Benghazi; about that “problem of time and distance” thing
According to Bloomberg, Gregory Hicks, now the interim ambassador to Libya, said in testimony to Congress that he repeatedly asked for air cover for the besieged consulate on September 11th last year and his requests were ignored. When the Libyans offered to fly four special forces soldiers to the site of the attack in a C-130 aircraft, they were denied permission to board by someone in their command – an event which stands in stark contrast to Leon Panetta’s statement while he was Secretary of Defense, that the administration was hindered by “time and distance”.
Hours after the initial assault that killed Stevens and one of the other Americans, Hicks said, the Libyan military offered to transport the special forces unit from an air base near Tripoli to Benghazi aboard a C-130 transport. They were ordered not to board the plane by U.S. commanders, he said.
“We fully intended for those guys to go, because we had already essentially stripped ourselves of our security presence, or our security capability to the bare minimum,” Hicks said.
Hicks told committee investigators he was informed by the unit’s commander that “they were on their way to the vehicles to go to the airport to get on the C-130 when he got a phone call from” commanders and was told “‘you can’t go now, you don’t have authority to go now.’ And so they missed the flight.”
As events unfolded, the C-130 didn’t arrive until after a second attack on a CIA annex in Benghazi that killed the other two Americans.
Our buddy, Gateway Pundit reports that Tyrone Woods called for air support which went unanswered. Even though Woods and his team had the capability to direct fire from aircraft accurately to their intended target with laser designators;
The presence of laser capability on the roof of the CIA annex confirms what Fox News sources that night in Benghazi originally said, which is that they had laser capability and for 5 hours and 15 minutes were wondering where the usual overhead air support was, especially since, according to this source, they radioed from the annex beginning as early as midnight asking for it.
But, we’ll see what happens to come out during testimony today.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Terror War
@48: The left has been dining on Watergate for 40 years and now they are the same ones that want this to go away. Well, no one died in Watergate and that was front page, top of the fold coverage for years. This gets pushed off by local matters and we are supposed to believe that the media isn’t biased?
Old Trooper, it won’t go away. The media will be trying to bury it in the obits page for a while, but at some point, they won’t be able to do so. It isn’t just Benghazi, either. It’s the whole package, which is starting to unravel.
Can’t articulate just why, but my gut is telling me that the truths in this story is about to develop legs. Sure hope that isn’t just wishful thinking!
@50 I think our JohnE is a no go at this station and he knows it….
The interesting thing to me is that they all try to sidetrack the argument by discussing something old as long as its’ relevant to their argument. But when something old is not relevant they cry foul. They sure as h3ll don’t like talking race when you bring up Southern Democrats from 50 years ago, nor do they like talking budgets after you point out that there really was NO budget surplus under Clinton…especially when you direct them to the treasury.gov site for verification.
I think we would all be better served to recognize that transgressions on both sides in the past lead to transgressions in the present for certain, but that doesn’t make the current transgressions acceptable. Only in our current state of partisan politics do two wrongs apparently make a right for some folks….
It will be interesting to see if anything of an acceptable policy nature comes of this to protect others in the foreign service in dangerous nations or if it will be just another political football to be bandied about with no actual repercussions for the guilty.
Understandably, many of the comments (including mine) in this and associated Benghazi threads at TAH go to blame, responsibility, and accountability. But at this late date after the terrorist attack, we have relatively little factual information. We remain in need of truth. There are but a few people with some knowledge of events who have come forward while there are dozens and dozens with other pieces of the puzzle still silent, voluntarily or otherwise. From the WH, there is no one. And that’s a problem. John Bonehead needs to establish the committee properly empowered to seeks answers from the WH and to demand them. Right now, much of the information is peripheral to the decisions and decision making regarding Benghazi, and nearly all of it speculative. We need that elusive TRUTH.
The one detail that did come out yesterday was the threat assessment and allocation of security personnel being reduced at Bengahzi, while it was considered one of the four most dangerous posts in the system, another of the four being Tripoli. Would have liked to see much more on that, but at least some supporting docs were introduced to show an inexplicable systematic disregard for then a reduction in security there.
2/17 Air Cav: let me paraphrase your comment 55 above:
We need an answer to the following question: “What did the President know, and when did he know it?”
