Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
The National Rifle Association kicked off its annual convention Friday with a warning to its members they are engaged in a “culture war” that stretches beyond gun rights, further ramping up emotions surrounding the gun control debate.
NRA First Vice President James Porter, a Birmingham, Ala., attorney who will assume the organization’s presidency Monday, issued a full-throated challenge to President Barack Obama in the wake of a major victory regarding gun control and called on members to dig in for a long fight that will stretch into the 2014 elections.
Additionally, Porter described the ‘fight’ as a ‘culture war.”
“This is not a battle about gun rights,” Porter said, calling it “a culture war.”
“(You) here in this room are the fighters for freedom. We are the protectors,” said Porter, whose father was NRA president from 1959-1960.
Rob Heagy, a former parole officer from San Francisco, agreed with Porter’s description of a culture war.
“It is a cultural fight on those 10 guarantees,” he said, referring to the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. “Mr. Obama said he wasn’t going after our guns. As soon as the Connecticut thing happened, he came after our guns.”
That theme carried throughout the day and reached a crescendo in a 3 ½-hour political rally punctuated by fiery speeches from state and national conservative leaders.
Yawn. Not much has changed. Much chest thumping and knuckle dragging.
Apparently the line up of stars includes some real notoriety. Sarah Palin strutted out with a slightly exaggerated swagger, tight jeans and even tighter ‘rack.’ Sarah always makes sure her brand is displayed. Senator Ted Cruz, Gov. Bobby Jindal, Gov. Rick Perry, Glen Beck, Ted Nugent and Rick Santorum were there also, voicing opinion and riling up the crowd of around 70,000. With the exception of Bobby Jindal, that’s a fairly intellectually challenged line up. All speakers voiced celebration over the victory of bullying senators into voting down background checks.
Will those people be around to help some of those senators come election time? Will they reach into their pockets at election time and give to those campaigns? More importantly, will the American people vote some of those senators out of office because they demonstrated they were extremist? it’s probably too soon to tell.
Many Americans believe that the Toomey-Manchin bill was moderate and just plain common sense. They know it won’t eliminate all gun violence. Most saw it as a place to start before strengthening the laws affecting reporting of those with serious mental health issues as well as modernizing antiquated reporting systems.
The cheering should be short-lived. Bills like Toomey-Manchin will come back, again and again until the tide shifts…and it will.
Meanwhile, the president was in Mexico blaming the second amendment for gun violence south of the border, and didn’t bother to apologize for his administration’s illegal gun-running scheme. Illegal? YES! Illegal under international law and treaty with Mexico. How would we react if the Mexican government sent drugs across our border, and didn’t bother to inform the US government?
@Steve
That’s some theory….
Meanwhile, the president was in Mexico blaming the second amendment for gun violence south of the border, and didn’t bother to apologize for his administration’s illegal gun-running scheme. Illegal? YES! Illegal under international law and treaty with Mexico. How would we react if the Mexican government sent drugs across our border, and didn’t bother to inform the US government?
“of bullying senators”
OR those Senators agreed with the NRA.
And Manchin-Toomey was poorly written. Why isn’t anyone bemoaning the loss of the Cornyn bill? That bill was about background checks and ONLY background checks.
It is a culture war.
Some did agree. Others were bullied or coerced.
As for being poorly written, sez who?
I just think that is a lame reason for not passing the bill.
Yes, it is a culture war but….how long do you think you canhold your position? That is the question.
Remember that right now, there is a whole new crew in the ‘gun control crowd’ who don’t want to take away all guns.
Since I read it…sez me. Along with actual lawyers….etc.
Toomey wanted to forbid a national registry. Unfortunately, the way it was written forbid ONLY the DOJ while not mentioning any other agency. That allows those agencies to build one, being able to point at the law and state, “The law only forbids the DOJ.”
And remember, there is still the old crew that does.
i just think that sounds paranoid to be honest.
The NRA sure is afraid of Obama!
I don’t see why, considering they whipped him in round one.
Sure hope Obamacare covers surgical removal of the NRA’s foot from his @ss.
You gonna be still talking smack once there is an election between the Sandy Hook shooting and the next background check legislation? That is not a winner.
