When will the administration be held accountable?

[Lithium381]

I was under the impression that we were going to be under the most transparent administration in history. . . yet we're left in the dark about Benghazi and also about Fast and Furious. I understand possibly details about benghazi would cause a breech in security measures . . . but F&F? Holder is being protected.

 

[Bowfinger]

Can you be more specific? As it stands, this seems more like a P&N troll thread rather than a base for productive discussion. What information about Benghazi do you feel is missing? Personally, I feel I have a pretty good handle on what happened and why, but I also seek out sources that are not one-sided.

Similarly, I feel I understand pretty well what happened with Fast and Furious, though I'll confess I didn't follow it nearly so closely. It seemed from the beginning to be completely blown out of proportion. I read at least some of the transcripts from Issa's hearing (or hearings, don't remember), They seemed like just a typical example of Issa posturing and blowing endless smoke to attack the Obama administration ... but then again, that's pretty much the only card in his deck so far as I've ever seen. Certainly, I understand his zeal to get internal documents to try to nail Holder. It was simply never clear to me how those documents really mattered except for witch-hunting purposes.

So, what's missing and why is it important? Please be specific.

 

[Craig234]

Seeing your thread title, I think it makes a lot more sense about the previous administration.

Are yoiu serious about Bengazi and fast and furious?

We know a huge amount those. For example, fast and furious was a wll intentioned program we know in detail was thwarted by local right-wing officials.

Those last two are hyped for political reasons by Republicans.

Where's the accountability for tens of billions stolen of Iraqi reconstruction funding, the corrupt Medicare Part D provisions, the corrupt use ofhundreds of billions of tax dollars for big banks...

 

[Charles Kozierok]

As it stands, this seems more like a P&N troll thread rather than a base for productive discussion.

There's nothing wrong with the OP. I agree that a few more details would be appreciated, but please people, no more "troll thread" accusations. If you really think it's "trolling", then report it, but I'm not likely to agree unless it is both obvious and obviously deliberate.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Seeing your thread title, I think it makes a lot more sense about the previous administration.

Are yoiu serious about Bengazi and fast and furious?

We know a huge amount those. For example, fast and furious was a wll intentioned program we know in detail was thwarted by local right-wing officials.

Those last two are hyped for political reasons by Republicans.

Where's the accountability for tens of billions stolen of Iraqi reconstruction funding, the corrupt Medicare Part D provisions, the corrupt use ofhundreds of billions of tax dollars for big banks...

somebody want to ask Craig about the local Republicans? I hadn't seen that and I'm on his Great Big Ignore list.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Seeing your thread title, I think it makes a lot more sense about the previous administration.

Are yoiu serious about Bengazi and fast and furious?

We know a huge amount those. For example, fast and furious was a wll intentioned program we know in detail was thwarted by local right-wing officials.

Those last two are hyped for political reasons by Republicans.

Where's the accountability for tens of billions stolen of Iraqi reconstruction funding, the corrupt Medicare Part D provisions, the corrupt use of hundreds of billions of tax dollars for big banks...

He was asking about the present administration, not Bush or others.

Why after 4+ years; anything negative that is asked about Obama comes back around to a but Bush...

Eventual Obama has to stand on his own; account for what his administration is doing and has done.

Did Bush go around complaining about the economic mess for his first 4 years that Clinton left him?

We are talking in this thread about Obama, not Bush, Clinton, Gore, etc.
You wish to start a discussion about Bush, please do so

 

[Craig234]

He was asking about the present administration, not Bush or others.

Why after 4+ years; anything negative that is asked about Obama comes back around to a but Bush...

Eventual Obama has to stand on his own; account for what his administration is doing and has done.

Did Bush go around complaining about the economic mess for his first 4 years that Clinton left him?

We are talking in this thread about Obama, not Bush, Clinton, Gore, etc.
You wish to start a discussion about Bush, please do so

Maybe because there's so much that has not been held accountable, not been exposed.

It would be like calling 'Bengazi the worst genocide of the last century' and expecting WWII and Rwanda and others not to be mentioned in rebuttal.

The US presidency was stolen in 2000, for example. That's a Big Deal that many people are still not informed about, and the correct response for a citizen is not 'just forget it'.

The point was to point out the massive difference between these hyped up phony attacks on Obama with the actual, real, gigantic scandals on their side without accountability.

