The Latest Wing-Nut Bengazi OUTRAGE.......

[Nbadan]

Who needs Fox when you've got GOP PR fluffer Jonathan Karl willing and ready to do their dirty work for them? Fox has been pushing the latest fake Benghazi non-scandal for the last day or two, so naturally Karl decided he needed to get in on some of the action at this Wednesday's White House press briefing.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tn0omavuL2A

ABC's Jonathan Karl And The Proof The White House Memo Wasn't Just About Benghazi:



ABC's Jonathan Karl, who was previously burned when he pushed falsehoods about CIA talking points generated in the wake of the 2012 Benghazi attacks, is now adopting the conservative distortion of a separate set of talking points authored by the White House for media appearances by then U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice.

On September 16, 2012, Rice appeared on the Sunday political talk shows and suggested that the Benghazi terror attacks had grown out of spontaneous protests like those that were occurring worldwide in response to an anti-Muslim video. Conservatives have claimed that Rice's comments on the Sunday shows were part of a deliberate effort to deceive the American people about the cause of the terror attacks, to bolster President Obama's re-election campaign. This effort has often involved distorting the CIA-approved talking points that Rice used to prepare for the interviews.

Karl came under fire in May 2013 after reporting that the network had "reviewed" emails from administration officials regarding the creation and editing of those CIA-generated talking points. While nothing Karl reported undermined assertions from the CIA that the intelligence community had approved those talking points, Karl suggested that the emails bolstered the conservative critique of the administration's response.

In fact, Karl had never seen the emails in question -- his story was based on "summaries" of the emails and "detailed notes" from a source who, it turned out, had misrepresented what the documents actually said. After media observers slammed Karl's "sloppy" reporting, ABC News issued a statement saying that the network "should have been more precise in its sourcing of those quotes, attributing them to handwritten copies of the emails taken by a Congressional source. We regret that error." Karl himself apologized in a statement to CNN.

Now Karl is returning to the subject of talking points used to prepare Rice for those September 16, 2012, interviews, seizing on a separate email authored by Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes that was released yesterday. The email details "Goals" and "Top-lines" for Rice's interviews and provides sample questions and answers.

In what Mediaite described as a "heated back and forth" during the April 30 White House Press Briefing, Karl hyped this false attack, repeatedly challenging White House Press Secretary Jay Carney over the Rhodes email and Rice's interviews.

During their exchange, Carney sought to make clear that the Rhodes email was not just about the Benghazi attacks but was a more extensive document detailing the situation in the Middle East more broadly, and thus that the comment that "these protests are rooted in an internet video" was not about Benghazi specifically. According to Carney, Rice depended on the CIA talking points for information on Benghazi and the White House talking points for other topics.

Conservative media have been quick to use the exchange to attack Carney and the White House. But the White House documents upon which Karl based his misleading questions support Carney's argument.

Read on...


http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/04/30/abcs-jonathan-karl-and-the-proof-the-white-hous/199096


http://crooksandliars.com/2014/04/abc-right-wing-mole-jonathan-karl-pushes

[tlongII]

top military intelligence official in Africa at the time of the Benghazi attacks testified Thursday that U.S. personnel "should have tried" to help Americans under fire on Sept. 11, 2012, in an unprecedented public statement from a leading military officer.

Retired Brig. Gen. Robert Lovell, who at the time of the attacks was the intelligence director at AFRICOM, questioned the merits of the ongoing debate over whether U.S. military forces could have responded in time. Leading Pentagon and other military officials previously have argued that additional U.S. assets were not deployed to assist Americans under attack that night because they weren't close enough.










"The point is we should have tried," Lovell told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, in his opening statement. "As another saying goes -- always move to the sound of the guns."

He later said the military "could have made a response of some sort."

Lovell also sharply countered claims that the intelligence community and military initially thought this was a protest over an anti-Islam video gone awry. He said U.S. officials knew this was a "hostile action" from the outset, even though they didn't know how long the attack would last.

"This was no demonstration gone terribly awry," Lovell said. "The facts led to the conclusion of a terrorist attack."

Under questioning, he also said the Internet video was "briefly discussed" on the ground but "dismissed" as a motive shortly afterward.

The testimony is significant, as it marks the latest effort to lift the curtain behind what happened during the night of the attack and the ensuing days. In a cryptic statement, Lovell cited the need for a "full forthcoming to the American people."

"I felt it was my duty to come forward," he said. "The circumstances of what occurred there in Benghazi that day need to be known."

The testimony comes two days after new emails were obtained and released by a watchdog group showing a top White House aide was involved in preparing then-U.N. ambassador Susan Rice for her controversial Sunday show appearances, where she pushed the narrative that protests over an Internet video were to blame.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., at the start of the hearing, ripped the administration over those emails, and accused it of deliberately hiding the documents after an earlier congressional subpoena.

"It is disturbing and perhaps criminal ... that documents like these were hidden by the Obama administration from Congress and the public alike," Issa said. He claimed the withholding of these documents is the worst transparency violation since at least the Nixon administration.

One email showed notes from White House adviser Ben Rhodes regarding a "prep call" with Rice; the notes discussed the Internet video as the cause. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney claimed Wednesday that the "prep call" was only in reference to demonstrations elsewhere in the Middle East and Africa, and not Benghazi.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/01/military-official-should-have-tried-to-help-americans-during-benghazi-attack/

[boutons_deux]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/01/military-official-should-have-tried-to-help-americans-during-benghazi-attack/

fucking retired General groveling for airtime, $$$ on Fox.

Benghazi + Fox? :lol

[DarrinS]

So, a reporter is a "GOP PR fluffer" when they challenge this admin?

[boutons_deux]

where was the Repug outrage? why didn't they witch-hunt dubya and his WH?



2001 - September 11, 2001 attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks), 2,997 killed;



2002 - Reporter Daniel Pearl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pearl), kidnapped and beheaded in Karachi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karachi).



2002 - Nine people killed by bomb blast near US embassy in Lima (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lima) - seen as attempt to disrupt forthcoming visit by President George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush).



2002-2006 - Karachi consulate attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karachi_consulate_attacks): three separate attacks killed 18 people (including an American diplomat) and injured 87.



2002 - Two Marines shot, one killed in Kuwait (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait).



2003 - Riyadh Compound Bombings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riyadh_Compound_Bombings) kill 9 Americans, among 35 others.



2003 - Three American diplomats are killed by a roadside bomb targeting their convoy in Gaza. Palestine Resistance Committees, an umbrella organization has taken responsibility for the attack."[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinations_and_acts_of_terrorism_again st_Americans#cite_note-2)



2003–present - Damascus terrorist attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus_terrorist_attacks): American interests in Syria targeted by Islamists.



2004 - Civilians Nick Berg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Berg), Jack Hensley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Hensley), and Eugene Armstrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Armstrong) kidnapped and beheaded in Iraq.



2004 - Paul Marshall Johnson, Jr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Marshall_Johnson,_Jr), civilian working in Saudi Arabia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia), kidnapped and beheaded; five other Americans die in attacks in Saudi Arabia in 2004.



2007 - American embassy attacked (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embassy_of_the_United_States_in_Athens) in Athens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens), Greece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece).



2008 - John Granville (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Granville), US diplomat, assassinated in Khartoum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khartoum), Sudan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudan)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinations_and_acts_of_terrorism_again st_Americans

================================

13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush’s Watch Without a Peep from Fox News

http://banter.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/benghazi_gate_bush_era.jpg

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al-Qaida attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of “Bali Bombings.” No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al-Qaida terrorists storm the diplomatic compound killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name “David Foy.” This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what’s considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaida-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had beenmarried for three weeks (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/09/18/yemen.american/) when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/05/13-benghazis-that-occurred-on-bushs-watch-without-a-peep-from-fox-news/

Issa! :lol

right-wingers here swallowing Benghazi turds as if they were covered in bacon and cheese and BBQ sauce! :lol

[DarrinS]

boutons_dumbass,


The outrage is about the "offensive movie" talking points.

[boutons_deux]

boutons_dumbass,


The outrage is about the "offensive movie" talking points.

Benghazi, like EVERY Repug/FOX political campaign, is a fabricated outrage, rousing the ignorant redneck rabble.

[DarrinS]

Benghazi, like EVERY Repug/FOX political campaign, is a fabricated outrage, rousing the ignorant redneck rabble.

Well, if anyone knows about phony outrage, it's you.

[TSA]

Update: Boehner to form select committee to investigate Benghazi


House Speaker John Boehner is “seriously considering” appointing a select committee to investigate the attacks on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, according to a senior GOP leadership aide. The move comes after the revelation of an email from a top Obama national security official, Ben Rhodes, instructing Susan Rice to focus on an anti-Muslim internet video to explain the attacks.

“The new emails this week were the straw that broke the camel’s back,” says the aide. “The Speaker was furious to learn that the admininstration withheld relevant documents from a congressional subpoena. He’s sick and tired of this evasion and obstruction from the administration, and wants a solution to finally force accountability, get to the truth, and provide justice.”

Boehner, who has paid careful attention to the Benghazi developments since the attacks, has resisted calls to appoint a select committee, preferring to allow the various committees of jurisdiction to pursue investigations of their slices of the attacks on their own. Aides say Boehner continues to believe that the work of those committees has been valuable. “The current committees investigating the attack have done good work, using their authority, including subpoena authority, to gather facts, interview hundreds of witnesses, and conduct dozens of hearings. But this week’s events demonstrate a new level of stonewalling and obfuscation by the administration that requires a new level of investigation.”

The House Oversight and Reform Committee issued a subpoena for Benghazi-related documents in August of 2013, but the Rhodes email and a second set of talking points that originated with the White House were released to the public for the first time this week after Judicial Watch, a conservative research group, obtained them via a Freedom of Information Act request. For these reasons, according the aide, “the reasons for appointing a committee now are straightforward.” The aide continued: “For the first time we have clear and public evidence that the White House was more involved in misleading the American people than it had previous admitted. And, second, it’s now proven that the administration withheld relevant documents from a congressional subpoena request. While the existing investigatory committees in the House have full subpoena power, the administration has now demonstrated it is willing to flagrantly defy such subpoena requests, compelling the House to consider taking the strongest actions possible in an effort to ensure Americans have the truth about what happened.”

The details of the exact structure of the special committee are still under discussion, but a source tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD that Rep. Trey Gowdy, a lawmaker with a reputation for tough questioning of administration witnesses, is under consideration to chair it. Gowdy has participated in meetings of an ad hoc committee of House members from various committees of jurisdiction who have met informally to compare notes and shape strategy on the Benghazi investigations.

Separately, TWS has learned that at least two committees will begin an immediate inquiry into the odd pattern of classification that preceded the release of Benghazi documents this week. Some of the previously unclassified redacted documents released to Judicial Watch were classified by the administration in February, after the subpoena from the House Oversight Committee and the FOIA request from Judicial Watch.

Boehner has largely stayed in the background on Benghazi, but he has demonstrated a keen interested in the growing controversy behind the scenes. In private conversations with members of Congress and others, Boehner cites key dates in the long Benghazi timeline from memory. He has also shown a particular interest in the stories of US security and diplomatic personnel who were on the ground during the attacks.

A final decision on a select committee could come “very soon,” according to a Republican aide.





http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/leadership-aide-boehner-seriously-considering-select-committee-benghazi_789000.html

[boutons_deux]

Well, if anyone knows about phony outrage, it's you.

:lol phony! I'm THE REAL DEAL

[boutons_deux]

Update: Boehner to form select committee to investigate Benghazi


http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/leadership-aide-boehner-seriously-considering-select-committee-benghazi_789000.html

Boner watches Fox too much. His new committee is a real slap in the face to Issa and his 1000s of hours and $Ms wasted to FIND NOTHING ON BENGHAZI

[Big Empty]

where was the Repug outrage? why didn't they witch-hunt dubya and his WH?



2001 - September 11, 2001 attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks), 2,997 killed;



2002 - Reporter Daniel Pearl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pearl), kidnapped and beheaded in Karachi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karachi).



2002 - Nine people killed by bomb blast near US embassy in Lima (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lima) - seen as attempt to disrupt forthcoming visit by President George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush).



2002-2006 - Karachi consulate attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karachi_consulate_attacks): three separate attacks killed 18 people (including an American diplomat) and injured 87.



2002 - Two Marines shot, one killed in Kuwait (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait).



2003 - Riyadh Compound Bombings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riyadh_Compound_Bombings) kill 9 Americans, among 35 others.



2003 - Three American diplomats are killed by a roadside bomb targeting their convoy in Gaza. Palestine Resistance Committees, an umbrella organization has taken responsibility for the attack."[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinations_and_acts_of_terrorism_again st_Americans#cite_note-2)



2003–present - Damascus terrorist attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus_terrorist_attacks): American interests in Syria targeted by Islamists.



2004 - Civilians Nick Berg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Berg), Jack Hensley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Hensley), and Eugene Armstrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Armstrong) kidnapped and beheaded in Iraq.



2004 - Paul Marshall Johnson, Jr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Marshall_Johnson,_Jr), civilian working in Saudi Arabia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia), kidnapped and beheaded; five other Americans die in attacks in Saudi Arabia in 2004.



2007 - American embassy attacked (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embassy_of_the_United_States_in_Athens) in Athens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens), Greece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece).



2008 - John Granville (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Granville), US diplomat, assassinated in Khartoum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khartoum), Sudan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudan)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinations_and_acts_of_terrorism_again st_Americans

================================

13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush’s Watch Without a Peep from Fox News

http://banter.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/benghazi_gate_bush_era.jpg

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al-Qaida attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of “Bali Bombings.” No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al-Qaida terrorists storm the diplomatic compound killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name “David Foy.” This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what’s considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaida-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had beenmarried for three weeks (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/09/18/yemen.american/) when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/05/13-benghazis-that-occurred-on-bushs-watch-without-a-peep-from-fox-news/

Issa! :lol

right-wingers here swallowing Benghazi turds as if they were covered in bacon and cheese and BBQ sauce! :lol




LOL on a scale from 1-10 in political knowledge , 1 being ignorant and 10 being a genious, IM about a 2.5. no way this can be true no way lol

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

LOL on a scale from 1-10 in political knowledge , 1 being ignorant and 10 being a genious, IM about a 2.5. no way this can be true no way lol

It's true. There were 13 embassy attacks that happened under Bush, and Fox didn't give a shit.

[Th'Pusher]

It's true. There were 13 embassy attacks that happened under Bush, and Fox didn't give a shit.
It's about the tape!

[Nbadan]

It's about the tape!

It's about Hillary Clinton....

[boutons_deux]

It's about Hillary Clinton....

yes, Repugs slandering pre-candidate HRC and The Muslim Negro BHO.

[xrayzebra]

yes, Repugs slandering pre-candidate HRC and The Muslim Negro BHO.

Don't sweat it boutons, the media is working hard to cover up the cover up. Just like all the rest of BHO blunders.

[boutons_deux]

Don't sweat it boutons, the media is working hard to cover up the cover up. Just like all the rest of BHO blunders.

There is no coverup. Issa, his hitmen, and many taxpayer $Ms wasted FOUND NOTHING.

[xrayzebra]

There is no coverup. Issa, his hitmen, and many taxpayer $Ms wasted FOUND NOTHING.

boutons, people aren't stupid. Obama and his paid liars will deny, deny and deny but his re-election was so important that he let four people die. And no one even knows where he was while it was taking place. Shooting hoops?

[boutons_deux]

boutons, people aren't stupid. Obama and his paid liars will deny, deny and deny but his re-election was so important that he let four people die. And no one even knows where he was while it was taking place. Shooting hoops?

If The Muslim Negro and his Exec branch are lying, why can't Issa/Repug harassment witch-hunting expose their lies?

[xrayzebra]

This latest memo opens the door and there stood Obama and merry henchmen with their hand in the cookie jar. Be patient little man, if Gowdy is chairman of the select committee he will find out the truth. And you want be a happy camper.

[boutons_deux]

The dickless Repugs, and their equivalents on ST, realize, except for "repeal every last word" Cruz, that BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMAcare is a huge winner for the Dems (as the Repug have known since 2009) so they have to fallback on Benghazi, etc for witch-hunting harassment.

[TSA]

The dickless Repugs, and their equivalents on ST, realize, except for "repeal every last word" Cruz, that BARAK HUSSEIN OBMAMAcare is a huge winner for the Dems (as the Repug have known since 2009) so they have to fallback on Benghazi, etc for witch-hunting harassment.

The approval rating of both Obama and Obamacare disagree with you. Name a potential candidate that with run while backing Obamacare?

[Stan]

The approval rating of both Obama and Obamacare disagree with you. Name a potential candidate that with run while backing Obamacare?
That's kinda how this is, you coulda rescued me from drowning
Now it's too late, I'm on a thousand downers now, I'm drowsy
And all I wanted was a lousy letter or a call
I hope you know I ripped all of your pictures off the wall
I loved you Slim, we coulda been together, think about it
You ruined it now, I hope you can't sleep and you dream about it
And when you dream, I hope you can't sleep and you scream about it
I hope your conscience eats at you and you can't breathe without me

[mercos]

A lot of GOP talking points have been smashed in recent months, with over 8 million signing up for Obamacare and April's job report showing 288K jobs created. They gotta have something to run on in the midterms. This method allows them to galvanize the base for the midterms, and try and damage Hillary in 2016. Nothing will come of this current "bombshell" and Republicans will likely find another "smoking gun" email a few months from now and repeat the process.

[Nbadan]

Don't sweat it boutons, the media is working hard to cover up the cover up. Just like all the rest of BHO blunders.

:lol at wing-nut conspiracy theories..no matter what you say, this has been investigated endlessly by Issa, it's still a coverup

[Nbadan]

The approval rating of both Obama and Obamacare disagree with you. Name a potential candidate that with run while backing Obamacare?

Have you checked the approval rating of the GOP Congress lately slim?

[TSA]

Have you checked the approval rating of the GOP Congress lately slim?

It's even worse. That doesn't negate my point. Anything else sweety?

[Nbadan]

It's even worse. That doesn't negate my point. Anything else sweety?

You had a point?

[TSA]

Gowdy going hard

A1jeJmeeMjs

[TSA]

Embassies get attacked, it's happened for a long time and is nothing new. The outrage is over the lies from the administration as Obama is going for re-election. At least for me it is.

[ElNono]

The next politician that doesn't lie to win an election is the first one... applies evenly in red and blue colors...

[TSA]

The next politician that doesn't lie to win an election is the first one... applies evenly in red and blue colors...

Of course, and these people are still dead.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Even other GOP senators are pointing out that there is zero evidence that any assets were delayed at any point despite hundreds and hundreds of hours of testimony from all the brass that were relevant to the encounter. The American public is being shown this as the press is distilling the issue down into that frame.

Polls show its not a winner with independents and quite frankly the GOP reelection people seem to be about as bright as a box of rocks lately for all the issues the RNC is pimping. Graham has become a mockery of himself with his histrionics.

[boutons_deux]

The approval rating of both Obama and Obamacare disagree with you. Name a potential candidate that with run while backing Obamacare?

over 50% of pollees support ACA. about 10% who don't support it want it to be more aggressive, towards public option, NOT to be repealed.

Then you've got the ignorant, rural Repug base who could benefit from ACA, but are stupidly against it, because Repug/Fox lied to them about ACA.

The Repug/Fox lie and hate machine exceeds anything the Dems and progressives have. The liberal media conspiracy as dominant is just another Repug/Fox LIE.

If the Repugs hadn't blocked EVERYTHING the Dems wanted to do to stimulate the economy, create jobs, then the economy, and the Dems, would be in much better shape, more popular.

The fat cat Repugs prefer blocking the Dems by keeping Americans hurting in deep shit.

[xrayzebra]

over 50% of pollees support ACA. about 10% who don't support it want it to be more aggressive, towards public option, NOT to be repealed.

Then you've got the ignorant, rural Repug base who could benefit from ACA, but are stupidly against it, because Repug/Fox lied to them about ACA.

The Repug/Fox lie and hate machine exceeds anything the Dems and progressives have. The liberal media conspiracy as dominant is just another Repug/Fox LIE.

If the Repugs hadn't blocked EVERYTHING the Dems wanted to do to stimulate the economy, create jobs, then the economy, and the Dems, would be in much better shape, more popular.

The fat cat Repugs prefer blocking the Dems by keeping Americans hurting in deep shit.

Don't know where you get your facts boutons, but here is a recent article, ABC News on less, who would argue with you.


Public Preference for a GOP Congress Marks a New Low in Obama’s Approval


By Gary Langer
Apr 29, 2014 12:01am
AP obama fort hood remarks jef 140402 16x9 608 Public Preference for a GOP Congress Marks a New Low in Obamas Approval

(Carolyn Kaster/AP Photo)

Weary of waiting for an economic recovery worth its name, a frustrated American public has sent Barack Obama’s job approval rating to a career low – with a majority in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll favoring a Republican Congress to act as a check on his policies.

