by Jack
Recently we heard about a couple of Republicans that felt the committee to investigate Benghazi was possibly done in part to damage Hillary Clinton. This is now being billed as an admission of guilt that the Benghazi Committee was a fraud.
I have no doubt that many Republicans recognized how this committee could and [should] damage Clinton. She was after all, the person responsible for providing security for her staff. But, does anyone really believe the (GOP) looked at the Benghazi incident and suddenly said, “Hey kids, lets form a bogus committee, spend a lot of time and money for the sole purpose of causing political damage for Hillary Clinton!” Of course not. But, this absurdity is helped along by a couple of Republicans who ran their mouth before thinking and started a firestorm of controversy.
“Sometimes the biggest sin you can commit in D.C. is to tell the truth,” says RINO Richard Hanna from New York to the media.
“This may not be politically correct, but I think that there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people and an individual, Hillary Clinton.”
Of course Hanna was expressing his [opinion]. It came absent any supportive evidence. However, he portrays it as taking a risk to tell the truth. Give us a break Mr. Hanna! Since when does an opinion equate to the truth? Clearly Hanna is confused about what is truth and what is opinion, uh, something not unusual in Washington.
What is important for you to know is, Hanna-the-RINO wasn’t even a member of the committee in question so he has no idea what those on the committee were thinking. And McCarthy’s name doesn’t appear on the committee rolls either, so what does he know?
Anyway, this RINO goes on to say, “After what Kevin McCarthy said, it’s difficult to accept at least a part of it was not. I think that’s the way Washington works. But you’d like to expect more from a committee that’s spent millions of dollars and tons of time.” Ah, so there it is, Hanna-the-RINO is basing his opinion on hearsay and an opinion from McCarthy and he calls it the [truth.] Amazing. This irresponsible hearsay and innuendo, but it is also ammunition for the wacky left. It’s currently being translated on the liberal blogosphere to mean: Absolute [proof] positive that the Benghazi Committee was formed for no other reason than to attack Hillary Clinton! It went from one person’s opinion to a rock solid fact in one small step.
Yep, the lie is out here just like it was fact. Check the internet. You just search key words like: Hillary, Benghazi, Republicans and Committee. You will get a ton of liberal swill, 90% of it is disinformation. There’s all kinds of wild eyed accusations being portrayed as the [gospel] truth by know-nothing-morons who blindly follow the liberal cause.
These liberal internet writers have no shame, and after reading their version of the Benghazi Committee and the twisting of words by a couple of Congressman, I think its fair to say they have no scruples either.
I want to underscore my point about what the intention of the committee was really about. Lets go on one more exercise in logic. Let’s say you are a Congress person (and I wish you were) and lets say you’re watching people across the USA take to the streets and demonstrate over the Benghazi incident and Obama’s disinformation that followed.
Wouldn’t you be moved to form a committee to investigate this incident? Of course, it’s only logical and reasonable.
So, when Congress finally did form an investigative committee they were looking at Hillary and a few others. So what? This does not make it a witch hunt as the left wants you to believe! You have to start somewhere and the Benghazi trail kept going right back top people in the State Dept. and the White House.
The American people wanted answers because people died – this is the job of Congress and they had a duty to investigate! The left can assign all kinds of lesser included motives for it, but the fact remains this investigative committee came about by a mandate from the American people while the White House was in full spin mode.
Benghazi happened on Sept. 12th, 2012 and it seems nobody is responsible for anything, nobody held back the rescue on the ground. Nobody blocked aircraft from flying air cover. Nobody denied them security forces before the attack. This all just kinda happened in a vacuum. Nobody was in charge of anything and if they were they were out of town. But, blunders and delays did happen and it cost lives, this is why we’re still looking for answers because we deserve to know the truth.
No justice – no peace.
I cut it a little, but not much, cause it’s quite insightful … not that you’ll gain any insight from it. Just a little different perspective on that turn-coat, Hanna:
Salon – Amanda Marcotte
If you want to know why congressional Republicans are falling apart, look no further the latest comments from Rep. Richard Hanna, a Republican from New York, about the endless Benghazi hearings. Speaking to radio host Bill Keller, Hanna conceded that Rep. Kevin McCarthy was speaking the truth when he admitted that the hearings are about driving down Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers, despite all the disingenuous posturing about truth and justice [that’s your Tag-Line, Tina !] that is generally used to justify what has now gone on longer than the Watergate hearings while producing nothing of importance.
