The Republican Party: The Party Of “Family Values” And A Multitude Of Sex Scandals!

The Republican Party broadcasts its belief in “family values’ constantly, and the most religious people in this nation tend to vote for that party on a regular basis!

The author is not trying to claim that Democrats are not capable of engaging in sex scandals, but they do not use the hypocrisy of claiming to be the party of “family values”, and the number of Republicans who have engaged in sex scandals is much longer than that of Democrats!

A selected list of Republicans involved in sex scandals includes:

Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina, just elected back to his House seat
Senator David Vitter of Louisiana, who has been reelected by his state despite his scandal
Senator John Ensign of Nevada
Senator Larry Craig of Idaho
Senator Bob Packwood of Oregon
Congressman Henry Hyde of Illinois
Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich of Georgia
Congressman Bob Livingston of Louisiana
Mayor Rudy Guiliani of New York City
Congressman Mark Foley of Florida
Presidential Candidate Herman Cain of Georgia

Instead of promoting “family values”, including concern about the lives of the elderly, the young, the poor, women, and the disabled, the GOP does the “religious” thing, while lining their own pockets with the money of lobbyists, who work against the interests of the American people, and promote the rich becoming more wealthy, and presiding over the poverty and deprivation of many of their constituents who, stupidly, vote for them!

44 comments on “The Republican Party: The Party Of “Family Values” And A Multitude Of Sex Scandals!

  1. Juan Domingo Peron May 7, 2013 10:04 pm

    LOL! Wow you really seem upset today! Just because of a House race, its only one seat…You seem to be on the verge of a nervous breakdown.

  2. Ronald May 7, 2013 10:17 pm

    No, Juan, I am NOT on the verge of a nervous breakdown, far from it. But I am disgusted at the stupidity and narrow mindedness of South Carolina, which remains a backwater and garbage pit, but what else to expect from the state that started the Civil War, which they prefer to call the “War of Northern Aggression”, because of their refusal to accept that they were promoting the evil of slavery, which should never have been allowed to exist past the Constitutional Convention, but was the result of “compromise”!

  3. Juan Domingo Peron May 7, 2013 10:50 pm

    Ron: We are in 2013 not 1860! Don’t you think you’re going way way back? Seriously now I wonder why you anger and hatred towards the State that started the Civil War isn’t applied as well to the Party that defended slavery tooth and nail , thus contributing to the Civil War. I know I know you will say the Party changed and that by some miracle now we Republicans conservatives are the pro-slavery bunch, just because we oppose big government and believe in the Constitution’s limited government framework. Whatever. As for your remark on the Constitutional Convention, I would just say that discrimination, injustice and inhumanity are not the product of the Constitution. To the extent they exist, they are the product of man’s imperfection. Thus, slavery exist today not in the US but in places like Sudan. As a matter of fact, the evolution of American society has only been possible because of the Constitution the framers adopted, and the values, ideals, and rules set forth in that document. In fact, had there been no Constitution there would have been no United States. If there had been no United States there would have been no Civil War- no Union vs. Confederacy. Slavery in the southern colonies and later territories may well have lasted much longer. While the delegates at the Constitutional Convention were unable to abolish slavery, many tried. Moreover, their progeny did and at great personal sacrifice. The founding documents of our nation set in place the philosophical and political foundation for a just and humane society, unlike any before it or since. Fidelity to these principles abolished slavery, just as they can ensure the preservation of our civil society.
    “In the first place, I insist that our fathers did not make this nation half slave and half free or part slave and part free. I insist that they found the institution of slavery existing here. They did not make it so, but they left it so because they knew of no way to get rid of it at that time.” Abraham Lincoln Sixth Joint Debate, At Quincy, Illinois, October 13, 1858.
    “I base my sense of the certain overthrow of slavery, in part, upon the nature of the American Government, the Constitution, the tendencies of the age, and the character of the American people…The Constitution, as well as the Declaration of Independence, and the sentiments of the founders of the Republic, give us a platform broad enough, and strong enough, to support the most comprehensive plans for the freedom and elevation of all the people of this country, without regard to color, class, or clime.” Frederick Douglass , Speech delivered before American Anti-Slavery Society, New York, May 14, 1857.

  4. Princess Leia May 8, 2013 12:55 pm

    Yep. They are definitely hypocrites

  5. Juan Domingo Peron May 8, 2013 2:57 pm

    Nixon covered up a breaking in, that he didn’t know about and didn’t order, of a creepy Democrat office during his re-election where no one died or was beaten up or…and was ultimately forced from office. Democrats for the next thirty years tell tall stories about how evil Nixon was for misleading Americans that way. They made Nixon the “poster boy of evil republicans”. Today after eight years of Clinton lies and cover ups and Now 5 years of Obama cover-ups where people actually died. Nixon sure doesn’t look like the evil incarnate Democrat always tried to play him up as.

