View Single Post
Old 05-17-2013, 08:56 AM   #15
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
This thread is pretty funny considering the Obama administration hasn't been directly tied to any of these "scandals". Not even remotely. Might that happen? Possibly. But not looking likely. This is no Iran-Contra, and no Watergate, and no Monica Lewinsky, and no Katrina, no matter how wishfully you think. But keep hoping, fellas!
Lolz. That's a pretty bold misrepresentation of what a Presidential administration is. Holder is part of the Obama administration. As was Hillary, as was the IRS temp they "fired" I guess now the "Obama administration" has effectively been whittled down to Obama himself. Even his press secretary doesn't count. You guys have set up expectations for the next President so awesomely well.

The President's "thorough" internal investigations always seem to conclude that Obama knew nothing about anything that ever went wrong. Holder's DOJ is self-investigating an illegal phone record snatching incident where Holder says he recused himself, yet can't remember when or if he ever documented that.

The State Dept's "internal" investigation of Benghazi neglected to even interview the higher-ups (like Hillary) And still nobody can document anywhere who came up with the Youtube video angle or when. None of the hand-selected emails they say formed the talking points even MENTION the Youtube video. Yet the cheerleaders say "Case Closed"

And in the IRS case, we're told that massive numbers of tea party or conservative-sounding non-profit apps were held up, but that only a couple people probably had anything to do with that. And for some reason, they still have jobs. All this, they know because of another 'internal' review.

And yet any calls for an outside investigation of any of these serious incidents gets you guys shouting "witchhunt!"

This isn't criminal law. The President is responsible for what goes on in his administration whether he can maintain (semi)plausible deniability or not.

Essentially you're saying "he's incompetent, not criminal!" But you're just making the case for conservatism far better than anyone else ever could.
  Reply With Quote