The smoking gun:
Previously unreleased internal Obama administration emails show that a coordinated effort was made in the days following the Benghazi terror attacks to portray the incident as “rooted in [an] Internet video, and not [in] a broader failure or policy.” Emails sent by senior White House adviser Ben Rhodes to other top administration officials reveal an effort to insulate President Barack Obama from the attacks that killed four Americans. Rhodes sent this email to top White House officials such as David Plouffe and Jay Carney just a day before National Security Adviser Susan Rice made her infamous Sunday news show appearances to discuss the attack. The “goal,” according to these emails, was “to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.” Rice came under fierce criticism following her appearances on television after she adhered to these talking points and blamed the attack on a little-watched Internet video. The newly released internal White House e-mails show that Rice’s orders came from top Obama administration communications officials.
Here's a screenshot of that email, followed by another important discovery:
Also contained in the 41 pages of documents obtained by Judicial Watch is a Sep. 12, 2012 email from Payton Knopf, the former deputy spokesman at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations. In this communication, Knopf informs Rice that senior officials had already dubbed the Benghazi attack as “complex” and planned in advance. Despite this information, Rice still insisted that attacks were “spontaneous.”
See here:
Let's unpack this new information. First, two political process points: (1) As we've recently seen with the IRS scandal, the Benghazi outrage continues to produce previously unseen evidence -- destroying Democrats' disgraceful "phony scandals" talking point. The White House began aggressively dismissing both stories last year. (2) Ed Morrissey reminds us that the White House claimed to have released "all" of its emails on Benghazi nearly a year ago. Gabe Malor asks the right question: Why are we just seeing these ones now? Now, on substance, the first email embedded above reveals a White House in intense spin mode after a preventable terrorist attack that claimed the lives of four Americans, including a sitting Ambassador. We knew that Hillary Clinton's State Department and the CIA were involved in the administration's historical revisionism surrounding this attack. We now know for certain that top White House officials were in the loop, too. Ben Rhodes outlines four bullet points in his memorandum, the first three of which are misleading and/or false:
(a) The United States was not doing everything in its power to protect its people and facilities abroad. Not in Benghazi, and not elsewhere.
(b) The 9/11 attacks were not rooted in an "internet video." The clip he's referencing made something of a splash in the Middle East, but the State Department's second in command on the ground in Libya called it a "non event" vis-a-vis the Benghazi raid. The US government, including Sec. Clinton and CIA Director Petraeus, knew the attack was a coordinated terrorist action almost immediately.
(c) The administration has not been "resolute" in bringing the perpetrators to justice. More than a year-and-a-half has passed since the lethal event. Zero people have been held responsible, neither in Washington nor Northern Africa.
The memo also makes clear the White House was determined to deflect any criticism involving a "failure of [administration] policy." What sort of failure? Take your pick. How about fueling a war in Libya with no apparent strategy to handle the resulting power vacuum? Or rejecting repeated requests for an enhanced security presence in a city from which much of the West had withdrawn, due to growing jihadi dominance? Or renewing a lease on our compound with a waiver for substandard security after it had faced several attempted attacks? Perhaps it was the lack of preparation for the contingency of a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11, which resulted in hours of paralysis while American lives hung in the balance. Rhodes and company wanted to insulate the president from those glaring policy failures, so they doctored up some deceptive talking points. As for the Susan Rice email, her staff obviously understood the true nature of the attack, which she would later tell the American people was "spontaneous." It wasn't. It was a deliberate, orchestrated, al Qaeda-linked act of terrorism. It's always seemed inconceivable that Rice wouldn't have been privy to those facts prior to her public statements. The newly-disclosed emails appear to confirm those suspicions. There can now be no remaining doubt: The administration's public response to the Benghazi attack was tainted by political considerations and deprived the American people of the truth.
"There can now be no remaining doubt: The administration's public response to the Benghazi attack was tainted by political considerations and deprived the American people of the truth."
ReplyDeleteGASP! I'm shocked to hear that such a thing would occur. Of course I'm shocked because no administration prior to this one has ever done such a thing.
No one died during Watergate Max.
DeletePoliticians lie because they can. It certainly served this administration well. HE was re-elected.
DeleteSo, who cares anyway? You could look at impeachment but with 2 years left, it would take that much time to get rid of him. With Dirty Harry running the Senate, they would never vote to impeach him. He certainly is willing to take the party down with him as he would never resign.
So here we are. He lied, nothing new. Americans shrug their shoulders until a Republican does it. Will there be as much indifference? The rolls will be reversed with the Dem's enraged and the GOP shrugging their shoulders saying so what.
"Americans shrug(ged) their shoulders while a Republican did it. Will there be as much indifference?"
DeleteFixed
I gotta think William has dirtied himself in a sloppy mess while reading this one. WILLIAM, Geez Chris Stephens was offered additional protection which HE turned down. Chris Stephens was dead before we ever found out what was going on, the second in charge reported the attack and that Stevens was down. There were no assets in position to make a difference. These my friend are the results of the inquiry that you just had to have. Let it rest.
DeleteThe entire Libya operation smacks of total incompetence.
ReplyDeleteDecember 2011: Terror plot thwarted, but Benghazi emergency plan warns of many Islamic terrorists still operating in area.
March 2012: U.S. Embassy in Tripoli lead security officer, RSO Eric Nordstrom, requests additional security but later testified he received no response.
April 10, 2012: An explosive device is thrown at a convoy carrying U.N. envoy Ian Martin.
May 22, 2012: A rocket-propelled grenade hits the offices of the International Red Cross.
June 6, 2012: An IED explodes outside the Benghazi consulate compound.
June 11, 2012: An RPG hits a convoy carrying the British Ambassador. The U.K. closes its consulate. Col. Wood, military Site Security Team (SST) commander, is in Benghazi, and helps with emergency response.
July 2012: RSO Nordstrom again requests additional security (perhaps via cable signed by Amb. Stevens dated July 9, see below).
July 9, 2012: Amb. Stevens sends a cable requesting continued help from military SST and State Dept. MSD (Mobile Security Deployment team) through mid-Sept. 2012, saying that benchmarks for a drawdown have not been met. The teams are not extended.
Before death, Amb. Stevens warned of "violent" Libya landscape
Early August: State Dept. removes the last of three 6-man State Dept. security teams and a 16-man military SST team from Libya.
August 2, 2012: Ambassador Stevens sends a cable to D.C. requesting "protective detail bodyguard postions" -- saying the added guards "will fill the vaccum of security personnel currently at post... who will be leaving with the next month and will not be replaced." He called "the security condition in Libya ... unpredictable, volatile and violent."
August 8, 2012: A cable from Amb. Stevens to D.C. says "a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape" and calls them "targeted and discriminate attacks."
Aug. 27, 2012: The State Department issues a travel warning for Libya citing the threat of assassination and car bombings in Benghazi/Tripoli.