We also need the answer to the same question regarding the former SECSTATE, former SECDEF, the CJCS, the AFRICOM CG, the SOCOM Commander, and the commander of SOC-AFRICA or SOC-EUR (or whatever major command owned the response forces that were told to stand down). We also need to know, from the CO of those response forces, when he was told to stand down and who told him to do so.
Once we know those answers, we’ll be able to accurately begin to assess how far “up the chain” culpability lies. I’m guessing it goes pretty far up.
Addendum: I’m also thinking that the answers above will likely tend to show incompetence vice anything clearly criminal. Like Watergate, I’m guessing that anything seriously criminal will be in the form of obstruction/cover-up vice direct criminal acts relating to the Benghazi incident.
Being incompetent is generally not a crime. However, obstructing an investigation or lying under oath – is.
@56 Agreed, it also came up during the memo discussion with Ms. Clinton months ago when she famously retorted “What difference does it make now?”…
Now as then, the difference it makes speaks directly to a systemic malfunction at the state department. If you have leadership that is unable to understand that security threat assessments and requests for aid from one of the top 5 most dangerous posts in the world as identified by your own should bear more weight than requests for office supplies from the Canadian embassy we need to discuss what the leadership is actually doing because reading the high priority memos are clearly not on their daily to do list.
Budget cuts to security in those areas identified as danger spots should be a last priority move and discussed at the highest levels of management before any reduction action takes place.
All of these points need clarification and exposure, I suspect that’s where the stonewall starts. It appears the Boehner is not up to the task of driving this hearing where it needs to go, more’s the pity as that will place more personnel at risk in the future if the foreign service can’t protect it’s personnel due to political machinations based on budgetary gamesmanship.
Being incompetent is generally not a crime.
Nor, apparently, is it a hindrance to gaining high office in this nation of overweight, lazy, slackers…..inexperience and incompetence are abundant in the current administration and their lack of progress on any substantive issues is a reflection of that lack of experience and ability.
I’m drawing a parallell to Nixon’s two terms in office here.
How far was it into Nixon’s second term when things started to unravel? Woodward and Bernstein started those WaPo investigations after June, 1972, which is when the break-in was discovered by a security guard at DNC headquarters at the Watergate Hotel, and when they were contacted by an anonymous source (Mark Felt) whom they named Deep Throat.
What Nixon condoned and authorized(and it is recorded on those infamous tapes of his) was illegal activities.
What you should be looking for is the person responsible for refusing defensive support to the Benghazi embassy. Unless I’m be overly anticipatory, I think there is plenty of other stuff to chew on that will come floating to the surface about this administration.
I dislike Obama just as much as the rest of you, but frankly, I don’t think he’s smart enough to make a decision like ‘no support’ on his own. His entire career has been managed for him by one person, and we all know who that is. When this falls apart, which is beginning now, no amount of behind-the-scenes puppetry or boon-doggling by the media is going to save his bony ass.
The difference between Nixon and Obama is simple.
Nixon was brilliant, paranoid, delusional and deeply flawed, but he himself created the mess that ended his presidency. It was his own fault.
Obama is a slacker who is not nearly as smart as Nixon was; he’s a lazy fuck who can’t even make his own decisions. They’re all made for him. This mess that is unraveling may not have been created by Obama, but it’s still his fault because he never had the intelligence or intestinal fortitude to stop it.
@58. Somebody provided the talking points. Somebody orchestrated the misdirection. Somebody prepared the official remarks and somebody approved the Carney script. Somebody knew that Clinton’s ‘we didn’t have facts’ statement was false. Somebody gave an order to stand down and that order was prior-approved. Somebody sat on the investigative (FBI) aspect of this for weeks and weeks. Somebody okayed Demssey’s crap and Panetta’s story. We need the facts and then, bit by bit, we need a name attached to each element of this fiasco.
I noticed on the news this morning that Mr. Gowdy used the word ‘damned’ when he said the Committe would get to the bottom of investigation.
Ex-PH2: a small point – what Nixon condoned and set in motion was the Watergate cover-up. All indications are that Nixon did not know about the Watergate break-in a priori.
Have you ever wondered how history would have been different if Felt had been appointed the Acting FBI Director instead of Gray? Felt certainly wouldn’t have had an ax to grind against Nixon in that case.
Hondo, I think incompetence can be considered criminal if people are harmed by it. As it pertains to the Benghazi staff being killed, that makes it criminal.
