Mr. Speaker! We Need To Get Back To Benghazi

[Liar]

Yep, watch Gowdy bitch slap the MSM.

That man has the weirdest hairdo.

 

[RjThoughts]

It doesn't explain anything, Reagan didn't lie to the American people and to Congress, and didn't try to cover it all up to protect his job or his party.

For fuck's sake, the supposed lie happened AFTER, and has been beat like a dead horse. Ain't it time for the GOP to move on to something more substantive, like getting roads fixed!

 

[Que]

For fuck's sake, the supposed lie happened AFTER, and has been beat like a dead horse. Ain't it time for the GOP to move on to something more substantive, like getting roads fixed!

Yeah, we get it...you are solidly in the 26% of America that doesn't care, won't care regardless of what turns up..

Weren't all the roads fixed with the .8 TRILLION dollars of stimulus?

 

[Bry1313]

Yeah, we get it...you are solidly in the 26% of America that doesn't care, won't care regardless of what turns up..

Weren't all the roads fixed with the .8 TRILLION dollars of stimulus?

Not likely, since most of the stimulus was a tax cut.

 

[RjThoughts]

Yeah, we get it...you are solidly in the 26% of America that doesn't care, won't care regardless of what turns up..

Weren't all the roads fixed with the .8 TRILLION dollars of stimulus?

No. Most of that money went to you and me, everyone that received a tax cut. Or didn't the GOP tell you that?

26%? I'd love to see the population the pollsters/statisticians used. After all, if you ask in heavily Republican districts, you're going to have results that believe this important.

 

[dan_c00000]

No, we're talking about Benghazi. Stay on point. The select committee was appointed to investigate Benghazi, not the non sequiturs and fanciful constructions of Obama toe suckers.

Benghazi has been investigated.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NoKYXZDJKzM/Ti3eWUTM0rI/AAAAAAAAAGo/I1iiatngBLU/s1600/owned.jpg

 

[unregistered]

 

[phrodeau]

Benghazi has been investigated.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NoKYXZDJKzM/Ti3eWUTM0rI/AAAAAAAAAGo/I1iiatngBLU/s1600/owned.jpg

You will be told that the NY Times story was completely debunked, but nobody will offer to show you exactly how it is wrong.

 

[Busybody]

Nigger might have picked up the phone from Stevens if he were picked in the 7th round by the Rams

 

[Busybody]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NbxiSatg4pg/U3KDrGVeqxI/AAAAAAAAKew/qjsBz3gjCXc/s1600/Breathtaking-Stupidity.jpg

Sorta like the peeps that died 9/11 wewnt killed by ISLAMIC TERRORISTS....they were killed case they were dumb to jump outa windows and swallow smoke

and

OBL wasn't killed by US military, but angry young men who are NRA supporters

 

[miles]

Eleanor Clift needs to be put to sleep for her own good.

 

[Que]

Pat Caudell: "The Press has failed this country; facts will put Obama in deep trouble."

He sounded a bit hyperbolic and the LWCWJ's will dismiss what he had to say, but he isn't exactly Rush Limbaugh, is he?

I know his resume, but not his current situation and motivations. I am sure they will find something to savage him on.

Pollsters tend to have clients that lead one way or the other, but that may or may not reflect their personal ideology.

Carville has said he chose to be a Democratic Strategist because the middle lift has more persuadables to work with I think he is a political agnostic.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

...

Where was President Obama? What did he do and say?

Where was Secretary Clinton? What did she do and say?

Why were the al Qaeda threats of 9-11 attacks on our embassies virtually ignored?

Why was ours the last flag left in Benghazi after attacks on embassies and the attempted assassination of the British Ambassador? Were we running Libyan guns to Syrian al Qaeda? Did we think that put us under their protective umbrella?

Why did you guys fight so hard, on this board, to prove that before Susan went on TV President Obama had declared this a terrorist attack (not a tragedy) in the Rose Garden remarks, but then support the idea that the very best intelligence that we had, even days after that, weeks even, there was the UN speech too, was that it was a spontaneous riot driven by a movie, mentioned once by one Imam in Cairo, and that protestors routinely bring mortars and heavy weapons their riots, and having known that they do, that we had pretty much zero security other than some elements of some fundamentalist militias which deserted as soon as their brethren showed up? Why is that?

Well, you certainly failed to explain it to anyone.

Want to have another go?

When are you going to take a crack at it???

 

[Que]

When are you going to take a crack at it???

He can't- As long as he continues to put his hands over his ears and intone "lalalalalalalalalala, I can't hear you," he is correct that he has heard nothing to counter the narrative he chooses to swallow.

 

[phrodeau]

I will respond AJ-style. Ahem.