Registered voters by 53-39 percent in the national survey say they’d rather see the Republicans in control of Congress as a counterbalance to Obama’s policies than a Democratic-led Congress to help support him. It was similar in fall 2010, when the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives and gained six Senate seats.

See PDF with full results and charts here.

Obama’s job approval rating, after a slight winter rebound, has lost 5 points among all adults since March, to 41 percent, the lowest of his presidency by a single point. Fifty-two percent disapprove, with “strong” disapproval exceeding strong approval by 17 percentage points. He’s lost ground in particular among some of his core support groups.

Economic discontent remains the driving element in political views in this survey, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates. Americans rate the condition of the economy negatively by 71-29 percent – the least bad since November 2007, but still dismal by any measure. Only 28 percent think the economy’s improving, down by 9 points since just before Obama won his second term. He gets just 42 percent approval for handling it.

Economic views are strongly related to political preferences. Among people who see the economy improving, 65 percent prefer Democratic control of Congress, while among those who see the economy as stagnant or worsening, 62 percent favor Republican control. Notably, economic views are linked with preferences for control of Congress regardless of people’s partisan affiliation.

The results suggest the corrosive effects of the long downturn on the president’s popularity: Among those who say the economy is in bad shape, Obama’s overall approval rating has lost 20 points since February 2012, from 46 percent then to 26 percent now.

The president faces other challenges. While he’s hailed insurance exchange sign-ups as a marker of the Affordable Care Act’s success, the program and his rating for handling it have lost ground, both down from their levels late last month after the Healthcare.gov website was stabilized. The law gets 44 percent support, down 5 points; Obama has just 37 percent approval for its implementation, down 7.

One reason is that the law seems to have opened an avenue for public ire about health care costs to be directed at the administration. Six in 10 blame the ACA for increasing costs nationally, and 47 percent think it’s caused their own health care expenses to rise. Regardless of whether or how much those costs would have risen otherwise, Obamacare is taking a heavy dose of the blame.

Separately, a current issue on the world stage offers no respite for Obama: Given continued tensions over Ukraine, just 34 percent of Americans approve of how he’s handling that situation, 8 points fewer than early last month. Forty-six percent disapprove, with two in 10 withholding judgment.

DISCONTENT/MIDTERMS – With these and other problems – but chiefly the economy – the public by more than 2-1, 66-30 percent, says the country’s headed seriously off on the wrong track. That’s about where it’s been lately, and more negative than a year ago.

General anti-incumbency results: Just 22 percent of Americans say they’re inclined to re-elect their representative in Congress, unchanged from last month as the fewest in ABC/Post polls dating back 25 years.

Another outcome is risk for the president’s party, in punishment for his handling of the helm. A single point divides Democratic and Republican candidates for the House in preference among registered voters, 45-44 percent. Among those who say they’re certain to vote (with Republicans more apt to show up in midterms), that goes to 44-49 percent.

Independents, a sometimes swing-voting group, favor Republican House candidates by 55-32 percent (among those who say they’re certain to vote). And, as with views on control of Congress, perceptions of the economy correlate with congressional vote preference, regardless of partisanship.

ISSUES – None of this means the GOP is home free. A robust improvement in the economy could change the equation. (As many, at least, say it’s currently holding steady, 35 percent, as think it’s getting worse, 36 percent.) And even as the brunt of economic unhappiness falls on the president, the public divides essentially evenly on which party they trust more to handle the economy – suggesting that the Republicans have yet to present a broadly appealing alternative.

In another example, for all of Obamacare’s controversies, the Democrats hold a slight 8-point edge in trust to handle health care, again indicating that the Republicans have yet to seize the opportunity to present a compelling solution of their own. Indeed, the Democrats have a 6-point lead in trust to handle “the main problems the nation faces” – although, as with all others, that narrows among likely voters, in this case to 37-40 percent, a numerical (but not significant) GOP edge.

The Republicans have a 9-point advantage in trust to handle the federal deficit – an improvement for the party from last month. Similarly, Americans by a 7-point margin trust the Republicans over Obama to find the right mix of spending to cut and federal programs to maintain. The president had an 11-point lead on that question just after the partial government shutdown last fall.

The Democrats push back with two results that they’re likely to stress as the November election draws closer: One is a broad, 20-point advantage, 52-32 percent, in trust over the Republicans to help the middle class (but again, this narrows among likely voters). The other is an even wider, 30-point lead, 55-25 percent, in trust to handle issues of particular concern to women.

The Republicans have some vulnerability in other areas, as well. Americans say the Democratic Party comes closer than the GOP to their positions on climate change, by 18 points; whether or not to raise the minimum wage, by 16 points; gay marriage, by 14 points; and the issue of abortion, by 8 points. On one remaining issue, gun control, the Republicans have a slight, 5-point edge.

HEALTH CARE – Obamacare, for its part, is a subject the Republicans have sought to turn to their advantage in the midterm elections, and the poll results show ample opportunity.

Costs are a particular target. As noted, 47 percent of Americans feel that their health care costs are rising as a result of the ACA; 58 percent say the same about the overall costs of health care nationally. Just 8 and 11 percent, respectively, say the law has decreased these costs. If there’s a case to be made that costs would have risen anyway – or that they would have risen faster absent the ACA – it’s yet to resonate with large segments of the population.

Other assessments also are critical. The public by a 20-point margin, 44-24 percent, is more apt to say the law has made the overall health care system worse rather than better (although the number who say it’s made things better is up by 5 points from December). The rest, 29 percent, see no change. Americans by 29-14 percent likewise say the ACA has made their own care worse rather than better, with more, 53 percent, reporting no impact.

Despite the website’s improvements, half say the law’s implementation is going worse than they expected when it began, vs. 41 percent better – another sign of the persistent antipathy that’s dogged Obamacare from the start.

The poll also shows both the striking partisan division on Obamacare and the extent to which, on several questions, independents side more with Republicans on the issue. Thirty-eight percent of Democrats, for instance, say the ACA has increased health care costs nationally; that soars to 67 percent of independents and 73 percent of Republicans. And while 47 percent of Democrats think it’s made the health care system better, just 6 and 16 percent of Republicans and independents, respectively, agree.

OBAMA/GROUPS – Divisions among groups remain especially stark in terms of Obama’s ratings; further, as noted, he’s lost ground in some of his core support groups. The president’s approval rating since early March has lost 14 points among liberals, 12 points among people with postgraduate degrees, 10 points among urban residents, 9 points among Democrats and 7 points among those with incomes less than $50,000. He’s lost 9 points among independents as well.

With 41 percent approval overall (his previous low was 42 percent last November and the same in October 2011), Obama’s at new lows among nonwhites (61-34 percent, approve-disapprove) and liberals (63-31 percent), and matches his lows among moderates (46-48 percent) and independents (33-59 percent). His rating among Democrats, 74-22 percent, is a single point from its low.

Other results also mark the extent of the difficulties facing Obama and his party alike. A form of statistical analysis called regression finds that, as noted above, views on the economy correlate both with congressional vote preference, and views on which party should control Congress, independently of partisan affiliation. That suggests that the Democrats are in serious need of a positive shift in economic views.

That may be hard to accomplish. While 50 percent of Democrats say the economy’s in good shape, that plummets not only among Republicans but independents as well, to 12 and 22 percent, respectively. And while 46 percent of Democrats see improvement in the economy, again just 22 percent of independents, and 15 percent of Republicans, agree.

Preferences on which party controls Congress may reflect a general inclination in favor of divided government – and don’t always predict outcomes, as in 2002, when more registered voters preferred Democratic control yet the GOP held its ground. It’s striking, nonetheless, that this poll finds Republican control favored not only in the 2012 red states, by 56-36 percent, but also by 51-41 percent in the blue states that backed Obama fewer than two years ago.

METHODOLOGY – This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone April 24-27, 2014, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 1,000 adults, including landline and cell-phone-only respondents. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points, including design effect. Partisan divisions are 32-21-38 percent, Democrats-Republicans-independents.

The survey was produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates of New York, N.Y., with sampling, data collection and tabulation by Abt-SRBI of New York, N.Y.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/04/public-preference-for-a-gop-congress-marks-a-new-low-in-obamas-approval/

[boutons_deux]

‘Fox & Friends’ links Benghazi, missing Malaysia flight — and blames Obama for both

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/fox_ff_mayasia_benghazi_140504a-615x345.jpg

“The president, you know, wanted to make sure that he could fit his narrative: GM is alive, Osama bin Laden dead, al Qaeda is on its heels,” host Anna Kooiman explained.

“And we have some new information out today that 11 terrorists with links to al Qaeda have been reportedly arrested in Malaysia in connection with the disappearance with that missing airliner with 239 people onboard.”

Malaysian police werereportedly (http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/world/2014/05/04/Eleven-Al-Qaeda-links-arrested-in-MH370-probe.html) calling the allegations “rubbish.”

In conclusion, co-host Tucker Carlson admitted that al Qaeda had denied involvement with the missing plane.

“But I guess the point here is this investigation continues,” he said. “There’s probably a lot going on we don’t know about.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/04/fox-friends-links-benghazi-missing-malaysia-flight-and-blames-obama-for-both/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

:lol You red state bubbas suck that shit down like prime rib steak.

[TSA]

over 50% of pollees support ACA.




WTF????

[ChumpDumper]

Gowdy going hard

A1jeJmeeMjslol TSA has a new hero and cause.

Republicans don't even know what they are complaining about anymore, but this dead horse is truly all they have to beat these days. Still trying to get a Hillary angle out of it and you are eating it up.

[TSA]

lol TSA has a new hero and cause.

Republicans don't even know what they are complaining about anymore, but this dead horse is truly all they have to beat these days. Still trying to get a Hillary angle out of it and you are eating it up.

Was lying about the video acceptable to you?

[ElNono]

Of course, and these people are still dead.

I'm pretty sure they're not the first, and unfortunately won't be the last people to die because of shitty politicos.

It's actually pretty ironic that this whole thing will be played out for political soundbites going into an election...

[TSA]

It's actually pretty ironic that this whole thing will be played out for political soundbites going into an election...lol yes it is ironic.

[hitmanyr2k]

I can't believe they're back to this Benghazi crap. This reeks of desperation to avoid important issues like jobs, immigration, healthcare, you know stuff Americans truly care about. This shit congress. It speaks volumes that their biggest accomplishment was sabotaging the economy and getting our credit rating downgraded.

[ChumpDumper]

Was lying about the video acceptable to you?were they? Turns out people were pelretty pissed about that.

I can see departments disagreeing, but it wasn't the nonfactor republicans are trying to make it out to be for totally political purposes.

[TSA]

were they? Turns out people were pelretty pissed about that.

I can see departments disagreeing, but it wasn't the nonfactor republicans are trying to make it out to be for totally political purposes.

I asked you a simple question and you failed to answer. Try again. Was lying about the cause of the attack acceptable? Or do you actually believe the attack was because of video?

[ChumpDumper]

I asked you a simple question and you failed to answer. Try again. Was lying about the cause of the attack acceptable? Or do you actually believe the attack was because of video?In part it was -- or do you believe every talking point Fox and Friends airs?

Tell us in your own words the exact cause of the attacks. Talking points and political grandstanding bore the shit out of me.

[TSA]

In part it was -- or do you believe every talking point Fox and Friends airs?

Tell us in your own words the exact cause of the attacks. Talking points and political grandstanding bore the shit out of me.

I don't know the exact cause because I don't communicate regularly with terrorists, but is known that it wasn't over a protest of some video, as there was never a protest. It was a cowardly move by the White House to try and play it off as such due to the upcoming election. Are you agreeing with the White House's decision to deliberately mislead the public?

[ChumpDumper]

I don't know the exact cause because I don't communicate regularly with terrorists, but is known that it wasn't over a protest of some video, as there was never a protest.Except there was. Or rather were. All over the place.
It was a cowardly move by the White House to try and play it off as such due to the upcoming election. Are you agreeing with the White House's decision to deliberately mislead the public?Given the results of actual non-talking point investigations and the premature nature of saying anything was the cause at the time, they were pretty close.

Do you think some other public explanation would have caused him to lose the election to Mitt Romney?

I don't.

[TSA]

Except there was. Or rather were. All over the place.

Given the results of actual non-talking point investigations and the premature nature of saying anything was the cause at the time, they were pretty close.All investigations said there was no protest in Benghazi that caused the attack.


Do you think some other public explanation would have caused him to lose the election to Mitt Romney? I don't.I don't either, but that doesn't change my opinion on the matter though.

[ChumpDumper]

All investigations said there was no protest in Benghazi that caused the attack.That doesn't rule out the video's inciting the attackers though, does it?


I don't either, but that doesn't change my opinion on the matter though.what is your opinion on the matter?

[TSA]

That doesn't rule out the video's inciting the attackers though, does it?Considering we haven't arrested a single attacker that is impossible to answer, so I'll just got with the opinion of what every single investigation came to.


what is your opinion on the matter?I've stated it repeatedly. Still waiting for yours.

[ChumpDumper]

Considering we haven't arrested a single attacker that is impossible to answer, so I'll just got with the opinion of what every single investigation came to.Which investigators?

Links?


I've stated it repeatedly. Still waiting for yours.In my opinion state in general and Stevens in particular were taking a calculated risk regarding the security situation in post-Qaddafi Libya. The last thing they wanted to do was put up Hesco walls around every diplomatic station. it's the kind of risk the US has been taking in foreign relations ever since the Iraq surge. It is risk, and shit like this can happen. I would even guess that this kind of diplomacy is keeping a lid on the investigation, since the militias suspected to be involved are pretty prominent in the area and still need to be worked with to have anything happen locally. I concluded long ago that a military intervention would have been a disaster and the type of lower profile responses, flawed as they were, were the appropriate courses to pursue. Of course, in hindsight the threats needed to be taken more seriously and contingencies better planned -- but Monday morning quarterbacking is just that.

[boutons_deux]

The outrage is over the lies from the administration as Obama is going for re-election. At least for me it is.

Prove there were LIES. Issa couldn't. Boner's new witch hunter won't, either.

Had the WH/CIA told what you GUESS is the truth, Barry CRUSHING Bishop Gecko/Wall St would still have happened.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

All investigations said there was no protest in Benghazi that caused the attack.

I don't either, but that doesn't change my opinion on the matter though.

As someone that misspeaks and is wrong so often you really shouldn't characterize mistakes as lies. lest you be held to the same standard.

Here is the armed services committee chair GOP senator McKeon a couple of days ago on the investigation:


“BG 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,” McKeon said.

McKeon added, “The Armed Services Committee has interviewed more than a dozen witnesses in the operational chain of command that night, yielding thousands of pages of transcripts, e-mails, and other documents. We have no evidence that Department of State officials delayed the decision to deploy what few resources DoD had available to respond.”

And before you start up with more bullshit about what it is to you, keep in mind that this is what they are actually discussing in the hill. The first sentence of my post speaks to "what it is to you."

[boutons_deux]

Wishful thinking at Fox: assassinate Hillary (take the hint, rednecks. FREEDOM! )

Fox Panel Imagines Hillary Clinton Assassination Scenario While Distorting Her Comments On Benghazi

On the May 3 edition of the show, panelist Wayne Rogers (http://mediamatters.org/tags/wayne-rogers) criticized the Obama administration's response to the September 2012 attacks and in particular then-Secretary of State Clinton's comments at a Senate hearing, in which she asked "what difference at this point does it make" when questioned about the editing process of a set of talking points relating to the attacks.

Distorting the nature of her comments, Rogers asked his fellow Fox panelists, "Imagine that Hillary Clinton runs for President and gets assassinated in the process and somebody shows up -- a Congressman -- and says, 'well, what difference does it make anyway?' I mean -- The New York Times would have it on the front page."

Host Eric Bolling agreed, adding, "They would have a field day."

Co-panelist Juan Williams quickly explained to Rogers and Bolling that they were distorting comments Clinton made while testifying (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/23/hillary-clinton-ron-johnson_n_2533819.html) about the attack.

During her January 2013 testimony (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1301/23/se.01.html), Clinton responded to a question from Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) about the State Department's role in editing Obama administration talking points on the attack, and said, "[T]he fact is, we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest? Or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?" She added, "It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again."

Conservative media figures have repeatedly distorted (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/07/fox-news-hillary-clinton-and-the-difference-tha/193954) this Clinton comment, imagining it to reflect indifference to the lives lost in the attack, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. In reality, it is a direct rebuttal to the ongoing conservative obsession with the set of talking points, which were subject to changes made based on intelligence assessments available at the time. Clinton was accurately noting during her testimony that given the ongoing efforts to capture those who were responsible for the attacks and to provide security for U.S. consulates and embassies, the bureaucratic details of who edited a government memo were trivial at best.

The odd juxtaposition of a theoretical assassination attempt with this ongoing discussion comes as Fox tries (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/05/02/watch-the-latest-benghazi-hoax-collapse-on-fox/199138) to breathe new life (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/05/01/bill-oreilly-pushes-myth-that-obama-never-order/199135) into the Benghazi hoax, by resurfacing long-debunked and answered questions.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/05/03/fox-panel-imagines-hillary-clinton-assassinatio/199160

[TSA]

Which investigators?

Links?

In my opinion state in general and Stevens in particular were taking a calculated risk regarding the security situation in post-Qaddafi Libya. The last thing they wanted to do was put up Hesco walls around every diplomatic station. it's the kind of risk the US has been taking in foreign relations ever since the Iraq surge. It is risk, and shit like this can happen. I would even guess that this kind of diplomacy is keeping a lid on the investigation, since the militias suspected to be involved are pretty prominent in the area and still need to be worked with to have anything happen locally. I concluded long ago that a military intervention would have been a disaster and the type of lower profile responses, flawed as they were, were the appropriate courses to pursue. Of course, in hindsight the threats needed to be taken more seriously and contingencies better planned -- but Monday morning quarterbacking is just that.

Solid analysis and I agree with you, not much to do once the attack started. My only problem was the admin misleading the public by claiming it was a video that caused a protest that caused the attack. That seems to be lost on a few in this thread as I've never once claimed the attacks could have been prevented or the response should have been different.

[ChumpDumper]

Solid analysis and I agree with you, not much to do once the attack started. My only problem was the admin misleading the public by claiming it was a video that caused a protest that caused the attack. That seems to be lost on a few in this thread as I've never once claimed the attacks could have been prevented or the response should have been different.Well, there was no protest at that location but word about that video had just hit the Arab satellite news services the day before. It's hard to discount its influence given the incidents in other countries. It might be more accurate to say the attack could have been inspired in part by protests against the video like the one in Cairo, but it seems the main suspected leader was just looking for an excuse to strike something western. The video and date provided those.

My problem with the Republicans here is they have all the information they need. Nothing new is going to be discovered. The most damnable thing the White House did was mention protests, but by saying that they really weren't hiding anything else. A militia group that had nothing to do with AQ was probably responsible for the attack, the US learned its lesson that Libyan militias are loathe to fight one another and we have to look out for ourselves there. In the end I don't know what they are trying to accomplish outside trying to catch Hillary in the fallout.

[boutons_deux]

Hillary Clinton: the real GOP target on Benghazi?

Hillary Clinton was secretary of State when terrorists killed the US ambassador and other Americans in Benghazi, Libya. Republicans aim to make that a major issue if she runs for president.

Republican-led congressional investigations of the issue known simply as “Benghazi” are becoming a major political irritation for the Obama White House. It gets in the way of the “Year of Action” (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2014/0503/Can-Obama-s-Year-of-Action-revive-his-presidency) – government by executive order – President Obama is touting as his way of dealing with what he sees as an obstructive Congress.

But for the Democratic front-runner in the 2016 presidential campaign – Hillary Rodham Clinton – it’s quickly growing into a potentially devastating target of opportunity for the GOP as it searches for a way to head off a Clinton political dynasty.
“Republicans aren't going to let Benghazi go, unless and until they find that it doesn't serve as a liability for Hillary Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time of the attack,” writes New Republic senior editor Brian Beutler on the magazine’s website. “And while we know that the conspiracy theory that sparked and sustains Benghazimania has been debunked, we don't know whether the right's obsession with it will become a real hindrance for Clinton if she runs for the presidency, or if it will backfire against Republicans.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2014/0504/Hillary-Clinton-the-real-GOP-target-on-Benghazi-video

Repugs nominate an unelectable asshole for 2016, with a platform of screw the poor, repeal ACA, enrich/protect the corps and wealthy, Bill Clinton rapist, and Hillary responsible for Benghazi.

[CosmicCowboy]

Personally I have no outrage over Benghazi. Bad shit has happened to embassies before.