It's just outrageous to pretend the issue is 'Fast and Furious' rather than those far worse, slightly older scandals. That's why. Sorry, it is relevant to point out that discrepency.

It would be like starting a thread saying 'Bush tried to do way too much in healthcare, the government should stay out of it' with zero mention of Obamacare.

 

[Craig234]

Did Bush go around complaining about the economic mess for his first 4 years that Clinton left him?

By the way, are YOU serious trying to compare the "economic mess" Clinton left Bush to the one Bush left Obama? I'll give you a chance to restate that before stating the obvious.

 

[Bowfinger]

There's nothing wrong with the OP. I agree that a few more details would be appreciated, but please people, no more "troll thread" accusations. If you really think it's "trolling", then report it, but I'm not likely to agree unless it is both obvious and obviously deliberate.

I apologize if I didn't phrase it well, but that was only one sentence out of twelve. My point was there was nothing specific to respond to. Just a couple of vague accusations with no details, no supporting links, nothing substantive. "We're left in the dark about Benghazi ..." How so? I don't feel like I'm in the dark. What does he feel we're in the dark about? What gaps does he believe still need to be filled?

I didn't want to report the thread because I had no desire to close it down. On the contrary, I wanted Lithium381 to expand his OP with specifics we can address or refute.

 

[Craig234]

"We're left in the dark about Benghazi ..." How so? I don't feel like I'm in the dark. What does he feel we're in the dark about? What gaps does he believe still need to be filled?

All the unanswered questions not answered in this coverup report I'm sure the OP read:

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

 

[ivwshane]

Most transparent does not equal transparent. So already the OP's expectations aren't inline with what Obama promised.

Second, what information has the OP not seen regarding Benghazi and fast and furious? What information is he waiting for.

Would the OP like to state how this administration has been less transparent than previous ones?

 

[Fern]

The only thing that can even try to force an administration to be accountable like that is the press.

And they seem to have neither the access or the desire.

If invoking Executive Privilege in F&F doesn't send up a flag then nothing can be explained to you. F&F cannot possibly have anything to do with national security unless there's a whole lot more we don't know. Obama was said to not have been involved in F&F, at all. Exec privilege is to ensure that the President can receive advice freely. But again, given that he was not involved, and therefore not advised exec privilege raises suspicions.

Benghazi: witnesses have not been allowed to testify to Congress. Heck, they can't even find out who they are. If keeping their identities concealed is important Congress can have closed hearings etc.

Fern

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Most transparent does not equal transparent. So already the OP's expectations aren't inline with what Obama promised.

Second, what information has the OP not seen regarding Benghazi and fast and furious? What information is he waiting for.

Would the OP like to state how this administration has been less transparent than previous ones?

There is a tendency of people to protect their party by diverting to others, and we see that in this thread, not on your part, but it's here. There have been many things that Obama promised that he ignored afterwards, and is ignored by those who support him. Warrantless wiretaps, justice regarding Iraq etc. In fact there are people who cannot mention anything negative regarding Obama without dragging in Republicans in an attempt to mitigate. That's a poor rationalization, because Presidents and everyone else for that matter are accountable for their actions or lack thereof. Obama's predecessor Bush had his fanboys too so this isn't unique to Democrats, but over the decades it's worn thin. It's always someone else who's accountable, and never look at the man behind the curtain, if it's "our guy".

Consequently the answer is that Obama will never be held accountable in any real sense, just as Bush wasn't. More importantly note that while people complain about past administrations those in power never hold them accountable, because if they did then someone might do the same to them. One hand washes the other, and that's a terrible way to handle politicians in anything that's supposed to be any form of democracy.

 

[ivwshane]

There is a tendency of people to protect their party by diverting to others, and we see that in this thread, not on your part, but it's here. There have been many things that Obama promised that he ignored afterwards, and is ignored by those who support him. Warrantless wiretaps, justice regarding Iraq etc. In fact there are people who cannot mention anything negative regarding Obama without dragging in Republicans in an attempt to mitigate. That's a poor rationalization, because Presidents and everyone else for that matter are accountable for their actions or lack thereof. Obama's predecessor Bush had his fanboys too so this isn't unique to Democrats, but over the decades it's worn thin. It's always someone else who's accountable, and never look at the man behind the curtain, if it's "our guy".