    CBS News national security analyst Juan Zarate said during a Tuesday edition of “Flash Points” that the reputation of the administration, as a whole, hangs in the lurch.

    “The stakes are pretty high,” Zarate said. “If it turns out that there’s some indication that the White House or others were not only manipulating talking points, framing how Susan Rice was talking about this on the Sunday talk shows, but was actually trying to construe this in a way that demonstrated it wasn’t a terror attack, and that actually impacted our response – the fact that perhaps they didn’t put things in motion was because it was purposely not being treated or discussed as a terror attack from the get-go, that’s a real problem.”

  6. Ronald May 8, 2013 3:16 pm

    Juan, you are really lame! 🙁 YOU are now involved in a coverup of your own, trying to whitewash Nixon and Watergate, which was a massive violation of the law, leading to 35-40 people going to prison, and Nixon not going only because Ford gave him a pardon! 🙁

    Nixon set a mood in the White House, had already ordered break ins and wiretaps and other illegal acts that we did not know about, but his aides KNEW his state of mind, and Haldeman and Ehrlichmann KNEW what he would be supportive of, and were so cocky and arrogant that they could feel the power to order a break in, knowing that Nixon would back it and arrange for payments to the “burglars’, which he agreed to, on the “smoking gun” tape of June 23, 1972, six days after the Watergate break in. He was, therefore, guilty by association with what happened, and G Gordon Liddy, one of the “burglars”, was ready to murder Daniel Ellsberg, the person who revealed the Pentagon Papers, if Nixon had ordered it. Nixon had ordered a break in and attempt to destroy Ellsberg’s reputation months before Watergate occurred.

    Nixon had no scruples about killing people, as his government killed more civilians than under LBJ, and the loss of American lives more than doubled what it was under LBJ, and for what purpose–to have an “honorable peace” which never occurred anyway, and Nixon and Kissinger both lying about MIAs and POWs, revealed many years later.

    Clinton had a reprehensible scandal, but nothing on the level of Nixon, and nothing compared to the hypocrisy of Livingston, Hyde, Gingrich, who were having affairs, while pontificating on the morals of the President!

    And no matter what happened in Libya, it is more errors and misjudgements, regrettable certainly, that killed four Americans, as compared to September 11 eleven years earlier, which Bush could have done much more about if he was not “on vacation’ and failed to read and react on intelligence memos, and caused the death of about 3,000 people, which could have been avoided, and which he delayed investigations and allowed members of the Bin Laden family to be spirited out of the nation, rather than face arrest.

    So Nixon and the second Bush have a LOT MORE to answer for than Clinton and Obama, and this farcical “political” investigation by Graham and others, when there is much more smoke than fire! This is just the opening round of the GOP to attempt to destroy Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, by guilt by association, because they know Hillary has a great edge for 2016, and if she chooses not to run, that Biden, despite shortcomings which every Republican has as well, would have an edge for the election in 2016.

    So your attempt at a “coverup” has failed, due to the facts, rather than your propaganda, Juan!

  7. Juan Domingo Peron May 8, 2013 4:16 pm

    I’m not covering up for Nixon, don’t change the subject, this is 2013. I can’t tell you how insulted I was and really viscerally angry when I kept hearing Obama and Hillary talk about the video. I remember at the memorial service when the bodies of the dead arrived back at Andrews Air Force Base, or Dover, wherever it was. The flag-draped coffins were there and Obama and Hillary, Hillary and Obama, were promising the families, “We’re gonna get the guy that did this video!” Inside, I was furious. Telling these people we’re gonna get the guy that did this video? The video had nothing to do with it and she knew it at the time! When you listen to the testimony so far, it makes that video story even more despicable than it was. If the media picked up on this and actually made this a cause like they did Watergate, it would be a whole different dynamic. I can’t forget Hillary telling those people in that hangar — wherever it was, Dover, Andrews Air Force Base — when the bodies came back, over the flag-draped coffins, “We’ll get the guy who did that video.” She was straight-face lying to them about why their family members died. And you talk about mere “errors and misjudgements”? That may be up to the point when the attacked happened, but we are talking about the post attack attitude and lie! Trying to convince the American people, because of political expediency, that what happened in Libya was about a homemade video and insisting on it not only on national syndicated television but even in front of the UN General Assembly!
    But in the end I realize that nobody cares about this. This video stuff that the regime blamed nobody cares. I mean, just like before the election, nobody cared for about this before the election, and nobody but a few care about it now. By a few I mean, whatever the number of people in America who are watching this, paying attention to this, but nobody else does. Nobody cared about this before the election. Nothing’s happened since to make people care about. CNN’s totally bumped out of coverage now. They’re still in Cleveland showing balloons around the hero’s house, working on that story. The networks practically aren’t covering this. I check the Miami Herald in Spanish not a word and in English it barely covers it with a misleading headline “Former US official describes Libya attack.” Nobody is going to hear that Democrat Elijah Cummings said today practically, hey, people died, get over it. In other words “what difference does it make?” This is insignificant. This doesn’t matter. Nobody cares about this. Other than the families, other than the witnesses, other than the Republicans on the committee and five or six other people, nobody cares about it. Nothing makes rational sense anymore. You ought to hear the Democrats questioning these witnesses. They’re contentious. These are people that survived that attack. These are people that witnessed their friends die. These are people that were in the middle of it. Yet they’re being accused of nothing but advancing a political agenda opposed to Obama and are being treated contentiously by the Democrats in Congress and mainly ignored in the media.
    January 23rd of this year, Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Benghazi, secretary of state still, Mrs. Clinton testifying, Senator Ron Johnson, Republican, Wisconsin, says, “We were misled, that there were supposedly protests and an assault sprang out of that. That was easily ascertained that that was not the fact. The American people could have known that within days, and they didn’t know that it wasn’t a protest. They didn’t know that it had nothing to do with a video. They didn’t know that it was something random.” What does Hillary say? “What difference, at this point, does it make?
    Words that will live in infamy. “What difference does it make?”