…
It was a strange choice of words. “Politically correct” is a phrase conservatives use to demonize liberal efforts to stigmatize open expressions of bigotry. “It may not be politically correct to say so” is the phrase you usually hear right before someone says something overtly racist, sexist, or homophobic. It’s not usually used to refer to Republican efforts to hide the partisan nature of the fake scandals they generate to tarnish the reputations of Democrats and liberals.
But the use of the phrase was nonetheless telling. For decades now, Republicans have benefitted by nurturing the conservative sense of victimhood, telling conservatives that, if it weren’t for those liberals and their political correctness, they could let loose with whatever vile opinion they secretly hold in their hearts regarding the proper place of women, LGBT folks, and people of color. After being told for that long that being told to hold your tongue is the worst possible oppression that any human being has ever faced, it makes sense that some conservatives are going to start chafing under Republican demands for self-censorship.
And let’s be honest: The Republican demands for self-censorship are far more stringent than anything liberals ask of them. As I pointed out last week, hiding their true motivations is the rule, not the exception, when it comes to the right. On issues ranging from voter ID laws to attacks on Planned Parenthood to the Benghazi posturing, conservatives will give you any reason under the sun for their views, except the real one.
…
Take, for instance, Monica Miller of Citizens for a Pro-Life Society, who was one of the major organizers for the past weekend’s nationwide protests of Planned Parenthood. The official story Republicans are pushing is that the attacks on Planned Parenthood are about “life,” but Miller broke with the party line and let the truth slip out on a Catholic radio program. “I say even if Planned Parenthood didn’t perform one single abortion, just the mere fact that its sexual ethic is corrupted means right there, should be the reason right there, that they should not receive any federal money,” Miller argued. “The kind of sexual ethic that Planned Parenthood promotes is sex for recreation, sex for mere pleasure.”
It’s clear why Republican leadership might not want people to hear that the anti-choice movement, at its core, is about trying to end the practice of sex for pleasure. But this is the Donald Trump screw-it era, so it’s no surprise to see people like Miller let the truth leak out. It must feel like a real moment of unburdening yourself.
A similar thing is going on with race, as white supremacists are increasingly pushing back against conservative efforts to silence them. One especially telling example from this week: The former head of the Arizona Republican Party, Randy Pullen, took to Twitter to argue that the government should “take guns away from blacks as they are the main killers.” [Jack, do you suppose she saw your posts on the subject?]
It’s definitely not liberals who want people like Pullen and Miller—and Donald Trump—to shut up. Liberals, by and large, can’t wait for some conservative to say something outrageous so they can all share it on Facebook. [Hee, hee … too true.] No, the pressure to be “politically correct” comes mostly from Republicans, and so the nose-thumbing is increasingly aimed in their direction.
Compared to the radical Tea Party/Freedom Caucus/poo-flingers that increasingly make up the ranks of congressional Republicans, Hanna is a relative moderate. But his use of “politically correct” to describe the pressure coming from party leaders to join up with the disingenuous posturing and suppress his real opinion fits in the larger overall trend on the right. Increasingly, Republican politics isn’t about winning elections or getting things done, but seen as a vehicle for individual self-expression. That’s one reason Trump is winning in the polls. It’s also why the House can’t elect a Speaker, as every nominee tossed up is decried for being too politically correct. When you tell your people for decades that they’re being oppressed whenever they’re told to be nice and get along with others, don’t be surprised if that destroys your ability to do the basic work of organizing a political party.
Thanks Libby I liked reading that.
Have you heard any of the talk … and I’m sure it’ll come to nothing, but it’s an enchanting idea … about your Rinos and our Yellow Dogs forming a coalition to pick the next Speaker of the House?
It’s so parliamentary. We never do cool things like that.
“And let’s be honest: The Republican demands for self-censorship are far more stringent than anything liberals ask of them.”
I don’t agree with everything in that piece–I think Republican opposition to PP really IS about abortion–but this line is perfect. One only has to look at how Hanna was immediately labeled a “RINO” the moment he said something against his fellow Republicans.