Why have anyone in Benghazi, Rick?
Why have anyone in Benghazi is a fair question to ask. Why commit acts of war there without authorization is another fair question to ask. Then again, why has congress completely given up it's oversight in these matters?
DeleteFor what it's worth, I don't roll my eyes at Benghazi because I love Obama and I was in sharp disagreement with our use of "disconnected" force to topple Qdafi. I roll my eyes because arguing about it like we are is really just childish bullshit. At least, in light of what we did in Iraq. 9/11 was ultimately called a "failure of imagination", which is just an attempt to politely rename incompetence. Anybody who is seriously outraged about this who thinks this somehow needs to elevate to the level of impeachment is really just being ridiculous.
George Bush, Dick Cheney, and that entire morally bankrupt administration, AS WELL AS every dipstick who voted for invading Iraq were allowed to walk away from 9/11, Iraq and the failure to kill Bin Laden with nothing more than some scorn and political bruising. In Iraq alone, we have wasted trillions of dollars, lost thousands of lives, and left thousands more maimed for life. A cost, by the way, that we will be paying for 60-70 years from now. Here at home, we have militarized our police forces, created apparatus for massive spying and sprayed billions of pork dollars at ridiculous homeland security projects.
I am infuriated by all the above, but unlike those complaining about the lack of accountability for Benghazi, I accept that this is the unsavory shit that happens with running an empire. The majority of what's said about Benghazi is simply political asshattery, nothing useful, and certainly nothing more. The jag bags in the Republican party trying to make hay with this are just stupid assholes who are equal to monkey's flinging pooh at the zoo.
What we have learned from Obama.
Delete1. Rule of law means little as the president can enforce any lay he likes or not.
2. A president can change the terms of a law at will.
3. A president can circumvent a law with an executive order.
Why hasn't Congress done anything? They can't. Congress is helpless as are the citizens of the US. Citizens nor Congress can take him to court as we are not personally harmed and lack standing.
That in itself doesn't scare me however, the next person that occupies the WH may be far more ruthless.
Can anyone have a word here? I guess with the reverence you pay to the idea of free speech and checks and balances over the administration, anyone could get a hearing!
DeleteI cannot pretend to understand fully the incident in Benghazi but there has been an inordinate amount of political shrapnel flying around ever since the unfortunate occurrence.
So what is the beef?. Has the administration been caught with its pants down over this issue? Did someone lie? Act improperly, and if so against whom? Let me postulate firstly that the affair was a stuff up. That the attack was unforeseeable without the benefit of hindsight and that the reaction of the administration was governed by the knowledge they had and the conclusions they were able to draw from the events and the intelligence they were able to gather.
So where is the fault as perceived by the people? And this is perhaps the focal point of concern. Less than half the country took the trouble to vote in the past two presidential elections, therefore it seems to me that those who either opposed the successful candidate or did not exercise their democratic to have a say are making the most noise. Why all the fuss? Is it because those too lazy to vote enjoy kicking the governments arse? If so I suggest that by not voting, they have lost the right to kick arse, they have after all, only one leg
If the Political opponents of the administration are the ones doing the bitching, then fair enough, they are entitled to feel short-changed because their champion lost the election and we all know that no Democrat has ever done something worthwhile and no Republican is worth pissing on even if he was on fire. This last point is the only time in recent history that both sides are in agreement.
So what am I trying to say? Well as a friend to both sides of the political fence, can I suggest that the mob in the White House are doing what they consider is right and they would perhaps do a little better if you all cut them a little slack to get on with the job you ( or some of you)elected them to do. As I write this I think of Watergate and Nixon and Clinton and a girl in a blue dress and the mountain of words and paper wasted over those events as the country was running to hell in a hand basket
Cheers from Aussie
What's the difference between Watergate and Benghazi?
DeleteWatergate was a petty break in where people covered it up and lied.
Benghazi? An event that was lied about, covered up.
One a president resigned in disgrace as both parties encouraged him to go. The other the president lives on and the party covers his tracks.
One incident people unnecessarily died as they were left to fend for them selves.
The other a few people went to jail, no one died.
We live in different times. The past, integrity, today a total disregard for integrity. Brings a who new meaning to it's all about me generation.
The day after the attack Obama flew to Vegas for a campaign rally.
DeleteObama failed to attend intelligence briefings for five days leading up to 9/11.
Where was Obama between 5:30 and 11:30PM after his meeting with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta ended? Panetta testified that no one communicated with the WH that evening.
Where was B H Obama when the four Americans were killed?
Hillary Clinton spoke with Obama at 10PM. At 10:32PM MSNBC posted a Reuters news story "Inflammatory material posted on the Internet."
DeleteWas this the beginning of the coverup?
Only CBS Covers Benghazi Emails Suggesting White House Cover-Up, NBC and ABC Ignore
DeleteBy Kyle Drennen | April 30, 2014 | 10:51
After White House emails released on Tuesday showed the Obama administration had a direct hand in crafting false talking points about the Benghazi terrorist attack in 2012, Wednesday's CBS This Morning was the only network broadcast to cover the latest developments in the ongoing scandal. None of the network evening newscasts covered the story Tuesday night, with NBC and ABC continuing to be out to lunch Wednesday morning.
Introducing a full report on the Benghazi emails, This Morning co-host Charlie Rose announced: "New emails are renewing controversy this morning over the Obama administration's response to Benghazi. The documents were obtained by the conservative organization Judicial Watch. Four Americans died in the 2012 assault, including Ambassador Chris Stevens."
In the segment that followed, White House correspondent Bill Plante informed viewers: "Judicial Watch says that the emails, which they obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, suggest that the White House, in shaping its talking points on the Benghazi attack, deliberately twisted the facts so that the President would look good in his reelection campaign."
Plante cited one email that appeared to be a smoking gun of the White House engaging in a cover-up:
One of the emails was sent from Ben Rhodes, a White House communications advisor and the brother of CBS News president David Rhodes. It was addressed to White House officials, including spokesman Jay Carney, who would help prepare then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to present the administration response.
It listed several goals for Rice. Among them, "To underscore that these protests are rooted in an internet video, and not a broader failure of policy." Also, "To reinforce the President and the administration's strength." Rice, on all the Sunday interview shows, linked the consulate assault to protests against an anti-Islam video, not a terrorist operation.
After playing soundbites of Rice, Carney, and Hillary Clinton all defending the administration's handling of Benghazi, Plante pointed out: "Republicans in Congress now say that the newly released emails are evidence that the White House was trying to protect the President as he faced reelection." Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz explained: "It demonstrates for the first time that the direction on the talking points came directly out of the White House."
Plante wrapped up the report by touting administration spin:
But a National Security Council spokesperson said the Rhodes email reinforces a consistent White House message, saying in a statement, "This email contains general topline talking points. There were protests taking place across the region in reaction to an offensive internet video, so that's what these points addressed."