The thing that bothered me then and the thing that still bothers me now was the assumption by the White House that the public (and by extension, me) would be stupid enough to believe the story they were spinning that it was all because of some stupid movie and not a planned 9/11 anniversary attack. Two months before the election and the White House line was they had the terrorists "on the run". This attack clearly didn't jibe with that talking point so they stuck with that stupid movie talking point for weeks after any rational person could review the evidence and realize it was just an outright political fabrication. All this latest discovery does is verify what rational people already knew to be true.

[boutons_deux]

We’re pushing the video because we don’t want to blame it on the failure of our policies,’ ” said conservative commentatorCharles Krauthammer on Fox News (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/charles-krauthammer-on-benghazi-emails-106188.html) earlier this week.

“The facts are coming out that in fact this administration has knowingly withheld documents pursuant to congressional subpoenas in violation of any reasonable transparency or historic precedent at least since Richard Milhouse Nixon,” said Representative Issa. :lol Executive privilege only applies to Repug WH, not Dem WH? :lol

And Ben Rhodes wrote his e-mail after the CIA began drafting talking points. He took his cue from them, not the other way around, writes Slate’s Dave Wiegel (http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/04/30/smoking_gun_shock_benghazi_e_mail_reveals_that_oba ma_white_house_agreed.html).
“It’s just lazy journalism or lazy politicking to blame Rhodes for a talking point that was fed from the CIA. The White House’s shifty-sounding excuse, that the ‘demonstration’ story line came not from its spin factory but from the CIA, remains surprisingly accurate,” writes Mr. Wiegel.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2014/0501/Does-newly-released-Benghazi-e-mail-prove-White-House-misled-America-video

criminal? how criminal? Issa is an alarm salesman, car thief, weapons offender, and witch hunter, not a lawyer. :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

Hey wingnut....Obama HIMSELF was still pushing that spin line two weeks after 9/11.

[boutons_deux]

Hey wingnut....Obama HIMSELF was still pushing that spin line two weeks after 9/11.

so impeach The Negro

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao

The fact that you still buy the spin shows just how bum-fucking-stupid you really are.

[ChumpDumper]

Personally I have no outrage over Benghazi. Bad shit has happened to embassies before.

The thing that bothered me then and the thing that still bothers me now was the assumption by the White House that the public (and by extension, me) would be stupid enough to believe the story they were spinning that it was all because of some stupid movie and not a planned 9/11 anniversary attack. Two months before the election and the White House line was they had the terrorists "on the run". This attack clearly didn't jibe with that talking point so they stuck with that stupid movie talking point for weeks after any rational person could review the evidence and realize it was just an outright political fabrication. All this latest discovery does is verify what rational people already knew to be true.This video actually was quite a big deal that week in the Arab world. I mean, how planned did that attack have to be? It certainly wasn't a classic AQ years-in-the-making operations. The wide exposure of the video could have easily been the last ingredient of a perfect storm. I guess if we ever catch the guys who did it we can find out the level of inluence.

i think it is bullshit that it took this long to get this particular email out there. The only thing that strengthens the Republicans' hand is that it has been withheld for so long. No they can play the "What else are they hiding?" card. As it is, the CIA just looks completely inept on all levels in Libya.

[Nbadan]

This video actually was quite a big deal that week in the Arab world. I mean, how planned did that attack have to be? It certainly wasn't a classic AQ years-in-the-making operations. The wide exposure of the video could have easily been the last ingredient of a perfect storm. I guess if we ever catch the guys who did it we can find out the level of inluence

Well,,,,,the attack actually happened because the spooks were running a clandestine gun operation out of the Embassy grounds...they were shipping Kadafi's guns to the rebels in Syria...that's why there are so many Libyan weapons in Syria, not because of Al Queda...

[Nbadan]

....but the Obama Administration couldn't come out and say that for National Security reasons, so they came up with the Video cover story...not these dumb-fucks in Congress risk exposing what was really going on....Spooks wont go for that....

[boutons_deux]

:lmao

The fact that you still buy the spin shows just how bum-fucking-stupid you really are.

You buy the LIES and slander of the Repugs.

[boutons_deux]

The Great Benghazi Scandal Gets Sillier

You say potato and I say potahto,
You say tomato and I say tomahto,
Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto:
Let’s call the whole thing off.

–George and Ira Gershwin
Here’s how unreal the Great Benghazi Scandal had already grown as of last year. Washington Postfact checker Glenn Kessler devoted an entire May 2013 column to the scholastic question of whether President Obama’s calling the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on a U.S. Consulate in Libya an “act of terror” was the same as calling it an “act of terrorism,” as he’d recently claimed.

Kessler pondered the deep semantic differences between the two phrases before awarding Obama a full four “Pinocchios,” signifying a “whopper.” Seriously. That’s the big cover-up House Republicans pretend they’re outraged about.
Obama’s exact words, from the White House Rose Garden on the day after the attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and his security team:

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

So who was Obama trying to deceive?

People who hadn’t seen the smoking ruins on TV? And about what? Kessler doesn’t say. Only that the two phrases don’t signify precisely the same thing — a distinction without a difference in any realistic political context.

It will be recalled that GOP nominee Mitt Romney executed one of the clumsiest pratfalls in presidential debate history for mistakenly challenging Obama on this exact point. Had the president, or had he not, described the Benghazi disaster as an “act of terror?”

Obama cooly urged his rival to consult the transcript. In fact, he’d used the phrase several times.

Had the Washington political press not had so much invested in a “cliffhanger” election narrative, Romney’s blunder would have been compared to President Gerald Ford’s denying Soviet influence in Poland during a 1976 debate with Jimmy Carter.

But then this is the great mystery confronting non-initiates in the great GOP Benghazi cult. What on earth are these people going on about? That if Obama had said “act of terrorism” instead of “act of terror,” Americans would have punished his failure to eliminate jihadists from the face of the earth by turning to Mitt “47 percent” Romney?

That everything would be different if UN Ambassador Susan Rice had cast aside White House “talking points” about inflammatory videos on the Sunday political chat shows and candidly confessed that “[w]hether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself…is one of the things we’ll have to determine?”

Because those were Rice’s exact words, block copied from the transcript of CBS’s Sept. 16, 2012 Face the Nation broadcast in response to a direct question from Bob Schieffer about al Qaeda involvement.

Everybody now pretends she named no terrorist groups, for the sake of keeping the make-believe scandal alive.

It follows that contrary to everything you hear from partisan mischief makers and their helpers among the Washington press, the Obama White House has never sought to deny the obvious: that the kinds of religious zealots who bring rocket-propelled grenade launchers to street demonstrations didn’t simply find them lying around in the bazaar.

The original CIA talking points released 11 months ago said pretty much what Ambassador Rice said: that outrage at a crude, American-made video mocking Islam sparked violent protests across much of the Middle East, and that militants took advantage of the resulting chaos for their own bloody purposes. The exact identity of those responsible isn’t yet known.

See, out there in the real world, it doesn’t always have to be either/or. Most often it’s both/and: armed terrorist groups and a provocative video. A Senate Intelligence Committee report released last January sharply criticized the State Department, but also concluded (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/16/world/middleeast/senate-report-finds-benghazi-attack-was-preventable.html?_r=1)“that the attack was not a highly coordinated plot, but was opportunistic.”
(http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/16/world/middleeast/senate-report-finds-benghazi-attack-was-preventable.html?_r=1)
David D. Kirkpatrick’s masterful reporting (http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/#/?chapt=0) in The New York Times established that the anti-western Libyan militia Ansar Al-Sharia had long had the consulate under surveillance, although

“anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters….A Libyan journalist working for The New York Times was blocked from entering by the sentries outside, and he learned of the film from the fighters who stopped him.”However, a 2012 White House email has recently emerged, re-stating CIA talking points in somewhat different language. So big deal.
They’ll be singing all summer: Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto.

Well, you know the rest.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/great-benghazi-scandal-gets-sillier/2/

CC loves him some Fox/Repug fabricated scandal

btw, Repugs say WH released the climate change "scare mongering" to detract from the Repugs fabricated Benghazi scandal. :lol

[boutons_deux]

Oops: GOP's #Benghazi committee chairman says he's leading a 'trial' (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/08/1297830/-Oops-GOP-s-Benghazi-committee-chairman-says-he-s-leading-a-trial)


Asked by MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough about the possibility that his panel’s work would continue into the 2016 election campaign, Gowdy replied that “if an administration is slow-walking document production, I can’t end a trial simply because the defense won’t cooperate.”

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/08/1297830/-Oops-GOP-s-Benghazi-committee-chairman-says-he-s-leading-a-trial?detail=email

[boutons_deux]

The NYT Editorial Board Get It Right (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/09/1298052/-The-NYT-Editorial-Board-Get-It-Right)

The Republican Party whilst doing nothing for the nation have decided a fun way to do less than nothing and with complete disregard to any costs incurred.

On the kangaroo court


Republicans vying for a seat on the Benghazi kangaroo court, also known as the Select House Committee to Inflate a Tragedy Into a Scandal.

All because the frothing at the mouth brigade smell blood where there is none.Of course the GOPs persecution complex is also fed.


The day before, they voted to hold in contempt Lois Lerner, the former Internal Revenue Service official whom they would love to blame for the administration’s crackdown on conservative groups, if only they could prove there was a crackdown, which they can’t, because there wasn’t.

As for Democrats joining in the Benghazi Circus


Democrats who are now debating whether to participate in the committee shouldn’t hesitate to skip it. Their presence would only lend legitimacy to a farce.

As for Republican disregard of others rights


Little nuisances like constitutional rights or basic facts can’t be allowed to stand in the way when House Republicans need to whip up their party’s fury.

Republicans have demonstrated yet again that when they cannot start preemptive wars, torture, give the wealth of the nation to the rich, persecute anyone not like them, they fall into their standard set of procedures:

1] If we cannot impeach a President we will just fuck up government.

2] Hold pointless proceedings to stir up the crazy.

3] If all else fails throw a wrench into the works and then go on Fox Noise to complain that the wrench has broken the works.

It is astounding that they look at science as a conspiracy.

It is funny [in a sick kind of way] how they regard equality for all as infringing upon their rights.

It is going to be an ugly couple of years.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/09/1298052/-The-NYT-Editorial-Board-Get-It-Right?detail=email

Repugs! :lol

and y'all vote them in, OVER AND OVER AND OVER

[boutons_deux]

the very reliable, and always entertainng RM CRUSHES the Repug Benghazi witch hunting, esp the ignorant TX Repug Pete Sessions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_AkWmPvqrY#t=13

GOO FELLAS :lol

maybe goo ball is what TX Repugs have between their ears?

[boutons_deux]

Paul Ryan still bitter over Candy Crowley torpedoing Mitt's own Benghazi! talking point (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/09/1298143/-Paul-Ryan-still-bitter-over-Candy-Crowley-torpedoing-Mitt-s-own-Benghazi-talking-point)

Rep. Paul Ryan is still complaining about CNN’s Candy Crowley’s 2012 debate moderation. Specifically, about the fact that she corrected Mitt Romney for saying President Obama took 14 days to call the 9/11 attack on the Benghazi compound “an act of terror,” when Obama said those words in the Rose Garden the very day after the killings of four Americans.

Talking to Hugh Hewitt Wednesday night, Ryan rehashed the Crowley moment, agreeing with Hewitt that it was “perhaps the most significant intervention by a member of the media in a presidential campaign ever.”

While Ryan wouldn’t speculate about whether Crowley would do anything different if she knew what we know now (more on what we know now, later) he alleged that Crowley “violated the rules of the debate.”

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/09/1298143/-Paul-Ryan-still-bitter-over-Candy-Crowley-torpedoing-Mitt-s-own-Benghazi-talking-point?detail=email

[CosmicCowboy]

What is Boo so scared of? Why is he terrified of this special committee? Boo's outrage is hilarious.

[boutons_deux]

What is Boo so scared of? Why is he terrified of this special committee? Boo's outrage is hilarious.

You Lie, The Great Boutons is scared of nothing

Even know that after 100s of hours, 1000s of pages, years and tons of incompetent, ignorant Issa's bullshit, NOTHING incriminating the Exec has been found. Yet another Benghazi witch hunt is a direct exposure and insult to Issa.

And you must know that the Confederate SC clown they put at the head of the commission means it's a total joke, for redneck/white/old/racist Repug base's entertainment to harass The Negro.

All smash-mouth, destructive, bad faith, distracting, harassing, witch hunting, election-year, obstructive Politics, All The Time, of which the Repugs have lots of because they spend no tme governing.

Willful misgovernance and incompetence are Repug specialities.

Well, actually, the Repugs do have plenty of time, just not in Congress, because flaccid Boner has scheduled a historic minimum days for Congress to be in session.

And you guys keep voting your Repug/tea bagging assholes into office, OVER AND OVER AND OVER.

[CosmicCowboy]

Yep. Sounds skeeered to me.

[boutons_deux]

Yep. Sounds skeeered to me.

As usual, CC is way off target.

[boutons_deux]

Notice how the Feds did nothing to these peaceful protestors, while many police depts beat the shit out of and/or arrested, and tried some, 1000s of OWS protestors.

yeah, redneck white boys, tell us yet again how you're persecuted.

[DarrinS]

Notice how the Feds did nothing to these peaceful protestors, while many police depts beat the shit out of and/or arrested, and tried some, 1000s of OWS protestors.

yeah, redneck white boys, tell us yet again how you're persecuted.


Were they committing crimes?

[boutons_deux]

Were they committing crimes?

peaceful assembly isn't a crime.

cities now make almost every peaceful assembly subject to permits and severe policing, but I'm sure you right-wingers just hate the The Negro's police state, but would have love McLiar's/BishopGecko's police state.

the rednecks were comitting a crime, trespassing gratuitously (they just had to ATV in that specific place) on posted govt property with forbidden vehicles

[CosmicCowboy]

peaceful assembly isn't a crime.

cities now make almost every peaceful assembly subject to permits and severe policing, but I'm sure you right-wingers just hate the The Negro's police state, but would have love McLiar's/BishopGecko's police state.

the rednecks were comitting a crime, trespassing gratuitously (they just had to ATV in that specific place) on posted govt property with forbidden vehicles

Boutons is OUTRAGED! Rednecks on ATV's!!!!

[boutons_deux]

Trey Gowdy has questions ... that have already been answered (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/12/1298764/-Trey-Gowdy-has-questions-that-have-already-been-answered)


http://images.dailykos.com/images/82425/large/Gowdy.jpg?1399416247


On Sunday, GOP #Benghazi Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy told Fox's Chris Wallace that he has some big questions for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton because he doesn't know "why we were still in Benghazi despite the fact that there was an escalation in violence." And why doesn't he know? Because: (http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday-chris-wallace/2014/05/11/how-should-us-respond-boko-haram-will-select-committee-get-bottom-benghazi#p//v/3556521965001)


I have never an opportunity to ask the secretary of state questions about the lead-up to Benghazi and why we were still there.

Therefore:


WALLACE: So tell me the single biggest question you want to ask Secretary Clinton?GOWDY: Why were we still in Benghazi? The British ambassador was almost assassinated. Our facility was attacked twice. There were multiple episodes of violence. We were the last flag flying in Benghazi and I would like to know why.


Okay, so let's not indict Gowdy for having a question and not knowing the answer. Instead, let's see if there is any possible way that Gowdy could discover the answer without spending millions of taxpayer dollars on a partisan congressional committee.And you know what? Good news! Because as Sam Stein writes (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/11/trey-gowdy-hillary-clinton_n_5305629.html?1399825080), Gowdy's question has already been asked and answered.

The last time that Clinton testified before Congress on #Benghazi, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce asked her why were in Benghazi despite the security threats. Her answer:

We were in Benghazi as part of an effort to stabilize the Libyan government, and that while she was aware of the security issues and risks, the U.S. operates in many dangerous places around the world and security professionals did not recommend pulling out of Benghazi.

Maybe Trey Gowdy has a problem with the fact that he wasn't the one who asked the question, but he can't say that the question hasn't been asked nor can he say that it hasn't been answered. Well, let me take that back. Obviously he can say it because he did say it. But the only reason he got away with it without any pushback is that Fox News is in the tank for the GOP on Benghazi and everything else.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/12/1298764/-Trey-Gowdy-has-questions-that-have-already-been-answered?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29# (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/12/1298764/-Trey-Gowdy-has-questions-that-have-already-been-answered?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29#)

Issa and Gowdy are Kenn Starrs, coming up empty handed after 1000s of hours of digging up non-existent dirt, but they are without a Linda Tripp to save their witch hunting, harassing asses.

Repugs! :lol

SC racist Confederate Repugs! :lol :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao @ Boos OUTRAGE!!!!!

[Big Empty]

Trey Gowdy has questions ... that have already been answered (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/12/1298764/-Trey-Gowdy-has-questions-that-have-already-been-answered)


http://images.dailykos.com/images/82425/large/Gowdy.jpg?1399416247


On Sunday, GOP #Benghazi Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy told Fox's Chris Wallace that he has some big questions for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton because he doesn't know "why we were still in Benghazi despite the fact that there was an escalation in violence." And why doesn't he know? Because: (http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday-chris-wallace/2014/05/11/how-should-us-respond-boko-haram-will-select-committee-get-bottom-benghazi#p//v/3556521965001)


I have never an opportunity to ask the secretary of state questions about the lead-up to Benghazi and why we were still there.

Therefore:


WALLACE: So tell me the single biggest question you want to ask Secretary Clinton?GOWDY: Why were we still in Benghazi? The British ambassador was almost assassinated. Our facility was attacked twice. There were multiple episodes of violence. We were the last flag flying in Benghazi and I would like to know why.


Okay, so let's not indict Gowdy for having a question and not knowing the answer. Instead, let's see if there is any possible way that Gowdy could discover the answer without spending millions of taxpayer dollars on a partisan congressional committee.And you know what? Good news! Because as Sam Stein writes (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/11/trey-gowdy-hillary-clinton_n_5305629.html?1399825080), Gowdy's question has already been asked and answered.

The last time that Clinton testified before Congress on #Benghazi, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce asked her why were in Benghazi despite the security threats. Her answer:

We were in Benghazi as part of an effort to stabilize the Libyan government, and that while she was aware of the security issues and risks, the U.S. operates in many dangerous places around the world and security professionals did not recommend pulling out of Benghazi.

Maybe Trey Gowdy has a problem with the fact that he wasn't the one who asked the question, but he can't say that the question hasn't been asked nor can he say that it hasn't been answered. Well, let me take that back. Obviously he can say it because he did say it. But the only reason he got away with it without any pushback is that Fox News is in the tank for the GOP on Benghazi and everything else.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/12/1298764/-Trey-Gowdy-has-questions-that-have-already-been-answered?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29# (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/12/1298764/-Trey-Gowdy-has-questions-that-have-already-been-answered?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29#)

Issa and Gowdy are Kenn Starrs, coming up empty handed after 1000s of hours of digging up non-existent dirt, but they are without a Linda Tripp to save their witch hunting, harassing asses.

Repugs! :lol

SC racist Confederate Repugs! :lol :lol



lmao! you're quicky beocming my SR favorite

[Nbadan]

What is Boo so scared of? Why is he terrified of this special committee? Boo's outrage is hilarious.

Ok..but this committee has nothing new that previous investigative committees on Bengazi haven't had...and 'the email' isn't enough to convince anyone of anything...that makes this committee a colossal waste of government and tax-payer resources...but if you want to rest your hat on the emails go ahead...

[Nbadan]

gotta love Borowitz...


MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WHO NEED JOBS WANT CONGRESS TO GET TO BOTTOM OF THIS BENGHAZI THING FIRST
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)


—Millions of unemployed Americans who have fruitlessly been looking for work for months are determined that Congress get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi, a new poll indicates.

According to the survey, job-seeking Americans hope that Congress will eventually do something about job creation, but they are adamant that it hold new hearings about Benghazi first.

By a wide majority, respondents to the poll “strongly agreed” with the statement “I would really like to find a job, but not if it in any way distracts Congress from my No. 1 concern: finding out what really happened in Benghazi.”

In related findings, a survey of Americans found that taxpayers overwhelmingly consider Benghazi hearings to be the best use of taxpayer money, well ahead of schools, roads, and infant nutrition.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2014/05/poll-millions-of-americans-who-need-jobs-want-congress-to-get-to-bottom-of-this-benghazi-thing-first.html

[Nbadan]

...the really sad part of this is that the victims which the wing-nuts are purported to be supporting here are the ones being used for this political hatched job on Hillary...

Families Of Benghazi Victims Have Asked Us Not To Launch New Committee


House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the families of victims of the 2012 Benghazi, Libya, attack have reached out to lawmakers to ask them not to launch another probe into the incident.

"Two of their families have called us and said, 'Please don't take us down this path again,'" Pelosi said during her weekly press conference. "It's really hard for them. It's very sad."