  8. Ronald May 8, 2013 4:50 pm

    Interesting, Juan, that the Democrats on the committee were not given access to the witnesses, and were therefore not given the same right to prepare for the hearing, as it is clear this is another GOP hatchet job, preparing for 2016, when the GOP did everything it could to cover the lies of Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and others after September 11, 2001. If the hearing was fair, the Democrats on the committee would have been permitted the information and access that the Republican controlled committee had. Yes, four lives lost is terrible, but how many lives lost under Nixon and Bush by their treachery, compared to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama? You know the answer, but choose to ignore it! You should work for the Republican Party!

  9. Juan Domingo Peron May 8, 2013 6:10 pm

    Are you really going to make me answer your deceiving statements and go back in history? What does anything that happened 4 decades ago, or even Bush have to do with what happened in Libya? Seriously now. Like I said, I doesn’t matter, nobody cares, including you, about what happened, about the lies and the cover up. As a matter of fact they could hold impeachment hearing tomorrow and the MSM would probably not even show up. So yes you go ahead and repeat after me, “It’s Bush’s fault” 3 times then say UMMMM and follow it with a “It’s Reagan’s fault” 3 times followed by another deep breath and UMMMM then finish of with “It’s Nixon’s fault” 3 times. After which you take a nice hot cup of chocolate, fill up your tummy and go to bed to continue with your sweet dreams.

  10. Ronald May 8, 2013 6:59 pm

    Interesting how you refuse to answer the issue of the denial of the Democrats on the committee having an opportunity to prepare by interviewing the witnesses, a pure political act. The Republicans on the House committee do not want truth, they want ammunition against Obama and HIllary, their aim since DAY ONE, no matter how lacking in credibility they are, and it has NOT WORKED, and will NOT work! 🙁

    And Obama is a liar and Bill Clinton is a liar, as you love to proclaim, but Nixon NEVER lied, Reagan NEVER lied, Bush II and Cheney and Rumsfeld and others NEVER lied, but the difference is that thousands died because of them, and with Obama, sadly, four died, but the facts are being played around with for political gain, to harm Hillary Clinton and boost Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and other Tea Party types who have no other way to convince Americans that they are qualified to be President—but the whole scheme will backfire, I can assure you!

  11. Juan Domingo Peron May 8, 2013 7:29 pm

    They were not denied access because they whistle-blowers are not witnesses of the Republican Party. As a matter of fact Rep. Issa made it clear today in the hearing that the whistle-blowers were available to meet with the Democrats whenever they wished and he even asked the 4 of them in front of the whole hearing one by one if they had ever been told by the Republicans not to meet with the Democrats and all of them said no! Also the Democrats were handed over every single one of the written testimonies that they received from the whistle-blowers as they were being received! And that was not denied by the Democrats! Why don’t you watch the hearing before you repeat the media talking points! They only one that was asked by the Democrats to meet was Greg Hicks, but his attorney declined! The other 3 were not even asked by the Democrats for a meeting. So get your facts straight!

  12. Princess Leia May 8, 2013 7:48 pm

    I second that Professor. Juan is pathetic.

  13. Ronald May 8, 2013 8:13 pm

    Juan, don’t you practice law? You have that much time to watch every minute of a Congressional hearing? I have other things to do, but I TRUST CNN and MSNBC to deal with issues properly, plus the NY TIMES and WASHINGTON POST. I know you look to the right wing media, which distort the news constantly. So who are you to talk about getting facts straight, when you have distorted the truth CONSTANTLY, with your right wing propaganda from the American Enterprise Institute, the Federalist Society, and the Heritage Foundation, and other conservative sources, including Talk Radio and Fox News Channel? I suggest you get back to work, or else you might have to become a full time right wing spokesman, for failing to do your work at your paying job!