Now, White House officials continue to insist that they had every reason to believe at the time that the demonstrations inspired the attack.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2014/04/30/only-cbs-covers-benghazi-emails-suggesting-white-house-cover-nbc-and-a#ixzz30TD0WrKN
Media Hits and Misses Covering Benghazi Press Conference
DeleteRoger Aronoff — April 28, 2014
On April 22, the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (CCB) released a report on the findings of its months-long search for the truth behind the Benghazi attacks of September 11, 2012. It has made its report public on its website.
New revelations in the case of Benghazi, Libya have made their rounds in the conservative media, but the mainstream media have failed to pay attention to this new information.
The New York Times and Washington Post were invited to our media roundtable press briefing, but they declined to send reporters. CNN sent a camera and a producer, but failed to cover our revelations.
But Townhall, Diana West, World Magazine, the Daily Mail, PJ Media, Front Page Magazine, Newsmax, WND, Renew America, LiveTradingNews, the Drudge Report, and, yes, even Russia Today are asking questions about Benghazi that the mainstream media apparently find less compelling. “And yet if you had been watching CNN or your network nightly news, you wouldn’t have the faintest idea,” writes Scottie Hughes for Townhall. “If you were waiting for feckless Republicans on Capitol Hill to comment, let alone do something, you’d still be waiting.”
Among other things, the report found that “Muammar Qaddafi expressed his willingness to abdicate shortly after the beginning of the 2011 Libyan revolt…” and “The U.S. facilitated the delivery of weapons and military support to al Qa’eda-linked rebels in Libya.”
“Thousands of guns and weapons were handed over to the enemy, and now we are supposed to feign surprise and shock that the September 11th, 2012 attacks in which Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other brave Americans were killed,” observes Hughes.
Diana West dug further into this story, interviewing CCB source Rear Admiral Chuck Kubic, who, she writes, “relayed to the U.S. AFRICOM headquarters Qaddafi’s interest in truce talks.” As we’ve reported, these talks were scuttled by someone above AFRICOM at the beginning of the Libyan revolution. “The question becomes, who in the Obama administration scuttled these truce talks that might have resulted in Qaddafi handing over powers without the bloodshed and destruction that left Libya a failed state and led to Benghazi?” West asks.
This is key because NATO was controlling the air space and sea at the time, and had to wave the weapons shipments through in order for them to reach the Libyans. The U.S. government and its allies thereby became complicit in this arms shipment.
The dirty skimming deal by the TNC leadership led to an assassination, a key fact that some media present at the briefing missed—and a detail that leads us back to the Benghazi attacks.
A key defector from Qaddafi’s forces, General Fattah Younis, found out about the dirty arms deal and Mustafa Jalil, head of the TNC, had him assassinated by sending a request to none other than Ahmed Abu Khattala, who is under sealed indictment for his role in the Benghazi, Libya attacks. “TNC head Mustafa Abdul-Jalil said Gen Abdel Fattah Younis was killed by assailants, and the head of the group responsible had been arrested,” reported BBC News in July 2011. “Mr. Jalil did not elaborate on the identity or motivations of the assailants. It is not clear where the attack took place.”
Delete“The kill order went from the Muslim Brotherhood to al Qaeda, essentially, and it was carried out. [General] Younis was killed,” said Lopez. This establishes a command structure between the TNC and a group that the U.S. government now designates as a foreign terrorist organization, Ansar al Sharia.
The media have also, unfortunately, in some cases misrepresented the Commission’s membership and what its members have said. Rear Admiral Kubic (Ret.), who is the CCB source regarding the failed truce with Qaddafi, was described as a Commission member. He is not; he is one of our sources and an eyewitness to the failed Qaddafi truce talks. Admiral Kubic has a deep understanding of Libya and the Middle East, but he is not listed as a CCB member either on our website or in our interim report.
As for Admiral James Lyons (Ret.), he referred to a “confidential FBI informant” to support his “speculation” regarding the Blind Sheikh. This was translated into a “senior FBI source.” Lyons ascribes to the theory that Ambassador Chris Stevens was to be traded for the Blind Sheikh, but this view is not held by all CCB members. “We did not include that in our report, because we are not in agreement, all of us, about that,” said Lopez in a recent radio interview on the Jim Bohannon Show. The report was not written by Lopez, who contributed to it, as did other members of the Commission; and it was approved by all CCB Members.
In her radio interview, Lopez echoed Lyons’ statements that F-16s were available for use on September 11, 2012. “Even if they were not armed, even if they were not loaded with munitions, simply flying a jet like that low and fast on afterburner over a scene like this, has, in the past, in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, had the salutary effect of absolutely scattering the attackers, who are taken by surprise and frightened out of their wits,” she said. The problem is that the U.S. did not make an attempt.
Some media outlets have also misrepresented former CIA officer Wayne Simmons’ comments. Responding to a reporter’s question, Simmons actually said: “What we’re talking about here is lack of leadership. Or leadership, to use your words, it’s treasonous—to some. I’m not saying that. I’m saying that to repeat what you said. Some look at it as treasonous moves, and our men and women had to follow what many purport as, qualify as treasonous moves.”
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/media-hits-and-misses-covering-benghazi-press-conference/
During Watergate, the media was saturated with the lies and cover up.
DeleteToday the media continues to bury the story.
The cover up, lies continue. The difference between Watergate and Benghazi, one administration had integrity and stepped down, the other has no integrity and will not.
A top military intelligence official in Africa at the time of the Benghazi attacks testified Thursday that U.S. personnel "should have tried" to help Americans under fire on Sept. 11, 2012, in an unprecedented public statement from a leading military officer.
DeleteRetired Brig. Gen. Robert Lovell, who at the time of the attacks was the intelligence director at AFRICOM, questioned the merits of the ongoing debate over whether U.S. military forces could have responded in time. Leading Pentagon and other military officials previously have argued that additional U.S. assets were not deployed to assist Americans under attack that night because they weren't close enough.
"The point is we should have tried," Lovell told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, in his opening statement. "As another saying goes -- always move to the sound of the guns."
He later said the military "could have made a response of some sort."
Lovell also sharply countered claims that the intelligence community and military initially thought this was a protest over an anti-Islam video gone awry. He said U.S. officials knew this was a "hostile action" from the outset, even though they didn't know how long the attack would last.
"This was no demonstration gone terribly awry," Lovell said. "The facts led to the conclusion of a terrorist attack."
Under questioning, he also said the Internet video was "briefly discussed" on the ground but "dismissed" as a motive shortly afterward.
Where was Barack Obama between 5:30 and 10PM that evening?
DeleteA simple white house log should answer that question. Why the cover up?