@Moon-howler
Moon, Fast and Furious isn’t “theory” it is fact. International law regarding weapons trafficing isn’t theory, it’s fact. 300 Mexcian citizens killed by guns linked to the ATF Fast and Furious operations isn’t theory, it’s fact. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry killed by a cartel member with a Fast and Furious gun, again….FACT. Obama’s speech dripped with hypocrisy. He wants to blame law-abiding gun owners and gunshows as the source of guns trafficed by the cartels, which are later used in crimes…this it not only theory…it’s a demonstrable lie. The guns are mostly “straw purchased” by individuals and sold to the cartels…which is a crime. This is what the ATF did in Fast and Furious. Some are stolen from law abiding gun-owners, also a crime. Less than .02% of guns used in crimes are acquired at gunshows from non-licensed dealers. Private sales at gunshows represent less than 1% of all guns purchased at shows. Less than 3% of ALL guns sold are private sales according to the FBI. These are facts. Another fact is the Pols pushing these “sensible” restrictions admit, and a myriad of studies conclude that the proposed laws will have no measurable impact on gun crime. These are not “theories”, these are facts.
hard to trace those guns, isn’t it? You all keep pushing it and no one but NRA types really seems to be discussing it. It just isn’t getting a rise out of us.
@Moon-howler
“Yes, it is a culture war but….how long do you think you canhold your position? That is the question.”
Gun rally in “pro-gun control” New York
https://www.google.com/search?q=new+york+gun+rally&newwindow=1&client=firefox-a&hs=Qvi&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=-I2GUfvpG8W24AOI0oH4Bg&ved=0CFEQsAQ&biw=1472&bih=719
Anti NRA rally in DC….”anti-gun” stronghold
http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2528129?slideout=1
I think that we can not only “hold out” but continue to exercise our rights. And bring more to the side of liberty.
Only in your dreams. You want it all. You can’t have tommy guns, nukes and sidewinders and at some point the American people will push back. Its really all a matter of math.
@Cato the Elder
I seem to remember your saying that you had a FFL so I can understand your opposition to more regulations. (My spouse and I also have hobbies that regularly allow us to make a profit buying and selling – just not guns.)
What I hear from other people protesting more regulation is fear – and not of their profit margin so much as of the bogeyman. That fear is what the NRA capitalizes upon. How do you think the percentage breaks down between the entrepreneurs and the scaredy cats when it comes to opposition to more regulations? Ha ha – I realize that it’s to your advantage that they remain scared.
@Censored bybvbl
I have a C&R. That’s essentially a collectors license, not a dealer. I’ve never made a dime off the sale or transfer of a firearm.
But here’s a serious answer for you to ponder. I agree with universal background checks and integrating mental health records into the process. It’s not being discussed, but I wouldn’t even have a problem with a national registry. I have zero issues with anyone in my government knowing exactly what I have and where they’re stored. I’m even favorably predisposed to discussions about liability insurance and criminal liability for owners of firearms that are used in crimes or gross negligence. The last two I mentioned go directly at the problem. If you’re going to do something in response to an incident, at least try to address the problem directly. Background checks address none of the problems exposed by the SH incident. Who knows, if a law was on the books making it a criminal offense for lost or stolen firearms to be used in a crime then maybe Mom would have locked them in a combination safe instead of leaning them up against the wall in the closet.
Here’s the problem. The political left in this country wants to severely curtail if not outright ban firearms. They bemoan modern interpretations of the 2A and have a very different vision about it. When you hear them saying stuff like “background checks are a starting point” they ain’t kidding.
Therefore, it’s impossible to be a moderate on this issue. The best possible course of action is to execute a scorched earth, no-holds-barred resistance and let your opponents beat themselves bloody on the redoubts. Gun owners are Israelis and the anti 2A people are Iranians – you can’t negotiate with people who don’t believe you have the right to exist and be left alone.
Don’t blame me, I didn’t create the climate, I just play by the rules.
@Cato,
The only flaw in your logic is there are a whole bunch of gun owners out there like me, for example, who don’t want to take away your guns or my guns. We want some common sense rules that keep everyone safe.