Consequently the answer is that Obama will never be held accountable in any real sense, just as Bush wasn't. More importantly note that while people complain about past administrations those in power never hold them accountable, because if they did then someone might do the same to them. One hand washes the other, and that's a terrible way to handle politicians in anything that's supposed to be any form of democracy.

I agree with you on your point but disagree with your example. One of the reasons I did not initially support Obama was because of his support of the patriot act and warrantless wiretaping and I have not heard him say anything about bringing justice with regards to Iraq (feel free to correct me if I am wrong).

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I apologize if I didn't phrase it well, but that was only one sentence out of twelve. My point was there was nothing specific to respond to. Just a couple of vague accusations with no details, no supporting links, nothing substantive. "We're left in the dark about Benghazi ..." How so? I don't feel like I'm in the dark. What does he feel we're in the dark about? What gaps does he believe still need to be filled?

I didn't want to report the thread because I had no desire to close it down. On the contrary, I wanted Lithium381 to expand his OP with specifics we can address or refute.

I understand and it's not a problem. I wasn't trying to cherry-pick the one sentence and I appreciated that the rest of the reply was to the topic. I may just be over-sensitive to the phrase "troll thread" at this point.

 

[fskimospy]

He was asking about the present administration, not Bush or others.

Why after 4+ years; anything negative that is asked about Obama comes back around to a but Bush...

Eventual Obama has to stand on his own; account for what his administration is doing and has done.

Did Bush go around complaining about the economic mess for his first 4 years that Clinton left him?

We are talking in this thread about Obama, not Bush, Clinton, Gore, etc.
You wish to start a discussion about Bush, please do so

It's not so much on topic but yes,Bush was in fact still complaining about inheriting a recession four years in. Quite frequently, in fact.

As for whether or not the administration has been 'held accountable', there just doesn't seem to be much to go on. There are quite a large number of conservative media outlets who would like nothing better than to get something big on Obama, they have failed. You have the House, with subpoena powers...and little to show for it.

Maybe the Obama administration just hasn't been very scandal prone up to this point? If anything, it seems like the right wing is hurting itself by so desperately looking for scandals in that when a real one comes along they will lack credibility. Their behavior over the Benghazi attack, for example, has been disgraceful.

 

[waggy]

The only thing that can even try to force an administration to be accountable like that is the press.

And they seem to have neither the access or the desire.

If invoking Executive Privilege in F&F doesn't send up a flag then nothing can be explained to you. F&F cannot possibly have anything to do with national security unless there's a whole lot more we don't know. Obama was said to not have been involved in F&F, at all. Exec privilege is to ensure that the President can receive advice freely. But again, given that he was not involved, and therefore not advised exec privilege raises suspicions.

Benghazi: witnesses have not been allowed to testify to Congress. Heck, they can't even find out who they are. If keeping their identities concealed is important Congress can have closed hearings etc.

Fern

the F&F is the one thing that really pisses me off. Never would i imagian the government selling arms to mexican gangs. then when they come back to murder US citizens try go stonewall and hide it. This honestly should shock and cause more fear.

for the record anyone that thinks they can be totally transparent is a idiot. its just not possible

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I agree with you on your point but disagree with your example. One of the reasons I did not initially support Obama was because of his support of the patriot act and warrantless wiretaping and I have not heard him say anything about bringing justice with regards to Iraq (feel free to correct me if I am wrong).

I need to clarify. Obama was for holding telcos for their part in wiretaps but later not only didn't follow through but favored protection. When Obama was a Senator he was against the war, but dropped that. He did not promise to launch an investigation. He now supports the NSA in preventing anyone from gaining knowledge of domestic wiretaps. My understanding is that one needs to have evidence of such a wiretap to pursue legal action, but the only way one can do that is to get that information from the government to serve as evidence, creating a Catch 22 situation.

Now none of that is illegal (well if it is we can't know in the case of the NSA) but to my way of thinking there ought to be a great many people who should be calling for accountability since many (myself included and I'm not a Democrat) expected more. So far people have expressed unhappiness, but I'd think his support for terror legislation would have him in hot water.

In the real world there wasn't much that could be done anyway, since political parties will run with a sitting President for second term unless something very serious makes a second run a guaranteed disaster. When was the last time that happened?