  14. Juan Domingo Peron May 8, 2013 8:39 pm

    Ron: Try C-Span, they have the transcripts and I read quickly. Also you can hear them with any smart phone, just plug the app and you are set to go. You should try it. Finally how many time must I repeat that I don’t watch TV news? I only watch sport during the weekend. Nor do I read the papers, I mean I went to the Herald and there was nothing, the NYT is full of crap as well as the Post. So I just try to go to the source, in this case C-Span. Now , don’t tell me, C-Span is a right wing news outlet!!! Again, lets take a deep breath and repeat 3 times “Fox Lies'”, UMMM, “The Koch Bros. are evil” UMMM, “It’s Bush’s fault” UMMM “Republicans hate women” UMMM. “Republicans hate minorities” UMMM, “The Tea Party are Nazi’s” UMMMM…..

  15. Ronald May 8, 2013 8:47 pm

    Juan, for once, you are correct, as C Span is a wonderful media outlet, and in fact, my blog is listed by them under “Individual and Group Blogs” two below the HUFFINGTON POST, LOL, which is only because they are alphabetized LOL 🙂

    As far as your statements, they happen to be accurate, with maybe the Tea Party not quite Nazis, LOL, but very backward and regressive, wishing to go back to the 18th century time of the Founding Fathers, but not anywhere near as intelligent or perceptive as those statesmen were, who would be holding their heads in their hands as to what had been done by those who professed to follow them, but had no clue!

  16. Juan Domingo Peron May 8, 2013 9:19 pm

    “People in Benghazi had been fighting all night. They were tired. They were exhausted. We wanted to make sure the airport was secure for their withdrawal. As he and his three personnel were getting in the cars, he stopped, they called them off. He said that he had not been authorized to go,” Greg Hicks

  17. Princess Leia May 8, 2013 10:26 pm

    I consider myself a high information voter. I watch my local news. I watch national news. I read my local paper. I check out national papers online. I check out various blogs.

  18. Juan Domingo Peron May 8, 2013 10:52 pm

    Yet, you seem to have no idea what happen in Benghazi.

  19. Princess Leia May 9, 2013 6:47 am

    I know what happened in Benghazi. But, like most other rational people, I don’t buy Republicans cries of wolf.

  20. Princess Leia May 9, 2013 7:03 am

    Like most other rational people, I can see that Republicans are making a mountain out of a molehill.

  21. Ronald May 9, 2013 7:22 am

    This tragedy is being exploited for political gain, as the GOP was not half as upset when people died under Bush. They have nothing else to use against Hillary Clinton, and are praying this story stops her future, but if she wants the Presidency, she will have it, as the GOP is pitiful in its alternatives for President!

  22. Juan Domingo Pero May 9, 2013 11:35 am

    Again, the issues are what happened after the attack. Why was the WH hell bent on forwarding the narrative that the attacks were spontaneous and the result of that video? Why were the memos changed and the words jihadist, Islamist, attack ,deleted and replaced by demonstration? Who did it? Who ordered it and why? Why did Ambassador Rice a week after the attack went on 5 networks repeating and repeating that the attack was due to the video? Why did she not communicate with Hicks, the number 2 guy in Libya who new from the get go that there was no demonstration and that it was a terrorist attack? Why did President Obama repeat it also, on The Five, on Letterman, at the UN General Assembly etc? Why did he say that the cause of the attack was the video and that the attackers took advantage of the “unrest” and demonstrations caused by that video, when there was no “demonstration ” in Benghazi before, during and after the attack? Why did Hillary and Obama lie to the families of the dead, stating that the were going to get the guy that did the video, when they know, especially Hillary because she talked to Hicks while the attack was going on, that the video had nothing to do with it? How about getting the terrorist that actually killed our guys? Why was there an order to “stand down” for military personnel that was ready to get on board a C-130 in Tripoli and go aid those under attack in Benghazi? Who gave that order? Why did the administration abandoned our people in Benghazi while they fought for their lives during 9 hours?!!! Why did Obama go to sleep and not even inquired about what happened and left for a damn fundraiser in Las Vegas the following morning? He’s the President damn it!!

  23. Ronald May 9, 2013 12:00 pm

    I am sure we will get the answers that are required, but to assert that Obama and Clinton have and had no concern for diplomatic personnel is totally reprehensible! It makes no sense!

  24. Juan Domingo Pero May 9, 2013 12:35 pm

    I’m not saying they had no concern, but then why did they insist on the video lie in front of them? Maybe just maybe is there not the possibility that even though they had concern for the victims, they were just a little bit more concerned about their political future and the upcoming election? I mean , thinking about it coldly , they were already dead, nothing was going to bring them back to life. so as Hillary said “What difference does it make now?”.