When I say, its a starting place, I mean exactly that. How on earth do you tighten up mental health restrictions if you don’t have a background check? This problem isn’t going to be solved in a day, a week or a year.
@Cato the Elder
I think the reason that it’s difficult to be a moderate is that fear has taken the place of reason. My position on gun ownership/responsibility is probably similar to yours except that I’d prefer to see military style weapons more stringently controlled. I think the majority of those weapons aren’t bought by collectors – and, believe me, I know what it’s like to be bitten by the collection bug – but by people who are afraid to be in their own houses or out in public without being armed. I think fear is an issue that needs to be addressed as well. I think fear is motivating much of the talk about the 2nd. amendment. There’s fear about confiscation of guns, fear of a federal registry, fear of home invasion. So much of it is just plain bull$hit.
@Censored bybvbl
If by “stringently controlled” you do not mean “outright banned” then I’d say we have a place to start the conversation. There’s no doubt that an AR15 with a 30 round clip has more destructive potential than a .38 snubnose. A good parallel is driving a tractor trailer or a dumptruck. I have a drivers license, but I’m not allowed to drive those vehicles because I don’t know how, so it would endanger me and those around me if I did. However, I can take additional training and submit to additional background/record checks which would allow me to prove myself competent to do so. What’s unacceptable to me and most other owners is having someone like Feinstein dictate that there’s no way, no circumstance that rifle X, Y or Z could be owned. I believe that there are reasonable restrictions that could be enforced without causing injury to the 2A, but coming to the table with an outright ban position immediately shuts down that discussion.
And fear is on both sides of the argument. You have the gun control crowd deathly afraid that these rifles are in circulation, despite the fact that 99.9% of them are in hands that are completely law-abiding and stable. You have the opposite end of the spectrum that speaks of a dystopian scenario where the government confiscates firearms and herds their owners into FEMA re-education camps. Both are irrational, and irrational people tend to talk past one another.
Which brings me back to my original argument, when both sides are irrational chances for compromise are slim.
I haven’t heard anyone who is touting NRA street cred suggesting that additional training and certification of competency or background check might be needed to own an AR15 type weapon. If that were the case, perhaps there wouldn’t be suggestion of a ban.
I am sitting here trying to determine why anyone would need a weapon like that. Want and need aren’t the same thing. I want lots more purses and turquoise. I don’t need them.
My hobbies don’t have the potential to harm others.
“I think fear is motivating much of the talk about the 2nd. amendment. There’s fear about confiscation of guns, fear of a federal registry, fear of home invasion. So much of it is just plain bull$hit.”
I remember the debate that occurred here in VA, over whether or not to allow concealed carry in establishments that hold an on-premise sale and consumption ABC license. Opponents used “fear” to try to have the bill defeated. Fear of “wild-west shootouts” and “blood running in the streets”, if guns were allowed in bars, even if the armed citizen was prohibited from actually consuming alcohol while armed. I remember the fear that was spread by the Left, when the first AWB was due to sunset. The Left spread fear of massive increases in violent crime. In both cases, the predicted results did not materialize, and in the case of the AWB, the exact opposite happened: gun-related crime went down.
The Left seems bent on demonizing the NRA and its members as “having blood on their hands”. Dave Perry, editor for the Aurora Sentinel, advocates sending NRA members to Gitmo, implying that it is folks like me, an NRA Life Member, who are the real terrorists. What I find so ironic is that many on the Left making these arguments are staunch supporters of an (implied) constitutional right to abortion. How many “beating hearts” have been silenced by the NRA? None! Can Planned Parenthood make the same claim?
I have hated the NRA for years, going back to when they more or less stopped being a group representing gun sports and started beinga group representing gun manufacturers.
I grew up with the NRA magazine sitting in the bathroom ‘reading’ rack so I hardly came from a leftist background.
Some ‘leftists’ are ‘turned.’ They are turned when right wingers start being represented by George Wallace rather than Barry Goldwater. When right wingers go so far right…then everyone looks leftist.
@Steve Thomas
Many of the fear mongers are predictable. They’re the same folks who try to dictate what women can do with a pregnancy and pass restrictive and prying legislation while boo-hooing about the restrictions put on guns. They’re control freaks for their cause. And party advocates. They’re in it for the political game/gain – the middle ground or compromise be damned. You’ve brought up all the hot button, email blast issues whereas Cato has mentioned specifics.