I wish we had some redress for our politicians actions while in office, something akin to a vote of no confidence, but he who is in office rules invulnerable. Doesn't seem the smartest thing we ever did.

 

[Craig234]

There are quite a large number of conservative media outlets who would like nothing better than to get something big on Obama, they have failed. You have the House, with subpoena powers...and little to show for it.

Many people don't know the history of the Republicans on this stuff.

Under Clinton, they abused the Special Prosecutor law, they spent tens of millions of tax dollars trying to find something, one right-wing billionare alone spent $50 million on a fishing expedition paying for any dirt anyone could come up with on Clinton, a group of high-poiwered right-wing lawers secretly donated their time to try to 'get Clinton', calling themselves the 'Elves', there's a reason there are books with titles such as "The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton".

They even spread stories such as baseless accusations of wife-beating by Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal.

After years of their witch hunt turned up zero they could act on and it was about to wrap up, they finally stumbled across the affair, and got a judge and the Supreme Court to make rulings allowing them to use that incident - and then abused the power of impeachment to impeach the President for the second time in our history.

Highly corrupt, partisan, unethical behavior abusing power for political attacks. Obama's scandal is the opposite, his refusal to investigate and prosecute actual crimes.

 

[blankslate]

Since the pardon of President Nixon by President Ford the accountability of Presidents is unfortunately not happening... unless they get caught getting a BJ from an intern then it's impeachment time.

As I recall Benghazi isn't the only incident were Americans died at Embassies or similar places.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_on_diplomatic_missions

It only became an issue because one happened on President Obama's watch, during an election cycle.

As far as Fast and Furious. It's gone about as far as other presidential controversies...

Good for the Goose good for the Gander as it were. If only President Ford didn't pardon President Nixon I guess.

 

[Craig234]

Since the pardon of President Nixon by President Ford the accountability of Presidents is unfortunately not happening... unless they get caught getting a BJ from an intern then it's impeachment time.

As I recall Benghazi isn't the only incident were Americans died at Embassies or similar places.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_on_diplomatic_missions

It only became an issue because one happened on President Obama's watch, during an election cycle.

As far as Fast and Furious. It's gone about as far as other presidential controversies...

Good for the Goose good for the Gander as it were. If only President Ford didn't pardon President Nixon I guess.

Or Iran-Contra.

Sure, directly violate a law from Congress banning any aid for a terrorist army.

 

[blankslate]

Or Iran-Contra.

Sure, directly violate a law from Congress banning any aid for a terrorist army.

I wasn't going to name another, because I was wondering if we'd see "But But But Bush..." (or in this case Reagan) however yes the one you named surely does count.

 

[ivwshane]

So basically we all agree, presidents will never be held accountable for the things they do unless it's something stupid.

My original thread came to the same conclusion.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2308456&highlight=

 

[Lithium381]

House subpoena didn't help when Obama granted Holder protection. . he essentially ignored their requests for documentation and told them to pound sand. In terms of F&F, i understand if the original intent was to sell them the guns and then track them..... sounds like an okay idea if implemented properly.

But i'm more curious about where it went wrong. . and when they wanted to try to use it as support for anti-gun legislation. Holder and Obama have made their positions clear on that issue. . .

"most transparent admin ever" . . .

Why do we put up with this as a citizenry? We just accept it? Or is it becuause depending on who's in office, only half of us are aboard the propaganda train at any one time? I don't care if you guys want to make it about Bush, or Clinton, or even Reagan. . . . i don't want to play blue vs red... why is it so hard to represent the people and not lie to us? What hidden agendas are going on?

 

[blankslate]

Why do we put up with this as a citizenry? We just accept it? Or is it becuause depending on who's in office, only half of us are aboard the propaganda train at any one time? I don't care if you guys want to make it about Bush, or Clinton, or even Reagan. . . . i don't want to play blue vs red... why is it so hard to represent the people and not lie to us? What hidden agendas are going on?

It's put up with because one President who could've been prosecuted was pardoned...

You can say "if you guys want to make it about Reagan, Clinton, Bush yadda yadda..." but President Ford set the precedent of current presidents not launching investigations into their predecessors..

It's just the way it is. If we really wanted to change it then we'd have challenged our Presidents over past and current indiscretions, but we don't....

Unless it involves lies about sex.... let's face it presidents have lied about far worse things.