  25. Juan Domingo Pero May 9, 2013 12:39 pm

    This is an interesting piece because it pretty much sums up what happened yesterday. “The Difference it Made”. ( )
    “On Wednesday, Representative Darrell Issa’s House Oversight Committee convened the ninth round of hearings on the lethal September 11, 2012, attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, a number of iterations made necessary by the administration’s manifold efforts to stall, stymie, and deflect the investigation. Testifying were Mark Thompson, acting deputy assistant secretary of state for operations, counterterrorism bureau; Eric Nordstrom, former State Department regional security officer for Libya; and Gregory Hicks, a foreign-service officer and former deputy chief of mission in Libya, who, after Ambassador Chris Stevens’s death that night, became America’s senior diplomat in country. Rightly identified as “whistleblowers,” the three men came forward at considerable professional risk because, as a choked-up Nordstrom testified in his opening remarks, “it matters” that we find out what happened before, during, and after the attacks that left four Americans dead.

    Mr. Hicks began the hearing with a harrowing and moving account of the attacks as they unfolded, from his vantage point at the embassy in Tripoli. He spoke of a first wave of some 60 attackers inside American walls in Benghazi — driven out by a mere six Americans, but not before they could set the fire that likely killed Ambassador Stevens. Unidentified people soon called American personnel using Stevens’s cell phone, saying they had the ambassador. “We suspected we were being baited into a trap,” Hicks testified, “and we did not want to send our people into an ambush.”

    The jihadists launched another assault on the U.S. compound, this time killing two Americans with mortar fire. Hicks spoke with emotion of the heroism of the few left standing to fight, including a Special Forces operative climbing down a ladder with a badly injured man strapped to his back.

    Later, Hicks testified, he asked military commanders to send a Special Forces attachment led by one Lieutenant Colonel Gibson back to Benghazi, but was denied by the brass at U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM):

    People in Benghazi had been fighting all night. They were tired. They were exhausted. We wanted to make sure the airport was secure for their withdrawal. As he and his three personnel were getting in the cars, he stopped, they called them off. He said that he had not been authorized to go.

    Lieutenant Colonel Gibson was furious. I had told him to bring our people home. That is what he wanted to do.

    Hicks quoted Gibson as saying then that it was the only time in his career he saw a diplomat have “more balls” than the United States military.

    Calling off the reinforcements was just one of many questionable tactical and strategic decisions made both before and during the attack. Nordstrom testified, for instance, that although the government recognized Benghazi as an acutely dangerous post, the consulate’s security apparatus did not meet the minimum standards for such installations, and that by statute, the only person who can waive security protocols in such situations is the secretary of state. As we already knew, not only did the security situation fail to improve in the months leading up the attack, it actually deteriorated, and security personnel were reassigned even as the number of violent incidents against the Western presence increased. (In its after-action reports, Hillary Clinton’s State Department either dismissed these security failings or laid them at the feet of middle managers below the level of Senate confirmation.)

    But perhaps more disturbing than the bad calls leading up to the attack were the cynical and negligent calls made after it, none more notorious than the administration’s ponderous and preposterous decision to blame the American deaths on a “spontaneous” demonstration against a fourth-rate YouTube video, seen by few and regarded by fewer.

    Hicks testified, starkly and matter-of-factly, that “the YouTube video was a non-event in Libya.” So naturally, he was “stunned” by Ambassador Susan Rice’s Sunday-show appearances blaming the attack on it. “My jaw dropped,” said Hicks. “I was embarrassed.” On follow-up questions from Democrats desperate to find some fleeting suggestion of a nexus, Hicks was adamant: No American serving in Libya mentioned the video as a concern, either to one another or to their bosses in Washington.

    By contrast, Hicks said, he “was jumping up and down” when Libyan president Mohammed Magarief promptly and forcefully called the Benghazi assault an act of terror, within hours of the attack and well ahead of the Obama administration. When confronted by committeemen with Secretary Clinton’s now infamous “what difference does it make” ejaculation in earlier congressional testimony, Hicks responded calmly but forcefully that the administration’s continued insistence that the attack was related to the video caused an “immeasurable” amount of damage. It angered an ally in President Magarief and hurt his credibility in Libya, and, far more critically, it delayed an FBI team from arriving in Libya for 18 days, during which time the crime scene in Benghazi was completely unsecure and precious evidence may have been lost forever.

    Not only was the video not the proximate cause of the attack, but we have every indication that the administration knew that it was not and yet perpetuated the lie, either in the hopes that it would stick with an uncurious media, or merely to buy itself time. When the truth started to emerge from the spin, the administration resorted to more, shall we say, active measures.

    In his 22 years of diplomatic service, Hicks testified, every congressional delegation he has ever received has been afforded one-on-one meetings with chargés d’affaires. But in the aftermath of Benghazi, State Department lawyers explicitly instructed Hicks not to speak to Representative Jason Chaffetz, nor to allow Chaffetz to speak with security personnel, without their presence as babysitters — a massive breach in protocol. When lawyers were nevertheless excluded from one meeting because they lacked appropriate security clearance, Hicks received an angry phone call from Cheryl Mills, Secretary Clinton’s chief of staff and chief fixer (whom you may remember as Bill Clinton’s attorney before the United States Senate). Said Hicks of the call: “She demanded a report on the visit and she was upset.”