King, in my opinion, what happened in Benghazi was a combination of hubris and incompetence. As you can see by William's post, there is segment of this population who is intoxicated with pointing out the treason like lawlessness of Obama while making false equivalency comparisons of this situation to the resignation of Richard Nixon. Your last para, as usual, belies a concept that simply doesn't exist at present in this country, which is that sooner or later, when you lose an election you need to move on and consider the needs of the rest of the country. Admittedly, many believe Obama is the start of the end of times. Nonetheless, he was elected twice and rather than accept that, a segment of the country believes that their outrage at hime warrants spending millions of dollars on witch hunts that will solve nothing and only further the hatred.
ReplyDeleteTo this day, I believe that Dick Cheney and George Bush, with the complicity of a congress that had no backbone, did heinous things they should have had to answer for. The reason they did not answer for those things, in my opinion, is because our country lacked the ability to look itself in the eye and admit that the reason we went to Iraq is largely because we were pissed off about 9/11 and wanted to make anybody pay for it that we could. Incompetence is involved in Benghazi as was hubris with the belief that we could send a friendly person there to "win the hearts and minds" of the people on the country that was just about to descend into full civil war.
Where I do agree with Lou above is that the next POTUS is likely to declare more power for themselves, which IMO has been happening rather scarily since Reagan. Legislatively, this congress hasn't gotten much of anything done which means they are nothing more than partisan hacks launching one investigation after another to distract people from the fact they are doing nothing.
Stop blaming things on Bush, Cheney, and Reagan Max. They had nothing to due with this cover up.
DeleteStay on topic Max. This is a major historical problem for Obama and Hillary's legacies. We already know "Hillary, what difference does it make, Clinton's" position. But where was the President?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMax:
DeleteLegislatively, this congress hasn't gotten much of anything done which means they are nothing more than partisan hacks launching one investigation after another to distract people from the fact they are doing nothing.
How can anything possibly get done? Harry b;locks just about everything from the house with out attempting to negotiate anything. Obama threatens to veto anything that doesn't fit his agenda. perhaps we should be grateful for the GOP in the house which at least has put the brakes on the excessive spending of the first 2 years of Obama spending.
As to Benghazi, it wasn't the fact that people were there but the lack of support that we gave them when in trouble. To compound matters, right before election, full CYA mode. Now duck and cover.
Wow, this totally turned me around. We could have holy manna falling from heaven if only Harry Reid wasn't in charge of the senate and if Obama wasn't president. It get it Lou and disagree. You wanna know what the next Republican potus and Republican controlled house and senate look like, look back at what it was like under Bush. We'll revisit this when the Democrats that you believe are at the center of all that is shitty are removed and the Republicans who replace them do nothing but add to the problem. Taxes, of course, will be lower while the deficit goes higher as does our debt. We agree on much, but your disgust with Obama far outweighs my contempt of Bush, who was every bit the shitty POTUS you think Obama is.
DeleteAs to saying it was okay to have people in Libya but we should have protected them better. So we should have put a full company of Marines there? Had jets standing by to start dropping bombs? This would have somehow made you and others less mad about it? Sorry Lou, this is purely partisan. We set up an embassy hoping to win hearts and minds and foolishly believed we could do so without any risk. Putting a bunch of troops in there would only have gotten more people killed. We do shit like this all over the world because we can't come preaching peace while carrying a battle axe. Again, I'm trying to not blast you with a personalized wall of anger but the shit that is being flung is just that. There is nothing that Clinton or Obama could have done that would have made you or anyone else happy and to keep standing here telling me that this nefarious coverup is somehow different from what our state department and clandestine organizations do every day is akin to telling me I am a fucking idiot. I have problems with us colonizing places like Libya and commiting acts of war by aiding and abetting rebels to overthrow a government we don't like. You simply have a problem with Obama. Maybe when it's a Republican doing it again we can go back to agreeing on why overreach is wrong. And, it's simply not true that Obama and Reid have not negotiated, just ask John "I'm happy cause I got 90% of what I want" Boehner.
William, it has everything to do with Bush, Clinton and Great Leader Reagan. Bush Sr was the last POTUS who still believed in the quaint concept of playing within the rules, and look what that got him. Because of our witch hunts and a fuck you attitude toward the party that is in power by the party out of power, we have presidents who basically say I'm tired of kissing your ass and I"m going to get things done by executive order. Reagan issued 381, Clinton issued 364, W issued 291 despite having six years of Republican control of BOTH houses or at least the WH and one of the other houses and Obama has to date issued 168 which puts him only 2 ahead of Bush Sr.
You both seemed to be enraged that Obama is doing what every other POTUS in recent history has done, which is work around an intransigent congress that lives for nothing but kneecapping the president. I've been critical of Reid for doing it in the past, but, for you two, it's okay to block Obama on everything because you disagree with his agenda. Meh, the tide will turn and some Republican idiot will find themselves in the same position as Obama and Republicans will pull the exact same whining and bitching that I am doing now.
Yeah Max, but what does all that have to do with who was covering up Benghazi?
DeleteSorry Max but you want obstruction, look at Reid who carry's Obama's water.
DeleteCongress is suppose to work together and pass laws for the American people. The president can either sign the law or not then Congress decides how important it really is. Today there is no compromise from Harry which results in no compromise from the House. Congress shouldn't be about partisanship but today that is all we have. From the president, my way or the highway.
As far as Benghazi, the request was made for additional security numerous times and turned down.
March 2012: U.S. Embassy in Tripoli lead security officer, RSO Eric Nordstrom, requests additional security but later testified he received no response.
July 2012: RSO Nordstrom again requests additional security
July 9, 2012: Amb. Stevens sends a cable requesting continued help from military SST and State Dept. MSD (Mobile Security Deployment team) through mid-Sept. 2012, saying that benchmarks for a drawdown have not been met. The teams are not extended.
Early August: State Dept. removes the last of three 6-man State Dept. security teams and a 16-man military SST team from Libya.
August 2, 2012: Ambassador Stevens sends a cable to D.C. requesting "protective detail bodyguard postions" -- saying the added guards "will fill the vaccum of security personnel currently at post... who will be leaving with the next month and will not be replaced." He called "the security condition in Libya ... unpredictable, volatile and violent."
August 8, 2012: A cable from Amb. Stevens to D.C. says "a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape" and calls them "targeted and discriminate attacks."
Aug. 27, 2012: The State Department issues a travel warning for Libya citing the threat of assassination and car bombings in Benghazi/Tripoli.
How many times do you have to call for help?
If we are not going to protect our diplomats in dangerous places, they shouldn't be there. It speaks not to partisanship but complete incompetence. The follow up speaks to the desire to be re-elected.
As a side note, it isn't about the number of executive orders but the content of the executive orders. It's about giving amnesty to illegals bypassing the rule of established law. It's about changing the ACA for political expediency.
I'm truly troubled as to what the next president will do as Obama has established the ground rules that the POTUS doesn't have to enforce any law, and can do what ever they want. Think the ACA will last long under the next GOP president? Think they will just fix the mess or do you think they will just defund it and let it die for a few years?