Rep. Louise Slaughter's (D-N.Y.) office confirmed that a family member from the maternal side of Tyrone Woods' family called on Thursday to express support for the congresswoman's position on the issue, which is that another probe is not necessary. Woods was one of the CIA contractors killed in the attack. A Democratic aide said another family also has reached out to Democrats.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/09/nancy-pelosi-benghazi-families_n_5296172.html

[Nbadan]

https://31.media.tumblr.com/fc114e6459a0ef974961b903b063f52e/tumblr_n5do1vhO9Z1r55d2io1_500.jpg

[Nbadan]

New Benghazi Investigation Spooks GOP Leaders
Eli Lake


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.

more
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/14/new-benghazi-investigation-spooks-gop-leaders.html

[boutons_deux]

Fox Manufactures Benghazi Outrage With Cropped Video Of Susan Rice

Fox News' On the Record aired dramatically cropped video of Susan Rice to falsely claim she brushed off a question about Benghazi and did not take the deaths seriously.

On May 15, host Greta Van Susteren aired only four words from Rice's response to a question about what new information the recently-formed GOP special committee for Benghazi may find. After airing Rice saying "Dang if I know," Van Susteren cut off the video and said it doesn't sound like the White House is taking the investigation seriously.

Van Susteren repeatedly emphasized that four people died in the attack while calling Rice's response insensitive:

But the full video of Rice's response shows that Van Susteren is manufacturing (http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/05/07/the-already-asked-and-answered-questions-fox-wa/199208) this latest (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/05/06/when-attempts-to-correct-foxs-benghazi-hoax-amo/199187) Fox outrage (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/05/01/benghazi-testimony-derails-foxs-incredibly-damn/199116). Rice's response was to the question of whether or not new information would be released. In the full version of the clip that Fox chose not to air, Rice goes on to point out that "I mean, honestly, the administration has produced, I think, 25,000 pages of documents, or 25,000 individual documents. They've supported, participated in, contributed to the investigations of, you know, seven, I think, different committees. We have had an accountability review board by a very distinguished group of outsiders."

Later in the interview, Rice emphasized the need to prevent a similar attack from occurring in the future, saying we lost four brave Americans on that day, and their families and those of us who work with them continue to grieve. And the last thing we need to do is to lose any more":

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/05/15/fox-manufactures-benghazi-outrage-with-cropped/199344

But Fox's median viewership of 68 years old will remain convinced that their fantasy of a WH Benghazi conspiracy is hard, irrefutable reality.

[Nbadan]

Issa Pushes Forward With His Own Benghazi Investigation


Just days after the House voted to impanel a select committee to investigate the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa signaled that he will continue his own separate investigation into the attacks.

The California Republican on Thursday issued another subpoena to Secretary of State John Kerry, calling on the former senator—who was serving in the Senate at the time of the attack—to appear before the Oversight Committee on May 29. Earlier this month, the same day that House Speaker John Boehner announced his intention to form a select committee on the matter, Issa issued a subpoena requiring Kerry to appear before the committee on May 21, but changed the date due to a conflict with Kerry's scheduled trip to Mexico that week.

"The State Department had discussed May 29 as a possible alternative date and that's when Secretary Kerry will be obligated to appear—further accommodation will not be possible," Issa said in a statement. "Absent an assertion of executive privilege, the State Department has a legal obligation to fully and completely comply."

Boehner said at the time that he supports Issa's subpoena, and spokesman Michael Steel confirmed Thursday that that remains the case.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/despite-select-committee-issa-pushes-forward-with-his-own-benghazi-investigation-20140515

Roads & freeway closed, children's hospitals and emergency rooms closed, all schools closed, houses burned, lives ruined, his droughted district was an inevitable tinderbox. ...yet from ALEC/KOCH disciple Issa only Benghazee,Bengahzee, Bengahzee.

[boutons_deux]

Issa MUST feele insulted, pushed aside as the Repugs start up Gowdy SELECT! :lol committee, etc so long after Issa has been chasing Benghazi windmills.

[Nbadan]

What you haven't read about Benghazi
by tmaertens


On April 18, 1983, a suicide truck bomber attacked the U.S. Embassy in Beirut killing sixty-three people including 17 Americans; on Oct. 23, 1983, a second suicide bomber struck in Beirut, killing 241 U.S. Marines. The congressional investigation ordered by Speaker “Tip” O’Neill recommended major security improvements.

Eighteen months later, on Sept. 20, 1984, a third attack occurred in Beirut, killing 24 people at the U.S. Embassy.

It turned out that the security measures Congress directed had not been completed. Ronald Reagan’s explanation was a version of, well, stuff happens: “Anyone who’s ever had their kitchen done over knows that it never gets done as soon as you wish it would.”

In the interim, five more people were killed in the Dec. 12, 1983, attack on the American Embassy in Kuwait.

Under George W. Bush, sixty people died at U.S. missions overseas, including 16 U.S. diplomats, from attacks at Kolkata (Calcutta), Islamabad, Istanbul, Tashkent, Damascus, Saudi Arabia, and two each in Sana’a and Karachi. There were no Congressional investigations.

There have been 521 attacks on U.S. missions abroad since 1970 — roughly one per month — according to State Department figures. Of the 500 Americans who died in dangerous parts of the world in recent decades — plus 4,500 Americans who died in Bush’s Iraq fiasco — Republicans seem obsessed only about the four victims who died in Benghazi, Libya: eight congressional committees have already conducted thirteen hearings.

House Speaker John Boehner has convened yet another investigation — a “trial” the chairman called it — to determine whether violent protests were “rooted in an Internet video, not a failure of policy,” as administration talking points declared. The video in question was “The Innocence of Muslims,” made by an Egyptian Christian extremist in California. One Republican after another has declared the explanation a lie.

An Internet search shows photos of riots or demonstrations in Cairo, Gaza City, Kashmir, Kuwait, Istanbul, Mombasa, Jakarta, Doha, Khartoum, Dhaka, Yemen, Iraq, India, Tunisia, Teheran, Kabul, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Lebanon, Jordan, and many other cities around 9/11. Maps posted by the Atlantic and others show dozens of protests around the world that night.

The New York Daily News said “The Muslim-mocking clip caused violent protests across the Arab world and may have been the impetus for the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi;” the International Business Times reported that “As many as 19 people have been killed in Pakistan amid violent protests over anti-Muslim film ‘Innocence of Muslims’”; Sky News reported that 60 were injured in Peshawar and over a hundred in Karachi; France shut down its embassies in 20 countries because of protests; over a dozen were injured in Bangladesh; the BBC reported over 100 people were injured in Cairo due to “protests against an anti-Islam film.”

Reuters reported that seven Egyptian Christians were sentenced to death in absentia for their role in “The Innocence of Muslims;” and, al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri urged Muslims to wage holy war against the U.S. and Israel over the “The Innocence of Muslims.”

A January 2014 report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) also suggested that the attacks were influenced by violent protests against an inflammatory video, and cited demonstrations in Cairo and approximately 40 other cities that night. Besides Benghazi, there were attacks on U.S. missions in Yemen, Egypt and Tunisia.

Adding to the frenzy about Benghazi was Fox News’ bogus claim that the military was told to “stand down” during the attack. That and other conspiracy theories were broadcast in more than 1,100 segments by Fox about Benghazi last year, according to Nexis.

The Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Buck McKeon, concluded there is “no evidence that Department of State officials delayed the decision to deploy what few resources DoD had available to respond.” Separately, a Pentagon statement said that “U.S. military forces could not have arrived in time to mount a rescue of those Americans who were killed and injured.”

The Benghazi hysteria is being stirred up by Republicans for political purposes. The National Republican Congressional Committee has boasted that its Clinton/Benghazi fundraising page was the most successful in its history.

Several Republicans claim they have enough votes to impeach Obama, except they can’t find any evidence of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” despite their scandal-mongering over “Fast and Furious” and the IRS. Now they are betting on Benghazi.

But Benghazi was a tragedy perpetrated by jihadists in Libya, not by Obama, Clinton or diplomats in the State Department.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/07/1305187/-What-you-haven-t-read-about-Benghazi

[Wild Cobra]

Dan, a serious question.

Are you saying that not learning from past events is acceptable?

[boutons_deux]

Dan, a serious question.

Are you saying that not learning from past events is acceptable?

Tee Vee watching Americans' memory recall is famously about 15 minutes. Add to that the incredible political disaffection, disengagement, magical "Christian" ideas, senility, and ignorance, historical and contemporary, of white Americans that the Repugs depend on in their base, and "learning" simply doesn't apply.

[boutons_deux]

Ronald Reagan “Treason” Amnesia: GOP Hypocrites Forget Their Hero Negotiated with Terrorists

It’s been said that if President Obama were to walk on water, the headline news would be “President Can’t Swim.” That can explain why what would normally be a cause for celebration — the return of America’s only prisoner of war in Iraq or Afghanistan — quickly became a controversy, with talk of it being a crime. Reactions to the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, in exchange for five Taliban members being held at Guantanamo, have been so severe that even the hometown joy at his release has been dampened.

GOP criticism — picked up by the media — initially focused on two lines of attack on Obama, the first claiming that “negotiating with terrorists” sets a bad precedent, and the second claiming that Obama broke the law by failing to consult with Congress 30 days in advance of releasing the Taliban detainees. There were calls for “investigations,” the GOP’s favorite word in Obama’s second term. But the consultation requirement in a bill passed by Congress was countered by a presidential signing statement — and acting on such signing statements was never a problem for the GOP when Bush was president.

As for “setting a bad precedent” by “negotiating with terrorists,” the GOP’s very serious concern comes three decades too late: Their hallowed icon, Ronald Reagan, firmly established that precedent in a still-murky tangle of secret dealings with Iran, only some of which came to light in the Iran-contra scandal. While Obama was actually involved in prisoner-of-war negotiations — a quite different matter, as several commentators have tried to explain — Reagan clearly was not. Thus, if we really want to put the current faux controversy over Bergdahl’s release into context, a review of Reagan’s record should prove most illuminating. The particulars involved in that record were far more shocking than the ambiguities surrounding Bergdahl’s conduct, which have opened up a third line of attack on Obama’s success in bringing him home.

Not only did Reagan deal with terrorists as president, as revealed in the Iran-Contra scandal, the preponderance of evidence now supports the charge that his campaign negotiated with Iranian hostage-takers while he was running for president in 1980, to delay the release of hostages before the election, which could have helped Carter win reelection — what was known as “The October Surprise.” Given that Reagan wasn’t president then, but was negotiating to thwart a president’s attempt to get hostages released, this is not simply questionable behavior, it is arguably an act of treason. Democrats’ reluctance to vigorously investigate Reagan’s misdeeds — the exact opposite of GOP attitudes toward Clinton and Obama — has left much of the true story still shrouded in mystery, but what we do know is damning enough in itself, and still cries out for a truly thorough investigation.

First of all, there’s no doubt that Reagan himself set the precedent of dealing with terrorists — and encouraging more hostage-taking. He and his administration convinced themselves they were dealing with “moderates” in Iran. But they also famously sent Donald Rumsfeld to Iraq to hang out with Saddam Hussein, and collaborated with Osama bin Laden in building up the most extreme mujahideen elements fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan — the very forces that eventually gave birth to the Taliban. When his own hand-picked “Tower Commission” confirmed the basic facts of the Iran-contra scandal, Reagan went on national TV and said, “A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that’s true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not.”

In short, Reagan had utterly terrible judgment when it came to the politics of the region, and the fact that he deluded himself about what he was doing and who he was doing it with was part and parcel of his terrible judgment; it only makes matters worse — it does not excuse them.

If we ignore the October Surprise for the moment, the Iran-Contra Affair began as a response to the Lebanon Hostage Crisis, which Wikipedia describes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon_hostage_crisis) [2] as “the systematic kidnapping in Lebanon of 96 foreign hostages of 21 national origins — mostly American and western European — between 1982 and 1992.” The hostage crisis, in turn, was an outgrowth of the Lebanese Civil War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War) [3] (1975-1990), and more specifically the role the U.S. and other Western nations played in trying to intervene in 1983. (Only one hostage was taken before then.) This, in turn, was met by two notorious bombing attacks — one on a U.S. Marine barracks, the other on the U.S. embassy. Both involved far more loss of life than Benghazi — but were considered tragedies, not scandals, and have been entirely forgotten by today’s GOP. As Wikipedia explains:

The original reason for the hostage-taking seems to have been “as insurance against retaliation by the U.S., Syria, or any other force” against Hezbollah, which is thought responsible for the killing of 241 Americans and 58 Frenchmen in the Marine barracks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing) [4]and embassy bombings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_1983_United_States_Embassy_bombing) [5] [in which another 17 Americans were killed] in Beirut. Other reasons for the kidnappings or the prolonged holding of hostages are thought to be “primarily based on Iranian foreign policy calculations and interests” particularly the extraction of “political, military and financial concessions from the Western world,” the hostage takers being strong allies of the Islamic Republic of Iran.


This passage shows that the reasons for hostage-taking were such that no amount of deal-making would put an end to them. (Sgt. Bergdahl, in contrast, was not taken hostage for any such strategic purposes.) If some hostages were released, others would inevitably be captured to take their place, because the need for hostages remained unchanged. And this is exactly what happened.
In all, there were eight arms shipments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%D0Contra_affair#Arms_sales_to_Iran) [6] to Iran from Aug. 12, 1985 through Oct. 28, 1986. The first two came from Israel, with the promise that the U.S. would replenish them, but thereafter the U.S. sent them directly — and began skimming the profits to send to the Nicaraguan contras, who were themselves something of a terrorist organization (http://articles.latimes.com/1985-03-08/news/mn-32283_1_contras) [7], responsible for a pattern “including rape, torture, kidnappings, mutilation and other abuses” against the civilian population. In all, 2,512 TOW anti-tank missiles were sent to Iran, along with 18 Hawk anti-aircraft missiles and more than 240 Hawk spare parts. These were all vital weapons in Iran’s ongoing war with Iraq.

The results on the hostage-freeing side were a good deal more uneven, to say the least. On Sept. 15, 1985, after the second delivery, the Rev. Benjamin Weir was released by the Islamic Jihad Organization. But then four more shipments took place before another hostage was released. What’s more, on April 17, 1986, the body of one American hostage was discovered near Beirut, along with two other employees of the American University of Beirut, who were British. Then, in late July 1986, Hezbollah released another hostage, Father Lawrence Martin Jenco, former head of Catholic Relief Services in Lebanon. After that, however, in September and October 1986, three more Americans — Frank Reed, Joseph Cicippio, and Edward Tracy — were abducted in Lebanon. One final hostage, David Jacobsen, was released on Nov. 2, 1986, the day before the Lebanese magazine Ash-Shiraa exposed the ongoing arms-for-hostages deal.

So, the U.S. got zero net hostages released, and one dead hostage’s body dumped in return for 2,512 TOW anti-tank missiles, 18 Hawk anti-aircraft missiles and more than 240 Hawk spare parts.
On the deal itself, Reagan got snookered. But he also clearly established the precedent that we would negotiate with terrorists — in fact, we would negotiate for them. Not only did the contras terrorize the Nicaraguan people, they were also partially funded through drug-dealing, as numerous investigations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_and_Contras_cocaine_trafficking_in_the_US) [8] in the 1980s and ’90s revealed. As we watch the current manufacture of “scandal” surrounding the release of Sgt. Bergdahl, it’s illuminating to contrast this with the way in which multiple very real interconnected scandals under Ronald Reagan were both isolated from one another and then minimized, never receiving the sort of thorough investigation that Republicans are now demanding every time that President Obama so much as coughs.

The greatest act of isolation and minimization involves the October Surprise — the 1980 Reagan/Bush campaign’s alleged negotiations with Iran to prevent the release of hostages prior to the 1980 election. Although long dismissed by most as a mere “conspiracy theory,” evidence in support of it has only grown significantly stronger over time, in large part because of the work of investigative journalist Robert Parry, who broke several of the most important stories about the Iran-Contra scandal while working for the Associated Press in the 1980s, and has long run the independent news site Consortiumnews.com (http://consortiumnews.com/) [9].

Parry worked on a documentary about the October Surprise for PBS’s “Frontline” in 1991, and wrote a book based on his research, ”Trick or Treason (http://www.amazon.com/Trick-Treason-October-Surprise-Mystery/dp/187982308X) [10],” published in 1993. But much more was yet to come. In late 1995, he began publishing an eight-part series, the “October Surprise X-Files (http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile.html) [11],” based on his investigation of the neglected work product of a House task force (chaired by Indiana Democrat Lee Hamilton) that ostensibly cleared the Reagan/Bush campaign of any wrongdoing in a January 1993 report. “[T]he House task force debunked the charges by adopting an elaborate set of alibis for the key players, Parry explained in his first story in that series, “Russia’s Report (http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile1.html) [12].” Here is a further excerpt from that story:

[W]ith a host of such dubious alibis, the 968-page report was shipped off to the printers, with a public release set for Jan. 13, 1993. Washington journalists, already briefed on the task force findings, were preparing to praise the report as “exhaustive” and “bipartisan.”

But two days before the news conference, a cable arrived from Moscow…..

To the shock of the task force, the six-page Russian report stated, as fact, that Casey, George Bush and other Republicans had met secretly with Iranian officials in Europe during the 1980 presidential campaign. The Russians depicted the hostage negotiations that year as a two-way competition between the Carter White House and the Reagan campaign to outbid one another for Iran’s cooperation on the hostages. The Russians asserted that the Reagan team had disrupted Carter’s hostage negotiations after all, the exact opposite of the task force conclusion….
But apparently, there was no serious follow-up….


Parry’s story went into considerable detail about what the Russians alleged, why they were dismissed, and why they shouldn’t have been ignored. He wrote seven more stories in his initial series debunking the conventional wisdom at the time, and has continued to investigate the October Surprise ever since. In June of last year, he published a story (http://consortiumnews.com/2013/06/08/second-thoughts-on-october-surprise/) [13]reporting that Lee Hamilton’s confidence in his task force’s conclusion had been shaken by a new piece of evidence Parry had found — evidence that Reagan’s campaign director William Casey had taken a trip to Madrid, where one of the key alleged negotiations had taken place. Casey’s alibi story had always insisted that he had never been to Madrid in that time frame. Elsewhere in that story, Parry explains how that piece of evidence was part of a larger set of revealing documents about a GOP counterattack intended to prevent the discovery of any connection between the October Surprise and the Iran-Contra Scandal. According to Parry, this counterattack included:

–Delaying the production of documents;
–Having a key witness dodge a congressional subpoena;
–Neutralizing an aggressive Democratic investigator;
–Pressuring a Republican senator to become more obstructive;
–Tightly restricting access to classified information;
–Narrowing the inquiry as it applied to alleged Reagan-Bush wrongdoing while simultaneously widening the probe to include Carter’s efforts to free the hostages;
–Mounting a public relations campaign attacking the investigation’s costs; and
–Encouraging friendly journalists to denounce the story.


The beauty of this full-spectrum counterattack lies in its cumulative effectiveness. Any one of these strategies by itself could be argued one way or another, and “fair-minded” journalists could thus become unwitting stooges in the coverup strategy. But it’s deeply deceptive to consider the pros or cons of any one strategy in isolation. The whole point was to use all of them in concert, so that individual strategies that might be defensible add up to a larger whole that no one could subscribe to in good faith if they truly grasped the nature of the whole enterprise. This strategy proved spectacularly successful, Parry notes:

Ultimately, the GOP cover-up strategy proved highly effective, as Democrats grew timid and neoconservative journalists – then emerging as a powerful force in the Washington media – took the lead in decrying the October Surprise allegations as a “myth.” The Republicans benefited, too, from a Washington press corps, which had grown weary of the complex Iran-Contra scandal.
It would take nearly two decades for the October Surprise cover-up to crumble (http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/080610.html) [14] with admissions by officials involved in the investigation that its exculpatory conclusions were rushed (http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/061710.html) [15], that crucial evidence had been hidden or ignored (http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/050610.html) [16], and that some alibis for key Republicans didn’t make any sense (http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/081210.html) [17].


There is more about this in Parry’s 1992 book, “America’s Stolen Narrative (http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Stolen-Narrative-Washington-Madison/dp/1893517055) [18].” If the left and the right really were mirror images of one another, then the facts Parry has uncovered would be as well-known as the fantasies of the Birthers and Benghazi truthers are. Sadly, however, even most of Obama’s most passionate would-be defenders have no idea just how dark Ronald Reagan’s history is when it comes to the sorts of things that Obama is now being accused of.

After all, the October Surprise negotiations were allegedly undertaken (a) by private citizens (b) to delay the release of American hostages, and the preponderance of evidence now strongly suggests that this is exactly what happened. At the very least, Reagan/Bush officials colluded to block investigations into the October Surprise, when they should have welcomed it if they had nothing to hide. At most, they were guilty of treason. Any way you slice it, there was an extremely wide-ranging scandal — or set of scandals — involved in Reagan’s negotiations with terrorists, which has been virtually erased from public memory. What Obama is accused of now is utterly trivial in comparison.