    The whistleblowers’ testimony is recounted here with little adornment, because to read it is to understand its import. It shows an administration characterized ex ante by incompetence and ex post facto by panic and cold calculation, willing to subvert national security for campaign-season politics. And it paints Hillary Clinton’s inner circle as eager to shift blame from political appointees to mid-level career employees, to intimidate foreign and civil servants into toeing the company line, and to punish those who refused (Hicks was demoted).

    Throughout the proceedings a mostly tone-deaf and bewildered Democratic minority attempted limply to impeach the witnesses — failing to land a single blow — and to cling to obsolete talking points about budget cuts and military logistics’ being solely to blame for this tragedy. They provided no substantive rebuttal to the most disturbing and damaging testimony of Messrs. Thompson, Nordstrom, and Hicks. Perhaps because there is none.

    After nine hearings, we are only now starting to get a true picture of September 11, 2012, and the days that followed in Benghazi. But the breakthrough is no reason to stop. On the contrary, Wednesday’s testimony provided new leads and suggested new witnesses — the military leadership on the ground, the interpolative State Department lawyers, Cheryl Mills, Assistant Secretary Beth Jones, Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy, Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering, and Susan Rice, to name but a few — and we encourage Representative Issa to redouble his efforts. The seriousness of the claims leveled against administration figures should compel President Obama to cooperate fully in these efforts, but since it almost certainly won’t, we urge the committee to use its prerogatives and all legal means to fill out the record. We’re closer than we’ve ever been, but we’re still not at the bottom of Benghazi.

  26. Ronald May 9, 2013 5:12 pm

    Juan, you fail to point out that the Republicans CUT security costs for embassies overseas as part of their drive to starve the government of money, refusing to raise taxes so that security overseas would be adequate. Their only goal is to cut spending, and then blame the administration for failure to have adequate security protection.

    And Darrell Issa is a massive liar and manipulator, and remember he spent time in prison for stealing cars, leading to his car alarm fortune, ironically. He has no desire to learn the truth, but simply to exploit the situation politically. He is the lowest slime in the House of Representatives!

  27. Juan Domingo Peron May 9, 2013 5:46 pm

    The testimony in October 2012 by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security Charlene Lamb confirmed that budget considerations were not an issue. In testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, was asked, “Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”
    Lamb responded, “No, sir.”
    Recall that Lamb is the person who denied requests from the top diplomatic security officer in Libya to retain a 16-man team of military personnel who had been protecting diplomats

  28. Juan Domingo Peron May 9, 2013 5:52 pm

    Furthermore even though it’s true that there were cuts in the security budget, cuts which Democrats voted for as part of an Omnibus bill, the official State Dept. report on Benghazi did not claim that insufficient resources were directly responsible for the security cuts made in Benghazi, though it did recommend raising the overall budget by 2015.
    Also, guess who else has been “cutting” the international affairs budget? President Barack Obama. His FY2014 request is “flat” compared to last year and a cut compared to some previous years–though within that overall budget, the president does call for increased allocations to diplomatic security.
    In point of fact, Democrats’ assumption that the Republican budget cuts diplomatic security is false. The House budget report notes:
    Diplomatic Security. Although this budget does not assume any savings from either the State Department’s Diplomatic Consular Programs or its Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance accounts, there is concern regarding State Department’s prioritization of resources…
    In 2012, while requests for additional security to Benghazi were denied by the State Department, the U.S. Embassy in Vienna received a new charging station for its Chevy Volts (electric cars), to combat climate change. The charging station cost $100,000…(WTF!!!!)
    This budget recommends that the State Department re-prioritize its re- sources and eliminate wasteful spending.

  29. Ronald May 9, 2013 6:00 pm

    Charles Pickering, esteemed diplomat, criticized the hearing as “Pulitzer Prize Fiction” on Wednesday, claiming there was no coverup of Benghazi, and that Hillary Clinton took full responsibility for the unfortunate events. He also wanted to testify at the hearing, but Darrell Issa, who is not interested in the truth if it hit him in the face, declined the opportunity for Pickering to testify!

    And one of the few ‘decent” Republicans Senators, Bob Corker of Tennessee, repudiated the House hearing, saying that there was no coverup, and as ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, he had no problem with the investigation. Corker does not wish to believe conspiracy theories, which the right wing constantly promotes about EVERYTHING in the Obama Administration! END OF STORY!

  30. Juan Domingo Peron May 9, 2013 6:06 pm

    “During testimony on Wednesday into the government’s response to the attack on an American consulate in Benghazi in 2012, a heated exchange erupted between Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), and one of the whistleblowers over whether House Republicans’ efforts to cut federal spending contributed to the attack on the consulate. Both Issa and the whistleblower corrected Clay’s assertion that budget cuts were partially responsible for the deaths of Americans in Benghazi.

