I did not say that specific legislation is enacted via direct votes. What I'm saying is that elections are a vital part of establishing the credibility of the government, and ensuring that the citizens have a mechanism to hold government officials accountable. And yes, we do elect individuals based, at least in part, on the agendas they say they will enact, and the policies they have in fact put into place.At best, that's a lot of romantic nonsense. The vote does not determine government's agendas, and certainly not our form of government. The only thing voting determines is the pinhead that represents you, and has nothing to do with the legitimacy of government acts.
There should be no question that an electoral candidate who engages in illegal activities, and/or covers up for the illegal actions of his/her staffers undertaken to improve one's chances of election, harms the legitimacy of the elected individual.
It is an established fact that the Reagan administration sold weapons to the Islamist government of Iran, specifically to free hostages. Numerous administrations have similarly supplied Muslim leaders and dictators with arms, including selling all sorts of weapons to Saudi Arabia. AndJust how many American hostages did Syria have?
And no, I don't buy the ridiculous claim that Libyan terrorists were actually Syrian operatives, who were trying to take an American hostage to, what exactly? Send him off to Syria? Persuade the US government to arm Syrian rebels? On what planet does that make sense?
In fact the Constitution indicates a "form", and not the detail of government, with the "system" involving equally recognized unalienable individual rights. Or as Obama put it , the Constitution is a "charter of negative liberties", and "says what the Federal government cant do to you, but doesn't say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf." However its only a charter of "negative liberties" for the government itself. The positive liberties, recognized as individual rights, are guaranteed to the people, recognized as "unalienable", and cannot be violated, even by the "consent" of a majority of the people.
In fact nowhere does the people's "consent" result in validation of agendas that are inherently violating the Constitution, either in giving the government powers beyond those enumerated, or in violating those pesky unalienable rights.
If the citizens were to "withdraw" their consent by what authority would they institute some other form of government? Certainly not by the terms of any of those actual "unalienable rights". They only way to do so would be by pure, violent force, and there would be an enormous portion of the populace rejecting that objective, with equal force, and superior motivation.
We have elections now, but our government is entirely illegitimate in action by gross transgressions against the Constitution, and the freedoms it guarantees. Were elections to stop, and we were to have a federal government entirely <and newly> constrained to those enumerated powers, the overwhelming amount of unnecessary, illegitimate and tyrannous legislation would cease, and our government would be entirely palatable and legitimate.
Voting to hold individuals accountable is wonderful, but decidedly feeble and irrelevant in keeping government legitimate, as no individual can single-handedly cause the government to act in a legitimate or illegitimate manner, and such requires the corruption of government as a whole. Also no amount of positive votes for an individual can validate their illegitimate conduct, nor their illegitimate agendas, nor make those who are constitutionally unqualified, therefrom qualified.
The same cannot be said for Fast and Furious.
Nixon was impeached for the Watergate break-in and coverup, and no lives were lost there.
Yet the same cannot be said Obama's cover-up and deliberate non-response to the attack on the Benghazi compound.
There's also the ongoing concern of the trade of weapons through Turkey, via Syria and Islamic fundamentalist groups, which has caused loss of life, was involved with the Benghazi attack. [NYTimes][BusinessInsider]. It is likely no coincidence that the Turkey Ambassador met with Stevens in that obscure, and insecure Benghazi compound, immediately before the attack on that compound began. There is far more to this coverup than merely Obama not wanting to have a terrorist attack on the U.S. being recognized during an election period where he has shortly beforehand proclaimed his victory over Islamic terrorism. I quite certain these arms trades will become far more of a focus, and consideration.
By the way, wouldn't you agree that is considerably unusual for terrorists to drag a body into a hospital emergency room to see if it might yet be alive?
Last edited by Trip; 05-15-13 at 02:42 AM.
BTW, Doherty and Woods were former seals. They were private body guards on 9/11/12. Typical of sensational journalism is to try to suggest the US soldiers were killed. That was not the case.
The facts of Benghazi are not covered by any of those supposed "real news sources", which have been working diligently to ignore and dismiss the concerns about Benghazi, even as you do.
Private body guards? They were security, which the federal government itself was not providing, ignoring calls that the threat level had increased, ignoring pleas for more security, and ignoring the urgent calls for help with they were attacked. This is not "sensationalism", this is not even mere dereliction of duty on the part of the government. These were not just private body guards, but expert professionals, the most proficient our country has to offer, trained in service to this country.
This is criminal and deliberate malfeasance, attempted to be covered over by a false story placing causation on some online movie, and meanwhile necessitating as many as 12 revisions to talking points because persons in the government objected to their falsehood!
It's not sensation to say this is far worse than the Watergate coverup, because persons died, and they didn't just die unavoidably at others hands, but were made to die by deliberate inaction, having to command various military leaders to stand down. And that is solely what is known at this point, with more specific malfeasance likely to be exposed, and all of these inaction and deliberate malfeasance likely to cover far deeper malfeasance than just Obama's desire for reelection.
In a recent DP poll, your fellow posters ranked Benghazi a distant third to the three "scandals" currently on the table. It finished well behind IRS and AP wiretap "scandals"... others stated the Fast and Furious was a far more egregious than any other "scandal of Obama".... At this writing, only 2 DP posters out of 30 said Bengahzi was the most egregious scandal of the Obama administration.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...post1061814363 (Most egregious scandal)
The story isn't being covered by national media as it is fundamentally a non-story. Even those that want to perpetuate the story because it has Obama in a hot seat have moved on to the next story, as there isn't much traction for even that.
Though you have a right to believe this is the worst sin ever perpetrated by a President. You should know, however, that in such an opinion, while "...no man is an island...", you are on one.
Last edited by upsideguy; 05-18-13 at 12:37 PM.
"Nothing to see here, move along!" Right?
I don't see anyone arguing over whether it was an act of terror, or an act of war. I don't see that really much matters, or is at issue. By Al Quada? This group is ansar al-Shariah, but I can see how you might think that sounds like Al Quada.
Nope, nothing you say here is the issue at all.
Regardless of who they were working for, they were providing security for the Consulate personnel and are still the caliber of expertise associated with SEALS, and not just "private security". Oh, there is one difference: they clearly did not have the support that the SEALS have, and were specifically denied that support, and themselves told to stand down, and others were told to stand down, and apparently some who refused to stand down lost there commands. And therein lies the rub, not just their lack of support, but its utter denial, and then the coverup of the event over a week's time as a spontaneous mob violence erupting from "youtube video".... when the memos and communications NOW show that the administration knew right from the start there was no preceding mob demonstration, and it was a planned and executed prolonged attack!
But there's "nothing to see here", it's just a "terrorist attack", uh ... I mean "an act of war" coming on the heels of Obama proclaiming that he has defeated and decimated Al Quada, and has them on the run, for his reelection.
It's questionable, and even irrelevant, if this is the worst sin ever by a president, or even this Oval Occupant, who has such a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object, that it is difficult to catalog them all. What is not questionable, is that all of the facts are not yet on the table, with all the relevant and important questions not even having been asked, much less answered.
Undeniably Benghazi is cause for impeachment, and this is far from a done deal, and I'm far from alone on this "island".
Last edited by Trip; 05-18-13 at 01:57 PM.