Damn! I wish I could be asking some of those questions.
Q: Why was there no support sent as requested?
A:There wasn’t enough time and it was too far.
Q: A fighter jet that can do MACH-2 could have been there in less than 30 minutes. Do you want to go over that again?
A: There wasn’t time to get the airplanes ready for takeoff.
Q: All air squadrons are on at-the-ready ‘scramble’ alert standby at all times. Do you want to go over that again?
A: We didn’t know where the traget was.
Q: There were laser target locators on the roof of the embassy and the embassy’s location was well-known. Do you want to go over that again?
I can come up with a whole lot more.
I call bullshit on that, Hondo. It’s on tape. He knew about it and he approved it. He gave the go-ahead.
And Gray’s rebuttal in 2005 — that it was a compilation of several FBI contacts — was rebutted by Bob Woodward’s account of his and Bernstein’s relationship with Felt. Gray is/was too embarrassed to admit he didn’t have the cojones to do it himself.
Ex-PH2: our senior civilian and military officials are supposed to make those kinds of decision. Some such decisions are damned hard – especially those that involve people dying. And in some cases, the judgements made can be in error.
Outside the UCMJ, such mistakes in judgement are generally not criminal if due to simple bad judgement or incompetence. It needs to stay that way; otherwise every senior official in the Federal government and DoD will forever be subject to criminal trial by “Monday morning quarterbacks”.
That said, like revelations of criminal activity (which Nixon ordered suppressed, triggering a cover-up), revelations of such gross incompetence are often hugely damaging politically. They also tend to invoke cover-ups.
I suspect that’s what we’re going to find here. Incompetence and or extremely bad judgement resulting in those 4 US deaths, followed by an attempt to cover up that fact. Whether that cover up involved perjury or obstruction will IMO be the key question.
Oh, one last thing: I would love to have a chance to reduce Hillary Clinton to tears by getting her to finally admit that she is/was lying about the entire thing and that she couldn’t get past the Dragon Lady pulling the puppet strings. And that’s the real reason she left the White House.
Remember, Hillary is the one who bypassed the Dragon Lady and said ‘Do it’ when the SEALs were sent in after bin Laden. Obama had to be pulled off the golf course. In that photo where they’re all watching it happen, Hilary is clearly focused on the screen. Obama is barely glancing at it.
Ex-PH2: provide a citation, please. As far as I know, the first time Nixon was ever taped discussing Watergate was about 3 days afterwards. I believe that was the famous “stonewall it” conversation – but that may have been from the “smoking gun” tape recorded 6 days afterwards.
The tape with the famous 18 1/2 min gap was from 3 days after Watergate.
From everything I’ve read or seen, Nixon doesn’t seem to have known about Watergate before it happened. He certainly knew 3 days later. And he definitely tried to obstruct justice by covering up the Watergate break-in. For that, he ended up rightfully forced to resign as POTUS.
I do not think it is a matter of who made decisions, but why were those decisions covered up and denied in the way they were?
This is beyond “legalities”, to me this is all about trust in our national Leadership that they are being forthright and honest with We the People. Apparently they have not been, and did so for in my opinion purely political motives.
This happened right before an election, and let’s face it… some random act of spontaneous violence is so much easier to defend against than what was a pre planned terror attack that came at the end of a solid time period of rising violence and threat against foreign diplomats in Benghazi.
There is a criminal aspect to it though. Covering up by lie and omission (not allowing or failing to interview those directly involved), lying to congress, etc…
It is more than simple incompetence, there was gross negligence and incompetence all along the way.
We were intentionally lied to by President Obama, Sec. Clinton, Amb. Rice, et al….
Hondo, an incompetent doctor whose mistakes lead to a patient’s death can be found guilty of negligent manslaughter. Incompetence in managing a trust can lead to charges of criminal negligence.
There is more than just incompetence here. This has always seemed to me to be a deliberate act, therefore criminal, and I hope those responsible get punished for it.
Final result: four Americans calling for help that was stopped from responding. Start with who stopped that response team. They sure as hell won’t want the whole thing dumped in their lap, and they WILL talk. Go from there. Then worry about all the rest, like what the Prez knew and who pulled the security at the embassy to start with. Just like with an imploded building, it’ll all be in the rubble anyway.