    Clay said to Eric Nordstrom, the State Department’s Diplomatic Security Officer and former Regional Security Officer in Libya, that it must have been frustrating as a career security officer for the House to decide to reduce diplomatic security funding.

    “House Republicans voted to cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million,” Clay added. He said that the Accountability Review Board backed up the assertion that a reduction of funding for security for high-risk, temporary outposts was critical.

    Nordstrom countered that there really “is no such thing” as a temporary facility.

    “Were you here on October 10 when the person who had those requests for additional security said money was not a factor – [Deputy Assistant Secretary of State] Charlene Lamb?” asked Issa.

    “I can’t remember if I was…” Clay said before being cut off. (Dumb ass!)

    Issa turned to Nordstrom who was also on that panel. “She said that resources was not an issue,” he said. He added that the ARB report confirmed resources were not an issue.

    Clay replied that he was wrong and that the ARB report draws the opposite conclusion. Nordstrom said that the ARB did not question the right people in making that determination.

    Issa replied that the Benghazi consulate had been attacked twice, and there was wide recognition that the Benghazi outpost lacked appropriate security staffing.”

    Watch the clip below via C-SPAN 3:

    AGAIN BUDGET CUTS WERE NOT AN ISSUE PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  31. Juan Domingo Peron May 9, 2013 6:25 pm

    Ron: When I listen to Democrats and when I read your post, I realize what is the most important thing about Benghazi. It is to get it behind us and make Hillary Clinton the first female president of this country. That’s the most important thing. I know that on her watch an American ambassador and three others were murdered, and I know that Hillary’s judgment regarding security for these people was fatally flawed. I know that it was unforgivable, a dereliction of duty, not to do everything possible to save these people once the attack began. And it was wrong to tell multiple groups who wanted to save these people to stand down twice, no matter who did it. And it was wrong not to fight for the attempt to save them. And that, by the way, was due to Hillary’s negligence and her poor judgment in the first place. And I know, it was deplorable to lie about a video being responsible for what was known to be a sophisticated, coordinated terror attack. The video was not a factor. I know that. But that’s not what’s important. It is imperative for the good of this nation, and for the good of her gender, for the advancement of her career and the satisfaction of the media that Hillary Clinton be the next president. That’s what is important about Benghazi. That is what matters about Benghazi.
    All this other stuff is a distraction. All this other stuff is a partisan political trick to hurt Mrs. Clinton and get in the way of her destiny and what is hers. All that other stuff is now water under the bridge. All that other stuff, all the facts are collateral damage. All of that is small potatoes in the big scheme of things. All of that doesn’t matter. We are talking about the woman who Bill Clinton cheated on, who knows however many times through the years. The fact of the matter is she is owed. We owe it to her. Forget the fact that she screwed up health care and nearly cost her husband a second term. Forget Whitewater. Forget the Rose Law Firm phone records. Forget Cattlegate. Forget Travelgate. Forget that she accomplished nothing as a carpetbagging senator. Forget that she ran a lousy campaign against Obama when she stubbornly refused to give a damn about caucus dates. Forget the fact that she accomplished nothing as Secretary of State beyond making a fool of herself with that ridiculous Russian reset button and then her gross negligence that led to what happened in Benghazi, and forget that she lied about the whole thing. This Benghazi is about Hillary Clinton becoming president. It’s not about you. It isn’t about me. It isn’t about the country. And it isn’t about what happened in Benghazi. It’s about making sure that what happened there is quickly forgotten and mischaracterized as a cheap political stunt aimed at denying Hillary and this country what she is owed.
    This is about Hillary Clinton, pure and simple. And a little bit, in an ancillary way, it’s also about Barack Obama. But from the standpoint of the Media, the Democrat Party, this is about making sure that nothing impedes Hillary Clinton’s road to the White House.

  32. Ronald May 9, 2013 7:18 pm

    It is clear that you despise Hillary Clinton, so everything you say is tainted automatically. The harm done by others who have run for President and been President (as say Nixon, Bush II) is far greater, but of course, that does not matter, as all you are out to do is to distort Hillary, begin the hate campaign against her, and hopefully, elect an extreme right wing candidate.

    But I have news for you, whether or not Hillary runs for President, NO GOP candidate has a prayer to win in 2016, as their shortcomings and lies far outstrip any Democrat who might run. This nation is going to hand the GOP a record defeat in 2016, and the moderates will return after that, or else the GOP will be in the garbage dump, where these present characters in the party leadership belong!

  33. Princess Leia May 9, 2013 7:49 pm

    Amen to that Professor!

