This ARTICLE comes from WND.  They claim to be a pretty reputable site, but they are obviously a conservative news outlet.  Much of what's stated in the article is opinion, anyway.  But it raises a few interesting questions.

For one, do you agree that the Benghazi coverup is worse than Watergate?

Second, do you think that the fall out will affect the administration in such a way that Obama might face some sort of catastrophic consequence?

Personally, I agree that the cover up is worse than Watergate simply because I agree with the opinion that this cover up resulted in the deaths of Americans.  But I'm not so sure that what transpires, in regard to the consequences of the upcoming hearing, will be great enough to warrant any criminal charges against the likes of Obama or Hillary, or anyone in the State Department for that matter, besides Susan Rice who seems to be the scapegoat in all of this.  Again, you have the separate factions of government pointing the finger at each other, much like the recent Boston bombing incident.  Who's gonna get the bus driven over their back this time?

Thoughts?

I agree it is worse than Watergate.  Human life was lost here and I would think the families of the deceased deserve the truth.

However, I don't think anyone will really be held accountable.  I mean, how long ago was Fast and Furious and no one got heat for it.  I think the administraion's strategy is to just avoid it until the next election.  I just hope that Hilary's involvement in it ruins her chances in the next election.

I wish that more would happen but that is about all I see coming from this.  Swept under the carpet again!

This ARTICLE comes from WND.  They claim to be a pretty reputable site, but they are obviously a conservative news outlet.  Much of what's stated in the article is opinion, anyway.  But it raises a few interesting questions.

For one, do you agree that the Benghazi coverup is worse than Watergate?

Second, do you think that the fall out will affect the administration in such a way that Obama might face some sort of catastrophic consequence?

Personally, I agree that the cover up is worse than Watergate simply because I agree with the opinion that this cover up resulted in the deaths of Americans.  But I'm not so sure that what transpires, in regard to the consequences of the upcoming hearing, will be great enough to warrant any criminal charges against the likes of Obama or Hillary, or anyone in the State Department for that matter, besides Susan Rice who seems to be the scapegoat in all of this.  Again, you have the separate factions of government pointing the finger at each other, much like the recent Boston bombing incident.  Who's gonna get the bus driven over their back this time?

Thoughts?

Not only did the cover-up (and lack of action)  cause 4 Americans in Libya to die, but propagating the lie about the anti-Muslim video created a week-long uprising throughout the Middle East resulting in death and destruction on a large scale.  American soldiers were killed that week in retaliation as well in Afghanistan.

the consequences of the cove-up have been costly.  Whether intentional or not, their actions to cover their own political butts cost many lives.  Willful and depraved indifference to the death and suffering they caused!

I agree it is worse than Watergate.  Human life was lost here and I would think the families of the deceased deserve the truth.

However, I don't think anyone will really be held accountable.  I mean, how long ago was Fast and Furious and no one got heat for it.  I think the administraion's strategy is to just avoid it until the next election.  I just hope that Hilary's involvement in it ruins her chances in the next election.

I wish that more would happen but that is about all I see coming from this.  Swept under the carpet again!

This is pretty much the way I see it too...this administration seems to get away with just about anything. I think if the president was a republican, this fiasco would be viewed differently and the media would be all over this story.

This is pretty much the way I see it too...this administration seems to get away with just about anything. I think if the president was a republican, this fiasco would be viewed differently and the media would be all over this story.

I don't know, Bush kind of skated on the whole WMD thing in Iraq.  I am thinking that Americans as a whole just have more immediate things to be concerned with on a daily basis rather than trying to get to the bottom of all the Gov't stories.  When you stop and think about it, who do you believe anymore?  I tend to doubt much more than I believe, especially if I did not see it myself or have firsthand knowledge. 

I don't know, Bush kind of skated on the whole WMD thing in Iraq.  I am thinking that Americans as a whole just have more immediate things to be concerned with on a daily basis rather than trying to get to the bottom of all the Gov't stories.  When you stop and think about it, who do you believe anymore?  I tend to doubt much more than I believe, especially if I did not see it myself or have firsthand knowledge.

Good point...just seems like Obama has a few more lives than most.