Yea, Cato is sounding awfully reasonable. I am looking around for an army to pop out of a giant wooden horse about now.
Censored, you are so right. Amen. What is so silly, yes silly, is this paranoid fear that is self created because that is how you get attention for your cause. When people instill in their children fear of others, fear of the unknown, fear of being robbed or killed, you paralyze yourself and others. It is ok to be conscious of your surrounding, ok to know your options for protection, but the amount of money and time that people invest in this issue if not commensurate with the “threat” of losing your right to buy a gun.
Can you be allowed to buy any gun, well no, who the hell thinks that? What rational person believes that you can buy a tank, a rocket launcher, a nuclear weapon? None. JUST because a gun is made, that doesn’t mean that you have a RIGHT to possess it. The government CAN and DOES regulate what weapons you can buy already. The second amendment doesn’t allow carte blanche to have any weapon or any bullet just “cause” you want it.
Or any magazine.
Interesting how the interest in military type weapons was created as per the Washington Post article.
Really? Golly gee. What kind of dogs do you own? What if I were walking down the street one day and your dog leaped from the ground and tore my carotid artery out? Dogs that have teeth really, really scare me a lot. Can we just ban them so there’s zero possibility of me getting my throat ripped open by a miniature schnauzer?
There’s about as much chance of that happening as my AR15 causing someone harm.
@Cato,
How did you know?
Dogs aren’t my hobby. They are my protection. Turq and purses don’t harm people.
I am smiling over any one of the boys tearing out a carotid artery.
Point being, you can’t eliminate 100% risks from our daily lives. Censored has it exactly right. Those who make their livings from it use fear and shock to motivate their respective tribes. They don’t really want to solve the problems, be they gun control or immigration or what have you. There’s just too much money to be made from the ensuing pit fights.
People staking their respective flags at either end of the mosh pit tend to keep it rolling and boiling rather than seeking solutions.
You seem to have at least stuck your toe in the water at what most reasonable people would consider moderate compromise.
I don’t like either extreme. (which is why I hate the NRA as an organization)@Cato
@Cato the Elder
They’d ban them based purely on cosmetic features. Big Dog = Mean Dog.
@Censored bybvbl
You mean those fear-mongers who during the run up to the sequester gave speeches about massive layoffs, little kids lunches being cut, etc. etc? You mean fear-mongers who run adds portraying Paul Ryan pushing grannie in a wheelchair, over a cliff? Just want to get clarification over whose fear-mongers you are disparaging…
It seems the jury is still out on the sequester. Many of the cuts are being made where the average John Q Public doesn’t see it.
No catastrophy has happened, especially after the administration got called out for deliberately “making the cuts hurt”. The head of the Capitol cleaning staff’s memo directly contradicting the fearmongering of the President. Canceling the whitehouse tours during spring vacation, while the President and his family take yet another vacation at tax-payer expense. The Furloghs of the Air Traffic Controlers. The president threatening to veto a bill that would actually give him greater flexibility over where the cuts would be applied…all of this has added up to a PR disaster for the President, and his polls have taken a beating. The 2012 election is over. People want the president to quit campaigning, quit politiking, quit demagogging, and govern. The gay-marriage and gun-control side-shows are getting old. The latest Gallop survey puts these two issues as “important” by less than 4% of respondents. The economy, foreign policy, un-employment, a coherent energy policy, balanced budget, the deficit, all rank well above the gay-marriage and gun-control as issues of importance.
Steve, those things you mention were already old with you. I think you are still politicking. Regardless of our personal opinions, Obama is president until January 2016. Not everyone sees it as you see it or agrees with you.
I don’t believe I know the measure being used for how the sequester is being evaluated. I was under the impression it wouldn’t all hit at once. I expect at some point we will all be hollering uncle. I hope I am wrong.
All legislation isn’t cheering by the majority. I generally don’t debate surveys. They change weekly and are very dependent on how the question is framed and who is asked.
Obviously if you and I were constructing a poll, we would frame questions very differently.
