Reply With Quote
Borowitz pointed out that the Repugs should have saved their Benghazi $Ms and spent it repealing Obamacare 10 mores times.
soooo, you want potential enemies to know what kind of forces might be deployed against them?
Of course the OOB is redacted.
Why are they interesting?
What do you mean?
Last edited by RandomGuy; 06-28-2016 at 03:22 PM. Reason: civility.
Borowitz pointed out that the Repugs should have saved their Benghazi $Ms and spent it repealing Obamacare 10 mores times.
Benghazi Ambassador Chris Stevens’ Family Just Made Donald Trump Look Like an Even Bigger Fool
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...rc=twsrc%5Etfw
When asked who she blames for the attack that took her brother’s life, this is what she had to say:
I do not blame Hillary Clinton or Leon Panetta. They were balancing security efforts at embassies and missions around the world. And their staffs were doing their best to provide what they could with the resources they had. The Benghazi Mission was understaffed. We know that now. But, again, Chris knew that. It wasn’t a secret to him. He decided to take the risk to go there. It is not something they did to him. It is something he took on himself.
She was then asked what she thought of Hillary Clinton’s conduct on Benghazi:
She has taken full responsibility, being head of the State Department, for what occurred. She took measures to respond to the review board’s recommendations. She established programs for a better security system. But it is never going to be perfect. Part of being a diplomat is being out in the community. We all recognize that there’s a risk in serving in a dangerous environment. Chris thought that was very important, and he probably would have done it again. I don’t see any usefulness in continuing to criticize her. It is very unjust.
Here’s what she had to say about whether or not she felt her brother’s death had been politicized:
Yes! Definitely politicized. Every report I read that mentions him specifically has a political bent, an accusatory bent. One point that seems to be brought up again and again is the accusation that the attack was a response to the video. I could understand why that conclusion would be made, because it was right after the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Egypt. But, frankly, it doesn’t matter that that was the thinking, that night, about why the attack occurred. It’s irrelevant to bring that up again and again. It is done purely for political reasons.Dr. Stevens also went on to say that it’s “not appropriate” for some (mostly Republicans) to use her brother’s death as an election issue and that he had “a lot of respect” for Hillary Clinton.
She also said that this new report recently released didn’t “look like anything new” and that what Republicans found was what we had already known.
http://www.forwardprogressives.com/b...k-like-a-fool/
Republicans’ Benghazi Committee just keeps going
Ironically, the partisan panel, created to undermine Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, accidentally exonerated her.
But at least it’s over, right? The longest congressional investigation in the history of the United States may have ended with a whimper, but at least it ended?
Actually, no. The Huffington Post had this piece yesterday.
A day after releasing an 800-page report that failed to pin any fresh blame on Hillary Clinton, the House Select Committee on Benghazi was back to work Wednesday, interviewing a man who allegedly used the hashtag “#ifyouvoteforhillaryyouarebeyondstupid.”This isn’t a joke. The Benghazi Committee’s GOP members have already come to the conclusion that U.S. military forces couldn’t have reached the Libyan city in 2012 in time to make a difference, but GOP committee members nevertheless want to hear sworn testimony from an Air Force mechanic who reached the opposite conclusion in a partisan post on Facebook.
The report the committee released Tuesday was not necessarily the final product, as it has a working session and a vote on whether to adopt it set for July 8.
In other words, the final report has been released to the public, but Republicans aren’t giving up, and the search for evidence that doesn’t exist continues.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow
Repug GOVERNANCE!
The investigation needed to take place, but it definitely got strung out for political purposes.
The problem for the Republicans now that this is over is the crying wolf syndrome.
The above stated, Hillary describing the attack might have been carried out by a bunch of guys walking around was extremely callous and disingenuous. It adds to the feeling she is a lying ice queen.
Survey says: Win for the democrats
It is a win for Hillary but proves how incompetent and shallow she is as a candidate. Unfortunately the other guy has no record of anything.
"Hillary describing the attack might have been carried out by a bunch of guys walking around"
link to her direct quote?
Do you live in San Antonio?
If so, NPR right after 7 pm yesterday. You can look up the podcast. I totally agree with the guy that quoted the remark and his assessment of the remark. Btw there was a very in depth look at the real significant pieces of the 800 pages. Very good stuff IMO.
so you say "he said. she said"
ok, indict her
"Guys out for a walk one night figuring they would kill some Americans" DIRECT QUOTE FROM HER VOICE.