Conservatives tend to pretend that only liberals have Things Which Must Never Be Said, but that simply isn’t true–no Republican running today would ever acknowledge the scientific consensus on climate change without being called a RINO. And this shows a trend toward radicalization–it was George Bush who first proposed cap and trade as a free market compromise, and now that’s seen as socialism. Conservatives absolutely have their version of political correctness.
Chris, what do you mean, “look how quick Hanna was labeled a RINO?” Where’s that coming from – based on what factual information? I would say zero factual information.
Hana has earned that label long before I wrote this article – did you even check before criticizing me?
2014, a former Congresswoman said, “Hanna is a “liberal Republican” who “sold out his constituents” and Tea Party supporters like herself who voted for him in 2010 and 2012.
One of the ranking systems said, “Based on analysis of multiple outside rankings, Hanna may break with the Republican Party line more than his fellow members. ” Actually he votes closer to Utah Democrat Jim Matheson than most of his republican colleagues.
Chris, what you know about republicans would fit in a thimble. You constantly misconstrue motives, goals and values of the GOP and conservatives, yet you have only the word of liberals to base your opinion. You’ve never been a part of the real GOP at any level…so you really don’t know anything about them do you? No, of course not. What you know is mostly based on rhetoric and spin from the opposition. That hardly qualifies you as a reliable source for anything republican.
Jack, you’re right that I was wrong to assume you labeled Hanna a RINO only because of this incident. That was an ignorant assumption on my part.
I think your point that my impression of Republicans is mostly based on what other liberals say is less strong. I read this blog on a near-daily basis, and have for several years. I’d argue that my impression of Republicans is based mostly on what I see at this site.
OMG…Chris, please don’t appraise the GOP based on anything I say!!!! I am a rabid right-winger. lol
If you are referring to GHW Bush you have to realize that the scandals about fudging evidence had not come out nor had scientists that disagree been heard from at that point. Also, the truly insane proposals to fight climate change (global warming) had not yet been proposed by the loony left.
All things in perspective.
Also, Republicans have come up with a number of things for the conservation of our land and planet. The EPA was proposed by Richard Nixon. The problem with the EPA is that liberals corrupted it’s purpose and use it to legislate without Congressional involvement…the people are left out. The authoritarian EPA has been used as a bludgeon and that is not what was originally intended.
Yet another reason that the federal government should be reigned in…abuse of power!
During the Watergate era the accused parties actually took the hearings seriously. The entire nation did. Nixon was eventually told by his party to step down for the good of the country and he did…that’s why the witch hunt ended.
I can’t say that the Democrat Party or the modern media take these charges against Hillary, which are much more egregious, seriously…nor does she. If Hillary were cooperating, if she were taking these charges seriously, the hearings would not have to drag on. It’s always like pulling teeth with the Clinton’s and they pretty much always get away with their serial obstruction efforts. None of the rest of us would, Democrats or Republicans…General Petraeus, Scooter Libby, Alberto Gonzalas, Newt Gingrich, Laura Richardson, Jesse Jackson Jr., and Jim Traficant to name just a few.
“while producing nothing of importance”
The FBI finding enough evidence to begin an investigation isn’t important? Would it be important if it were Condoleezza Rice being accused?
Libby clearly you have no idea how anyone on the right thinks, except for actual white supremacists and on that we agree, they are scum in the civilized world. But the ridiculous rules and definition that pointy headed academics come up with do not define me or any other American. it is pompous and arrogant to think they do. It’s understandable, I suppose, that people who immerse themselves in their chosen field of women’s, LBGT, and black studies come up with such tripe, they don’t live, work, or socialize with others. So they imagine what people man when they say something that is outside their written in stone narrative. Example:
You wrote: “The former head of the Arizona Republican Party, Randy Pullen, took to Twitter to argue that the government should “take guns away from blacks as they are the main killers.”
Twitter? Really Libby? But setting that aside, if the discussion iscenterred around taking guns away from law abiding Americans wouldn’t it be a reasonable, if somewhat sarcastic retort (Twitter) in this day and age? Blacks killing blacks with guns is a big problem about which Democrats will not speak, at least in terms of gun control.
The statement was not necessarily racist. You assume it was based on politically correct hushing rules and your own radical bias toward people who don’t think exactly like you.
Then you wrote the most ridiculously biased and bigoted thing I’ve heard in a long time.
“It’s clear why Republican leadership might not want people to hear that the anti-choice movement, at its core, is about trying to end the practice of sex for pleasure.”