Well, certainly knowing now the events that
transpired on the night of 11, 12 September I think all of us who
are -- who have been involved in this would likely make some different
decisions. But leading up to the events of 11 September_, watching the
intelligence very carefully as all of us did and post attack having
the opportunity to review the intelligence, I still don't find -- I
have not found the intelligence that would indicate that an attack in
Benghazi was imminent and that subsequent security should have been
deployed. And I think the -- in my mind the most compelling argument
to that conclusion is that the one individual in the U.S. Government
who knew more about security and intelligence in Libya and in Benghazi
specifically than anyone else was Ambassador Stevens. And I am
convinced, knowing him, while I don't think he was particularly
concerned about his own safety, I am absolutely convinced that had he
any indication that an attack was likely or imminent in Benghazi he
would not have put others at risk by traveling to Benghazi that evening. - General Carter Ham

As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time. - Donald Rumsfeld

I faced it all and I stood tall and did it my way - Frank Sinatra

{{WINNING}}

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

You make my point when you do not answer a single question.

 

[phrodeau]

I will respond AJ-style. Ahem.

You make my point when you do not answer a single question.

{{WINNING}}

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

A_J's corollary #6, “The New Age Liberal thinks, ‘When I do/say it, it is right because of my open-minded education and intelligence. When you do/say it, it serves to demonstrate how narrow-minded, poorly educated and stupid you are.’”

 

[Que]

You will notice that none of his quote answers any of the questions posed, rather it answers only his re-frame which is in essence :

"Did anyone know for certain where and how someone was going to attack us that night? If not then it was unavoidable and anything said or done after the first shot is irrelevant and uninteresting."

That was never the point of this scandal, but it has to be re-framed that way to equate this to any of the previous attacks by terrorists, and the handling of those attacks.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

You will notice that none of his quote answers any of the questions posed, rather it answers only his re-frame which is in essence :

"Did anyone know for certain where and how someone was going to attack us that night? If not then it was unavoidable and anything said or done after the first shot is irrelevant and uninteresting."

That was never the point of this scandal, but it has to be re-framed that way to equate this to any of the previous attacks by terrorists, and the handling of those attacks.

Bingo...

They cherry-pick a few quotes provided by their go-to talking point websites and then declare there is nothing to see.

Funny, the Republicans were all set to give up until the Administration provided to a third party, that which they would not provide to the Congress. Now they reap the reward of trying to coverup what Geithner just provided us with, more proof of their proclivity to run with a known lie to send out dog-whistles to their supporters.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Oh look, Cap'n Hypocrite has a new BFF.

Ishmael would be just GREEN with jealousy.. If he were capable of feeling anything but bitterness and hatred.

 

[Que]

Bingo...

They cherry-pick a few quotes provided by their go-to talking point websites and then declare there is nothing to see.

Funny, the Republicans were all set to give up until the Administration provided to a third party, that which they would not provide to the Congress. Now they reap the reward of trying to coverup what Geithner just provided us with, more proof of their proclivity to run with a known lie to send out dog-whistles to their supporters.

Mother Jones.... what was it a week ago?... was quoting Morrel in their "Nothing to see here mantra."

So he pipes up yesterday saying, "Hey... I WANT this panel so I can clear my name because, um those weren't MY (minimally) altered talking points that they went on the Sunday Shows with."

When his boss Leon Panetta concurred the Special Committee is needed I guess you can't call it a right wing conspiracy anymore.

I thought "dog whistle" was interesting, and revealing. It shows that when they accuse Republicans who are merely stating what it is that they believe are somehow sending coded messages to their base.

To them it isn't about principles and beliefs it is about targets, goals and above all messaging.

It also tells you what they think of the useful idiots that parrot their talking points. All they have to do is ring Pavlov's Bell and their base will do their bidding.


That's why they describe people that disagree with them as mindless drones following orders, because that is how they operate...

take a look at this study of media use by type of device and political stripe:



thats why they always scream "faux news talking points" because they assume it is as lock-step on the right as their blogs... You can see that those on the right spend slightly more time on blogs than the lef and a LOT more time than blogs on actual news (often linked from blogs) than the left which as you can see doesnt even follow the links from their leftie blogs, they just take the summary talking points at face value.

I may not like the slant but I read far more articles in left of center news sources because you have to read the article to see where they are shading it. They just accept that if their guy says "nothing to see here" on fox on say fast and furious or benghazi, they are ok with getting NO information on it.

 

[Que]

Oh look, Cap'n Hypocrite has a new BFF.

Ishmael would be just GREEN with jealousy.. If he were capable of feeling anything but bitterness and hatred.

Project, much?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=832774


A sampling of the usual idiots fighting tooth nail and claw to prove that Romney was wrong and that Candy and Barack were correct in claiming that he called Benghazi a terrorist attack from Day 1, and then subsequently went before the American People and the UN and claimed America was at fault because of a movie, but, hey, at this point, what does it matter???

 

[dan_c00000]

Obviously, racists like busy body and vette and clueless clowns like gump need to get on the same page for Benghazi-ing in their diapers.

New Benghazi Investigation Spooks GOP Leaders

It’s not just the Democrats who are opposed to a new select committee looking into the Benghazi attacks. Many top Republicans are uneasy, too.

Last Wednesday, as the House was preparing for its new investigation into the Benghazi attacks, House intelligence committee chairman Mike Rogers gathered Republican members of his committee for a meeting. While the main purpose of the meeting was to discuss surveillance reforms the committee was about to pass, Rogers also warned his colleagues about the upcoming select committee to investigate Benghazi.