No Democrat in the senate will push for Obama's resignation. He has been running away from the problems of the USA so long the majority of the democratic people dont give a rats ass.

Iraq was full of WMD's but that is another cover up.

Bush is not really a conservative republican.  He is a Liberal Progressive.  I do not think of his as a republican.

Didn't Bush get all his info on WMDs from our intel agencies and that was vetted through committees as well, and then Congress voted and approved going to war? Not stating a fact, just asking...I don't remember exactly how that went down already and it got so watered down over time.

Didn't Bush get all his info on WMDs from our intel agencies and that was vetted through committees as well, and then Congress voted and approved going to war? Not stating a fact, just asking...I don't remember exactly how that went down already and it got so watered down over time.

You might be right on that.  Just seems like no one really got called out for that.  And yes, it looks like Obama has a few more lives than the average cat.

The story went: 

We knew Saddam had chemical weapons. 
He had already used them on his people. 
He was refusing UN inspections even after sanctions and enforcing the no-fly zones. 
When the troops finally went into Iraq, the weapons were gone. 
The number one theory was they were moved and either (1) buried in the desert, or (2) trucked to Syria.

Fast forward to last week:  Syria is now in possession of chemical weapons....   

Was Bush's intel wrong, or just OBE?

It is interesting that we now have the Syria situation brewing and the whole Red Line thing.

I think Watergate was worse.

Primarily because it actually happened and actually was a scandal.

Benghazi is still up in the air. I have yet to see solid evidence that it was, indeed, a scandal and a cover up. So far only the usual suspects are proclaiming this a scandal and cover up. I'm also not convinced it wasn't.

I actually blame the confusion on the &^#! 24 hour news BS that has infested our psyches.

reporter: 'What happened?!"
Official: "This was about 10 minutes ago all the way around the world. We have no idea what happened but we heard that our embassy was attacked by terrorists."
Reporter: " But its your responsibility to know!"
Official: "Yeah, it was just 10 minutes... 11 minutes now... ago. When we have more information we'll tell you."
Reporter, to camera: "So folks, you can see that this administration is incompetent..."

An hour later....

Reporter "What happened?"
Official: "There was some kind of demonstration and we think several attackers used it as a cover to attack and kill our diplomatic staff."
Reporter: "But you said they were terrorists before and didn't mention any 'demonstration.'"
Official: "This was just a little over an hour ago, on the other side of the world and all of our eyewitnesses are dead. We don't know exactly what happened, yet."

An hour later....

Reporter: "Was it a terrorist attack?!"
Official: "We aren't sure..."
Reporter, to camera; "And so you see the administration waffling on its explanation of the terrifying events in Benghazi."

The blood wasn't even dry before information crazy Americans demanded details that no one knew so we watched the details trickle in. That's not evidence of a cover up, its evidence that the information was trickling in. Doesn't mean it wasn't a cover up, though.

I wonder why the scandal watchdogs weren't plowed under by a tsunami of flag waving the way they were after 9/11, though. A lot more Americans died from that and there is a fair amount of evidence that it may have been at least partly and inside job.

It was an unknown shooter on the Grassy Knoll, I tell you! Lee Harvey Oswald was framed!

I think Watergate was worse.

Primarily because it actually happened and actually was a scandal.

Benghazi is still up in the air. I have yet to see solid evidence that it was, indeed, a scandal and a cover up. So far only the usual suspects are proclaiming this a scandal and cover up. I'm also not convinced it wasn't.

I actually blame the confusion on the &^#! 24 hour news BS that has infested our psyches.

reporter: 'What happened?!"
Official: "This was about 10 minutes ago all the way around the world. We have no idea what happened but we heard that our embassy was attacked by terrorists."
Reporter: " But its your responsibility to know!"
Official: "Yeah, it was just 10 minutes... 11 minutes now... ago. When we have more information we'll tell you."
Reporter, to camera: "So folks, you can see that this administration is incompetent..."

An hour later....

Reporter "What happened?"
Official: "There was some kind of demonstration and we think several attackers used it as a cover to attack and kill our diplomatic staff."
Reporter: "But you said they were terrorists before and didn't mention any 'demonstration.'"
Official: "This was just a little over an hour ago, on the other side of the world and all of our eyewitnesses are dead. We don't know exactly what happened, yet."