That may be one persons position. I’ve ever heard anyone say it. It’s ridiculous to think that’s the reason the Republican leadership would rather not focus on social issues. You probably know that too…you just enjoy being absurd cause you thunk it makes us squirm. But it’s also bigoted to think that people who are pro-life have such shallow narrow values.
“the pressure to be “politically correct” comes mostly from Republicans”
Oh brother! Political correctness and vehicles “for individual self-expression ” are lefty constructs. You’ve been at them for years. It’s not enough to live and let live…you are about forcing others to share and agree with your values. And you and your party will use any available hammer to try to force people to get their minds right.
I understand you would like to turn the tables on this. It was much easier when people just shut up and complied with your every wish, command and demand. Being your dhimmī is just not in the cards for me, sorry. I don’t have to automaticaly bend to your will.
And I wouldn’t be so smug about party politics if I were you.
November 2014. The Nation:
This is The Nation so it isn’t surprising to read nonsense about Obama “…playing nice with the opposition to show its apparently limitless commitment to bipartisanship.
There is no evidence that Obama ever “played nice” or showed a single ounce of bipartisanship. At every step of the way Obama has shown contempt for the opposition (and the people they represent). He, like most liberal progressives, is a my way or the highway kind of person. Even a little shop owner refusing to bake a cake…a CAKE for God’s sake…must be stomped on and destroyed to force compliance elsewhere. Your party pretends to be the party that cares…all you care about is power over others.
But I too enjoyed reading what you had to say.
Jack iIm confused. What happened to your other article…and Chris’s comment?
Oh well, here’s my response.
Chris’s assertion that, “ridiculous lies that have been spread by conservatives” is hilarious. Any investigation is about consideration of information as it’s been gathered. Hillary hasn’t exactly been cooperative so the drip, drip, drip continues (Probably by design).
Nothing has been charged formally, it’s all speculation at this point, at least out here in the public sphere.
Chris believes the video was and should have been the star of the show when the administration stood before the people to explain what happened. Most Republicans believe that the video may have played a minor role and a planned terror attack by a group affiliated with al Qaeda that had claimed responsibility should have been the star of the show. These are opinions. Chris should know that.
Chris backs up his belief by telling us other protests that went on at that time (Cairo) were a result of the video so it makes sense that the Benghazi incident was too. He downplays centuries old religious motivation already in play before the video, the obvious pre-planning, the fact that this area was deemed too dangerous by the Red Cross and the Brits, and the opinion of the Libyan President:
There’s a problem with his theory. Benghazi was a planned attack, not a “protest” that spun out of control.
On the other hand, correspondence in real time indicates those closest to the action believed the compound was under a terrorist attack. There is also evidence that the talking points were altered in a way that wiped clean any evidence that would make the administration look bad prior to the election. Susan Rice was sent out to sell the video story. Had she told us that investigations were ongoing, that a terror organization had taken credit, and that the attackers may have been influenced by this video there wouldn’t been a question. That she didn’t is evidence that the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton were engaging in a deception prior to the election a few weeks away.
All of that and Chris clings to the silly video as the main driver of the attack…absurd!
Tina: “Chris backs up his belief by telling us other protests that went on at that time (Cairo) were a result of the video so it makes sense that the Benghazi incident was too.”
I also have backed it up by showing you video of the attackers claiming that their motivation was the video, articles at the time by reporters on the ground who interviewed people who said it was the video, articles featuring comments by detainees associated with the attack saying it was the video…at this point there is no more evidence I can offer you.
“the obvious pre-planning”
It wasn’t obvious to the House Republicans who issued this report in 2014:
https://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi%20Report.pdf
If we still weren’t sure if there was significant pre-planning two years later, how could we have known for sure the week of the event?
Your accusations all presume perfect knowledge of the actors in the White House when there is plenty of reason to believe–as the above Republican-led report concludes–their knowledge was actually very imperfect. For example, the report says that there was contradictory intelligence regarding the existence of a protest beforehand. You also claim that:
“Susan Rice was sent out to sell the video story. Had she told us that investigations were ongoing, that a terror organization had taken credit, and that the attackers may have been influenced by this video there wouldn’t been a question. That she didn’t is evidence that the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton were engaging in a deception prior to the election a few weeks away.”