@Steve Thomas
You’re giving the typical partisan/party spiel. Sure, it has it’s place in motivating your team but most of us are truly unaffiliated and unmoved by the fear mongering. It makes our eyes glaze over.
Moon, I am not politicking. I am well aware that I am stuck with this President until 2016, and I am waiting for one meaningful important policy success. As the Affordable Care Act is implemented, we are seeing what an absolutely terrible law this is, so much so, one of the main authors, Max Baucus, fears it’s becoming a “train wreck”. Why isn’t the President sitting down with the House and Senate to come up with some ammendments to the bill, which will fix the onerous parts? It’s because this would involve actual work, and governance. No, he’d rather be out there stumping for minor, sideshow issues, using any excuse to deflect attention from Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the economy, and the fact that at any time Iran and Syria might be trading missiles with Israel. Obama is a great campaigner. I’ll give him that. He managed to defy history and logic to get reelected. He’s never governed. Every President that preceded him, Republican and Democrat, figured out a way to govern. Reagan and Clinton were masters of governance in the face of a divided congress. Obama’s only legislative successes (Stimulis and Obamacare) were achieved only because his party controlled two of the three branches of government. Now he can’t get anything done. The reason he lost the gun control debate is because he deliberately demonized gun-owners and the NRA. He picked a fight. He wasn’t interested in “compromise”, because politicking doesn’t involve compromise. Governance REQUIRES compromise.
Steve, I just don’t think I see it that way. You see it through conservative eyes and I see it through moderate eyes. i will even conceded left-leaning moderate eyes.
I don’t think the American people even know what fast and furious is, much less care about it. Most see nothing wrong with how Benghazi was handled.
As for the issues being sideshow….I guess if you are gay, can’t afford contaception, or have been thrown off your policy because you have maxed out, you care a lot. Those things don’t affect me, so I am not sending up fireworks over it. There are people, however, who have a great deal invested in the outcome of those things. Definitely, the numbers are low, these folks are in a majority, but that is one role of govt, to protect the minority from the majority.
As for Syria and Israel….ten foot pole. What is it you want us to do as a nation.
Your criticism of Obama over getting through legilsative packages is about like Lucy criticizing Charlie Brown for not kicking the football.
If I were to criticize him, I would say he needed to form some tighter friendships with folks who owed him something…you know…like Lyndon Johnson would do when he strong armed his old bourbon and branch buddies from the Senate into doing his bidding. The bourbon and branch glue (for lack of a better word) just isn’t there.
Perhaps even Johnson couldn’t do it in this political climate. During Clinton, politics seemed to take a turn from which they have not recovered. Things just have gotten worse. I do not fault Clinton for it either.
@Censored bybvbl
Censored, thanks for the laugh. I do appreciate it.
@Moon-howler
“I don’t think the American people even know what fast and furious is, much less care about it. Most see nothing wrong with how Benghazi was handled. ”
If the Obama Administration (DOJ and State) weren’t hiding behind executive privilage (Fast and Furious…Holder hit with a contempt charge) or engaged in an active cover-up (State), the people might know how these things were handled…and I’d bet they’d care. That’s OK, because Benghazi is coming back to the forefront. Remember, it’s never the crime, it’s the cover-up that sinks politicians.
@Steve Thomas
I seem to remember that those who said Benghazi was a cover up and there was a failure at the highest levels were ridiculed as “conspiracy theorists.”
Hmmmm…..
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583014/diplomat-u.s-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/
That sure is a bunch of shoulda woulda coulda and Monday mornign quarter-backing.
Have at it. I can remember this blog on the day it happened. There was great clamoring to turn it into something political. Court martial Rice and the Prez.
I have seen this one coming for a long time.
@Cargosquid
Cargo, I seem to remember the same thing…., but to quote our former SecState, “At this point, what difference does it make?!!!!!!” We shall see. We shall see.
Oh neat. Nothing would be better than taking Hillary out!!! That would be a two-fer for sure.
[sarcasm detection]
@Moon-howler
If she’s at fault…. yes.
If she is not at fault….fine.
Remember…. a captain of a ship is always responsible for everything. Are you saying that the Secretary of State is less than a captain of the smallest ship?
