The historians say.... he did know!!"

Your conclusion doesn't match up with the opening statement. Nevertheless, it's clear historians are reluctant to admit Nixon probably knew nothing about it until afterwards. I doubt it was Nixons idea to break into someones room. I believe he made the mistake of trying to "fix things" afterwards, so it wouldn't become public knowledge.

And now compare Nixons lack of transparency to how Obama has faithfully kept his promise to be transparent... even though he's been trying hard as hell not to be seen. LOL Someone needs to tell him that "transparency" doesn't mean "invisibility". But who knows, maybe that IS what he meant...

Anything I do will be transparent to you. Ha ha, that's right... you can't catch me if you can't see me!

Iamon lyme: My start was....

"The cover up of Watergate was not the fault of the president nor anyone in his administration."

.... your words. I then quoted two articles that state that Nixon was probably not part of the espionage. But, he tried to cover it up.

Hence my conclusion "The historians say.... he did know!!" .. debunking your claim he wasn't involved in the cover up.

Clear?

(V): "Clear?"

It's clear you haven't been paying attention. "Your start" was only one part of my summarisation of what left leaning pundits were saying about Benghazi. I then substituted the words 'Watergate' and 'Republicans' for 'Benghazi' and 'Democrats', to illustrate how absurd it would have been if Republicans had talked about Watergate (back when it happened) the way Democrats are now talking about Benghazi.

Did you not get that? But more to the point, are you getting any of THIS?

It's not my opinion the president wasn't involved. It's my opinion he was involved, and had others in his administration go along with a lame cover up story.... about what happened in BENGHAZI.

This is about Benghazi, remember? Warnings were ignored, action was not taken, and then a cover story was concocted to make it appear as though nothing could have been done about it.

Bob Woodward was not reminiscing, nor was he day dreaming about past events when he compared Benghazi to Watergate. Bob Woodward is not some old fool who only lives in the past... he was talking about CURRENT events.

You are free to focus exclusively on Watergate if that pleases you, but I wasn't talking about Watergate. I was talking about BENGHAZI.

Iamon lyme: I know. I didn't need you to tell me that!! ;P

"This is about Benghazi, remember? Warnings were ignored, action was not taken, and then a cover story was concocted to make it appear as though nothing could have been done about it."

Yeah I know, the republicans were told the budget needed bolstering on the defence of such places.

Can I concentrate on that? Is it ok??

Btw... Is this how you reacted to the Watergate scandal?

(V): "Btw... Is this how you reacted to the Watergate scandal?"

I was a liberal Democrat during the Watergate scandal, so how do you think I reacted? If nothing had changed since then I might still be saying dumb things like "...the republicans were told the budget needed bolstering on the defence of such places."

Iamon lyme: I don't know. I wasn't there. It's like with talk on how a UK minister had a mistress.. The French perspective was "he wouldn't be trusted if he didn't have one".

"I might still be saying dumb things like "...the republicans were told the budget needed bolstering on the defence of such places.""

So you are behaving the same, just switched parties??

... I woulda changed the way I was behaving if I was supposed to be different!

(V): "So you are behaving the same, just switched parties??"

Look at your other question again. You asked, "Btw... Is this how you reacted to the Watergate scandal?"

The answer to that question was in the question... I was reacting. Think about it.

No no, don't react... just think about it.

Iamon lyme: Don't need to. You'll just say I'm being dumb again.

Like that bloke said you were.. the one who said he knew better than you.

Think about it, don't react though. ;P

(V): "Like that bloke said you were.. the one who said he knew better than you."

What bloke?


By the way, there is a big difference between a reaction and a response. Inanimate objects react, they don't respond. A response implies thought. Inanimate objects don't think, they react. This doesn't mean a response CAN'T be a reaction, so do as you will.... I'm not telling you what to do or how to do it.

And it IS dumb to try pinning the Benghazi tragedy and cover up on republicans. Republicans weren't the ones ignoring the warnings and coming up with a lame cover story afterwards. If republicans were being told the budget needed bolstering on the defence of such places, they were being told this by people who were concerned about budget cuts. So where do you see liberals worrying over cuts to the military? I'd like to see that too.

If the liberal leadership actually gave a rats derriere about security, the Benghazi attack would have come and gone without the amabassor being there, as well as the others who were with him.

Lemon Lime: "amabassor"?

And the ambassadors life could have been spared as well. I don't know who the amabassor is... was he there?

Iamon lyme: I wasn't.