“He was saying this could be a rabbit hole,” one House member told The Daily Beast. “He was warning us that we should not let this investigation get into conspiracy theories.”

Contrary to the caricature of Republicans, as singularly obsessed for political reasons with Benghazi, the reality is quite different. There is deep unease within the Republican leadership that the select committee, which has yet to announce a schedule of hearings, could backfire, and badly. Investigate and find nothing new, and the committee looks like a bunch of tin-hatted obsessives. Investigate and uncover previously-hidden secrets, and it makes all of the other Republican led panels that dug into Benghazi seem like Keystone Kops.

Three Republican sources tell The Daily Beast that the chairmen of the House Intelligence, Armed Services, and Government Reform committees—Reps. Rogers, Buck McKeon, and Darrell Issa, respectively—all opposed the formation of a select committee on Benghazi. All three men have led their own investigations into the matter.

House Speaker John Boehner himself resisted calls to form the committee for nearly a year and a half. Rep. Frank Wolf, a Republican from Virginia, proposed a special select committee on Benghazi first in November 2012. Since then he worked to get a majority of Republicans to sign onto his plan.

But it was not until Judicial Watch in April uncovered a set of White House emails on Benghazi—emails that were not shared with Congress—that Boehner agreed to Wolf’s idea.

Boehner’s calculation was, in part, political, according to one House Republican aide. The Speaker was looking to mollify the Tea Party faction of his caucus who were upset with him about a range of issues, including the federal budget and immigration reform.

“There is a whole combination of factors here,” this aide said. “You have the email. But remember Boehner has also gotten a lot of resistance from House Republicans on immigration. He wanted to turn the page on this.” This aide said that Boehner’s view was that, “OK, I am giving you guys this committee, now it’s on you to make this work.”




“He was saying this could be a rabbit hole. He was warning us that we should not let this investigation get into conspiracy theories.”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, for her part, has said she is considering a Democratic boycott of the committee, but has yet to decide.

Since the investigations into Benghazi began in earnest in 2012, the GOP has been divided on what these probes would ultimately uncover. While some claim there was a massive White House operation to cover up the attacks, Rogers and McKeon see a more nuanced story. Rogers has been highly critical of the administration’s failure to call the assault a terrorist attack; but he has not accused the administration of in any way abandoning the CIA officers protecting the agency’s base that evening. McKeon’s oversight work has focused on the failure of the administration to have key military assets in place for the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks when there was ample reason to believe al Qaeda would seek out soft targets to strike on that day.

When Rogers’s committee finally heard in a closed session last year from the CIA contractors who responded on the evening of the attacks, Rogers downplayed their testimony in interviews. On Fox News he said he did not believe the CIA was stonewalling his committee, as others had alleged.

Other lawmakers, however, such as Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the Utah Republican who first contacted key State Department whistleblower Greg Hicks, say the Benghazi story is more about how the White House failed to deploy all of its assets on the evening of the attack to save Americans.

Chaffetz, who serves on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform but was not chosen for the select committee, came close to uncovering evidence for his view this month when retired Air Force Brigadier General Robert Lovell testified that the military did not even try to save personnel on the night of the Benghazi attacks, or in his words, “run to the sound of the guns.”

After Lovell’s testimony, McKeon issued a statement defending his own investigation’s conclusion that no assets were in place to conduct such an operation. “Lovell did not serve in a capacity that gave him reliable insight into operational options available to commanders during the attack, nor did he offer specific courses of action not taken,” he said at the time.

This tension between committees has often played out inside the Republican conference, behind closed doors. And the new, select committee may only make things worse.

“Look at this from their perspective,” one House Republican told The Daily Beast. “This [select] committee in many ways will be checking their work. No one likes that.” Rep. Tim Huelskamp, a Republican from Kansas, told Slate’s Dave Weigel last week: “Mike Rogers fought against this for a year and a half. They used to stand up in conference and say, ‘Quit worrying about it, we’ve got it all taken care of.’”

Boehner selected Rep. Trey Gowdy, a former career prosecutor, to lead the Benghazi committee. To date, Gowdy has played his cards close to the vest as to what the committee will actually investigate. Last week, at a press conference, Rep. Jim Jordan, who is also serving on the new select committee on Benghazi, said the panel will focus on the “before,” “during” and “after” of the attack. He later explained that this meant probes into why the State Department denied requests for security to the Benghazi diplomatic post and why the early talking points on Benghazi downplayed the possibility that it was a terrorist attack. But Jordan also said the committee would investigate, to borrow Lovell’s phrase, why U.S. forces weren’t “running to the sound of the guns.”

If the Benghazi committee uncovers new evidence that the Obama administration failed to do all it could to save Americans on the evening of the attack, it would be a vindication for their party and a scandal for the White House. But it may also end up revealing prior investigations from Congressional Republicans to be hollow.

If this committee, however, does not find that smoking gun, then it will also prove the low-key warnings of lawmakers like Rogers and McKeon to have been correct all along. No wonder top Republicans were so reluctant to have it move forward.