Ex-PH2: yes, criminal negligence can be prosecuted. Bad judgement within normal professional guidelines normally cannot be. A surgeon who selects a reasonable but risky procedure cannot be prosecuted if the patient doesn’t make it absent additional evidence of negligence – like maybe performing the operation on “uppers” after being up for 72 hrs straight or while drunk, for example.
Senior government officials are empowered to make life and death decisions of this sort. Sometimes the decision is that a particular element cannot be saved, and that an attempt to do so would only cause more casualties. And senior officials must be free to make those decisions without worrying about being prosecuted – possibly for whatever option they select.
I don’t think that (infeasible to support) is the case here – I think forces were available that could have reacted in plenty of time to provide support at Benghazi and were withheld either deliberately or through incompetence. But the argument will be made that the judgement of senior leadership was that an attempt was considered and found to be infeasible. In fact, that claim has already been made.
As I said above: I don’t see criminal culpability for the delay being a “GO”. However, the resulting cover up may well be a different story. And it’s going to be damaging politically in any case.
@70: Yep, the only thing Nixon was guilty of was a cover up, yet the same chuckleheads who wanted his head then, are the same chuckleheads trying to put lipstick on this pig. I guess it’s ok when they do it.
imagine if Obama had an R behind his name? The media coverage would be wall to wall 24/7 for years. The congressional hearings would all be televised on every channel and every news anchor would be making their legacy on it.
Ex-PH2:
It is a pipe-dream.
Hillary is being protected in order to assure her an easy nomination, and eventual election. A number of states, like Colorado, are having their election laws changed to guarantee elections are stolen where needed. The Dems figure on her Presidency for 8 years will guarantee their consolidation of power and money, relegating conservatives and other Americans to 3rd-class status.
We know the who. We know the how. One remaining mystery is why the WH and DOS collaborated with the Muslim Brotherhood to use the video as the official cause. Was it all misadventure to trade a live US ambassador for the Blind Sheik?
The idea that Hillary and the Dems are freaked out because the Ambassador was carrying out the SecState’s intent of making Benghazi a symbolic safe place is really odd.
For Old Trooper- Other attacks.
14 June, 2002, Al Qanoon, suspected to be an al Qaeda branch, sent a suicide bomber into the U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12 people and injuring 51 others.
28 February, 2003. Gunmen on motorcycles attacked the U.S. consulate in Karachi, killing two police officers and wounding six others.
12 May, 2003. Gunmen entered Al Hamra Oasis Village in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, a compound inhabited by Americans and other Westerners.
30 July, 2004. Three suicide bombers targeting the Israeli and U.S. embassies in Uzbekistan killed two and injured nine others.
6 December, 2004. Terrorists stormed the U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, occupied it and took 18 hostages. When the incident was over, they had killed nine.
2 March, 2006. Two days before President Bush was scheduled to visit Pakistan, a suicide bomber targeted the U.S. consulate in Karachi, killing four, including a US diplomat believed to be the target, and injuring 50 others.
12 September, 2006. Four gunmen stormed the U.S. embassy in Damascus. They threw grenades and fired automatic weapons at guards. One killed,13 wounded.
12 January, 2007, an RPG was fired at the US Embassy in Athens Greece. Thakfully no one was injured.
9 July, 2008. Armed men with a shotgun and pistols stormed the U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey. Three Turkish policemen were killed.
17 September 2008. When terrorists dressed as policemen attacked the Embassy in Sana’a, Yemen, with RPGs, rifles and grenades. There was also a car bomb. In the end, 16 were killed and many more were injured.
11 other attacks…where was the indignation and calls for revenge and blood then?
…and I apologize for the delay in my response. Isee some of you were worried about me!
What sort of dream world do you live in, JohnE? We who were outraged by it were called names for demanding retribution.
You know – the usual racist, homophobe, yada, yada that we get today for criticizing different players for the same, and worse, actions. Criticism of this mythical “religion of peace” has not been allowed for quite some time now.
Quit assuming lies about people about whom you know nothing.
@76. John E. I guess you’ll have to make your point clearer. Are you saying that, like Benghazi, these other attacks were foreseeable, that when they occurred there was time to intervene to save lives but no intervention occurred, that they were regarded by the administration as treaceable to something other than a planned terrorist attack (e.g., a spontaneous protest), and that this false attribution was declared by the Secretary of State, the US ambassador to the UN, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Secretary of Defense,the White House spokesman, and members of Congress? Because, if you are not saying that, you are really saying nothing.