But this ignores that according to Patreus, Susan Rice was never even told about Al Qaeda’s involvement, and that references were removed by the intelligence community.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_investigation_into_the_2012_Benghazi_attack
Above you can find the most comprehensive timeline I have seen of the Benghazi investigation. It is very balanced and ever entry is sourced. It does a good job showing the confusion both within the intelligence community and the White House. I don’t see how anyone can come away from reading it still thinking that the White House knew right away which intelligence was accurate or that there was some kind of organized conspiracy. If that were the case there wouldn’t have been so many contradictory statements from within the same offices!
The administration is definitely responsible for sowing confusion and making statements too early, but they also corrected their statements rather quickly; within two weeks the administration had acknowledged there was no protest. Again, if all this was designed to make Clinton and Obama look better why would they do this? None of this appears orchestrated, it all appears ill-informed. In their defense I’m not sure the administration anticipated how important it was to nail down the exact causes right away; embassy attacks have happened under every administration, and they have rarely if ever faced this much scrutiny. At the same time they should have realized their every action and utterance is under the microscope, even more so than usual in these partisan times, and they shouldn’t have made any statements without solid proof.
Again, the evidence doesn’t show an organized conspiracy. Obama called the event an “act of terror” the day after it happened. Why would he do that if he was trying to hide the fact that it was a terrorist attack? It doesn’t make any sense. Why assume malice when incompetence is a perfectly good explanation?
Finally, given your easy forgiveness of the Bush adminustration’s claim that Iraq had nuclear weapons–a claim that could have and should have been easily dismantled before it ended up costing far more lives than were lost in Benghazi–I find your concern over Benghazi disingenuous. That you feel this is a bigger issue than a war that was started under false premises tells me that your quest is a partisan one, not one based on firm principles of truth and justice.
Jack: “Let’s say you are a Congress person (and I wish you were) and lets say you’re watching people across the USA take to the streets and demonstrate over the Benghazi incident and Obama’s disinformation that followed…The left can assign all kinds of lesser included motives for it, but the fact remains this investigative committee came about by a mandate from the American people while the White House was in full spin mode.”
Please. Romney was accusing Obama of “sympathizing” with the terrorists in Benghazi before it was even the twelfth of September. After that it was a rush for each Republican congressman to accuse the administration of some kind of wrongdoing in the incident. The outrage absolutely came from the top down, it was not a grassroots swell as you’re trying to portray it here. Republicans in Congress may have been vey successful in convincing their followers that this was a big issue/conspiracy, but the initial protests did not come from the base, it came from the party’s leadership.
…
Chris the video is certainly in evidence. But it was NOT the only thing in evidence. Yet the administration chose to send out a person of authority on the Sunday talk shows to say specifically that the video was the reason. There was a concerted effort to make the video equal America…to shame America and minimize the terrorist aspect.
I find how they handled this offensive, deceptive, and insulting. I find the excuse making for it appalling and I know if this were the Bush administration the attitude from the left would be very different.
The video is only one aspect of this issue. Underneath the probability of an attempt to cover up a terrorist incident that looked bad security wise and ended in several deaths just prior to an election is the egregiously bad handling of security prior to the incident. That leads to the question of possible illegal practices regarding the emails.
“…given your easy forgiveness of the Bush adminustration’s claim that Iraq had nuclear weapons–a claim that could have and should have been easily dismantled before it ended up costing far more lives than were lost in Benghazi–I find your concern over Benghazi disingenuous.”
Chris you constantly lecture me about this type of argument. The two issues are not the same in any way. The invasion of Iraq was part of a larger strategy. The decision to go to war in Iraq was made based on more than WMD, which at the time was accepted as truth by everyone including high ranking Democrats. Security in Benghazi was Hillary’s responsibility as Secretary of State. She made very bad decisions in circumstances that were not beyond her control. Now we know she may have broken laws as well in her correspondence. A forgiving attitude would be a lot easier if there was any sense at all that you were at least mildly curious about the possibility that there was wrongdoing that requires legal action.
I acknowledge that I think Hillary is a person who believes the laws don’t apply to her. I admit that, if guilty of federal crimes, I would be glad to see her prosecuted and punished according to law. But my interest isn’t purely political, no mater what you think. I really do care that our leaders, no mater who they are, be held accountable.