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/ronald-reagan-treason-amnesia-gop-hypocrites-forget-their-hero-negotiated

Let's see:

Nixon and his Dirty Tricksters scuppered the 1968 Paris peace talks, prolonging the VN war 7 years and 10Ks of American deaths.

Reagan and his Dirty Tricksters scuppered the Carter attempts to release the Iranian embassy hostages.

dubya, dickhead lied the USA into two botched, mismanaged, and LOST wars.

All y'all rednecks and Repugs tell me again all the WONDERFUL stuff Repugs have done FOR America :lol

( and Lincoln DON'T COUNT. Today's Repugs, whose base is Confederate/red state racists, would have NEVER done a Emancipation Proclamation. Slavey is "free market" entrepreneurship! Whiteys lifting themselves up by The Negro's bootstraps )

[boutons_deux]

House Benghazi Committee Wants $3.3 Million For Latest Investigation

http://nationalmemo.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Trey-Gowdy.jpg

House Republicans still consumed by uncovering a Benghazi scandal now plan to spend up to $3.3 million to investigate the 2012 attack, according to a document obtained by USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/07/07/benghazi-committee-33-million-republicans/12301935/) from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

According to the document, $2.2 million will go to the seven Republicans (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/the-7-republicans-on-benghazi-committee) serving on the select committee, and just over $1 million will go to the five Democrats (http://www.nationalmemo.com/slideshow-meet-five-dems-benghazi-panel/).

House Republicans are now planning to spend more for their next investigation than many other key House committees receive in a year. The House Veterans Affairs Committee, which comprises 25 lawmakers and is investigating the widespread problems related to the Department of Veterans Affairs, was granted a budget of only $3 million. The House Ethics Committee, too, has a budget of only $3 million.

Also, as USA Today (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/witch-hunts-arent-cheap) points out, because the Benghazi select committee was actually formed in May, its full-year budget would exceed $5 million, which is greater than the $4.4 million budget granted to the House Intelligence Committee.

Representative Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who heads (http://www.nationalmemo.com/boehner-appoints-house-rep-former-death-row-prosecutor-trey-gowdy-lead-benghazi-investigative-committee/) the select committee, argues that the budget is necessary because the Benghazi panel will require more resources — like greater staffing andtravel means (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/benghazi-house-panel-travel-investigation-trey-gowdy-107260.html) — than other committees. Those resources will, however, be used by Gowdy and Republicans to re-ask all the same questions that have already been answered in previous Benghazi probes.

As the Huffington Post notes, the three questions (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/07/trey-gowdy-benghazi-questions_n_5283863.html) essential to Gowdy’s investigation have already come up in previous Benghazi inquiries:

1. “Why was security lacking during the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in the U.S.?”
2. “Why weren’t military units moving to support consulate personnel?”
3. “Why were references to ‘terrorist’ and ‘attacks’ edited out of the Obama administration’s talking points?”

Additionally, Gowdy has said he would like to know why the U.S. was still in Benghazi at the time of the attack, and exactly where the president was on the night of the attack; these, too, have already been asked and answered.

they ignore that just a year before the Benghazi attack, Secretary Clinton warned (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/143923-clinton-gops-state-dept-cuts-detrimental-to-national-security) that GOP-backed cuts to the U.S. State Department would be “detrimental to America’s national security.” Still, in June 2011, Republicans — two of whom, Reps. Jim Jordan (OH) and Martha Roby (AL), now serve on Gowdy’s panel – voted in favor of a bill (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2011/h494) that would have limited the use of funds to support NATO operations in Libya. That same month, House Republicans — including Gowdy and the five other GOP lawmakers on the committee — also blocked a bill (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2011/h493) that would have authorized the limited use of U.S. Armed Forces in Libya.

In 2012, Republicans proposed cuts to the Obama administration’s requested embassy security budget, and in 2013 — even in the midst of their Benghazi outcry — House Republicans again backed decreased funding (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-gops-embassy-security-problem) for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Program.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/house-benghazi-committee-wants-3-3-million-latest-investigation/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=NM_Master_List&utm_campaign=Daily%20Newsletter%20-%20July%209%202014&utm_content=Final

[Nbadan]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/07/benghazi-committee-budget_n_5565430.html

snip:


House Republicans have requested nearly $3.3 million to operate the select committee investigating Benghazi, which gives the GOP-launched committee a bigger budget than that granted to the committee overseeing the troubled Department of Veterans Affairs.

Politics before Veterans. Not surprising.

[boutons_deux]

Trey Gowdy’s Benghazi setback: New humiliation for GOP’s scandal hunter


It’s still not clear, though, what exactly anyone hopes to learn from Gowdy’s investigation, given that Benghazi has already been scrutinized several times over by several different congressional committees, all of which concluded that Benghazi was a tragedy, but there was no administration conspiracy, and no cover-up. And the day after Gowdy announced when his first hearings would be held, yet another committee reached the same conclusion.

On July 31, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence voted in favor (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/benghazi-report-declasify-house-109588.html) of releasing a declassified version of its findings from its investigation into Benghazi. Almost immediately, the top-ranking Democrats on the committee started broadcasting the report’s conclusions. Ranking member Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger released a statement (http://democrats.intelligence.house.gov/press-release/rm-ruppersberger-statement-hspci-benghazi-report) saying:

The report also shows that the process used to develop the talking points was flawed, but that the talking points reflected the conflicting intelligence assessments in the days immediately following the crisis. Finally, the report demonstrates that there was no illegal activity or illegal arms sales occurring at U.S. facilities in Benghazi. And there was absolutely no evidence, in documents or testimony, that the Intelligence Community’s assessments were politically motivated in any way.



Adam Schiff, another top Democrat on the committee, issued a statement (http://www.schiff.house.gov/press-releases/rep-schiff-statement-on-intelligence-committee-vote-to-send-benghazi-report-for-declassification/) saying “the initial talking points provided by the intelligence community were flawed because of conflicting assessments not an intention to deceive, that there was no stand down order, that the diplomatic facilities lacked adequate security, and that our personnel at the scene acted bravely and appropriately.”

It’s entirely possible that the Democrats on the committee are putting the best spin that they can on the report and maybe they’re leaving something out, but the findings they’ve highlighted are consistent with what basically every other investigation has concluded. The House Armed Services Committee’s report (http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=C4E16543-8F99-430C-BEBA-0045A6433426) also found that there was no intelligence pointing to an imminent threat in Benghazi, and there was no “stand down” order. The report was harsh on the White House’s and the State Department’s conduct in the lead-up to the attack, but stopped well short of anything conspiratorial.

All this leads one to ask, again, what exactly does Gowdy’s committee hope achieve? He’s already had his legs kicked out from underneath him (http://www.salon.com/2014/06/18/gops_benghazi_humiliation_capture_of_suspect_up_en ds_deranged_agenda/) multiple times as the “unanswered questions” he insists remain about Benghazi keep getting answered (often for the third or fourth time).

Reports indicate (http://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/politics/2014/08/02/gowdy-witnesses-testify-benghazi/13526949/) that his September hearing will focus on the State Department’s Accountability Review Board report on the attacks, which was already investigated (http://oversight.house.gov/report/benghazi-attacks-investigative-update-interim-report-on-the-accountability-review-board/) by the House Oversight Committee.

Gowdy, a member of that committee, made a spectacle of himself (http://www.salon.com/2014/05/06/gop%E2%80%99s_new_benghazi_dreamboat_meet_trey_gow dy_its_substance_free_committee_chair/) for the cameras during the hearing and earned a lot of laudatory press from conservatives. That should give you a clue as to what these continued Benghazi investigations are really about.


http://www.salon.com/2014/08/04/trey_gowdys_benghazi_setback_new_humiliation_for_g ops_scandal_hunter/

BEN GAG ZEE! :lol

More pure shit from INANE CLOWN POSSE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iu-7DXBiVsA#t=18

[Winehole23]

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/House-panel-No-administration-wrongdoing-in-5663509.php

[boutons_deux]

Fox News Deceptively Clips Obama To Claim Panetta Interview Revealed Benghazi Deception

Fox News used doctored video of an interview with President Obama to claim his description of briefings he received on the night of the Benghazi attack contrasts with former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's. In reality, their accounts are consistent.

Fox has spent more than two years and 244 segments (http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/09/16/report-foxs-benghazi-obsession-by-the-numbers/200694) propping up baseless allegations that the White House engaged in a Benghazi "cover-up" with accusations that the administration waited weeks to admit to the attacks were "terror" or a "terrorist act," though in reality, Obama called (http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/09/16/report-foxs-benghazi-obsession-by-the-numbers/200694) the Benghazi attack an "act of terror" during his Rose Garden speech on September 12, the morning after the attacks and repeated the reference twice the next day, during speeches in Colorado and Nevada.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/10/08/fox-news-deceptively-clips-obama-to-claim-panet/201067

[Nbadan]

GOP-Controlled Intelligence Committee Debunks Benghazi Conspiracies
By Jeremy Stahl at Slate

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/11/21/gop_controlled_house_intelligence_committee_debunk s_benghazi_conspiracy.html

"SNIP...........................


Republican Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers of Michigan and the committee's top Democrat, Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland, gave this statement as they released the report:

For over two years, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence exhaustively investigated the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi Libya. We spent thousands of hours asking questions, poring over documents, reviewing intelligence assessments, reading cables and emails, and held a total of 20 Committee events and hearings. We conducted detailed interviews with senior intelligence officials from Benghazi and Tripoli as well as eight security personnel on the ground in Benghazi that night. Based on the testimony and the documents we reviewed, we concluded that all the CIA officers in Benghazi were heroes. Their actions saved lives.


The report echoed the findings of a similar bipartisan review panel by the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released earlier this year along with five previous investigations.


The Benghazi Select Committee, created by House Speaker John Boehner, will continue to investigate Benghazi. A democratic member of that committee, Rep. Adam Schiff of California, urged it to shift its focus to security at State Department facilities

Yep...look for the GOP to waste tax dollars impeaching Obama....

[boutons_deux]

House intel panel debunks many Benghazi theories

A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and

asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees. BOOM!

Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that

there was no intelligence failure, BOOM!

no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, BOOM!

no missed opportunity for a military rescue, BOOM!

and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria. BOOM!

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ecc3a300383445d5a90dd6ca764c9e15/house-intel-panel-debunks-many-benghazi-theories

but ... Benghazi FOREVER!

[boutons_deux]

How Fox News Dismissed Today’s Benghazi Report in Less Than 30 Seconds

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/how-fox-news-dismissed-todays-benghazi-report-in-less-than-30-seconds/

:lol

Benghazi Forever! Hillary Did It!

[Winehole23]

read the report: http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi%20Report.pdf

[Winehole23]

Dan, a serious question.

Are you saying that not learning from past events is acceptable?Serious question: were the $14 million dollars it cost to investigate worth the lessons learned?

[boutons_deux]

the old SC lesbian can't stop scissoring with his Benghazi bitch
(http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/24/1347105/-House-Republicans-Benghazi-report-divides-nbsp-Republicans)
House Republicans' Benghazi report divides Republicans (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/24/1347105/-House-Republicans-Benghazi-report-divides-nbsp-Republicans)

"I think the report is full of crap," Graham said on CNN's "State of the Union."

The senator insisted that members of the administration altered the Benghazi talking points after the attack.

"I'm saying that anybody who has followed Benghazi at all knows that the CIA deputy director did not come forward to tell Congress what role he played in changing the talking points," he said. "

And the only way we knew he was involved is when he told a representative at the White House, I'm going to do a hard review of this, a hard rewrite."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/24/1347105/-House-Republicans-Benghazi-report-divides-nbsp-Republicans?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29#

[boutons_deux]

Democrats say Republicans 'hiding' witnesses in Benghazi probe

Democrats on Tuesday accused a Republican lawmaker of hiding witnesses from members of a special panel investigating the deadly 2012 attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya (http://bit.ly/1stYSAO).
The panel chairman, Representative Trey Gowdy, countered that Democrats were looking for excuses to leave the committee,

Obama administration officials said during a hearing that they had already handed over 40,000 pages of documents to the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

"We have a situation where witnesses have been hidden from us," Cummings told reporters after a hearing Tuesday. Cummings said Democrats had learned that Gowdy and his staff interviewed five people without telling Democrats, then "buried" extracted information that did not fit Republican allegations.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/27/us-usa-libya-benghazi-idUSKBN0L02Q020150127?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews

Benghazi! :lol

Confederate racist South Carolina! :lol

[boutons_deux]

another dumbfuck Repug

Top Republican admits Benghazi Committee is all about attacking Hillary Clinton (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/30/1426210/-Top-Republican-admits-Benghazi-Committee-is-all-about-attacking-Hillary-Clinton)

Kevin McCarthy, likely next speaker of the House, gets a little too honest (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/kevin-mccarthy-grades-john-boehner-214253) about what he thinks his party has accomplished with its congressional majority:


“Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable right?

But we put together a Benghazi Special Committee, a select committee.

What are her numbers today?

Her numbers are dropping," McCarthy said.

"Why? Cause she’s untrustable.

But no one would have known any of that had happened had we not fought and made that happen,”

Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the Benghazi Committee, responds (http://democrats.benghazi.house.gov/news/press-releases/cummings-responds-to-gop-leader-s-admission-about-the-benghazi-committee):


“This stunning concession from Rep. McCarthy reveals the truth that Republicans never dared admit in public: the core Republican goal in establishing the Benghazi Committee was always to damage Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and never to conduct an even-handed search for the facts.

It is shameful that Republicans have used this tragedy and the deaths of our fellow Americans for political gain. Republicans have blatantly abused their authority in Congress by spending more than $4.5 million in taxpayer funds to pay for a political campaign against Hillary Clinton.”

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/30/1426210/-Top-Republican-admits-Benghazi-Committee-is-all-about-attacking-Hillary-Clinton?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

And your Repug rightwingnuts got suckered YET AGAIN by Repug lies and slander, and, you still are! :lol

[boutons_deux]

Here's McCarthy also admitting Repugs are ACORNing / Shirley Sherrod-ing /Benghazi-ing Planned Parenthood.


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1509/29/cg.01.html

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Everyone already knew this was all about nothing and now they admit it. Shocking? Not to the wise.

[boutons_deux]

Everyone already knew this was all about nothing and now they admit it. Shocking? Not to the wise.

Repugs successfully destroyed ACORN and Shirley Sherrod with the lies, slander, stings, bogus videos, so they were encouraged to do the same to Hillary and PP.

[boutons_deux]

many Repugs TRASHING McCarthy for his gaffe of telling the truth. Any actual truth from the lying Repugs is considered a gaffe.

Will McCarthy be elected Speaker next week?

[boutons_deux]

GOP Leader Booed While Defending Benghazi Committee

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA-R), the chairwoman of the House Republican Conference, was booed by the audience at the Washington Ideas Forum Thursday while defending the GOP's congressional investigations into the Benghazi attack, The Huffington Post reported. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cathy-mcmorris-rodgers-booed-benhgazi_560d6368e4b0dd85030b0b83)

According to The Huffington Post, the audience booed, hissed and yelled "You're lying!" while McMorris Rodgers attempted to deny that the Benghazi committee was politically-motivated. She had been asked by ABC's Jonathan Karl to weigh in on comments made by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) in which he boasted (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kevin-mccarthy-benghazi-committee-hillary-clinton) that the committee's investigation had taken a toll on Hillary Clinton's poll numbers.

"I do believe that the work that we're doing in the Benghazi committee is very important," McMorris Rodgers said, during which, according to the Huffington Post, the audience's disapproval only grew louder.

"We've not yet had important questions answered," she continued.


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mcmorris-rodgers-mccarthy-booed?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

:lol

[boutons_deux]

House GOP Debates Fundraising Off Benghazi

House Republicans now battling over whether or not it's okay to fundraise off Benghazi. Benghazi committee chair Gowdy asks Republicans (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/gowdy-nrcc-fundraising-benghazi) not to fundraise off Benghazi. House GOP campaign committee already has. Boehner won't ask them to stop (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/boehner-nrcc-fundraising-benghazi).

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/house-gop-debates-fundraising-off-benghazi?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

[boutons_deux]

Benghazi Committee Interviewed Witnesses without even Notifying Democratic Members (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/01/1426698/-Benghazi-Committee-Interviewed-Witnesses-without-even-Notifying-Democratic-Members)

SCHIFF: ...if you look at the way the committee has operated, notwithstanding these promises that were made by the speaker and by our chairman in the very beginning, they have not worked with Democrats at all, they've called witnesses without telling us, they've subpoenaed people with armed marshals who were wiling to cooperate, and they have interviewed witnesses without even notifying the minority party, and when those witness interviews didn't corroborate their conspiracy theories, they didn't even tell us. We had to learn about those interviews ourselves.HAYES: Wait, wait, wait - let me make sure I understand that. The committee has interviewed witnesses without notifying Democrats on the committee that those interviews were going to happen?

SCHIFF: Absolutely. They've interviewed several witnesses, they didn't tell us they were going to interview them. They didn't invite us to participate and listen to the interviews. And when we later found out those interviews took place, and we talked to those witnesses, we learned of course that they didn't corroborate any of the conspiracy theories that the Republicans were trying to advance. So no wonder they didn't tell us about the interviews.

HAYES: How can that be? Maybe I'm wrong here, but that's not the way committees work. There's an agenda that's circulated to the entire committee. There's a list of witnesses. There's a procedure that the committee is all read in on.

SCHIFF: Well, they just ignored it. And in fact, to give you yet another example, when they subpoenaed a witness, and this is a true (inaudible - break in audio)...that he won't leak transcripts, won't leak interviews. After almost all the interviews there have been profound leaks from the committee, and when Democrats said, "if you're going to leak the statements of the witness, why don't you release the entire transcript? If you're going to leak emails from this witness, release the entire transcript of their private interviews so the public can evaluate the entire context." And we have the right under their own rules to have a vote on this, and they've denied us even a vote on it.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/01/1426698/-Benghazi-Committee-Interviewed-Witnesses-without-even-Notifying-Democratic-Members?detail=email

[SpursforSix]

Benghazi Committee Interviewed Witnesses without even Notifying Democratic Members (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/01/1426698/-Benghazi-Committee-Interviewed-Witnesses-without-even-Notifying-Democratic-Members)

SCHIFF: ...if you look at the way the committee has operated, notwithstanding these promises that were made by the speaker and by our chairman in the very beginning, they have not worked with Democrats at all, they've called witnesses without telling us, they've subpoenaed people with armed marshals who were wiling to cooperate, and they have interviewed witnesses without even notifying the minority party, and when those witness interviews didn't corroborate their conspiracy theories, they didn't even tell us. We had to learn about those interviews ourselves.HAYES: Wait, wait, wait - let me make sure I understand that. The committee has interviewed witnesses without notifying Democrats on the committee that those interviews were going to happen?

SCHIFF: Absolutely. They've interviewed several witnesses, they didn't tell us they were going to interview them. They didn't invite us to participate and listen to the interviews. And when we later found out those interviews took place, and we talked to those witnesses, we learned of course that they didn't corroborate any of the conspiracy theories that the Republicans were trying to advance. So no wonder they didn't tell us about the interviews.

HAYES: How can that be? Maybe I'm wrong here, but that's not the way committees work. There's an agenda that's circulated to the entire committee. There's a list of witnesses. There's a procedure that the committee is all read in on.