Alright, since we are going to keep playing this game, McConnell has done his fair share of blocking legislation by threatening to filibuster any legislation that can't reach 60 votes to block the filibuster. Senate rules are that much legislation can pass with a simple majority. For those of you following along in Australia, the filibuster is a tool that can be used by the minority party to block voting on a particular piece of legislation. What used to happen in that some member of congress would keep speaking and speaking and speaking until he either found more people to agree with him, or the party in power agreed to simply not vote on whatever the person filibustering wanted to block a vote on.
DeleteWhile speaking, you could talk about whatever you want. You could read names from the phone book if you liked or ramble on like an idiot and recite snippets of Dr. Suess. What has changed though is that instead of going to the floor and actually doing the filibustering, the senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell simply tells Harry Reid, the majority leader, that he is going to filibuster a vote on X piece of legislation. At this time, the make up of the senate is 53 Democrats to 45 Republicans. This means that on any vote that requires a simple majority of 50 votes, the Democrats could pass quite a bit of legislation that they agree on and send it to congress.
As it stands right now, Democrats are not allowed to pass much of anything on a simple majority because the Republican leader threatens to filibuster anything of major substance. In the house of congress, the exact opposite is true, although votes can't be blocked they are the senate. But, the bottom line is that the senate contains enough Democrats to pass legislation without Republican support while the house of Congress has enough Republican members to pass legislation without any Democratic help. The result is that both houses pass purely partisan legislation and blame the other for not cooperating.
Some time ago, mr constitution, William, told me that if America actually wanted Obama to get anything done, they would have given him a Senate of 60 Democrats to override all opposition of the minority party, something that I highly doubt the founding fathers would agree with.
DeleteA political point that Lou is making much hay with here as an example of how Godless and Lawless Obama is has to do with immigration. Polling suggests there is ample support for immigration reform, and at the moment, John Boehnor, the leader of the house of congress, is refusing to let such a vote occur. Last year, the Senate p assed an immigration bill by a 68-32 vote which means is had Republican support as well. But the leader of the house has said he won't let that bill come up for a vote. In response, Obama has basically said he isn't going to enforce the current law of rounding em up and throwing em back over the wall into Mexico. In my view, two wrongs don't make a right and neither the leader of the house nor Obama have what I would call a solid standing. However, for some on the right, it's okay for people like Boehner and McConnell to abuse the rules to demand things be their way, but it's not okay for Obama to, allegedly, break the rules to circumvent them to do what a majority of people in this country want done.
Any cop on the street has many choices every day of when he is going to enforce the law, and when he isn't. If some mouthy asshole is giving a cop a hard time, he's going to get a ton of grief for a broken muffler on his car while I might only get a warning....unless the cop was William who would likely write people up just for having an Obama sticker on their car. What Obama is doing is not this simple of course, but it's not like there isn't a request from people in this country to create immigration reform. I believe Republicans are going to just sit on this until such time as when they can take full political advantage of passing something.
It's called leadership which we do not have. The Dem's certainly are not going to give an inch, nor will the Repub's. The Repub's have gave the Dem's suspended debt limit. Gave in on the budget, gave obama his tax increase after the election. What did they get in return?
DeleteTime to get rid of the leadership in Washington. Makes a great case for term limits doesn't it.
I laugh at your comment immigration reform. Stated that way, everyone says great idea. It's interesting as most people are not affected as they are in the west and they should determine the future of the west. So what does immigration reform mean Max? Close the border first? citizenship for everyone and anyone? No that's not acceptable to obama or the democrats, why is that? So much for rule of law.
DeleteWe did reform once and they promised to close the border. Didn't happen. What makes this different? The interesting point is that people walk across the border every day and are not prosecuted. Try walking into Mexico and see what happens.
Yes Max, but what does immigration reform have to do with who covered up the Benghazi response and where was the President of the United States when our people were being killed?
DeleteOn some level William, I can appreciate the trolling you have going here on Benghazi because you can clearly see how stupid I think it is. But, I'm going to end this particular piece of it by saying you can smugly keep repeating this question all you want, it's going to go away. Obama will not be impeached for it and at election time, is not going to be an issue. So, suck on that and have a nice day.
DeleteLou, there is Republican support as well for citizenship and that is why Boehnor will not let a vote occur. He is invoking the Hastert rule which means that even though his party has a majority, he will not let a bill come up unless it can mostly be passed with Republican votes. Again, was this type or supermajority or nothing governance what the founding fathers intended? You take issue with the way I stated immigration, but you make it sound as if Obama has sent all border agents home and sent buses to Mexico to bring immigrants here so he can give them free shit to get their votes. We have spent billions and billions of dollars on this, hired thousands of agents, brought in drones and electronic ground monitoring. A simple answer that we should keep spending until a we reach zero illegal immigration, as if that can be measured, seems impractical here. At some point, I think we need to say we've spent enough money on this. Our shitty economy has done more to slow immigration than that stupid fence.
As for term limits, we have them already in elections. I can agree with the frustration that makes term limits look like a good idea, but we will simply replace one bought candidate with another. I wouldn't reject the idea as not worth trying, I just don't believe as others that it would actually change anything. going back to my favorite line, the legislators are doing what they have been sent there to do. In general, you dislike the process, but you dislike Obama more and therefore don't really have a problem with him being straightjacketed. Though Clinton to Bush to Obama, Iv'e watched a steady stream of obstruction growing. I'm against all the obstruction and the de facto changes to the constitution that have occurred. Most people I talk to, however, are only pissed when obstruction is done by a party they dont' support. We have gotten exactly what we have voted for, term limits won't change the calculus that people use when they vote.
Yes Max there is support for fixing a law the administration past and present doesn't want to enforce. So much for rule of law. The prerequisite, close the border which will never be done. The GOP will fold as they always do.
DeleteThere is less than 1% chance of an illegal being deported today, that speaks volumes. The alleged deported are people caught crossing the border. The only answer as we refuse to enforce the border would be to fine employers 5-10K per illegals per incident. But that would never pass GOP muster.
In any case, who cares anyway, I'm a short timer so it really doesn't matter as my daughter holds dual citizenship. A sad ending for a once great nation
To be clear to say one dislikes or hates Obama is a bit disingenuous as I personally don't know him might be an ok person. The issue is I hate what he has done to this country in his endeavor to fundamentally change the US.
The problem is people react to extremes. People hated what happened in 2009/10 and went to the extreme of dumping the House democrats in mass. People hated what Bush represented and swung to the far left.
The problem we face is the long term McConnell and Reid, Pelosi and Boehner. As long as we have the long term parasites the divisiveness will continue.