" So where do you see liberals worrying over cuts to the military?"

I'm not looking for them to be worrying. I'd be worried if the USA does a turn around on finally accepting it cannot afford to be at war as much as it has been since the 1950's. Or more killings like that which happened yesterday in the UK.

"What bloke?"

The Church bloke... how you got to hate liberal churches...????

(V): "I wasn't."

So if not liberals, then who told republicans "...the budget needed bolstering on the defence of such places"? Other republicans?

If republicans aren't to blame for the screw up in Benghazi, then what exactly is your point? And why would anyone be telling republicans we need to bolster defenses? Don't you think they (whoever "they" are) should be telling this to the people who have been undercutting defenses in such places? Who do you think is running the show in Washington? President Romney?


"What bloke?"

[ The Church bloke... how you got to hate liberal churches...???? ]

You must be thinking of someone else. I don't know about "liberal churches" or about some bloke who said he knew better than me.

Iamon lyme: So if not liberals, then who told republicans "...the budget needed bolstering on the defence of such places"? Other republicans?

I think it was the body within the US gov looking out for security of embassy's etc... At the time of the last budget setting for the likes.

Individual names.. I can't remember.. Maybe it was Mr E J Fudd??

"If republicans aren't to blame for the screw up in Benghazi, then what exactly is your point?"

Point!

"And why would anyone be telling republicans we need to bolster defenses?"

Because the Republicans were voting against more funds.

"I may have mentioned it. Is that what you're talking about?"

Yep.

"One time I talked to someone who started off claiming to have an IQ of 170. That should have been my first clue that something wasn't right with him. He told me the Bible was one of five books (representing five major religions) he reads, because they all (collectively) represented what he believed. I told Mr IQ of 170 it didn't make sense for him to include the Bible in that group, and explained why. And all he needed to do to see if this was true or not was to read what his Bible says about it. Mr IQ of 170 didn't like that, not one bit... because I was right. My average bowling score at that time was well over 200, so take THAT Mr IQ of 170!"

Sorry, it was a mystic church.

Politics (Iamon lyme, 2013-01-08 21:25:07)

(V): "Sorry, it was a mystic church."

Okay, NOW I know who you're talking about. He didn't belong to any church. He was a dope smoking lone wolf self proclaimed genius. You could find one of those on almost any street corner during the '70s, You've heard about the '60s and '70s, haven't you?

"Because the Republicans were voting against more funds."

No, they were voting against other things in the bill. Just because it might have been in the bill doesn't mean they approved of everthing in the bill. So now you think I'M dumb, eh?

It doesn't matter anyway, because lack of money wasn't the problem. The problem was warnings were ignored, nothing was done when the attack came, and then we were expected to believe a youtube video was to blame. Lack of money was not the problem. Cowardice, and lack of common sense and integrity is to blame. You can't BUY courage or common sense or integrity... either you've got it or you don't.

Iamon lyme: Oh... You said he was a mystic.... you didna say he was a 60/70's hippie!! lol

"No, they were voting against other things in the bill."

N' no-one thought "lets separate the two items and still approve the funds for defence"?

"So now you think I'M dumb, eh?"

Noooooo I think what you are telling me happened regarding cuts to the defence of embassy's is dumb. $530 million in cuts in two years in a world where a certain war etiquette such as existed in the cold war no longer exists.. is dumb.

"and then we were expected to believe a youtube video was to blame."

No... you say you are. The rest of the demo was based on the video I believe.

"Cowardice, and lack of common sense and integrity is to blame."

Like I said, cutting down on funding is dumb.

(V): "Oh... You said he was a mystic...."

No, I didn't say that.


"N' no-one thought "lets separate the two items and still approve the funds for defence"?"

Two items? Okay, I'll walk you through this. It's a common ploy used by liberals. What they will do is to put one thing you approve of among several things you don't. They don't actually expect you to vote for the entire bill, they expect you to vote against it. Then they will come back to claim you voted down the one thing you do approve of. See how that works?

They COULD have drafted a bill with only the items everyone can agree to, but why would they want to do that? Their purpose was to come back later to claim republicans voted down increasing funds for security. If republicans voted for the bill then sure, that part of the bill goes through, but then so does all of the unnecessary spending. For liberals it's a win/win situation. Either they get everything they want, or they get to come back to claim republicans aren't sincere about security. Pretty sneaky, huh?