  34. Juan Domingo Peron May 10, 2013 12:30 am

    I know perfectly well that nothing about this matters, especially for the low information voters. For them the big news continues to be the Jodi Arias verdict and the guys in Cleveland, the alternative lifestyle guys. The Benghazi hearings, they may have heard about them or they may not have heard about the Benghazi hearings, actually. For them it’s just the Republicans’ latest attempt to politicize a highly successful Obama administration policy. And once again the Republicans are showing that about all they have is their partisan chops, nothing really to see here. Jay Carney at the White House, the spokesman, says nothing really going on.
    In fact, at Yahoo News, which is a favored news site for low-information voters, they have one story on Benghazi. What they do, they basically publish the feeds from ABC and AP and Reuters, that’s what they do in general, not just for Benghazi, but that’s Yahoo News, ABC, AP, and Reuters. And the one story on Benghazi at Yahoo News has the headline: “Democrats: GOP Fails to Show Scandal in Benghazi Deaths.”
    So if you are a low-information voter and you go get your news at Yahoo, what you know is that the Republicans are just trying to find some scandal there, trip up our poor president, and they failed. There is no scandal in the deaths there. The White House is still claiming the Republicans are trying to politicize the tragedy in Benghazi. Of course, you see, the White House never politicizes anything. Straightforward, right down the middle, trying to help people, from the Tucson shooting to the Trayvon Martin shooting, to super storm Sandy, to the Aurora and Newtown shootings, they don’t politicize anything at the regime.
    So the White House is claiming that the Republicans are trying to “politicize” what happened in Benghazi. They claim that the Republicans are just trying to harm President Obama, who did everything by the book here. There was really nothing to see in this story. It’s a very unfortunate, sad thing, but the Republicans — according to Yahoo News — failed to show any scandal in the Benghazi deaths. And that’s the way it is in low information nation!

  35. Ronald May 10, 2013 12:39 am

    Why did the GOP NOT investigate Bush after September 11, or Reagan after the loss of 241 Marines in Beirut in 1983? HMMM, you know the answer, so they are making a big deal out of something quite insignificant compared to 3,000 in 2001 and 241 in 1983!

  36. Princess Leia May 10, 2013 7:03 am

    Those of us who are rational people clearly know that the low-information voters are anyone who believes Faux Views and their intentional misinformation.

  37. Juan Domingo Peron May 10, 2013 7:40 am

    “This nation is going to hand the GOP a record defeat in 2016, and the moderates will return after that, or else the GOP will be in the garbage dump, where these present characters in the party leadership belong!” How do you justify this statement with the historical fact that every single time, for the last 40 yrs, that the GOP has gone with a moderate establishment candidate it lost the election? Moderates, Romney, McCain, Dole, and Ford all lost! Bush senior when he ran on his record of “moderation” a.k.a as tax increases (liberal panacea) lost! So of course there is nothing a Democrat leftist like yourself would love more than the GOP keep losing elections via “moderation.”

  38. Juan Domingo Peron May 10, 2013 7:55 am

    Are you serious? The US forces in Beirut were there as part of the UN Peacekeeping mission? They were attack and nobody denied the fact that it was an attack by Hezbollah, Syria and Iran inspired. No one denied what had happened nor shifted the blame on some stupid video, nor looked for excuses. As for 9-11, what was the The 9/11 Commission Report then? As I recall no one lied about who attacked us on 9-11 and why. Again , we are in 2013 and OBAMA is the PRESIDENT!!
    Whatever.. I see you do your exercises late at night also! Yes! Lets repeat 3 times now
    “It’s Reagan’s fault” UMMM, “It’s Bush’s fault” UMMM, “It’s the Republicans fault” UMMM. “It’s anyone’s fault except Hillary’s” UMMM. “It’s anyone’s fault except our Dear Leader’s” UMMM..

  39. Princess Leia May 10, 2013 8:57 am

    Exactly right Professor!

  40. Ronald May 10, 2013 11:47 am

    Juan, the GOP is NOT going to win with extreme right wing candidates, as we are a moderate nation, and will not accept the extremist agenda of the Tea Party Movement and the NRA for our Presidency or Senate. And only because of gerrymandering can the GOP possibly hold on to the House of Representatives, in a very undemocratic manner, but what else is new about that with the Republican Party?

    Realize that the so called “moderates”–mainstream actually (Ford, Dole, McCain) all lost because of what the economy was in 1976 and 2008 and the damage wrought by the right wing GOP Congress of 1995-96 under Newt Gingrich, which hurt Bob Dole. These three men were easily better than Nixon, Reagan, and the second Bush, so we gained the worst Republicans who added most of the national debt up to 2009–two trillion under Reagan and five and a half trillion under Bush II, so 7.5 trillion out of 11 trillion in 2009, when the Obama Presidency began!

  41. Princess Leia May 10, 2013 12:19 pm

    Exactly right Professor! According to the Centrist Party, America is 70% centrist.

    I, myself, tend to be more in the center than off to the extreme left.

  42. Princess Leia May 10, 2013 12:32 pm

    While my views are left-leaning they aren’t as fringe as Ralph Nader.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.