Those four that you mention there are like ugly children, IE, even ugly kids are loved by somebody. I certainly don't like Reid, but who am I going to vote for? Sharon Angle? Reid and his Republican counter part Dean Heller are going to remain fixtures from Nevada for a long time. Boehner is likely to get backstabbed by his own party pretty soon. I'm not a real fan of Pelosi as she has that same vindictive attitude that people like Cantor have and additionally, I am not that far left. McConnell, to me, is simply an all world asshole and though it won't happen, I hope he goes down in flames in his re-election campaign.
DeleteI agree with you on fining employers, we could have done that a looooooong time ago. Fair point on personal dislike of Obama. Someday, possibly in a couple of years, I will be in the spot you are now, you can critique my case that whoever the Republican is they are destroying America! :)
So Max, you're just like our president. You don't give a damn about our four dead Americans. You don't give a damn about the political cover up, calling it business as usual. You just don't give a damn at all about things that matter.
DeleteJust business as usual.
What a shame Max, why would anyone vote for someone as dishonest as Harry Reid, He lacks integrity hiding behind the podium slandering everyone ad anyone for political gain.
DeleteThe Nevada senator has recently become embroiled in the embarrassing controversy surrounding the $31,268 that his campaign paid to his granddaughter Ryan Elisabeth Reid for the purchase of gift items from her jewelry line.
WASHINGTON — It was the kind of legislation that slips under the radar here.
DeleteThe name alone made the eyes glaze over: "The Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002." In a welter of technical jargon, it dealt with boundary shifts, land trades and other arcane matters -- all in Nevada..
In Nevada, the Name to Know is Reid
THE SENATORS' SONS
Members of one lawmaker's family represent nearly every major industry in their home state. And their clients rely on his goodwill.
June 23, 2003
WASHINGTON — It was the kind of legislation that slips under the radar here.
The name alone made the eyes glaze over: "The Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002." In a welter of technical jargon, it dealt with boundary shifts, land trades and other arcane matters -- all in Nevada.
Los Angeles Times Friday June 27, 2003 Nevada Sen. Harry Reid's lobbyist relatives incorrectly said that the University of Nevada at Reno paid $10,000 a month to the Lionel Sawyer & Collins law firm. In fact, the university paid the firm $40,000 in the last half of 2002, according to federal lobbyist reports.
As he introduced it, Nevada's senior U.S. senator, Democrat Harry Reid, assured colleagues that his bill was a bipartisan measure to protect the environment and help the economy in America's fastest-growing state.
What Reid did not explain was that the bill promised a cavalcade of benefits to real estate developers, corporations and local institutions that were paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in lobbying fees to his sons' and son-in-law's firms, federal lobbyist reports show.
The Howard Hughes Corp. alone paid $300,000 to the tiny Washington consulting firm of son-in-law Steven Barringer to push a provision allowing the company to acquire 998 acres of federal land ripe for development in the exploding Las Vegas metropolitan area.
Barringer is listed in federal lobbyist reports as one of Hughes' representatives on the measure that his father-in-law introduced.
DeleteOther provisions were intended to benefit a real estate development headed by a senior partner in the Nevada law firm that employs all four of Reid's sons -- by moving the right-of-way for a federal power-transmission line off his property and onto what had been protected federal wilderness.
The governments of three of Nevada's biggest cities -- Las Vegas, North Las Vegas and Henderson -- also gained from the legislation, which freed up tens of thousands of acres of federal land for development and annexation. All three were represented by Reid's family members who contacted his staff on their clients' behalf.
The Clark County land bill, which was approved in a late-night session just before Congress recessed in October, reflects a new twist in an old game: These days, when corporations and other interests want to cement a vital relationship with someone in Congress, they're likely to reach out to hire a member of the family.
Reid said he supported the bill because it was good for Nevada -- and not because it helped his family's clients. And when it comes to lobbying relatives, he said, he has plenty of company.
"Lots of people have children, wives and stuff that work back here," he said. "It is not as if a lot of cash is changing hands."
Harry Reid is in a class by himself. One of his sons and his son-in-law lobby in Washington for companies, trade groups and municipalities seeking Reid's help in the Senate. A second son has lobbied in Nevada for some of those same interests, and a third has represented a couple of them as a litigator.
In the last four years alone, their firms have collected more than $2 million in lobbying fees from special interests that were represented by the kids and helped by the senator in Washington.
So pervasive are the ties among Reid, members of his family and Nevada's leading industries and institutions that it's difficult to find a significant field in which such a relationship does not exist.
Reid's chief of staff, Susan McCue, said he has had broad support in his state for the Clark County bill and other legislation that he has championed for those groups.
"In every instance, Sen. Reid acted in the best interest of the people of Nevada and Nevada's economy," she said.
In an internal memo, McCue said Reid's family members had lobbied his staff by "supplying research, technical support and strategic guidance." She described them as "effective advocates for their clients."
Reid said he thought he might have had casual conversations about legislation with his family members but could not remember specific cases or times.
Maybe Sharon would have been less corrupt.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteChina's ENN Plans $5 Billion Solar Plant in Nevada
DeleteA Chinese billionaire is teaming up with the most powerful man in the U.S. Senate to build a solar plant in a dusty corner of Nevada, even as officials accuse China of driving energy companies out of business by dumping cheap components on the American market.
ENN Group (ENNGZ) plans a manufacturing and generating facility worth $5 billion, more than all Chinese investment in the U.S. combined last year, in Laughlin, Nevada, a town pockmarked with foreclosed properties and the skeleton of a 14-story resort abandoned when the project went bankrupt.
Company founder Wang Yusuo, one of China’s richest men, has joined with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to win incentives including land 113 miles (182 kilometers) southeast of Las Vegas that ENN is buying for $4.5 million, or less than one-eighth of the $38.6 million assessors say it is worth. The project has produced legal work for Reid’s son, Rory, a lawyer at a Las Vegas firm that gave the Nevada Democrat more than $40,000 in the past three election cycles.
The firm gave $40,650 individually and through its political action committee to Senator Reid over the past three election cycles, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan firm that researches the role of campaign contributions in public policy. Lionel Sawyer’s political action committee also contributed $2,000 in 2010 and $5,000 in 2008 to the Searchlight Leadership Fund, a political action committee that lists Reid as an affiliate, according to the CRP’s opensecrets.org.
The senator’s son hasn’t lobbied him on the ENN project, said Kristen Orthman, a Reid spokeswoman.
“We have a longstanding office policy that strictly bars any member of the staff’s family or the Senator’s family from lobbying our office on behalf of their clients,” Orthman said in an e-mail. Reid did not recommend the law firm to ENN, she said. Bryan and Rory Reid didn’t return repeated calls.
While the project may create jobs, it doesn’t make sense in terms of market dynamics, said Lawrence Gasman, principal analyst at Glen Allen, Va.-based NanoMarkets, an alternative- energy research firm.