SCHIFF: Well, they just ignored it. And in fact, to give you yet another example, when they subpoenaed a witness, and this is a true (inaudible - break in audio)...that he won't leak transcripts, won't leak interviews. After almost all the interviews there have been profound leaks from the committee, and when Democrats said, "if you're going to leak the statements of the witness, why don't you release the entire transcript? If you're going to leak emails from this witness, release the entire transcript of their private interviews so the public can evaluate the entire context." And we have the right under their own rules to have a vote on this, and they've denied us even a vote on it.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/01/1426698/-Benghazi-Committee-Interviewed-Witnesses-without-even-Notifying-Democratic-Members?detail=email




Rapper severs penis, jumps off building and surviveshttp://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/dd8b1baf67130a1edc52e1868cb7f1ece5f42a54/r=26&c=26x26/local/-/media/USATODAY/staff/images/writer_people-Puente_Maria.png Maria Puente (http://www.usatoday.com/staff/1006/maria-puente/), USA TODAY 4:51 p.m. EDT April 16, 2014
http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/02aa2485095c2e034be18cbcf683d932ede1756e/c=112-0-1884-1332&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2014/04/16//1397679427000-XXX-Bonnaroo-Night-2-Ian-004.JPG
(Photo: Ian Stanford Ian Stanford / The Tennessean)


28662 CONNECT 827 TWEET (https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http%3A//usat.ly/1j1TpN0&text=Rapper%20severs%20penis%2C%20jumps%20off%20bu ilding%20and%20survives&via=usatoday) 23 LINKEDIN (http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=http%3A//usat.ly/1j1TpN0&mini=true) 99 COMMENTEMAILMORE

News of a bizarre tragedy is emerging out of Los Angeles today, with TMZ, CNN and other media outlets reporting that a rapper named Andre Johnson of Northstar cut off his penis and jumped off a building, and survived.
Johnson, also known as Andre Roxx and Christ Bearer, according to TMZ (http://www.tmz.com/), was with other members of Northstar in a second-floor apartment of a building in North Hollywood early this morning when suddenly and without warning, he mutilated himself and jumped from the balcony.
When they raced downstairs to find him, he was up and running around, screaming, TMZ said.
CNN quoted Los Angeles Police Sgt. William Mann as confirming that Johnson survived the fall and was taken, along with his recovered penis, to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, where he was being treated.
No word yet on what might have triggered this but the people who were with him told TMZ that at the time they were not doing "the kind of drugs" that might cause such an act.
Initial reports claimed Johnson was "associated" with Wu-Tang Clan, but a publicist for the group, Heathcliff Berru, said Johnson is actually with Northstar. He's not in Wu-Tang Clan nor directly affiliated with it, Berru said, at least not in the eight years he's worked with the group.
However, Northstar, a Long Beach, California, hip-hop group, is on the list of WTC "affiliates," according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wu-Tang_Clan_affiliates).
Johnson, who performs as Christ Bearer, has recording credits that include When the Guns Come Out, which was included on the soundtrack of the 2004 film Blade: Trinity, according to the Internet Movie Database (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0359013/soundtrack?ref_=tt_trv_snd).

[boutons_deux]

Kevin McCarthy: 'Stop playing politics' by quoting me accurately (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/07/1428793/-Kevin-McCarthy-Stop-playing-politics-by-quoting-me-accurately)

“Let’s be very clear: Benghazi is not political,” Mc*Carthy said. :lol

“It was created for one purpose and one purpose only: to find the truth on behalf of the families of the four dead Americans. Period.” :lol

“The integrity of [committee chairman Rep.] Trey Gowdy, the integrity of the work that has been done has never come into question :lol

Stop playing politics,” :lol

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/07/1428793/-Kevin-McCarthy-Stop-playing-politics-by-quoting-me-accurately?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

And other 5 Repug Benghazi!! committees? :lol

[boutons_deux]

Democrats on Benghazi Committee Release Devastating Fact Sheet on Gowdy (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/07/1428627/-Democrats-on-Benghazi-Committee-Release-Devastating-Fact-Sheet-on-Gowdy)



FACT SHEET:How the Benghazi Committee Targeted Hillary Clinton

Gowdy Cancelled All Planned Hearings Other Than Hillary Clinton’s After NYT Email Story

Before the New York Times broke its story on March 2 about Hillary’s Clinton’s emails, Gowdy had sent to Committee Members an investigative plan that set out monthly hearings with all the different agencies involved in preparing for and responding to the attacks in Benghazi, including the State Department, the Defense Department, and the Intelligence Community.

After the New York Times’ email story broke on March 2, however, Gowdy completely abandoned this plan and began focusing almost exclusively on Hillary Clinton.

Since then, Gowdy has not held any of the hearings on his schedule, and his upcoming hearing with Hillary Clinton is the only hearing now scheduled.

For example, Gowdy abandoned the hearing he had planned for April with former Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary Leon Panetta.

The Committee has never held even one public hearing with anyone from the Department of Defense. The Committee has held only one hearing with an intelligence official, but it was with the CIA’s head of Legislative Affairs regarding the status of document production.

Gowdy Dropped Key Interviews with Top Defense and Intelligence Leaders

Gowdy also abandoned plans he had made in February to start conducting interviews of the following top defense and intelligence leaders in April: former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, former CIA Director David Petraeus, General Martin Dempsey, and former Director of the National Counterterrorism Center Matt Olsen.

He never invited any of these defense or intelligence leaders for interviews.

Gowdy then announced that he planned to start conducting the following interviews in June: former Defense Secretary Panetta, General Martin Dempsey, and General Carter Ham.

Those interviews were also abandoned.

Gowdy Scheduled New Interviews and Depositions of Hillary Clinton’s Associates

By the end of this month, Republicans will have interviewed or deposed 8 current or former Clinton campaign staffers, compared to only a total of four Defense Department officials.

Gowdy sent armed Marshals to serve a deposition subpoena on longtime Clinton associate Sidney Blumenthal despite the fact that he was completely cooperative and would have voluntarily appeared without a subpoena, but was never asked.

Gowdy later admitted that he “never expected Witness Blumenthal to be able to answer questions about the attacks in Benghazi, Libya.”

The Select Committee asked Blumenthal more than 160 questions about his relationship and communications with Clinton, but fewer than 20 questions about the Benghazi attacks; more than 50 questions about the Clinton Foundation, but only 4 about security in Benghazi; and more than 45 questions about David Brock, Media Matters and affiliated entities, but no questions at all about Ambassador Stevens or other personnel in Benghazi.

Gowdy Stepped Up Aggressive Press Campaign Against Hillary Clinton

Since March, Gowdy’s press releases have focused almost entirely on Secretary Clinton.

Over the past nine months, he has issued 22 press releases related to Secretary Clinton (including one on Sidney Blumenthal’s emails with Clinton), but only 5 press releases on any other topic during that period.

Of the 5 non-Clinton press releases, three (1, 2, 3) are about the State Department’s compliance with document production, one marks the anniversary of 9/11, and one is Gowdy’s interim progress report.
The only documents Gowdy has publicly released over the past 17 months were Clinton’s emails with Sidney Blumenthal, and Gowdy did this unilaterally with no debate or vote by the Select Committee.

At the same time, he has blocked the public release of Blumenthal’s deposition transcript, which would reveal all the questions Republicans asked about Hillary Clinton and other issues that have nothing to do with Benghazi.

Almost immediately after the interview with Cheryl Mills, Republicans began leaking inaccurate information to damage Clinton with unsubstantiated or previously debunked allegations, while refusing to release the complete transcript.

Gowdy refused to investigate or condemn a leak that made more unsubstantiated allegations against Clinton despite the fact that Politico was forced to correct a front-page story that relied on apparently doctored information about an email produced to the Select Committee.

Gowdy’s Taxpayer-Funded Political Campaign Against Clinton

The Committee was given an unlimited, taxpayer-funded budget, and it has now spent more than $4.6 million in one of the longest and least productive investigations in congressional history—focused on Clinton.

The Committee is being used by Republican fundraisers to attack Clinton.

The Committee’s attacks were described by the conservative PAC America Rising as a taxpayer-funded political activity: “This has all occurred without a single cent of paid advertising taking place.”
Gowdy’s name, image, and position has been used to solicit political donations by Stop Hillary PAC, which describes itself as “created for one reason only—to ensure Hillary Clinton never becomes President of the United States.

Gowdy appeared at a GOP political event in June where local Rep. Chuck Fleischmann explained: “Whether you are Hillary Clinton or any other lefty out there, you better beware because Trey Gowdy is out there and he is going to get you.”

Gowdy reportedly does not plan to release his findings until “just months before the 2016 presidential election.”

Gowdy’s approach has been criticized even by conservative commentators: “Whatever the findings are in this investigation—it will forever be plagued by allegations of unfairness, and politics if this investigation is dragged into 2016. That would not be fair to the American people.”

http://democrats.benghazi.house.gov/news/press-releases/democrats-release-new-video-and-fact-sheet-couldn-t-be-more-plain

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/07/1428627/-Democrats-on-Benghazi-Committee-Release-Devastating-Fact-Sheet-on-Gowdy?detail=email

The real beauty of the Repugs is that they are really, really stupid.

The real danger with the Repugs is that they are really, really stupid.

[boutons_deux]

Republicans in Apoplectic Meltdown Over McCarthy Gaffe (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/06/1428249/-Republicans-in-Apopleptic-Meltdown-Over-McCarthy-Gaffe)


Kevin McCarthy Hands Over Election to Hillary

The lede to this column is a deep, guttural groan that originates in the throat and expands into the lungs before collapsing in the pit of the stomach. How do you spell hmmmgrrrungh?

What else is there to say about House Republicans' inability to get something right? And I say this with compassion, I really do. Because seriously? It's over. Done. Kaput.
With Kevin McCarthy's recent response to the simplest question about GOP accomplishments in Congress, from the friendliest interviewer, Sean Hannity, a GOPer could hope for, the future may as well be called Democrat.

===

Charles Krauthammer criticized Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) for making the “gaffe of the year,” and warned that selecting him as the next speaker of the House is a “risky proposition” for Republicans.
“If you don’t have the White House, the speakership is your voice,” Krauthammer said on Monday’s Special Report. “And in a television age, it is a very important one.”

“The gaffe that McCarthy made, I like the guy … but that’s the gaffe of the year,” Krauthammer continued. “And it has given Hillary a lifeline.”

“Do you want a guy who makes a mistake of that magnitude?” Krauthammer asked. “In terms of presentation, this is a risky proposition”

===

When House speaker-in-waiting Kevin McCarthy claimed credit for the decline in Hillary Clinton's poll numbers because House Republicans had formed a congressional committee investigating the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, I knew it was a bad political mistake. I may have underestimated just how bad...

===

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/06/1428249/-Republicans-in-Apopleptic-Meltdown-Over-McCarthy-Gaffe?detail=email

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/06/1428249/-Republicans-in-Apopleptic-Meltdown-Over-McCarthy-Gaffe?detail=email

[spurraider21]

you talk about benghazi more than the republicans

[boutons_deux]

you talk about benghazi more than the republicans

You Lie

[spurraider21]

You Lie
nuh-uh

You Lie

[boutons_deux]

nuh-uh

You Lie

you rightwingnuts been obsessing about Benghazi!! FOR YEARS,

so GFY, McCarthy exposed you stupid fuckers as duped, demagogued, gullible idiots.

[spurraider21]

you've been obsessing with benghazi for years too

[boutons_deux]

You Lie

I push back against you ignorant, duped Beghazi! obsessives.

[SpursforSix]

I like the tie in with Ben Kingsly and Gandhi

Bengandhi.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You Lie

I push back against you ignorant, duped Beghazi! obsessives.
There is no one to push back against. You have been the only one bumping dead threads.

[boutons_deux]

There is no one to push back against. You have been the only one bumping dead threads.

there are plenty of rightwing sheeple here who says Hillary was responsible for 4 dead Americans. GFY

[TheSanityAnnex]

there are plenty of rightwing sheeple here who says Hillary was responsible for 4 dead Americans. GFY

Last rightwing sheeple post here was June 2014 you stupid fuck.

[boutons_deux]

Last rightwing sheeple post here was June 2014 you stupid fuck.

Threads aren't dead until The Great Boutons says they are dead, you stupid bitch.

[spurraider21]

there are plenty of rightwing sheeple here who says Hillary was responsible for 4 dead Americans. GFY
^You Lie.

This is all part of the VLWC

[TheSanityAnnex]

Threads aren't dead until The Great Boutons says they are dead, you stupid bitch.

I challenge you to find the last rightwing sheeple to bring up Benghazi on this board.

[boutons_deux]

I challenge you to find the last rightwing sheeple to bring up Benghazi on this board.

:lol Do you really think I jump when you say frog? :lol

[TheSanityAnnex]

:lol Do you really think I jump when you say frog? :lol

Not up for the challenge I see. Continue on then being the only one left talking about Benghazi.

[boutons_deux]

Not up for the challenge I see. Continue on then being the only one left talking about Benghazi.

no, check with inbred Confederate Gowdy.

[TheSanityAnnex]

no, check with inbred Confederate Gowdy.

Was not aware Gowdy posted on Spurstalk.

[boutons_deux]

Suit Over Firing Exposes Strife Within Benghazi Panel

A former investigator for the Republicans on the House Select Committee on Benghazi (https://benghazi.house.gov/) plans to file a complaint in federal court next month alleging that he was fired unlawfully in part because his superiors opposed his efforts to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the 2012 attack on the American diplomatic mission in the Libyan city.

Instead, they focused primarily on the role of the State Department and former Secretary of StateHillary Rodham Clinton (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/13/us/elections/hillary-clinton.html?inline=nyt-per), he said.

The former investigator, Bradley F. Podliska, a major in the Air Force Reserve who is on active duty in Germany, also claims that the committee’s majority staff retaliated against him for taking leave for several weeks to go on active duty.

If true, the retaliation would violate the federal Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (http://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/vets/userra/userra.asp), which Major Podliska plans to invoke in his complaint, according to a draft that was made available to The New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/us/politics/former-benghazi-investigator-says-he-was-fired-unlawfully.html?_r=0

... to honor the people who lost their lives and their families! :lol

[boutons_deux]

Clinton Emails Became the New Focus of Benghazi Inquiry

he focus of the committee’s work has shifted from the circumstances surrounding the Benghazi attack to the politically charged issue of Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.

seven other congressional committees (http://democrats.benghazi.house.gov/previous-investigations) have already examined the attacks, the select committee has been able to unearth new information on Benghazi because, unlike the other committees, it has a mandate to look across multiple agencies and see the “entire elephant,” as Dana K. Chipman, the select committee’s chief counsel, put it.

the work of the Benghazi committee has been affected by delays and dysfunction.

The process of setting up an electronic system to manage more than 50,000 pages of documents that the committee has assembled is still not complete, meaning that staff members sometimes have to search through boxes to find critical pieces of paper — an almost comical task, staff members said.


With the slow progress, members have engaged in social activities like a wine club nicknamed “Wine Wednesdays,” :lol drinking from glasses imprinted with the words “Glacial Pace,” :lol a dig at Representative Elijah E. Cummings, Democrat of Maryland and the committee’s ranking member, Major Podliska said. Mr. Cummings used the term (http://democrats.benghazi.house.gov/news/press-releases/cummings-smith-statement-on-republican-one-year-update)to question the speed of the committee’s work.

At one point, several Republican staff members formed a gun-buying club and discussed in the committee’s conference room the 9-millimeter Glock handguns they intended to buy and what type of monograms they would inscribe on them, Major Podliska said. :lol


Mr. Boehner had long been suspicious of the administration’s handling of the attacks and that Mrs. Clinton’s emails gave him a way to keep the issue alive and to cause political problems for her campaign.

But he thought that the task was too delicate to entrust to others and that it should remain with Mr. Gowdy, the former prosecutor.

Late last month, preserving the investigation’s credibility became more difficult when Representative Kevin McCarthy, the House majority leader, inadvertently offered corroboration of Democrats’ suspicions.

Democrats and Republicans who remember the Watergate and Whitewater investigations have said this is not the first time that a committee started off focusing on one issue and ended up looking at another.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/12/us/politics/clinton-emails-became-the-new-focus-of-benghazi-inquiry.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

:lol Repugs are as incompetent and bungling as the Nixon's Watergate plumbers! :lol

[spurraider21]

:lmao booboo still the only one on ST routinely talking about benghazi

[boutons_deux]

Benghazi!!

[boutons_deux]

Benghazi Committee Caught Making Bogus Accusation Against Hillary Clinton

Trey Gowdy, the chair of the Select Committee on Benghazi, leveled a very serious charge against Hillary Clinton in an October 7 letter. Gowdy asserted that Hillary Clinton disclosed the name of CIA source in an email sent from her private server. Gowdy wrote that the information was “some of the most protected information in our intelligence community, the release of which could jeopardize not only national security but human lives.”

http://cdn.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/18152948/classifiedinfo-816x226.jpg

The Washington Examiner covered the story with this headline: “Clinton burns CIA Libya contact (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/incompetent-or-indifferent-clinton-burns-cia-libya-contact/article/2573834).”

This does not appear to be true.

A letter from Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the committee, reveals that the CIA reviewed the email in question and found that the information in question was not classified.
http://cdn.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/18153050/cummingsletter-638x171.jpg
Cummings said that Gowdy’s accusation was “irresponsible” and suggested he owes “an immediate apology” to Hillary Clinton.

In response, Gowdy acknowledged the CIA’s view but said that “the name of the alleged source was redacted from the material cleared for public release by someone in the Executive Branch.” Cummings explained that the name was redacted “not for classification reasons, but to protect the individual’s privacy and avoid bringing additional undue attention to this person.”

The dustup comes on the heals of a number of embarrassing revelations from the Benghazi committee. Republican Major Leader Kevin McCarthy bragged that the committee had successfullydriven down Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/mccarthy-continues-damage-control-over-benghazi-remark). Another Republican Congressman, Mark Hanna, said the committee was “designed to go after (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/10/14/3712578/richard-hanna-benghazi-clinton/)” Clinton.

Clinton is scheduled to testify in front of the committee this week.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/10/18/3713593/benghazi-committee-accusation/

[TheSanityAnnex]

Benghazi Committee Caught Making Bogus Accusation Against Hillary Clinton

Trey Gowdy, the chair of the Select Committee on Benghazi, leveled a very serious charge against Hillary Clinton in an October 7 letter. Gowdy asserted that Hillary Clinton disclosed the name of CIA source in an email sent from her private server. Gowdy wrote that the information was “some of the most protected information in our intelligence community, the release of which could jeopardize not only national security but human lives.”

http://cdn.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/18152948/classifiedinfo-816x226.jpg

The Washington Examiner covered the story with this headline: “Clinton burns CIA Libya contact (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/incompetent-or-indifferent-clinton-burns-cia-libya-contact/article/2573834).”

This does not appear to be true.

A letter from Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the committee, reveals that the CIA reviewed the email in question and found that the information in question was not classified.
http://cdn.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/18153050/cummingsletter-638x171.jpg
Cummings said that Gowdy’s accusation was “irresponsible” and suggested he owes “an immediate apology” to Hillary Clinton.

In response, Gowdy acknowledged the CIA’s view but said that “the name of the alleged source was redacted from the material cleared for public release by someone in the Executive Branch.” Cummings explained that the name was redacted “not for classification reasons, but to protect the individual’s privacy and avoid bringing additional undue attention to this person.”

The dustup comes on the heals of a number of embarrassing revelations from the Benghazi committee. Republican Major Leader Kevin McCarthy bragged that the committee had successfullydriven down Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/mccarthy-continues-damage-control-over-benghazi-remark). Another Republican Congressman, Mark Hanna, said the committee was “designed to go after (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/10/14/3712578/richard-hanna-benghazi-clinton/)” Clinton.

Clinton is scheduled to testify in front of the committee this week.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/10/18/3713593/benghazi-committee-accusation/




You worthless piece of shit I had a bet with a member here you would go a week without being the only person posting in this thread.

[boutons_deux]

You worthless piece of shit I had a bet with a member here you would go a week without being the only person posting in this thread.

Benghazi is alive and YOOGE.

Take the bitch slapping of the Repug Benghazi charade like a little bitch.

[boutons_deux]

Trey Gowdy tells Republicans skeptical of Benghazi committee to ‘shut up’ about it

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/trey-gowdy-tells-republicans-skeptical-of-benghazi-committee-to-shut-up-about-it/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[spurraider21]

:lmao booboo still the only one on ST routinely talking about benghazi

[TeyshaBlue]

Echo

[TeyshaBlue]

Chamber

[boutons_deux]

Congress' Benghazi probe not aimed at Clinton, lawmaker says
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/19/us-usa-election-benghazi-idUSKCN0SC12L20151019?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

:lol

7 committees, investigations so far, and counting :lol

Repug MISgovernance, :lol

[TheSanityAnnex]

You worthless piece of shit I had a bet with a member here you would go a week without being the only person posting in this thread.

[boutons_deux]

Hillary Bashing by the Right: Crafty, Cruel, And Commoditized

The Supreme Court’s game-changing Citizens United decision grew out of the Hillary-bashing industry.

One of the big-time winners of Tuesday night’s Democratic Party debate has to be the Hate Hillary Industry; an area of commerce that has been around for decades cranking out books, videos, political advertisements, tweets, Facebook posts, and raking in oodles of money.

In the next few months, In the coming weeks and months, the Republican Party, shadowy Super PACS, and assorted dark money outfits will make the Benghazi hearings and Hillary’s e-mail controversy look like a tea party on a summer afternoon.

Hillary Bashing, which started out as a small-time cottage industry has developed into a political/entrepreneurial trend.

the rise of Hillary Clinton as her own political entity led seamlessly to the rise of a gaggle of media savvy veterans, public relations and advertising gurus, partisan pollsters, and run-of-the-mill ideologues, ready to both take her down, and enjoy the financial fruits of their labor.