I haven’t said anything about any captain of any ship. in fact, I am tried of discussing Benghazi. It was political the day it happened….an attempt to hurt Obama in the upcoming elections. That was obvious and transparent.
Talk amongst yourselves about it….elsewhere. I am blasting the NRA.
@Steve Thomas
I am rather amazed at the obsession over this incident. Last week 14 military personnel were killed in Afghanistan. Yet no hoopla. Is Afghanistan a forgotten war? Are these 14 less important than the 4 in Benghazi?
I think it is time to start looking at Afghanistan and who is doing the killing. There are attacks on America all over the world. We can’t decide some deaths are more important than others just because of the gotcha involved.
Some folks here would rather listen to a diplomat on scrambling coverage than the military who was responsible. That makes no sense.
It’s dark. There is an attack on the consulate. There are CIA guards. (because it was a covert operations center) Confusion? You betcha.
So whose opinion counts more? Military’s? CIA? State Dept? Lybian guards? Different perspectives.
Moon,
If seeking the truth in the face of an obvious attempt to hide the truth (some would call this a cover-up) is an “obsession”, then fine, call me obsessed. Servicemen killed in action is no less a loss for our country, than is an ambassador, a member of his IT/Communications staff, and 2 CIA operatives, but the servicemen have the ability to protect themselves. Perhaps it is because this is way more important to me, than it is to you, (by your own admission), I have a much better understanding of what happened, and what didn’t happen, than you do. The same could be said of operation “Fast and Furious”. I would surmise that the reason I have a better appreciation of the facts, as they are known today, is that I am willing to review information from sources that you are unwilling to consider. I’m not talking about “Infowars” conspiracy-type stuff. I am talking about reading the transcripts from the hearings, not just watching the sound-bites the MSM throws out there, or the little anecdotes that the WaPo and NYT desk-editors let slip through. I can tell by your belief that the ambassador was under the protection of CIA guards at the time of the attack, that you aren’t aware of the “Who, What, Why, When, and Where” of the attack. One of the biggest issues I have, beyond the deaths, is the deliberate (yes, it has been established) efforts to mislead the American people, just to protect a president facing a tough re-election. Same goes for Clinton. Lot’s of Presidents had affairs, so what Clinton did with Monica, while immoral, isn’t anything many of his predecessors have also done. It was the lying under oath, the subournation of perjury from others, i.e. the cover-up, that’s what angered me. As far as Benghazi goes, the first whistle-blowers are coming out. The congressional investigation will resume. We deserve the truth. If the facts indict the actions of the President and the Former SecSate, then let justice be served. If the facts exonerate them, then so be it.
I never said Stevens was being guarded by the CIA. I never said he was being guarded by anyone.
Actually you don’t know what I have read or haven’t read. Yes, I watched most of the hearings. I was unimpressed with the chest thumping and bullying.
We will not agree on this and you also feel you are far more educated on the subject that I am, which I believe takes a real streak of arrogance.
I say you are operating from a political point of view. That, like your opinion of your own superior knowledge base, is an opinion.
Todays editorial from the Winchester (VA) Star
“Our View: Jaw-dropping, for now
Posted: May 7, 2013
After months of “hear no evil, see no evil,” the mainstream media has finally rediscovered Benghazi — to a point. On CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday, host Bob Schieffer acted as if a star had just fallen out of the sky, thus directing attention to a mess some folks — 10th District Rep. Frank Wolf, for one — have been assiduously addressing ever since last September’s ghastly raid.
That “star,” as it were, proved to be a person: Greg Hicks, who took over the State Department’s Libyan operation in the wake of Ambassador Chris Stevens’ death at the hands of terrorists on Sept. 11. Mr. Hicks, in speaking to Rep. Darrell Issa’s House Oversight and Government Reform panel, did not say anything new or revealing, but what he did say was convincing — and stated under oath.
Specifically, Mr. Hicks said he was shocked when he heard U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, on the Sunday talk shows (“Face the Nation” included) following the Tuesday attacks, contradict the president of Libya, who had unequivocally said the attack that claimed four American lives was the work not of protesters but of outright terrorists.