You've much to be proud of electing a stand up gut where family first is his motto.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is the target of an ethics and conflict-of-interest complaint after helping a politically connected casino in Nevada get visas for foreign investors, Watchdog.org reported Tuesday.
DeleteThe Washington, D.C.-based group Cause of Action, which calls itself an advocate for government accountability, accuses Reid of violating the Senate's code of conduct by interceding on behalf of the foreign investors with top immigration officials.
The applicants were law clients of Reid's son, whose law firm is legal counsel to the SLS Hotel & Casino in Nevada, according to the complaint.
The complaint, which was sent to ethics committee Chairwoman Sen. Barbara Boxer D-Calif., and to ranking Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia, said Reid turned to Alejandro Mayorkas, then director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
"Despite the fact that these applications were ineligible for appeal, Sen. Reid's efforts to lobby USCIS resulted in the reconsideration and approval of these applications, as well as the subsequent securing of millions of dollars in foreign and domestic funds for the (Las Vegas) SLS Hotel & Casino," wrote Cause of Action Executive Director Daniel Epstein.
The visas in question are part of the American Dream Fund EB-5 program, which gives permanent residency status, or green cards, to foreign nationals who invest $1 million, or $500,000 in high-unemployment areas, creating at least 10 jobs.
Reid's office did not reply to Watchdog's request for comment.
Well, now that you have gone William cut and paste on me, I have no choice but to go to work SEETHING at the injustice of a world that allows Harry Reid to be alive let alone in any sort of power. I think we have exhausted this one. In other areas we can in principle on many things, but my insistence on complaining about the general state of crookedness has locked you into posting nothing but diatribes about Obama and Reid. Oh well, when It's a Republican doing it again, you can enjoy trying to post somethng rational in the middle while I pull up page after page of Republican stuff.
DeleteWilliam, thank you for that follow up post, it shows me that I hit that nail on the head.
Where I am in quite a bit of agreement is that with each successive president, this is getting worse. Some live in a fantasy land of believing only one party does this and that one particular party is "worse" than the other. I think it's bullshit when either party does it, but when the roles are reversed down the road and Democrats are backing to blocking Republicans, I probably won't have any more sympathy for the bitching at the unfariness of it then I am receiving now.
ReplyDeleteIt is quite humorous to watch the gyrations. While Bush was in office we spent and the Democrats including a rookie senator complained about the debt. Fast forward 5 years, the democrats are doubling down on spending including that outraged rookie and the Republicans are outraged.
DeleteIt really is time for a new political party.
Max. You say above quote you both seemed to be enraged that Obama is doing what every other POTUS in recent history has done, which is work around an intransigent congress that lives for nothing but kneecapping the president unquote.
DeleteIt is frustrating to see, both here and in your country, the difficulties an administration faces from a vanquished opposition. You are of course perfectly correct in your opinion and our current Australian parliament is hampered by the government not having a majority in the Senate. Because you do not have provision for a double dissolution (of both chambers) your President has to work around the problem of an intractable congress.
In my last post above, I drew a very crude analogy concerning the views of each party towards the other. I was tying to illustrate as graphically as possible the need to permit the government to get on with the job and to encourage the government accept the challenge and actually progress the policies they were elected to persue. I urge all of you to try to see the problems not as Red or Blue but as American. The rest of the world still has great faith in your country but we do sometimes despair at what we see as childish behavior in Congress.
King the brilliance of our founders foresaw a possible future nobility class and crafted our constitution with separation or powers to prevent the loss of our time honored principles.
DeleteIt is working just fine. Doing nothing is precisely what it presently needed to prevent our Marxist/progressive/socialist/liberal/democrat president from "Fundamentally changing America."
DeleteBut William;
If your President was elected by the majority of those who cast a vote in the last election. Does he not have both a right and a duty to prosecute the views he submitted to the electorate? Should you feel he has no mandate, what happens next time a Right wing, conservative Tea Party supporter or as you would see him, a Patriotic Republican wearing a hat on sideways gets him/herself elected?. Will your nominee be expected to adhere to the same standards you now demand from your opponent? Should your man prove to be human, rather than an ideological demigod what course of action will you advocate? To be consistent with the views of one of your greatest founders, you should follow quote“Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness] it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government...”
Cheers friend from Aussie
As I have stated before, the majority of those in congress and the executive branches are not of the President's party. Should they not represent who sent them?
DeleteHistory is long King. The current administration like a fad will soon be gone.
K,
DeleteRegardless of who and how the president was elected, he is suppose to be the president of all the people of the United States, not just those who elected him. If not he would be the president of the Democratic party.
After the election, he should in fact enforce the laws, represent what the majority wants, not his personal wants and desires.
And there you have it King, another example of where are country stands today. People say they want the president to reflect what a majority of people want, but they flatly dismiss the idea that if a candidate says he will do X and gets elected while openly saying he will do that, that this means a majority supports his policy. We could have majority votes in the Senate and pass quite a bit of legislation with a 51-49 majority, but both parties block that when they are the minority. At the moment, the Republicans hold a majority in the house of congress, but they have given themselves a non constitutional mandate that they only allow votes on bills that basically don't need Democratic votes to pass. We COULD have legislation that a majority of the could agree on even if they didn't like all of it, which is what I believed the founding fathers intended, but the country collectively seems bent on winner take all outcomes. I think the system has become corrosive, but like I keep saying, the American people keep sending that attitude to Washington every time they vote. I don't now how that gets fixed.
DeleteYou seem to forget the rest of the country that didn't vote. Obama won with 22% of eligible voters. Does that give him a mandate to do what he wants?
DeleteYou also seem to forget the reign of terror in the Senate which oes exactly what you claim the House does. The difference is Harry went 1 better ans suspended the voting rules for appointments and said sorry majority rules. Should the GOP take the Senate, this speaks to a new ay to run the Senate.
The country is changing with every overstep, every executive order that bypasses established law and every off the cuff law change for political expediency. All will be returned in spades and larger that the previous as they push the envelope.
yes, and when it suited them recently, the Republicans in the house of congress also changed the rules when the Democrats were going to use a technique to force a vote on the floor. I don't remember what it was now, but it was a day when Chafitz had the gavel and they were forcing to admit that the Republicans had changed the rules and therefore blocked the Dems from forcing a vote. We could go on an on about this.
DeleteI agree that changing the rules on appointments is going to bite the Democrats in the ass, but since Bill Clinton, every session has brought a kiss off attitude. These are freaking judges for crying out loud and both parties have this ridiculous cock fight over blocking them. If the premise is that Obama and Reid are doing this simply to be lawless jackasses, I think that's really off the mark. The senate and the congress could put a stop to this by stopping the obstruction. But, the minute a new potus is elected, we start to get a spiel about how they are soooooooooooooooo far away from the middle that must block them from doing anything. I totally agree with you that this will continue to get worse, I just disagree that it's some flagrant top down thing.