In early 2000, The Washington, DC-based National Conservative Campaign Fund issued a Special Report titled "Campaign Strategy to Stop Hillary Clinton," aimed at driving up her negatives, establishing a "Defeat Hillary Clinton" Web site, and running a protracted anti-Hillary media campaign. (Fifteen years later, Republican Congressman Kevin McCarthy would inadvertently admit that the continuation of the Benghazi Committee was also aimed at driving up Hillary’s negatives.)

In April 2000, the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington, DC-based right wing think tank, hosted a conference called "The Legacy and Future of Hillary Rodham Clinton." Co-sponsored by David Horowitz's Los Angeles-based Center for the Study of Popular Culture, the event, wrote journalist David Corn, "tilted toward the Hillary-sucks side." Later the same year, Morton Blackwell, who founded the profoundly conservative organization The Leadership Institute in 1979, established a group called the Emergency Committee to Stop Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Five years later, Arthur Finkelstein’s Stop Her Now operation (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0502/S00193.htm) commanded media attention. Finkelstein, a master of the political attack ad who played a key role in George Pataki's defeat of New York State’s Gov. Mario Cuomo in 1994, set up a website aimed at cutting Hillary off at the pass and raising millions of dollars. Finkelstein also intended Stop Her Now to be a gathering place for conservative activists working against Hillary. Finkelstein’s thinking: Defeat her Senatorial re-election and end her White House possibilities.

"Stop Her Now" was eventually turned over to Republican Party political activist and businessman Richard H. Collins. Collins, a contributor to Rudy Giuliani's failed attempt to win the Republican Party's 2008 presidential nomination, and tried a different tack. His website, rechristened "Stop Her Now: Rescuing America from the radical ideas of Hillary Clinton," limited the vitriol, using humor and satire to expose the "real truth about Hillary Clinton." The site had a daily blog and featured 'The Hillary Show,' a weekly video lampooning the candidate and her Democratic Party colleagues.

2007-2008 was a pivotal time for Hillary Clinton bashers. It was obvious to conservatives that she would sail through the Democratic Party’s primaries and win the nomination. All sorts of preparations were thwarted by Senator Barack Obama’s meteoric rise and historic ride to the nomination, and ultimately the White House.

What appeared to be a season of doom and gloom for conservatives, particularly Citizens United’s David Bossie -- who knew he had “the goods” on Hillary -- turned into the Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United ruling in 2010. The controversial Bossie played a key role in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which allowed unlimited spending on election campaigns by corporations, unions and nonprofit organizations.

Here’s a brief Citizens United summary: Hillary:

The Movie was produced by Bossie, based on his book Hillary: The Politics of Personal Destruction.

The film contained interviews "with experts, opinion makers, and many of the people who personally locked horns with the Clintons."

Those "experts" described Hillary as someone "steeped in sleaze" and who represented a "fundamental danger" to "every value that we hold dear."

The film included a who's who of conservative commentators; Dick Morris, Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, Tony Blankley, Dick Armey, Bay Buchanan, Mark Levin, Frank Gaffney, Gary Aldrich, Dan Burton, Michael Medved, Kate O'Beirne, and Larry Kudlow.

Ironically, "[Hillary] Clinton may become ... [Citizens United's] beneficiary-in-chief, poised to cash in like no other political candidate has before," Dave Levinthal wrote in a piece last year titled "Hillary Clinton: the 'Citizen United' candidate," posted at the website of The Center for Public Integrity.

On the Today show of January 27, 1998, Hillary Clinton suggested that there was a “vast right-wing conspiracy” that had been attacking against her husband for years.

Although her coining of the term was treated as a gaffe, it proved to be an accurate description of what was happening then, and what was yet to come, particularly as it has manifested itself during President Barack Obama’s presidency.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/hillary-bashing-right-crafty-cruel-and-commoditized

All Empty, Debased, Destructive Politics, All The Time.

Actual governing is not on the VRWC/Repug/1% radar.

[spurraider21]

just out of curiosity, when do you feel the urge to vent to spurstalk... the place where nobody pays attention to the shit you post?

[boutons_deux]

just out of curiosity, when do you feel the urge to vent to spurstalk... the place where nobody pays attention to the shit you post?

You Lie, you're in this thread, Thanks For Coming!

[boutons_deux]

While Clinton used home email, State's networks were at risk

Hillary Rodham Clinton has come under fierce criticism for doing business over personal email while secretary of state, putting sensitive data at risk of being hacked. But her communications may not have been any more secure had she used a State Department email address, judging by years of independent audits that excoriated the department over poor cyber security on Clinton's watch.

The State Department's unclassified email system was breached by hackers linked to Russia last year who stole an unspecified number of emails. The hackers hit a department that was among the worst agencies in the federal government at protecting its computer networks while Clinton was secretary from 2009 to 2013, a situation that continued to deteriorate as John Kerry took office, according to independent audits and interviews.

The State Department's compliance with federal cybersecurity (http://phys.org/tags/cybersecurity/) standards was below average when Clinton took over but grew worse in each year of her tenure, according to an annual report card compiled by the White House based on audits by agency watchdogs. Network security continued to slip after Kerry replaced Clinton in February 2013, and remains substandard, according to the State Department inspector general.

In each year from 2011 to 2014, the State Department's poor cybersecurity was identified by the inspector general as a "significant deficiency" that put the department's information at risk. The latest assessment is due to be published in a few weeks

http://phys.org/news/2015-10-clinton-home-email-state-networks.html
\

[boutons_deux]

Oops, They Did It Again: While Attacking Clinton, House Republicans Out CIA Source
http://mx2.politicususa.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/trey-gowdy-485x346.jpg

Yes, Republicans have released more secret information in their efforts to undermine 2016Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, according to Politico.

House Benghazi Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy “accidentally” released the name of a CIA source.

This is the same source Republicans are attacking Clinton over, claiming she jeopardized national security by using her private email server for an email with his name on it.But it gets even better. It turns out

this outing is no biggie, according to the CIA. And that’s bad news for Republicans because they cited this as a “prime example of her misusing her private email server to receive and send highly classified information.

”The credibility of the Republican-led Benghazi committee came under fresh attack Sunday after the CIA informed the panel (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/cia-shrugs-off-clinton-s-1281399243022390.html)that it does not view a 2011 email forwarded by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as including any classified information. The committee chairman, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., had cited Clinton’s handling of the March 18, 2011, email as a prime example of her misusing her private email server to receive and send highly classified information.

Josh Gerstein at Politico (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/trey-gowdy-release-cia-source-name-benghazi-committee-214919#ixzz3p2BOexwA)noticed that the Republicans had mistakenly outed the very source they were attacking Clinton for allegedly not being careful with:

The email posted Sunday on the panel’s website included in one instance the name of Mousa Koussa, a former Libyan government spy chief, and foreign minister. The name appeared to have been redacted in several other instances but was included in a subject line of a forwarded email.

Republicans tried to excuse their breach by saying they released the email regarding the sources so the American people “could decide for themselves.”

Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy today released the following letter (https://benghazi.house.gov/news/press-releases/gowdy-response-to-latest-cummings-letter) in response to yet another Democrat missive that seeks to distort the majority’s investigative effort. He also released the redacted email in question so the American people could decide for themselves regarding concerns about sources and methods. The committee will continue to protect sensitive information related to this email.Of course, that explanation does not justify why he didn’t redact the sources name.Which the Committee did this morning.So it’s possible.


It’s not like Democrats didn’t warn Gowdy. On Sunday, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, the Ranking Member of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, sent a letter (http://democrats.benghazi.house.gov/sites/democrats.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/2015_10_18_EEC_to_TG_re_CIA_Source.pdf) to Chairman Trey Gowdy about the Republican claim that the email contained “some of the most protected information in our intelligence community, the release of which could jeopardize not only national security but human lives.”

Cummings wrote, “The problem with your accusation—as with so many others during this investigation—is that you failed to check your facts before you made it, and the CIA has now informed the Select Committee that you were wrong. I believe your accusations were irresponsible, and I believe you owe the Secretary an immediate apology.”



Oh, dear.

Gowdy countered on Sunday by saying that even if the CIA doesn’t care, he was gonna protect that source’s name!

Gerstein pointed out in his Politico piece (http://read%20more:%20http//www.politico.com/story/2015/10/trey-gowdy-release-cia-source-name-benghazi-committee-214919#ixzz3p2NOsrrw), “The CIA normally would treat the names of its alleged sources as confidential. However, Kousa’s contacts with U.S. intelligence have been publicly acknowledged for years.Much ado about nothing, but we do know that Republicans are the last people who should be pointing fingers about leaks and security issues.

Their Benghazi probes have resulted in more leaks than a busted pipe. Who can forget when House Republicans outed a CIA base (http://www.politicususa.com/2012/10/11/romney-politicize-libya-attacks-house-republicans-investigate-refusal-fund.html)?

The House Republican legacy as bumbling fools is intact and being rubbed into everyone’s face, just in case they don’t get it yet.

Want to screw up the economy, ruin government and make buffoons of yourselves? You need a job in the House.

Democrats just released a damning report that shows there is no evidence of wrongdoing on Clinton’s part. (http://www.politicususa.com/2015/10/19/republicans-leveled-bombshell-report-clears-hillary-clinton-benghazi.html)

Granted, it’s a Democratic report, but it’sbased on evidence obtained from the Select Committee, and it corroborates previous findings in other Benghazi probes. Sigh.

Let us all recall that the House that Ryan built defunded security for consulates (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-forget-about-big-bird/2012/10/09/5f9a411c-1258-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop), even after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/10/19/oops-again-attacking-clinton-house-republicans-cia-source.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

[spurraider21]

You Lie, you're in this thread, Thanks For Coming!
i'm in the thread, but i'm not reading those walls of text you keep spamming

[Big Dog]

i'm in the thread, but i'm not reading those walls of text you keep spamming
:lmao This mother fucker is the true definition of a social cripple, tbh..

[Clipper Nation]

Boutards logic:

> Benghazi = "wing-nut outrage"
> Has a 38-page thread about how "the madness of the GOP is the central issue of our time"

Yep... radical Islam, illegal immigration, and the economy aren't central issues - but if a Republican politician says something dumb in an interview, this country is doomed!

[boutons_deux]

"radical Islam, illegal immigration"

... which bills have the Repugs passed on these?

"economy"

... Repugs's austerity of cutting govt and state spending has put and kept Ms out of work, out of good jobs, greatly extending the recovery of the Banksters Great Depression.

The Repugs/VRWC/1% are the MAJOR threats, DETRIMENTS to America, Americans, the environment, and mankind, much more dangerous and fatal than immigrants, jihadis.

[boutons_deux]

While Clinton used home email, State's networks were at risk

Hillary Rodham Clinton has come under fierce criticism for doing business over personal email while secretary of state, putting sensitive data at risk of being hacked. But her communications may not have been any more secure had she used a State Department email address, judging by years of independent audits that excoriated the department over poor cyber security on Clinton's watch.

The State Department's unclassified email system was breached by hackers linked to Russia last year who stole an unspecified number of emails. The hackers hit a department that was among the worst agencies in the federal government at protecting its computer networks while Clinton was secretary from 2009 to 2013, a situation that continued to deteriorate as John Kerry took office, according to independent audits and interviews.

The State Department's compliance with federal cybersecurity (http://phys.org/tags/cybersecurity/) standards was below average when Clinton took over but grew worse in each year of her tenure, according to an annual report card compiled by the White House based on audits by agency watchdogs. Network security continued to slip after Kerry replaced Clinton in February 2013, and remains substandard, according to the State Department inspector general.

In each year from 2011 to 2014, the State Department's poor cybersecurity was identified by the inspector general as a "significant deficiency" that put the department's information at risk. The latest assessment is due to be published in a few weeks.

State Department officials don't dispute the compliance shortcomings identified in years of internal audits, but argue that the audits paint a distorted picture of their cybersecurity, which they depict as solid and improving. They strongly disagree with the White House ranking that puts them behind most other government agencies. Senior department officials in charge of cybersecurity would speak only on condition of anonymity.

"We have a strong cybersecurity program, successfully defeating almost 100 percent of the 4 billion attempted intrusions we experience each year," spokesman Mark Toner said.

Two successive inspectors general haven't seen it that way. In December 2013, IG Steve Linick issued a "management alert" warning top State Department officials that their repeated failure to correct cybersecurity holes was putting the department's data at risk.

In late 2014, cyber intruders linked to Russia were able to break into the State Department's email system, infecting it so thoroughly that it had to be cut off from the Internet in March while experts worked to eliminate the infestation.

http://phys.org/news/2015-10-clinton-home-email-state-networks.html

[boutons_deux]

Benghazi Hearings Cancelled After Clinton Drops Out of Race !!!

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report (http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report))—Washington was in turmoil on Tuesday morning as a House select committee abruptly cancelled its Benghazi hearings shortly after former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that she was withdrawing from the Presidential race.

Secretary Clinton’s stunning announcement came at 9:00 A.M., followed by the committee chairman Trey Gowdy’s decision to cancel the hearings at 9:04.

“As you know, we have been preparing for this week’s hearings for months,” Gowdy said. “However, after meeting with fellow committee members over the past four minutes, we’ve come to the conclusion that we know all we need to know about Benghazi.”


Gowdy flatly denied that the decision to cancel the long-awaited Benghazi hearings had anything to do with Clinton’s sudden departure from the race. “We wish her well in whatever her future endeavors may be,” he said.

But shortly after Gowdy’s announcement, Clinton called an impromptu press conference at 9:13 to announce that she was jumping back into the race. “I was just trying to prove a point,” she told reporters, before heading off to campaign stops in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Minutes after Clinton’s second announcement, an irate Gowdy called her decision to reenter the race “beyond unethical” and revealed that the committee’s investigators had just uncovered fresh evidence about Benghazi.

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/benghazi-hearings-cancelled-after-clinton-drops-out-of-race?mbid=nl_102015%20Borowitz%20Newsletter%20(1)&CNDID=&spMailingID=8172512&spUserID=MjczNzc0Njk0NDAS1&spJobID=782593066&spReportId=NzgyNTkzMDY2S0 (http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/benghazi-hearings-cancelled-after-clinton-drops-out-of-race?mbid=nl_102015%20Borowitz%20Newsletter%20(1)&CNDID=&spMailingID=8172512&spUserID=MjczNzc0Njk0NDAS1&spJobID=782593066&spReportId=NzgyNTkzMDY2S0)

[boutons_deux]

Latest Gowdy Fakery: Name Of CIA Source In Clinton Email Was No Secret

For anyone disappointed by the absence of troubling material from Hillary Clinton’s emails – not to mention the cratering of the House Select Committee on Benghazi — Michael Isikoff provided a moment of hope last Monday on Morning Joe (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425414/hillary-clinton-email-sidney-blumenthal). According to the Yahoo News investigative correspondent, one of the emails newly released by the Benghazi committee was “evidence of the commission of a federal crime by someone, not Hillary Clinton,” because it included the name of a CIA source in Libya.

Even more thrilling, to some people at least, was the identity of the supposedly incriminating message’s author: none other than Clinton’s often-demonized friend Sidney Blumenthal (who also happens to be a friend of mine (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/sidney-blumenthal-fake-clinton-scandals-118389)).

“This is maybe the single most problematic email exchange we’ve seen with Hillary Clinton yet of all the emails that have been raised,” explained Isikoff. “What you have there is Blumenthal telling the secretary that somebody at the CIA gave the name of a sensitive human intelligence source to somebody who wasn’t at the CIA.”

Certainly this appeared to be a damaging story, if accurate – but its origin in Rep. Trey Gowdy’s discredited outfit (http://www.nationalmemo.com/hunting-hillary-dim-speaker-to-be-reveals-select-committees-partisan-goal/) should have raised immediate suspicion. Had any of the journalists covering Gowdy checked carefully, we might have learned earlier what we now know: The CIA had reviewed that same email at the behest of the State Department before it was released and “made no redactions to protect classified information.”


In other words, Blumenthal’s email naming a certain Libyan political figure – the late dictator Muammar Qaddafi’s former intelligence chief Moussa Koussa — did not disclose any classified information, let alone intelligence secrets.

So why did Isikoff – and other credulous journalists – consider that March 18, 2011 email so damaging to Clinton and Blumenthal?(because Isikoff is a Jew?)

Evidently because Gowdy or his staff had redacted the name of the former Libyan official themselves — while adding the usual CIA phrase “redacted due to sources and methods” for dramatic emphasis. As released, the document seemed to show that the agency had blacked out the man’s name to protect a source. That was an intentional deception, reminiscent of the dirty trick that got David Bossie fired (http://www.nationalmemo.com/the-incomparable-chutzpah-of-david-bossie-failed-dirty-trickster/) from the staff of the House Oversight Committee.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/latest-gowdy-fakery-name-of-cia-source-in-clinton-email-was-no-secret/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Morning%20Memo%20-%202015-10-20&utm_term=MM_frequency_six (http://www.nationalmemo.com/latest-gowdy-fakery-name-of-cia-source-in-clinton-email-was-no-secret/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Morning%20Memo%20-%202015-10-20&utm_term=MM_frequency_six)

[boutons_deux]

It Gets Worse For Republicans As GOP Busted For Lying About Access To Emails

Democrats caught Republican Benghazi Select Committee members in a stone cold lie when Trey Gowdy and Lynn Westmoreland claimed that Congress did not have access to Amb. Ted Stevens’ emails.

Select Committee Chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) said on Face The Nation (http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/1018-gowdy-cummings-axelrod/), “none of the seven previous committees bothered to access the emails of our Ambassador.”

Republican Select Committee Member Rep. Mike Pompeo said on Meet The Press (http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-transcript-october-18-2015-n446721), “How on earth could any of the other committees have completed their work properly without access to the senior person on the ground’s emails?”

Today on CNN (http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-transcript-october-18-2015-n446721), Committee Member Lynn Westmoreland said on CNN, “Wouldn’t you want to know the emails of the guy that was there that was murdered and what he had asked for as far as help from the people he worked for? We’ve just now gotten those emails. We have just now gotten them. Nobody else had requested them. I haven’t had a chance to read them. We didn’t get them until the day before yesterday.”

The Democrats on the Benghazi Committee responded by crushing this Republican lie:

Contrary to Republican claims, multiple committees of Congress—including the Oversight Committee on which Chairman Gowdy serves—had access to many of Ambassador Stevens’ emails for years. On November 24, 2014, and December 9, 2014, the State Department produced to the Select Committee approximately 25,000 pages of documents that had already been “previously produced to Congress.”

The lies are piling up, and House Republicans have nowhere to go but down. Democrats are shredding the Benghazi investigation before Hillary Clinton sits down to testify.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/10/20/worse-republicans-gop-busted-lying-access-emails.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

[boutons_deux]

Stop Hillary PAC supported Gowdy and his Stop Hillary Committee (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/19/1435444/-Stop-Hillary-PAC-Supported-Gowdy-and-his-Stop-Hillary-Committee)



Today, the Washington Post reported on newly discovered links between Rep. Trey Gowdy, the Chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, and Stop Hillary PAC, which describes itself as “created for one reason only—to ensure Hillary Clinton never becomes President of the United States.” [. . .]

On September 2, 2015, Backer—on behalf of Stop Hillary PAC—filed a report with the FEC reporting an expenditure of $10,000 in “support” of Chairman Gowdy.

The “purpose of expenditure” is listed as “digital messaging delivery and robocalls.” The “name of federal candidate” is listed as “Trey Gowdy.”


There is nothing wrong with Gowdy's affiliation with the Stop Hillary PAC.

What is wrong is his use of public monies on behalf of the Stop Hillary cause, otherwise known as the Select Benghazi Committee.

That's illegal.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/19/1435444/-Stop-Hillary-PAC-Supported-Gowdy-and-his-Stop-Hillary-Committee?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

[spurraider21]

another day.... another day where booboo is the only one talking about benghazi

[boutons_deux]

http://cdn.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/21134311/investigations-02-816x487.jpg

[boutons_deux]

Prior to Benghazi, were there 13 attacks on embassies and 60 deaths under President George W. Bush?

Of these 39 attacks, 20 resulted in at least one fatality. (Our complete list is here (http://www.politifact.com/embassyattacks/).) This is higher than Garamendi's claim, though if you only count attacks on embassy and consular property, there were 13.

Garamendi also understated the number of deaths. In the 20 incidents with at least one fatality, the total death toll was 87 -- quite a few more than the 60 Garamendi cited. If you only count those at embassies and consulates proper, the number of deaths drops to 66.

We should note that the vast majority of these deaths were not Americans. We counted 63 deaths that were either of non-Americans or of people whose nationality is unknown. Another three were U.S. civilians. Another 21 were workers at the U.S embassy or consulate, either of American or foreign nationality.

So, using what we think is the most reasonable definition, Garamendi's numbers are a bit low.