“My jaw hit the floor as I watched this,” Mr. Hicks said. “I’ve never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career, as on that day.”;
Hence, the questions still linger: Why the contradiction? Why the alteration of original CIA talking points that clearly suggested the Libyan president was right? Was it done purely for political reasons with a presidential election less than two months away? Or is there something even deeper to this story, something the administration would just as soon not see revealed?
Mr. Wolf is right. A select House committee is needed to ferret out the whole truth about Benghazi.”
@Steve Thomas
One of the biggest issues I have, beyond the deaths, is the deliberate (yes, it has been established) efforts to mislead the American people, just to protect a president facing a tough re-election.
This comes across as an effort to rally the team rather than gather info to see that similar incidents don’t happen again. “The team” has been salivating for a defeat of Obama and a chance to give this administration a good thumping. It’s transparent in the jump to blame someone immediately rather than ask how this happened and how it could be prevented in the future. The emphasis has been on whom can we skewer rather than whether stations were underfunded or understaffed and whether Repubs were part of problem by trying to do so much on the cheap.
Totally agree, Censored. The skewering has been obvious since 9/11/12.
Additionally, I think the fact that this subject bumped my attack on the NRA speaks volumes.
I make no bones about it. I hate the NRA. I didn’t used to. but the NRA has changed the past 20 years or so.
@Censored bybvbl
“It’s transparent in the jump to blame someone immediately rather than ask how this happened and how it could be prevented in the future.”
and it is impossible to ascertain how and what happened, when the parties called to answer are actively engaged in a cover-up, let alone determine how it could be pervented in the future. I’m not affixing blame for the actual attack. I am affixing blame for the cover-up, which in and of itself points to where the blame most likely resides. As far as your accusations as to my “attempts to rally the team”…what team? The GOP team? Believe me, if that were my intention, I would pick a much more effective venue than one run by Moon and Elena. One where the majority of “truely unaffilliated” contributors don’t twist themselves into logical knots trying to defend a failing president from any and all criticism, and resort to plugging their ears saying “La La La I Am Not Listening” whenever they are confronted by facts that derail their narrative.
@Steve,
Wrong words to the song. That should be ” Not buying the BS.”
I totally disagree with your analysis of Benghazi based on what I have seen and heard.
Maybe the story would be different if the Republicans had put up a real candidate who didn’t look down his or her nose at 47% of the constituents. Between the two, I thought it was a clear choice.
Its all math. There aren’t 50% either side of pure R or D. Someone has to win the murkey middle. That can’t be done by a moderate trying to wear big boy conservative clothes. I might have supported the old Romney…the one that hadn’t been ‘turned.’
@Steve Thomas
And I hope you’re open to why a cover-up may have happened.
I make no bones about being liberal on social issues, but that doesn’t make me a Democrat. My email is blasted by liberal spam daily and I open none of it. I’m bored by talking points.
I think the Republicans have played a better game at the state level and the Democrats at the national (Prez) level. The Dems need to start taking the state games more seriously because the top candidates from there usually head to the Senate or Congress.
I don’t think of Obama as a failure just because the Repubs have decided to puncture the ball and run into the locker room and hide. I expect them to be on the field and playing the game.
@Censored bybvbl
As was the case during “Weinergate”, I am only interested in the truth, and if warranted, accountability. Cover-ups usually indicate a desire to avoid being held accountable, for breaches of duty, responsibility, or in the worse cases, the law. While I doubt any laws were broken, there appears to be some serious breaches of duty and responsibility at several levels. The American people deserve to know the truth about Benghazi, and Fast and Furious, and the Boston bombing, etc.
I just don’t care that much about Weiner’s weiner. That’s his wife’s problem and to some degree, his constituents. I can’t think of one good reason why I even care about the truth other than a slight voyeuristic tendency when it comes to such matters.
I can’t think of why the Obamam administration would want to cover up Benghazi.
I can’t think of why the NRA would want to be seen as an extremist group either. They used to be very well respected by gun owners. They used to be informative rather than shrill. They used to have pillars of the community on their board.
@Steve Thomas
The American people deserve to know the truth about Benghazi, and Fast and Furious, and the Boston bombing, etc.
And then what? What justice did the public get from lies that led us into war with Iraq? That was a bigger drain on our collective purse than the issues you mentioned above. Are you Repubs going to up some agency’s budget so that there are more employees to guard against future incidents perpetrated by loners?