An hour later....

Reporter: "Was it a terrorist attack?!"
Official: "We aren't sure..."
Reporter, to camera; "And so you see the administration waffling on its explanation of the terrifying events in Benghazi."

The blood wasn't even dry before information crazy Americans demanded details that no one knew so we watched the details trickle in. That's not evidence of a cover up, its evidence that the information was trickling in. Doesn't mean it wasn't a cover up, though.

I wonder why the scandal watchdogs weren't plowed under by a tsunami of flag waving the way they were after 9/11, though. A lot more Americans died from that and there is a fair amount of evidence that it may have been at least partly and inside job.

It was an unknown shooter on the Grassy Knoll, I tell you! Lee Harvey Oswald was framed!

The hearings today will answer many of the question we all have in regard to what the government knew and what they didn't know.  I think what is most important surrounding this situation is that Obama attempted to cover up what really happened because of the political fallout that most likely would have occurred.  He did need to get re-elected, you know.  There are conflicting statements on whether help was requested by the soldiers on the ground in Libya.  There are conflicting statements on whether there was a stand down order.  The whole, "it was a protest about a video that turned violent" excuse holds no water and has been proven to be a talking point initiated by the State Dept in misguiding the people.  Hillary went in front of congress and pounded the table, "what does it really matter anymore?!?" and seems to be complicit in the whole affair, claiming she knew nothing (really?).  Then the accusations that Ambassador Chris Stevens was there brokering a deal to run weapons to Syria through Turkey, because it is known that Chris Stevens had dinner with the Turkish PM that very evening before the fight broke out.  It has been stated that he shouldn't have been in Libya to begin with.

The accusation is, the White House/State Department knew of the exact time of when the embassy was attacked.  They knew that the soldiers on the ground were requesting support.  There are even reports that there was a small platoon that was ordered to evacuate.  Why did they lie about knowing about the attack?  Why did they try to hide behind an irrelevant YouTube video?  Why did they issue a stand down order?  Why are the details surrounding the reason why Chris Stevens was even there in the first place being covered up?  Oh yeah!  Obama was worried that this story would bring his re-election campaign down, so they initiated a cover up in the hopes that it would be forgotten by the American people long enough for him to finish his 2nd term.  Then, when the truth finally comes out, it will be too late for anyone to do anything about it.

Here's another article opining the political fallout: http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/benghazi-revelations-today-could-obliterate-obamas-credibility-and-sink-hillarys-2016-ambitions/

If you truly analyze what exactly it is that this administration is guilty of trying to cover up, it's huge.  But I agree with most that no one will be held responsible.  Not unless the American people rally against this regime and demand action.  Other than that, I'd like to see how many MSM outlets actually give proper credence to this story.

I think Watergate was worse.

Primarily because it actually happened and actually was a scandal.

Benghazi is still up in the air. I have yet to see solid evidence that it was, indeed, a scandal and a cover up. So far only the usual suspects are proclaiming this a scandal and cover up. I'm also not convinced it wasn't.

I actually blame the confusion on the &^#! 24 hour news BS that has infested our psyches.

reporter: 'What happened?!"
Official: "This was about 10 minutes ago all the way around the world. We have no idea what happened but we heard that our embassy was attacked by terrorists."
Reporter: " But its your responsibility to know!"
Official: "Yeah, it was just 10 minutes... 11 minutes now... ago. When we have more information we'll tell you."
Reporter, to camera: "So folks, you can see that this administration is incompetent..."

An hour later....

Reporter "What happened?"
Official: "There was some kind of demonstration and we think several attackers used it as a cover to attack and kill our diplomatic staff."
Reporter: "But you said they were terrorists before and didn't mention any 'demonstration.'"
Official: "This was just a little over an hour ago, on the other side of the world and all of our eyewitnesses are dead. We don't know exactly what happened, yet."

An hour later....

Reporter: "Was it a terrorist attack?!"
Official: "We aren't sure..."
Reporter, to camera; "And so you see the administration waffling on its explanation of the terrifying events in Benghazi."