#76 JohnE: in all of the attacks you’ve listed, and thank you for that, only 1 American diplomat was killed. Lots of civilians, passers-by, and yes some Locally-employed Staff (LES).
And one American.
As I recall, the outrage was then turned on the bombers and their bosses and we killed lots of them.
Bush-43 wasn’t covering anything up, and certainly wasn’t hiding the bad. He did not negotiate with the terrorists for a cover story that jailed an American Christian for making a wretched video.
So what is your point again?
@76: When was the last time an Ambassador was killed?
That would be 1979.
You forgot to mention the USS Cole, the 2 African Embassies, the first attack on the World Trade Center, etc. Where was your outrage then? Oh, that’s right, a democrat was in office then.
As for your examples; they weren’t sustained attacks that could have been prevented, because we had intel regarding such and we had an Ambassador begging for more security. We have a Libyan President that was really pissed off that he was called a liar by Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton when he said it was an AQ sponsored attack, immediately, and they came out and said it was a “spontaneous protest” based on a video that NO ONE saw and HR Clinton stuck to that meme in her testimony, when she got around to actually testifying after a convenient bump on the melon that kept her comatose for months. Every example that you have given were pre-planned attacks and all, except for one, were locals that were killed.
Just for fun, google embassy attacks and you will see almost nothing but liberal web sites coming to the defense of President Obama and HRC. Benghazi is a nightmare for these hucksters because it just won’t go away. The liberal media cannot make it disappear so once again they try to blame Bush. It is all part of the Bush Deraignment Syndrome. It goes like this “there were attacks on Embassies when Bush was President, why were you not outraged then”.
The testimony yesterday was devastating to both the administration and the earlier testimony given by HRC. It pretty much makes her out to be a liar (big news there). So now the liberal media are attacking the whistle blowers. If this had happened under Bushes watch, it would be 24/7 news coverage and calls for impeachment, hanging, hanging and impeachment would be non stop. This would rival Watergate. Instead the testimony gets next to zero coverage on the major news sites with the exception of FOX and CBS. And when the coverage was finally shown on CNN and MSNBC, the testimony was talked over by the “journalists”.
I hope this story is not going to go away. I want to believe it has legs and there will be people held accountable at the upper levels of government. I also want unicorns to be real (for my daughters sake). Our government does not give a shit about truth, honor or accountability. That is why they do not understand the mindset of the military and why they are so scared of veterans.
Master Gunny–part of that is also because Google is going to favor left-wing sites and POV over more balanced or conservative ones.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is full of it.
@76–Hey, JohnE? You know what’s wrong with your little list of talking points there?
You don’t include anything from 1977-81, or 1993-2001, or 2009-present.
Nor do you state that in the aftermath of these attacks you list, the administration tries to send their talking heads out trying to blame a YouTube video, instead calling them what they are–TERRORISM.
Do you understand the difference, or do I need to engrave it on a fucking sledgehammer and beat you over that fucking thick skull of yours with it?
@69 – Hondo, I did that last year. I provided documentation last year. Nixon secretly recorded all conversations starting in February 1971, up through July 1973, everywhere he went: the Oval Office, his old office in the Executive Office building, the Cabinet Room and Camp David.
EVERYTHING, including Haldeman telling Nixon it would cost a couple of million dollars.
Franklin Roosevelt did it, Truman did it, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson did it, all in secret. It wasn’t anything new. Tricky Dick just followed the pattern.
I already provided documentation last year, as I said.
If you want to pick a fight with me, fine, but the next time some wanker from Tokyo starts bullying, I won’t step in to stop it, dickweed.
@75 – DaveO, don’t be so certain. Do you have any idea how easy it is to be hit with the ‘guilt by association’ label?
Sure, she’s looking at 2016 and she’s doing the CYA thing now, but she forgot about the BOHICA part of that.
I was wondering why it took her so long to leave that job. If she had been really as smart as she’s cracked up to be, she could have prepared a pile of documentation, including video documentation, that would have not only covered her ass, but left room for her to walk away with clean hands. She’s just as guilty as the rest of them for letting that happen when she could have stopped it.
Sparky, I favor the sledgehammer approach.