I want the truth to be the important aspect of any investigation or accusation. I want and expect cooperation from the accused. I want and expect the media to investigate in an unbiased manner. I have been greatly disappointed in these areas and I believe it’s been bad for the country.
Tina: “Underneath the probability of an attempt to cover up a terrorist incident”
If you were trying to cover up a terrorist incident, would you call it an “act of terror” the day after it happened?
I think the Hilary email scandal is legitimately concerning and it’s one of the reasons I won’t vote for her. But I remain unconvinced that the Benghazi scandal is as valid. None of what happened screams “cover-up,” it screams confusion and incompetence. I’ve yet to be convinced anyone in the administration even had reason to think they would need to lie about it to save their election prospects–embassy attacks have never, ever been an election issue, foreign policy certainly wasn’t a major election issue in 2012, the accusations against the administration in the lead-up to the election had no bearing on the results, and if they were trying to cover up the real causes of the protest to help Hilary down the line, they had to have known they would get caught given all the conflicting information–it only took a week and a half for the administration to reverse course. They can’t be so incompetent as to think the truth wouldn’t come out quickly, or to think they would look better lying for a little bit than telling the truth immediately. It just doesn’t track.
I think the real problem here was a lack of foresight, not political conniving and scheming, which the Obama administration is typically better at. Its not an idealist position on the Obama administration keeping me from saying this was a cover-up, it’s a realist position. The purported motive just doesn’t make sense, and wasn’t at all necessary.
Many of the same claims of “witch hunt” and “partisan politics” were made during the Watergate investigation. Said claims evaporated when proof of illegal activity were found.
Blumenthal’s emails gave a lot of insight into $hilLIARy shenanigans, and expect Huma’s and Cheryl Mills’ to do the same. Huma testifies behind closed doors today, and -surprise, surprise – they just found another email address for Huma.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425641/huma-abedin-email-address-discovered-benghazi-committee-testimony
Sure would like to be a fly on the wall for today’s testimony . . . .
I would as well, J.
Curious how many of you have read the actual reports from these committees?
Also yes it’s all about winning elections 24/7 That’s all congress cares or works for. Power. They are guilty as charged.
Now with the proven facts that the GW Admin is guilty of crimes as well…..why is it always said…move on…thousands died.
You guys believe WTC bldg 7 just crumbled in seconds with all the pentagon records 1 day after they announced 2.3 Trillion missing cause why? oh he’s a conservative
Obama’s admin may have drone charges due also once declassified docs are seen.
Who here can tell me where Ambassador Stevens is buried? I know, do you? I watched from a distance did you?
Now where are all missing Bush emails?
I do not want Hilliary but if I had to would vote for her as a lessor evil over any GOP on the stump. lies, sex, and videotape = Washington DC
The people are not represented
it was a witch hunt and they are admitting it. Issa did nothing but witch hunts too. Smear jobs. It’s what they do ask Newt he is likely to just say it.
Dewey’s “reports” and “documents” are looking more and more like scripts from a Michale Moore movie.
Funny Tina I have never watched one. Since you are a Michael Moore movie person can you tell me what is and why? Interesting. Than Truth seems to ring in some places.
facts are facts. No Right wing Blog or the hypocrisy of their failure to be concerned in these crimes can change what happened.
Where is the 2.3 Trillion missing in Iraq Funds? Bottom Line it was squandered.
You really need to be more concerned abut wasteful military spending especially when they are not putting it on the books. I call it raiding US Taxpayers for profit.
Dewey we should be concerned about wasteful spending in all departments as I have said multiple times.
Having said that, defense of the nation, I repeat, is the ONE big thing the Constitution gives our federal government to do. That’s why I constantly champion limited government at the federal level!
People like you often quote Eisenhower in your anti-weapons rants. An example I’ve read: “we must beware the military industrial complex.”
This misquote is so typical of the left. It comes from the parting speech given by Eisenhower as he left the Presidency. The speech addresses the need for balance in our domestic and foreign efforts at problem solving. In terms of defense of the nation he had quite a lot to say:
Surprise, surprise, the very popular Republican president and general was warning against government domination and corruption with respect to the military complex.
The second to last paragraph in the above quote sends chills up my spine: “in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.”
That is EXACTLY what the global warming scientific elite have done!!!
Just a reminder—
http://borepatch.blogspot.com/2015/10/traace-adkins-arlington.html