The blood wasn't even dry before information crazy Americans demanded details that no one knew so we watched the details trickle in. That's not evidence of a cover up, its evidence that the information was trickling in. Doesn't mean it wasn't a cover up, though.

I wonder why the scandal watchdogs weren't plowed under by a tsunami of flag waving the way they were after 9/11, though. A lot more Americans died from that and there is a fair amount of evidence that it may have been at least partly and inside job.

It was an unknown shooter on the Grassy Knoll, I tell you! Lee Harvey Oswald was framed!

BS.  We're not talking about ten minutes of confusion, or an hour of confusion.  The head asshole, Mr. Soetorobama, blamed the internet video in a speech to the UN on the 25th of September!

Reporter: "What happened in Benghazi?"
Administration: "Well, keep in mind that this was only two weeks ago, on the dark side of the moon, and NASA hasn't been able to get its resources together to do a reconnaissance flight yet.  It was probably that the Moose-Limbs were justifiably upset about the blaspheming of their glorious peaceful religion which demands respect, love, and tolerance from all its adherents.  What difference does it make?  Look over there!  Weapons of war don't belong on our streets!  Oh, noes!  A guy the Russians warned us about has done bombed the Boston Marathon!  Bin Laden is dead, and General Motors is alive.  Hope and change!  Fair share, youdidn'tbuildthat, helpoutjustalittlebitmore." 

What a bunch of retards.  It's depressing, but not as depressing as the fact that a majority of Americans wanted four more years of it.   

I think Watergate was worse.

Primarily because it actually happened and actually was a scandal.

Benghazi is still up in the air. I have yet to see solid evidence that it was, indeed, a scandal and a cover up. So far only the usual suspects are proclaiming this a scandal and cover up. I'm also not convinced it wasn't.

I actually blame the confusion on the &^#! 24 hour news BS that has infested our psyches.

reporter: 'What happened?!"
Official: "This was about 10 minutes ago all the way around the world. We have no idea what happened but we heard that our embassy was attacked by terrorists."
Reporter: " But its your responsibility to know!"
Official: "Yeah, it was just 10 minutes... 11 minutes now... ago. When we have more information we'll tell you."
Reporter, to camera: "So folks, you can see that this administration is incompetent..."

An hour later....

Reporter "What happened?"
Official: "There was some kind of demonstration and we think several attackers used it as a cover to attack and kill our diplomatic staff."
Reporter: "But you said they were terrorists before and didn't mention any 'demonstration.'"
Official: "This was just a little over an hour ago, on the other side of the world and all of our eyewitnesses are dead. We don't know exactly what happened, yet."

An hour later....

Reporter: "Was it a terrorist attack?!"
Official: "We aren't sure..."
Reporter, to camera; "And so you see the administration waffling on its explanation of the terrifying events in Benghazi."

The blood wasn't even dry before information crazy Americans demanded details that no one knew so we watched the details trickle in. That's not evidence of a cover up, its evidence that the information was trickling in. Doesn't mean it wasn't a cover up, though.

I wonder why the scandal watchdogs weren't plowed under by a tsunami of flag waving the way they were after 9/11, though. A lot more Americans died from that and there is a fair amount of evidence that it may have been at least partly and inside job.

It was an unknown shooter on the Grassy Knoll, I tell you! Lee Harvey Oswald was framed!

I guess you're okay with the Commander in Chief sleeping through the night to rest up for his busy campaign week.  You have no problem with him leaving for Las Vegas while the consulate smoldered and we were unsure ("we" meaning "The Administration") whether this was just the precursor to more attacks, who was involved, or even what the status of all the American citizens there might have been.

You are also okay with the arrogance of the administration lying about the video excuse, making an apology video for Pakistan broadcast at tax payer expense ($70,000), sending out the UN Secretary to lie on five news programs that weekend, constantly pointing to the video as the reason (all without ANY investigation results), blaming America's 1st freedom for the "despicable" video while standing in front of flag-draped coffins, and then weeks later stating "it was self-evident this was a terrorist attack from the beginning!" 

You must also be okay where Obama said he takes full responsibility, and for anyone wanting to go after Secretary Rice should go after him instead, yet continues to blame the intelligence community and as many other people as possible for the lack of action.