Ex-PH2: the fact that Nixon taped his conversations while in office is well known. Every President since Eisenhower has taped at least some of their conversations while in office.
What I was asking for was a specific citation that proved Nixon knew of Watergate a priori, not a posteriori. The latter is well documented. However, I’ve never seen proof anywhere of the former. Allegations, yes. But not proof.
If this is the discussion you’re thinking about last year, there’s nothing there proving your point. You never “closed the loop” and provided a reference.
http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=30513
Regarding the “$2 million for blackmail” you mention there, I think you may be referring to the conversation documented here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/articles/050174-2.htm
That conversation occurred on 21 March 1973 – over 9 months after Watergate. It was between Dean and Nixon. And in that conversation, Nixon indicates he thought they could come up with $1 million in cash if necessary.
I’m willing to believe either about Nixon, but to date all the evidence I’ve seen says he found out about Watergate only after it had occurred. Again: if you can point me at a source confirming what you’re saying, I’d be much obliged. And I’ll apologize.
But until then, I’ll remain convinced that Nixon did not know about Watergate a priori. He was smart enough to avoid knowing details like that if and when he didn’t need to.
@82: Yep
I wonder, who would have thought that HRC’s ad about the 3am phone call and those who would be called on to answer it, actually pointed out that neither she or Baracka would or could answer the phone call.
Here’s the script from her ad:
“It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. But there’s a phone in the White House and it’s ringing.
Something’s happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call, whether it’s someone who already knows the world’s leaders, knows the military — someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world.
It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?”
Here’s the complete history of Nixon’s corruption during his term in office, those 5.5 years when his paranoia and unsociable personality started blossoming.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/woodward-and-bernstein-40-years-after-watergate-nixon-was-far-worse-than-we-thought/2012/06/08/gJQAlsi0NV_story.html
He knew everything that was going on, he participated in it, and he spent the last 20 years of his life after he left office and Ford pardoned him trying to lie his way out of blame for what he did. He lied about Watergate, and everything else connected to his own spying activitites while he was in office. For Pete’s sake, he had an 85-year-old woman who had donated a dollar to the Democractic campaign on a list of White House enemies. He had to send her a letter of apology.
He knew about every damned thing that happened. He was NOT out of the loop and when he said he didn’t know anything about Watergate until after the fact, he lied his flabby ass off about it, right up to the day he died.
Some day, some forensic sound tech is going to be able to recover those infamous 18 minutes of missing sound and when that happens, it will be somebody ordering pizza.
In 1974, there wasn’t much on TV to watch — not even the soaps — because the Watergate hearings were being broadcast live for everyone to see. I would like to see just one of these current congress critters be as confrontational and intimidating as Sam Ervin was with some of the questions he asked. I haven’t seen that yet.
And frankly, Nixon makes that gang of idiots currently in the White House look like what they are — a bunch of amateurs whose incompetence has cost good people their lives, and they should definitely pay the piper for that.
Ex-PH2: no argument with your characterization of Nixon as being an immoral man. I’m only saying here that allegations Nixon knew about Watergate ahead of time have never been proven, or even supported by persuasive documentary evidence. Documentary evidence shows clearly that Nixon knew about Watergate starting between 3 and 6 days after the break-in, and that he was discussing ways to cover-up the break-in and impede investigation 6 days afterwards (the “Smoking Gun” tape of 23 Jun 1972; audio here). He also discussed with Dean and Haldeman raising $1 million to buy the Watergate “plumbers'” silence (audio here) about 9 months later. But to my knowledge no credible evidence has ever been made public showing Nixon knew about the break-in at Watergate before it occurred. I could believe Nixon knew about Watergate in advance if there was clear evidence supporting that claim. But there just isn’t. Further, Nixon IMO would have been smart enough to keep his “fingerprints” off of blatantly illegal stuff like a conspiracy to pull a “bag job” at his opponent’s headquarters. (The break-in going south presented him with a fait accompli to which he had no choice but to react; why he didn’t turn off the freaking tape machine when discussing it is something I’ll never understand. He clearly knew or should have known what he was proposing was both political dynamite and illegal as hell.) So until I see evidence, I’ll be convinced he did not know about the break-in before it occurred. Even the “18 1/2 min gap” likely won’t help to show whether Nixon knew about Watergate a priori if/when it’s ever recovered. That tape was of events recorded on 20 June 1972 – 3 days after the Watergate break-in. Nixon richly deserved to take the fall for the Watergate cover-up. Hell, he was the POTUS – and he was directing elements on his staff to obstruct a criminal investigation. But I don’t think he personally participated in the planning for the break-in, or knew about it ahead of time. Do not take this disagreement personally. If someone told me the Bible… Read more »
Just learned this. H. “Wide Load” Clinton is not at risk for perjury regarding some of her dubious testimony. It seems she was really not testifying at all but just having a little innocuous give and take. Oh, it looked like she was testifying. And, oh, she was described every which way as testifying. Recall the delay, the flu and reported head bump? Well, Wide Load was working a deal. She would appear before a committee regarding Benghazi but WOULD NOT BE SWORN IN! AND SHE WASN’T!
@93
Damn, I wish I had enough pull for that sorta thing.
I mean, well, I’ve never testified in court, much less Congress, but I’d love to be able to say “Meh…as long as I don’t have to be sworn in or anything…I might wanna lie or something”.
I am incredulous. No wonder she was so bold in saying she didn’t have facts and now, we learn, she most certainly did. She knew she was leaving by the side door, too. Nice deal. This is some sickening stuff.
@95
What burns my ass on it is we’ll never, ever hear the truth out of her. Ever. Congress had it’s chance and blew it. The House could have subpoenaed her, forced her under oath and effectively, that chance is gone. If anyone asks her the truth on the matter, she’ll ignore the question, attempt to dodge it, or flat out refuse to answer.
“What does it matter?”
“That was a long time ago.”
The pooch was well and truly screwed.
@96. She could still be subpoenaed but I agree it’s unlikely to happen. Hell, only now is John Bonehead publicly speaking about the ‘prospect’ of a special committee to wrest information from the White House. Anyone who thinks this is a Dem vs. Rep contest hasn’t been paying close attention. That’s the way Big Media is playing it up but it just isn’t so. Too many Reublicans are playing along. Hell, it was a Republican committee that FAILED to swear-in Wide Load! It’s Bonehead who is stalling on the special committee. Arrrggghhh.
We can all hope that one day the entire truth will be out there. But, until they hold actual hearings with the power to subpoena people and place them under oath, we will continue to get parts of the truth from hither and yon. Piecing it all together is certainly possible, but is problematic in several ways.
Meanwhile, no surprise about the deal the Hildebeast made. Sounds just like her. She is at least as slick as her hubby, probably much slicker.
And, yes, she has used and abused the military for decades. Remember that she used to live very near the AFB in Little Rock. Can you say lounge lizard? Eeeewwwww.
Okay, Hondo, I’m going to address your obssessive need for documentation from a dead man who swore up and down that he knew nothing about the Watergate break-in, but who responded to Haldeman’s statement that “there is a cancer on the presidency” with a discussion on what it would take to blackmail the FBI into silence. If a discussion of blackmail and inquiring into how many people high up in the White House were or were NOT involved is not a clear indicator of foreknowldge about the Watergate break-in, then tell me just what it is? Nixon directed spying activities on everyone in his line of sight. If you told me that Obama had no hand in denying support to the Benghazi staff, that the ‘no-go’ or ‘stand down’ order came from someone else higher up, with or without documentation I would never argue the point because Obama is too dumb and lazy to make a decision like that, BASED ON HIS CONSISTENTLY DUMB AND LAZY BEHAVIOR TO DATE. Nixon’s spying on anyone and/or everyone was as regular and consistent as sunrise and sunset. He knew about and approved of the break-in at Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office. The failure by the burglars to find Ellsberg’s file is entirely due to the fact that it was filed under a pseudonym – a false name. They couldn’t find it. That was only one of many occurrences of Nixon’s aberrant behavior. Failing to accept that discussing blackmail with Haldeman over the Watergate break-in as confirmation that Nixon knew what was going on, just because there is no recording of Nixon saying “do it”, says that you dismiss a history of consistent behavior as unimportant. If it applies to felons, why does it not apply to Nixon? The ridiculous ‘I am not a crook’ speech when Nixon announced that he was leaving the White House goes right along with all the other lies he handed out. And what is it we do consistently on this board? We expose liars and fakers for what they are. Did Nixon get to Gray when he couldn’t get… Read more »