It's also sneaky of them to suggest the security problem was only about money. It wasn't about money... it was about ignoring warnings, being afraid to act when the attack was happening, and then acting like scared little children instead of taking responsibility for the screw up.

Oh by the way, did I happen to mention anything about Benghazi? Did you know warnings were ignored, nothing was done when the embassy was under attack, and then a cover story was concocted to make it look as though nothing could have been done? Did I mention any of that? It may have slipped my mind as we were talking about other things.

(V): Προειδοποιήσεις αγνοήθηκαν, η δράση δεν έγινε δεκτή, και στη συνέχεια μια ιστορία κάλυψης ήταν εποίησαν για να φαίνεται σαν τίποτα δεν θα μπορούσε να είχε γίνει γι 'αυτό.

(V): [ "Cowardice, and lack of common sense and integrity is to blame."

Like I said, cutting down on funding is dumb. ]


I'm still waiting to hear how passing any bill would have given Obama the common sense to heed warnings and the courage to act, or the integrity to take responsibility. Where can you go to buy those things?

(V): "The Church bloke..."

I remember a long time ago when my wife was interested in a particular church. I got into a disagreement with the pastor of that church, but it wasn't a liberal church and the disagreement was resolved. I don't remember talking about that, but it's possible I may have mentioned it. Is that what you're talking about?

Or are you talking about a bloke here (at this message board) "...who knew better than me"?

(V): Марија имаше малку јагне, тоа е руно беше бела како снег. И секаде онаму каде што Марија јагнето беше сигурен да се оди.

(V): Do you know who Woodward is?

He said he wasn't ready to compare Benghazi to Watergate, not yet... then a few minutes later he began drawing parallels between the two. He's even called what Obama is doing "Nixonian".

So why would he say he is not ready to compare the two, and then almost immediately begin drawing comparisons? Well, because he said he wasn't ready yet... a few minutes later he WAS ready. LOL

Woodward isn't stupid. He had been called and threatened by one of Obamas goons, er, I mean advisors, and was told to back off. Not in so many words mind you, but like I said before Woodward is no fool. When he said he's not ready to compare Benghazi to Watergate (not yet) what he was doing was giving himself plausible deniability.

Say what? Plausible deniability? We see politicians doing that all the time, but it's a little scary to see a private citizen doing that... because why would any private citizen NEED to do that?

hmmmmm?

(V): "The historians say.... he did know!!"

And I'm sure that's what Bob Woodward was saying as well. So what is he saying now? He was given a call by one of Obamas minions and 'advised' to back off talking about the presidents involvement in the cover up. We already know that Obama will investigate members of the press who don't get with the program and say only nice things about him... if this isn't true, then why are we hearing reporters say "...Obama was unapologetic about investigating members of the press?

One notable difference between Benghazi and Watergate is that Obama was in the loop from the beginning. Another difference is no one was killed because of Watergate. Military operatives who could have intervened were told to stand down. Only the president has the authority to tell the military to stand down.... so who do you think might have told the military to stand down?

One higher up in the military who was trying to help Obama cover his butt said it would take about 20 hours to put any operation together to help rescue the ambassador. That's nonsense... maybe during WWII it could take that long, but not today. It takes about 15 minutes to get pilots into the air and they can be given instructions onroute. And those instructions can be modified as conditions on the ground change.

Iamon lyme: One rule of war that still holds true today. It's the ground troops that win the day, everything else is just support.

(V): It almost appears his top advisors are running the show and Obama is only the front man. So if this completely blows up in Obamas face, who do you think he might throw under the bus next?


Don't worry about Hillary, because throwing her under the bus would be highly problematic... it's hard to say which would get the worst of it, Hillary or the bus.

(V): There were ground troops nearby who could have gone in, but they were told to stand down too. Anyone who could have helped was told to do nothing. It could have been resolved in a few hours. With ground troops present and jets flying overhead, I'll wager many of those terrorists would have scattered and ran away to avoid being killed... so we could have spared the lives of some of them as well. See? The lives of some of those killers could have been spared.

The president is commander and chief of the military. No one in the military outranks him. The commander and chief has worked faithfully to undercut the military and make it less effective. And when the time came for him to make a decision, he worked tirelessly to sit on his hands and do nothing, and he told the military to do likewise.

This is no longer speculation...we now know this was not a spontaneous event set off by a youtube video, and warnings were repeatedly ignored. It happened on 9/11 of last year, the anniversary of the 9/11 we all know about, and only a few months to go before Obamas re-election.