Maybe I'm misreading you, but read this: I AM NOT OKAY WITH OUR ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS BREAKING THEIR OATHS OF OFFICE.  Some might excuse their actions by saying that's what politicians do, but once elected or appointed, they are then RESPONSIBLE for discharging the duties of their offices to the benefit of the American people.  Instead they delayed the investigations, ignored the obvious terrorist links while lying to the public, inflamed more protests which resulted in more death and destruction, and all was done in the name of campaigning for office!!

You are misreading me.

I just have very low expectations of anyone corrupt enough to make it to the Presidency. I also don't think the President, or any elected official, has ~nearly~ as much to do with what goes on behind the scenes as people give them credit/blame for.

You can impeach Obama and have him thrown out of office. Won't stop the bad behavior. Its how our government operates. For better or worse.

At least that's how I see it. The Dems get upset about 2 manufactured wars (in their opinion) because a Republican sits in the big chair when it happens. The Republicans get upset when a Democrat is in office and some diplomats are suspiciously allowed to be killed (in their opinion). The common factor is that everyone is upset with how things are going but because of divide and conquer we aren't all upset enough at the same time.  The space between the outrage on the left and the outrage on the right is very fertile ground and a lot of corrupt crap happens there because we aren't paying enough attention to it. Works pretty well.

Not saying that its OK, just that its the way it is and that there isn't much that this well divided country is going to be able to do about it. So I don't let it upset me too much.

You are misreading me.

I just have very low expectations of anyone corrupt enough to make it to the Presidency. I also don't think the President, or any elected official, has ~nearly~ as much to do with what goes on behind the scenes as people give them credit/blame for.

You can impeach Obama and have him thrown out of office. Won't stop the bad behavior. Its how our government operates. For better or worse.

At least that's how I see it. The Dems get upset about 2 manufactured wars (in their opinion) because a Republican sits in the big chair when it happens. The Republicans get upset when a Democrat is in office and some diplomats are suspiciously allowed to be killed (in their opinion). The common factor is that everyone is upset with how things are going but because of divide and conquer we aren't all upset enough at the same time.  The space between the outrage on the left and the outrage on the right is very fertile ground and a lot of corrupt crap happens there because we aren't paying enough attention to it. Works pretty well.

Not saying that its OK, just that its the way it is and that there isn't much that this well divided country is going to be able to do about it. So I don't let it upset me too much.

Your words are very close to the attitude of the Muslim community.  They are not saying terrorist attacks killing innocent Americans and others are okay, but they sure as hell aren't condemning them either.

This is called "tacit approval."

:snort:

If you say so. I can see how you might get that from what I've written.

If you think there is a damned thing we can do about it in this political climate I'm all ears. There is a ~huge~ difference between tacit approval and the realistic acceptance that my opinion means ~nothing~ to those that run the country.

WE could do something about it. We are too busy blaming each other to even think about agreeing on what the problem might be, much less do anything about it.

:snort:

If you say so. I can see how you might get that from what I've written.

If you think there is a damned thing we can do about it in this political climate I'm all ears. There is a ~huge~ difference between tacit approval and the realistic acceptance that my opinion means ~nothing~ to those that run the country.

WE could do something about it. We are too busy blaming each other to even think about agreeing on what the problem might be, much less do anything about it.

The only difference is the way you choose to express your feelings on the matter.  In the end, the result is the same:  you do nothing, and the people who are least qualified to make policy and run the nation win.

If you think there is a damned thing we can do about it in this political climate I'm all ears. There is a ~huge~ difference between tacit approval and the realistic acceptance that my opinion means ~nothing~ to those that run the country.

Clshade -- there is always something that each of us can do.  Oftentimes if not all the time, the only real thing we can really do starts with each of our own selves.

As a member of this 2a Hawaii community, each of us need to take care of what is within each of our own "boats". There will always be something that you can do that I will not be able to do for you, and vice versa... Take care of your family, raise your kids right, talk to your neighbors, contact your representatives, vote, support the NRA/HRA, etc.

If each of us do what is within our own "kuleana" to make an effect, then taking all our collective efforts will add up and significant things start to happen.

On the other hand, if we chose to wait for the other person to act, then nothing is going to get done.