Direct quote just listened to it. ON POINT is the program.
So Boots...
GFY
Lazy bas .
I have often put down facts/what I heard or read reported without referring to a specific source. Anyone who has actually tried looking them up because they are not lazy bas s, knows I'm not lying. Boots, part of my job in getting projects done is asking the right questions to the right people to figure out where the kinks are, and who might be dropping the ball or even lying about what they have completed.
Boots. It's a very good thing we don't work together in my line of work.
To the rest of the board sorry for anything that seems boastful. I get perturbed with lazy ass ideologues.
With Clinton exonerated, conspiracy theorists turn on Trey Gowdy
far-right radio personality Michael Savage told his audience, “Trey Gowdy should be impeached for wasting my time! He promised us a lot! Remember?” (Members of Congress can be expelled, but not impeached, under the U.S. Cons ution.)
Of course, Savage isn’t alone. The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank explained today that “conspiracy-minded” conservatives are blaming Gowdy “for failing to deliver the goods.” There was a meeting yesterday of the “Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi,”where members agreed the far-right South Carolinian let them down by failing to confirm their beliefs.
A woman in the crowd floated a new Benghazi conspiracy. “Has someone in the GOP leadership gotten their fingers involved in watering down some of this to benefit Secretary Clinton?” she asked. Nobody rebutted this idea.
Herein lies a lesson for Republicans who are perpetually trying to appease the far right: It’s a fool’s errand. They went to the tea party – and now they’re taking Donald Trump to the prom.
Likewise, then-House Speaker John Boehner named the Benghazi committee because activists were dissatisfied that seven previous congressional investigations had failed to uncover major scandal material.
Now an eighth has produced more of the same – and the agitators are as agitated as ever.
There’s a certain twisted logic to this. The unhinged right starts with the ideologically satisfying answer –
President Obama and Hillary Clinton are guilty of horrible Benghazi-related wrongdoing – and then works backwards, looking for “proof”
that matches the conclusion. When their ostensible allies fail to tell these activists what they want to hear, they could reevaluate their bogus assumptions, but it’s vastly easier to believe Republicans have let them down.
Wait, it gets worse.
As Milbank reported, a former Ted Cruz adviser complained yesterday that Gowdy “did not draw a connection between the dots.” And why not? According to
retired Gen. Thomas McInerney, the Benghazi Committee chairman “had his reasons – political” for holding back.
McInerney “speculated that congressional leadership had approved ‘black operations’ to run weapons from Benghazi to Islamic State forces in Syria.”
This is what it’s come to: Benghazi conspiracy theorists are so creative, and so unmoved by evidence or reason, that they can convince themselves that congressional Republicans are in on the conspiracy.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow
Shillary called ONE of the 35 survivors several weeks after. And only after being urged to do so by Huma.
indict her!
Wtf are you writing.
This is not something legal. It's done, it's over, the Republicans found nada.
Its about her as a slime ball.
But of course Democrats can't be slime balls.
not much buzz about this in this thread or outside of it:
The National Security Council would not allow the House Benghazi committee to review information about possible U.S. covert action in Libya that might have preceded the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi.
And employees at the CIA, State Department and Defense Department refused to answer specific questions about whether the U.S. sent, oversaw or was otherwise involved in weapons transfers to Libyan rebels, according to an exclusive copy of a section of the final Benghazi committee report provided to POLITICO.
“Over the course of nearly a dozen interviews with the State Department, the Defense Department and the CIA personnel witnesses consistently refused to answer questions related to certain allegations with respect to the U.S. activity in Libya even though the House specifically gave the committee access to materials relating to intelligence sources and methods,” reads an excerpt from the “compliance” section of the report.
“Most of these questions related in some way to allegations regarding weapons,” the report continues. “These refusals meant significant questions raised in public relating to Benghazi could not be answered.”
Tons of Saddam's weapons not secured by the Repug invasion of Iraq for BigOil ended in Libya and throughout the M/E and Africa.
Recall that head Cheney made sure that his military suckers, CIA mercenaries absolutely secured the Ministry of Oil building while museums, armories, etc got looted.
WMD were not found, but the Real Threat of Saddam's FINDABLE arms was ignored.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions