- Posted May 18, 2014 by
Watertown, New York
This iReport is part of an assignment:
- So, "Five Republican Candidates Walk into a Koch Brothers' Donor Retreat"...Beginning of a Bad Joke or Travesty of US Representative Government?
- 9/11 to Now: Ways We Have Changed Our Language and Traded Security for Freedom
- How Our Country and Its Language has Changed since 9/11- One Nation under Surveillance for Liberty and Justice for All?
- The GOP Tries to Sink Another Iran Deal; It's Not the First Time. Remember Reagan’s Deal with Iran? Our Coup? The Shah" No? You Must Be Republican
- $15 an Hour in NY? Where's the Outrage Over Corporate America's Continuous 'Raises'? Fast Food's Raise Will Leverage Hike for All Workers in America
Endless Benghazi Investigations by the GOP Are Exactly What Democrats Deserve
The 'truth of the matter' would be a refreshing angle to see about this story but the GOP isn't interested in the truth.
The GOP's investigation of Benghazi is all about politics and winning the 2016 presidential election and diminishing Hillary Clinton as much as they can.
Now who do the Republicans have as a national candidate that could beat Clinton and get through the extreme GOP / Tea Party primary?
You say. "well, Bush or Christie".
Not so fast. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are eyeing the crown and are willing to bloody the GOP main stream candidate.
The truth of Benghazi is quite simple. Ambassador Chris Stevens shouldn't have been in Benghazi that fateful day because of the warning he got about the potential for violence because of the elections. He knew.
Now the president and Clinton didn't want to blame Stevens for the consequence of his own decision and deflected the blame to the unrest and a video tape.
With all the complaints that Democrats have had about these Benghazi investigations, they fail to understand why the GOP feels emboldened.
Not since Nixon, have the Democratic Party held accountable the GOP.
Obama turned the page on Bush's NSA for spying on American citizens. During his candidacy, he was outspoken about the need for 'transparency in government'.
When the New York Times broke the story of how the NSA, with George W. Bush's authorization, had exceeded their Constitutional authority by turning their ears inward on Americans, Obama voiced his opposition and vowed to change how business got done in Washington DC.
Once Obama was president, he embraced the 'Program' and expanded the powers of the NSA to spy more and dig deeper.
He and Democrats didn't stand up for what was correct and moral, so what did they expect when the GOP went after anything they felt would give them political advantage?
The endless Benghazi and other investigations by the GOP are exactly what the Democrats deserve.
Are Americans that uninformed to not see that there is little difference between Obama and Bush in their philosophy on national defense?
Funding the massive surveillance of American citizens is and was more important to both of these presidents than is funding our roads and infrastructure.
Military expenditures and our spying infrastructure has grown exponentially over the last 13 years under both presidents.
The reason for the ad nauseam Benghazi investigations by the GOP is entirely about getting their guy elected in 2016.
Why the GOP will work so adamantly to see a Republican in the oval office is beyond the comprehension of most progressives because they have a guy in the oval office now that's mostly onboard with all of what the Republican Party would do if they had Mitt Romney there.
Obama has deported more illegals than would have a republican president. He's lied about the extent of the domestic spying and has not backed down even after the revelations by Edward Snowden.
He used the same excuses Bush did while defending the NSA and has refused to defang this organization's ability to spy more on Americans.
He's been instrumental in imposing austerity in the U.S while expressing his concern for the working poor.
The list is endless but then maybe for Republican leadership, it's about their pride of having a president with an 'r' next to his name while sitting in the big chair after 2016.
Ideologically, there isn't much that separates both political parties these days when you look at their priorities for our country other than the Democrats are a little more liberal on social issues.
Republicans shouldn't be so concerned that Hillary Clinton is looking pretty good for the presidential election in 2016.
Progressives see her as more of the same as Bush and Obama.
Now were Senator Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders were to run and be up in the polls over a GOP challenger, I could understand the GOP's fear of not winning the White House.
She's another neocon like those before her and nothing much will be done to address the rising social disparity in the U.S.
Until Clinton says she agrees with what Edward Snowden did and then offers to give him amnesty, the GOP will have someone in the White House that agrees with them on where this country's direction should go- a bigger NSA, more military, less for the middle class and prosecute all whistleblowers.
So why investigate Hillary Clinton who will do more for the GOP than would a more progressive candidate like Elizabeth Warren. If Warren or Sanders decide to run, then the GOP should worry.
They actually want to help people rather than corporations and expand the national security state that the U.S. has become.
Can you tell the difference between the two parties of big business anymore?