These issues just become focal points for parties to bitch or crow about. “Weinergate” and the Lewinski brouhaha are peccadilloes with which spouses or families have to deal. They’re like “wide stance” or “page gate” or any other salacious “gotcha”. How many people are going to initially confess to these “sins”? Not many. They’re going to wait to see if the opposition has the goods on them. Meanwhile the general public composed of moderates is sick of the waste of supposedly “scarce resources”.
“What justice did the public get from lies that led us into war with Iraq?”
What lies? That every major intelligence organization, the governments of Britain, France, Israel, the Saudis, all believed that there were WMD’s in Iraq? That Saddam Hussein himself believed he had WMD’s? That there are indications that the suspected WMD’s were moved to Syria for “safe keeping” by Saddam’s government, prior to the start of the war, and our own intelligence agencies now believe that these very same weapons may have been used by one or both sides in the current Syrian civil war? Are these the “lies” to which you are referring, because if it is, you might want to do a bit more research. Just saying. Also, did the Bush admin try to cover up the fact that they couldn’t find and WMD’s post-invasion? Nope. They took their lumps, and if the current assessment of the Syrian situation bears out, GW may well be vindicated, at least on this account.
With regard to “Weinergate” I think you missed the point of my reference. At the time, there was much debate about whether or not his story of being “hacked” was truthful. Many wanted to dismiss it as a “right-wing attempt to smear’. My position was, it should be investigated by the ethics committee, and if it was just a made-up smear, then Anthony Weiner deserved his reputation back. If not, he should be held to account. Not for what happened, but for repeatedly and publically lying about it. He could have said, “it’s a private matter, no laws were broken, no comment” and he would have been just fine. You keep thinking we “repubs” are obsessed with the sex lives of democrats. Why can’t you understand that we are obsessed with having truthful people making laws in this country. Bill Clinton wasn’t impeached because he got a little “somethin’ somethin'” from a young intern. He was impeached because he lied about it, under oath, and asked others to lie, under oath….both of these actions are criminal, and this is what he was impeached for. Had GOP SC Gov. Sanford lied under oath, I would have supported any actions their legislature or justice system had taken, and because he lied publically, I do not support his candidacy for the Congress. The reason? Because if he is elected, he’ll be making laws that effect you and me. An affair is the business of the parties involved. Lie about it to the public, and you have made the public a party to it as well.
You know why Jon Stewart didn’t think it was true…..evil grin.
It does make yo uwonder why someone who appears to have it all would risk it all by doing something so stupid. But…you can say that about a lot of politicians. It certainly isn’t limited to party.
The only reason I take such delight and glee when it is an R is because it is almost always someone who has tried to pass restrictive laws on the rest of us.
The only one of your folks I didn’t take glee in was poor old Sanford. I felt sorry for him. He was like a lost, love-sick puppy. Not justifying his behavior, just not delighting in the fact he got caught.
Democrats aren’t usually holier than thou. I just get disgusted with them. No delight. John Edwards….I hated.
@Steve Thomas
Sanford had the advantage of a conservative state legislature that spared his having to lie under oath. Clinton had an adversarial Congress composed of many members with similar philandering reputations.
I doubt Anthony Weiner would have been given a pass had he claimed the matter was private and he’d give no comment.
David Vitter was sent back to Congress and Sanford may be as well. Neither is reputable as far as I’m concerned and the silence from your team surrounding their return/possible return is noted.
Anyway, we’re way off topic.
@Censored bybvbl
But it’s been a nice trip, and a civil debate.
I am disgusted that Sanford has been reelected to his old Congressional seat. At least it wasn’t a statewide office though.
It really doesn’t make a lot of difference to me other than to shrug it off as political hypocrisy. The people who voted for him will be out there fustigating everyone else for this that and the other in their culture wars. It looks like Mark is ‘forgiven’ for leaving his office, wife, and kids.
http://www.iowastatedaily.com/opinion/article_1c144792-b36d-11e2-8ac6-001a4bcf887a.html
Back on topic…kinda.
Interesting read on why we can’t have an actual debate about guns.