On the mandate, that works both ways. Bush openly claimed that when he won a second term that he earned political capital and he was going to spend it. I think it's totally screwed that only 22% of eligible voters actually exercise that right, but, if they can't be bothered to drag their ass to a voting place, I don't feel a great need to cater to such a disinterested group. That's like showing up a wedding reception without a gift and then bitching about the food! Seniors vote at all times, young people vote in presidential elections and right leaning voters show up for the mid terms and as we all know, Democrats in big cities just stay home and collect welfare while the election is stolen for Democrats. LOL
Heres a video of that thing I was talking about https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1mylyBidZw and a link of one story about it http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/14/house-gop-changed-rules-before-shutdown-to-prevent-senate-bill-from-easily-returning-to-house-floor/
DeleteI honesty, this stuff scares me far more than anything Obama or Bush directly did. There was a way the Democrats could have brought a bill to the floor for a vote and when they couldn't block it under current rules, they simply changed the rules. Obviously, there are fifty videos somewhere of Reid doing this, but if you are serious about things you said Lou about abuse of power, I think you should be as outraged at this as me.
Things are not always as they seem:
DeleteWith Congress having failed to agree by late September 2013 on the budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1, members of the Senate proposed a resolution to continue funding the government at sequestration levels through December 2013 as a stop-gap measure, to allow more time to negotiate over final funding levels for the full fiscal year.
Republican Senators Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and others then demanded a delay of or change to the Affordable Care Act in exchange for passing the resolution. On September 24, Cruz gave a 21-hour speech in the Senate to draw attention to his goals.
As the shutdown loomed on September 27, The Washington Post reported that several Republican members of Congress made public statements expressing approval of the impending shutdown. Rep. Michele Bachmann said "We're very excited. It's exactly what we wanted, and we got it. People will be very grateful." Rep. John Culberson said "It's wonderful. We're 100 percent united!" In an interview with Fox news host Sean Hannity, Bachmann said that she believes there has been "strong unity" between conservatives on almost every budget vote. Bachmann said: "This is about the happiest I've seen members in a long time, because we see we are starting to win this dialogue on a national level."
Bachmann later disputed having made such a statement about being happy the government was shut down, telling CNN that she had been misquoted by the 'Washington Post'. She provided a full quotation, and a recording of the statement, indicating the statement was about excitement for the opportunity to vote on delaying the Affordable Care Act funding and implementation by a year.
On September 30, the Republican-led House sent many proposals to continue funding the government through December while delaying or blocking the Affordable Care Act, each of which were blocked by the Democratic-led Senate. Even if the Senate had agreed to House demands, President Obama threatened to veto any bill that would delay the Affordable Care Act.
With only an hour before the start of the shutdown, Republicans in the House attempted to start budget conference-committee negotiations. Senate Democrats, who had attempted to start such negotiations 18 times since January and been denied by GOP members each time, balked: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stated, "We will not go to conference with a gun to our head," while Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray criticized the move as an attempt by Speaker Boehner "to distract from his constantly changing list of demands."
A new rule for the consideration of the Senate's amended version of the continuing resolution was approved by the House October 1, 2013, at 1:10 AM (legislative day September 30). The rule, House Resolution 368, was reported to the House floor for a vote by the Chairman of the House Rules Committee, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX-32), and the vote had 228 voting for the resolution (221 R. and 7 D.) and 199 (9 R. and 190 D.) against adoption of the rule.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteH.Res. 368 changed the Standing Rule for the procedure for consideration of the Continuing Resolution (H.J. Res. 59). It states "Any motion pursuant to clause 4 of rule XXII relating to House Joint Resolution 59 may be offered only by the Majority Leader or his designee," which at the time was Eric Cantor or his designee, H.J. Res. 59 being the bill returned from the Senate to end the shutdown with continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2014.
DeleteDuring the October 1 debate on H.Res 368, Rep. Louise Slaughter said to Rep. Pete Sessions that "under regular order of the House", anyone "can call for a vote on the Senate proposal", but he had changed it so that "only the majority leader can do it". Sessions said, "that is correct," adding that they are not "trying to make a decision", and that a call for a vote could have taken place "almost effective immediately". After some back-and-forth, Sessions said that there could have been a call for a vote "at any time". Slaughter said, "I think you've taken that away". Sessions said, "We took that away". Slaughter said, "Oh, mercy. It gets deeper and deeper".
On October 12, 2013, Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen moved to bring the bill directly to the floor and made a parliamentary inquiry, and required that the chair explain that the rule previously agreed for the bill had changed the Standing Rules so that no House member could move to consider a vote on the appropriations bill, except for the Republican Majority Leader or his designee. Once the shutdown had begun on October 1, a group of 30–40 Republicans in the House continued to pressure House Speaker John Boehner to refuse to allow a vote on any funding resolution that would not block or further delay the Affordable Care Act
Source: Congressional Research Service
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Friday that the Senate is done acting on legislation to avert a government shutdown and that House Republicans have no choice but to pass the Senate's bill if they want to keep the government open.
"I want everyone to listen and to hear: The United States Senate has acted," Reid said on the Senate floor. "This is the only legislation that can avert a government shutdown, and that time is ticking as we speak."
Reid's made the statement just before closing down the Senate until 2 p.m. Monday.
"In the meantime … if Speaker [John] Boehner [R-Ohio] wants to avoid a government shutdown, he will pass our resolution," he said. "Otherwise, it's a government shutdown."
Reid thanked Senate Republicans and Democrats for voting to end debate on the bill today. Twenty-five Republicans joined every Senate Democrat in voting to end debate, even though Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) warned that vote would let Democrats strip language from the bill to defund ObamaCare.
Reid said House Republicans should think "long and hard" over the weekend about how to proceed and said the American people deserve more than a Congress that lurches from crisis to crisis.
Seems Dirty Harry is as culpable as the House Repub's.
But it keeps going back to the issue we are dancing around, are you bothered by obstruction or just obstruction from Reid? Much as I think McConnell is an absolute turd, I don't deny he is acting with the rules. Clearly he is using them for unintended purposes of simply blocking anything, but the Senate bill had Republican support too. In the house, they should have voted on the Senate bill and once the Republicans figured out this would happen, they simply changed the rules.
DeleteOh well, it's Monday for me. Have a good weekend
Man, the libs here will carry Obama's piss bucket anywhere.
ReplyDeleteDemocrat Chris Stevens running covert CIA weapons OP out of the State Dept goes and gets his self and others killed and the best defense the libs have are:
1. This is how it's always been.
2. It's the Republicans fault for lack of oversight
3. Your guy did it too.
4. You're a moron.
Back to the same old tired template.
Max, this is what happens during empire builiding??? Ok, I'll grant you the premise, but along with it comes accountability. And there's where your apologetics are failing. Avoiding consequences is exactly why we everything is broken and you are in the front of carrying that standard.