"As always, what causes the problem is not so much what happens, but the response to it," said Theodore R. Bromund, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "‘If the administration had come out shortly after the attack and said, ‘Our consulate was attacked by organized Islamist forces, and we will pursue these terrorists and bring them to justice, one way or the other,’ I very much doubt there would be much juice in these hearings, if indeed they were being held at all."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/may/12/john-garamendi/prior-benghazi-were-there-13-attacks-embassies-and/

How many Congressional select committees for the 39 attacks under dubya? :lol

[Trill Clinton]

657353145639530496

657361527989600256

657325558234091520

657300362160791553

[Trill Clinton]

mr. cummings keeping it 80+20


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=csra4QGlYlQ

[TheSanityAnnex]

657353145639530496

657361527989600256

657325558234091520

657300362160791553


First! to quote Trill Clinton's only post in the political forum not dealing with white on black crime.

[djohn2oo8]

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/22/1437454/-The-GOP-blew-the-Benghazi-committee-and-conservatives-know-it

:lmao Repugs

[Th'Pusher]

Yeah. That was a pointless waste of time. No new information.

[Trill Clinton]

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/22/1437454/-The-GOP-blew-the-Benghazi-committee-and-conservatives-know-it

:lmao Repugs
http://i57.tinypic.com/1oqb6r.png

[DarrinS]

It's a real scandal that no one gives a shit about. But none of it makes Hillary look good.

[djohn2oo8]

It's a real scandal that no one gives a shit about. But none of it makes Hillary look good.

The Repugs made her look real good today :lol

[Splits]

Just when I thought I couldn't hate these closet faggot regressives more, they go and give Shillary the campaign gift of a lifetime.

SMH. Fucking idiots.

[boutons_deux]

It's a real scandal that no one gives a shit about. But none of it makes Hillary look good.

:lol Your dear Repugs give a huge shit about their fabricated scandal. Hillary was fine, the Repugs looked like your typical Repug Klowns, FUCKING LOSERS.

[ChumpDumper]

It's a real scandal that no one gives a shit about. But none of it makes Hillary look good.What's the real scandal, Darrin?

A lot of you are quick to say stuff like that but never follow through.

[djohn2oo8]

657347477834768384

[Splits]

:lol at all you idiots making fun of Boutons as "the only one talking about Bengazi"

http://cdn.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/21134311/investigations-02-816x487.jpg


http://cdn.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/21134234/investigations-03-816x438.jpg

[Splits]

How many Congressional Hearings were conducted on Sandy Hook?

0

[boutons_deux]

http://www.nationalmemo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/danzcolorplus6503-668x501.jpg

[boutons_deux]

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/649793692329451521/0K8eh8WG_bigger.jpgJohn Podhoretz
✔@jpodhoretz (https://twitter.com/jpodhoretz)

Why doesn't Pompeo just go over and swear her in for president now--if he goes on like this he'll practically get her elected
2:19 PM - 22 Oct 2015 (https://twitter.com/jpodhoretz/status/657275010797670400) · Manhattan, NY, United States (https://twitter.com/search?q=place%3A01a9a39529b27f36)

[boutons_deux]

Matt Lewis
✔@mattklewis (https://twitter.com/mattklewis)

Ever since the McCarthy gaffe, everything has worked out for Hillary (debate, Biden, & now this hearing). She even seems more likable now.
2:20 PM - 22 Oct 2015 (https://twitter.com/mattklewis/status/657275395356663808)

[boutons_deux]

Michael B Dougherty
✔@michaelbd (https://twitter.com/michaelbd)

Hillary = LucyGOP = Charlie BrownExcept the football is a grenade and Charlie Brown wrestles until he grabs it, unpins, and swallows it.
10:34 AM - 22 Oct 2015 (https://twitter.com/michaelbd/status/657218560301912066)



(https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?in_reply_to=657218560301912066)

[boutons_deux]

Kirsten Powers
✔@KirstenPowers (https://twitter.com/KirstenPowers)

The Sidney Blumenthal questioning just jumped the shark with the home address question.

[boutons_deux]

Erick Erickson
✔@EWErickson (https://twitter.com/EWErickson)

The Benghazi Hearing Should Not Be, But Is, A Waste of Time http://www.erickontheradio.com/2015/10/the-benghazi-hearing-should-not-be-but-is-a-waste-of-time/ … (https://t.co/bpwD77YW7z)

[boutons_deux]

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/643427872682590209/UdT7MnSc_bigger.jpgDylan Byers
✔@DylanByers (https://twitter.com/DylanByers)

So first Fox News cuts from Benghazi hearing, then Ed Henry comes on and says HRC passed the test.That’s the message to Fox News viewers.

[boutons_deux]

kathleenparker @kathleenparker (https://twitter.com/kathleenparker)

Any claim that this isn't political is absurd on its face. Congrats, Republicans.

[boutons_deux]

Jazz Shaw @JazzShaw (https://twitter.com/JazzShaw)

Jesus, I spend half my day criticizing Hillary Clinton and even I find this set of questions embarrassing.

[boutons_deux]

Today was not a Select Committee Hearing

It was a HRC campaign stop.

[Fabbs]

So is the hunt over or are they supposed to pick up with Day 2?

[spurraider21]

657353145639530496
"bipartisan report" is an interesting choice for twitter handle given their content

[DarrinS]

False narratives are cool, as long as a (D.) is attached to them.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V8FkKgyyyw

[boutons_deux]

Rush Limbaugh looked into the tea leaves on his Monday show and predicted the whole thing was “going to be a giant nothing burger.”

It is going to be a giant nothing burger. The Democrats will waste as must time as possible praising Hillary for her cervix. Yes I meant that. You think I meant to say service, right? No, they’re going to praise her for being a woman. It’s a big deal now. She’s a victim. It’s the reason she’s running. To be the first woman. So they’re going to praise her cervix. What else is there? When you’re talking about that to praise. They can’t mention the wig. So they’ll praise her — okay, okay, I’ll say service. Just to smooth it over.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/this-week-in-crazy-how-to-zap-god-out-of-your-head/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Morning%20Memo%20-%202015-10-23&utm_term=MM_frequency_six

Repugs are as much misogynist as they are nativist, racist, white supremacist

[Spurminator]

It's a real scandal that no one gives a shit about. But none of it makes Hillary look good.

NO ONE gives a shit about it?? It's been in the news for 3 years, and there was an 11 hour Congressional hearing on it yesterday that was the top trending topic on Twitter for half of the day.

[boutons_deux]

Joe Miller,

the Tea Party darling (http://www.nationalmemo.com/disaster-alaska-tuesdays-primary-go-wrong-republicans/) who five short years ago was a Republican nominee for U.S. Senator from Alaska (http://www.adn.com/article/joe-miller-admits-defeat-alaska-s-us-senate-race-0),

spent a recent segment of his weekday radio show explicating a theory that

transgender advocates were going to use magnets to alter the brain chemistry of Christians. (http://joemiller.us/)

http://www.nationalmemo.com/this-week-in-crazy-how-to-zap-god-out-of-your-head/5/

holy shit, you Repugs, rednecks, bubbas, tea baggers, gun fellators, Spurstalkers are infinite sources of ROFLMAO

[ChumpDumper]

False narratives are cool, as long as a (D.) is attached to them.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V8FkKgyyywThey were wrong about that and said they were wrong.

What is the REAL scandal, Darrin?

Use your words, not snarky YouTubes.

[boutons_deux]

Hillary Clinton And George Bush’s Testimony On Terrorist Attacks, Compared
http://cdn.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/23114018/investigations-1024x609.jpg

http://cdn.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/23102010/investigations-hours-816x367.png

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/10/23/3715560/testimony-benghazi-911/

[boutons_deux]

Conservatives ridicule GOP Benghazi committee members: Hillary is too smart for them


http://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/C-span_screencap_benghazi-800x430.jpg

...u niformly “loved her, hated them” — even among conservatives.

Writing for the New York Post (http://nypost.com/2015/10/22/hillary-wins-theatrically-in-benghazi-hearing/), longtime conservative commentator John Podhortez praised Clinton’s performance.

“Simply as a matter of political theater, over the course of many hours of testimony, Clinton performed brilliantly,” he wrote. “She assumed a calm, deliberate demeanor with her opening statement and never surrendered it. The more she sounded like a policy wonk, the less she seemed like what the Republicans clearly wanted her to seem like: a cynical political animal.”

On MSNBC’s Morning Joe, host and former GOP congressman Joe Scarborough called it a “technical knock out” for Clinton with regular Mike Barnicle adding, “If this committee had handled the Watergate hearing, Richard Nixon would have finished his term.”

Nothing however will sting the members of Gowdy’s committee like ultra-conservative commentator Erick Erickson calling the whole exercise a “waste of time,” while adding Clinton is “too bright” for them.
Writing on his personal blog (http://www.erickontheradio.com/2015/10/the-benghazi-hearing-should-not-be-but-is-a-waste-of-time/), Erickson said there are still questions about Benghazi but that this committee is not the one to turn to for answers.

“The hearings are a waste of time

because everything about it is politicized and

nothing is going to happen.

There will be no scalp collection.

In fact, it is clear from today’s hearing that Trey Gowdy and Peter Roskam seem to be the only two people on the committee of either party who are capable of asking exacting, precise questions. Most of the rest of the committee just wants to grandstand for the folks back home as either prosecutors of or defenders of Hillary Clinton,” Erickson wrote.

He continued, “Mrs. Clinton too is far too bright to be trapped in this or any questions. There have been some, by Trey Gowdy typically, that have clearly caused Mrs. Clinton to be flustered, but the long term effects of that will be to make her a martyr to her own side.”

Erickson continued to defend Gowdy, but later took another shot at Reps. Susan Brooks (R-IN), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Mike Pompeo (R-KS), Martha Roby (R-AL), and Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) calling them “a carnival road show of back bench congresscritters playing to the cameras.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/conservatives-ridicule-gop-benghazi-committee-members-hillary-is-too-smart-for-them/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[boutons_deux]

Here's what mattered to their investigation:

•On Blumenthal's alleged business activities in Libya: more than 270 questions
•On Blumenthal's relationship with Clinton: more than 160 questions
•On the Clinton Foundation: more than 50 questions
•On David Brock/Media Matters: more than 45 questions

Here's what didn't matter:

•On the Benghazi attacks: less than 20 questions
•On security in Benghazi: only 4 questions
•On the U.S. presence in Benghazi: 0 (zip, nada) questions
•On Ambassador Stevens and other U.S. personnel in Benghazi: 0 (zip, nada) questions

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/22/1437551/-The-GOP-s-Blumenthal-secrecy-finally-revealed?detail=email

[DarrinS]

•On the U.S. presence in Benghazi: 0 (zip, nada) questions
•On Ambassador Stevens and other U.S. personnel in Benghazi: 0 (zip, nada) questions




Bullshit. This is not true.

[ChumpDumper]

Bullshit. This is not true.What's the REAL scandal, Darrin?

[boutons_deux]

Wingnuts So Sad Hillz Didn’t Admit She Ordered The Code Red In Benghazi

Here’s the best indicator of how well Hillary did: Fox was the only one (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/10/22/fox-news-all-but-acknowledges-the-benghazi-hearing-is-a-snooze/) of the three 24-hour cable news outfits to actually stop broadcasting the hearings live, even though it has consistently been the Benghazi Network, running over 1,100 segments on Benghazi and what a horrible thing it was.

Once Clinton was actually mopping the floor with the committee, Fox was out of there, going with its usual afternoon talker lineup, starting with “The Five Idiots,” where Greg Gutfeld shared diet tips. We shit you not. (Fox did continue livestreaming (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-first-to-cut-away-from-benghazi-hearing-as-cnn-msnbc-continue-live-coverage/)the hearings on its website, though.)

Greta Van Susteren left almost no impression on us, as usual; the only notable thing that happened during her hour was a brief return to the live feed while Rep. Jim Jordan badgered Clinton for a while about her email server, and then cut away again once Georgia Rep. Lynn Westmoreland started sharing possum recipes. (http://wonkette.com/595236/hillary-can-understand-slow-georgia-hicks-benghazi-questions-just-fine-thanks) Then there was a panel discussion on Paul Ryan doing speaker of the House things.

On “The O’Reilly Factor,” Billo said the hearings wouldn’t change anyone’s mind because everyone is so darn partisan these days.

He also said that the biggest “discovery” of the hearings was that Hillary “knew” the “Innocence of Muslims” YouTube video wasn’t the real cause of the Benghazi attack a few days earlier than she’d previously said, which doesn’t explain how she made Benghazi happen, but don’t worry about it, the wingnuts are still working out the details of their conspiracy theories.

http://wonkette.com/595268/wingnuts-so-sad-hillz-didnt-admit-she-ordered-the-code-red-in-benghazi

[boutons_deux]

Fact-challenged Carly Fiorina learned nothing from yesterday’s Benghazi hearings, urges GOP to intensify attacks on Clinton

“I think there were a lot of Democrats on that committee who were focused on salvaging the nominee on their part,” she said.

“If you just do a little thought exercise, if the shoe were on the other foot and she had been a Republican secretary of state, I’m quite sure the Democrats would be holding hearings.” :lol


Of course, as Clinton herself noted multiple times on Thursday, Democrats held no such hearings after previous terrorist attacks on diplomatic outposts that occurred during Republican administrations.

But facts are not Fiorina’s strong suit, not when there are ignorant voters to be swayed by her inability to command them.

Clinton, she argued, “never answered a fundamental question, and the fundamental question is this — knowing that this was a purposeful terrorist attack on the night it occurred, why did you go the next morning and address the American people and talk about a videotape that didn’t represent the values of America and why did you continue to do that over the bodies of the fallen and for many weeks thereafter?”

The former Secretary of State did, of course, repeatedly answer this question, pointing to “conflicting information” from intelligence sources, not to mention statements by terrorist groups that claimed responsibility for the attack

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/23/fact_challenged_carly_fiorina_learned_nothing_from _yesterdays_benghazi_hearings_urges_gop_to_intensi fy_attacks_on_clinton/

Anti-science Repugs refute science: "When you're deep in a hole, keep on diggin!"

[DarrinS]

What's the REAL scandal, Darrin?

Spontaneous reaction to a YouTube video

[ChumpDumper]

Spontaneous reaction to a YouTube videoInitial report changed when other facts were known.

Is there any other REAL scandal, Darrin?

[DarrinS]

Initial report changed when other facts were known.



lol

[ChumpDumper]

lolWhy lol?

Is this your REAL scandal, Darrin? That's all?

[DarrinS]

http://insider.foxnews.com/sites/insider.foxnews.com/files/styles/780/public/Egypt_2.jpg?itok=BYFk9afY

[ChumpDumper]

http://insider.foxnews.com/sites/insider.foxnews.com/files/styles/780/public/Egypt_2.jpg?itok=BYFk9afYAm I supposed to believe a photoshop with a blatant misspelling?

lol "your"

Who the fuck made that, Darrin?

[DarrinS]

Am I supposed to believe a photoshop with a blatant misspelling?

lol "your"

Who the fuck made that, Darrin?


Yeah, whoever transcribed that call made a mistake. Hillary did not deny making this phone call, however.

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, whoever transcribed that call made a mistake. Hillary did not deny making this phone call, however.And?

You know if you actually read the Rice transcripts from the Sunday shows, she says extremists joined in and escalated the violence and left open the possibility the extremists could have been Al Qaeda affiliated or Al Qaeda themselves.

Where is the REAL scandal here again?

[DarrinS]

And?

You know if you actually read the Rice transcripts from the Sunday shows, she says extremists joined in and escalated the violence and left open the possibility the extremists could have been Al Qaeda affiliated or Al Qaeda themselves.

Where is the REAL scandal here again?


They (Obama, Hillary, Rice, Carney) lied about it because it was just before the election.

[ChumpDumper]

They (Obama, Hillary, Rice, Carney) lied about it because it was just before the election.About what?

Obama said it was a terror attack on 9/12 and Rice said it was a terror attack that could have been carried out by terrorist organizations that Sunday.

[DarrinS]

Sleazy



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSooz2wXpes

[ChumpDumper]

About what?

Obama said it was a terror attack on 9/12 and Rice said it was a terror attack that could have been carried out by terrorist organizations that Sunday.

[DarrinS]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_Qx7Fmn4uE

[ChumpDumper]

Why did the video leave out this from 9/12?


No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.

Partisan hackery.

[ChumpDumper]

Hm, Carney's last statement was cut too:


Well, I think we wait to hear from administration officials. Again, it's actively under investigation, both the Benghazi attack and incidents elsewhere. And my point was that we don't have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to the film. But we’re obviously investigating the matter, and I’ll certainly -- I’m sure both the Department of Defense and the White House and other places will have more to say about that as more information becomes available.Turns out they had more to say about that as more information became available.

[tlongII]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/23/diary-entry-from-benghazi-victims-dad-gave-hillary-hug-blamed-filmmaker/?intcmp=hpbt3

Diary entry from Benghazi victim’s dad: ‘I gave Hillary a hug,’ she blamed filmmaker

A day after new records were made public showing Hillary Clinton said from the start the 2012 Benghazi attack was not linked to an obscure anti-Islam film, the father of a former Navy SEAL killed that night told Fox News she blamed the filmmaker for his son's death in a conversation with him.

Charles Woods, father of Ty Woods, who died defending the CIA annex, shared with Fox News the diary notes he took after his encounter with Clinton during the ceremony on Sept. 14, 2012, when the bodies were flown back to the U.S.

"I gave Hillary a hug and shook her hand. And she said we are going to have the film maker arrested who was responsible for the death of my son," the entry says.

"She said -- the filmmaker who was responsible for the death of your son," Woods emphasized as he read his diary entry. Woods attended Thursday's hearing where the former secretary of state testified to the Benghazi congressional committee.

"She wasn't saying the failed foreign policy that I was responsible for. It wasn't her taking the blame for it. It says we are going to place the responsibility [for] the death of your son on the filmmaker," he said.

Woods' account of what Clinton told him contradicts what then-Secretary Clinton reported to her own family, as well as senior Libyan and Egyptian government officials.

Citing an email Clinton sent to her daughter Chelsea the night of the attack, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said at Thursday's hearing that she told them, "Two officers were killed today in Benghazi by an Al Qaeda-like group.''

Further, Jordan said she told the Egyptian prime minister the next day that they knew the attack was "planned" and had "nothing to do with the film."

One day after then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice said on five Sunday talk shows that the attack grew out of a protest over the film, Fox News was first to report on Sept. 17, 2012, based on an intelligence source on the ground in Libya, that there was no protest outside the Benghazi consulate.

Yet, at the hearing, Clinton blamed the "fog of war" for confusion about what happened, and conflicting accounts, though her own statements to her family and foreign government leaders suggest otherwise.

And she pushed back on the notion that she directly blamed the video, stressing that she said in a statement that night that some had sought to use the video to justify the attack.

"I used those words deliberately, not to ascribe a motive to every attacker but as a warning to those across the region that there was no justification for further attacks," she said.

She said they were dealing with "fluid" and "fast-moving" and "conflicting" information that night. She also said there were probably many motivations, suggesting the video may still have motivated some attackers.

Woods said Clinton either lied to her family and senior leaders of foreign governments, or to the victims' families and the American people. He said her lack of candor disqualifies Clinton from being promoted to the nation's top job.

"In order to follow a leader, as a commander-in-chief, the military needs to trust what their leader says. They're putting lives on the line. They have to know that what she says is true in order for them to be able to sacrifice their lives," Woods said.

[ChumpDumper]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/23/diary-entry-from-benghazi-victims-dad-gave-hillary-hug-blamed-filmmaker/?intcmp=hpbt3

Diary entry from Benghazi victim’s dad: ‘I gave Hillary a hug,’ she blamed filmmaker

A day after new records were made public showing Hillary Clinton said from the start the 2012 Benghazi attack was not linked to an obscure anti-Islam film, the father of a former Navy SEAL killed that night told Fox News she blamed the filmmaker for his son's death in a conversation with him.

Charles Woods, father of Ty Woods, who died defending the CIA annex, shared with Fox News the diary notes he took after his encounter with Clinton during the ceremony on Sept. 14, 2012, when the bodies were flown back to the U.S.

"I gave Hillary a hug and shook her hand. And she said we are going to have the film maker arrested who was responsible for the death of my son," the entry says.

"She said -- the filmmaker who was responsible for the death of your son," Woods emphasized as he read his diary entry. Woods attended Thursday's hearing where the former secretary of state testified to the Benghazi congressional committee.

"She wasn't saying the failed foreign policy that I was responsible for. It wasn't her taking the blame for it. It says we are going to place the responsibility [for] the death of your son on the filmmaker," he said.

Woods' account of what Clinton told him contradicts what then-Secretary Clinton reported to her own family, as well as senior Libyan and Egyptian government officials.

Citing an email Clinton sent to her daughter Chelsea the night of the attack, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said at Thursday's hearing that she told them, "Two officers were killed today in Benghazi by an Al Qaeda-like group.''

Further, Jordan said she told the Egyptian prime minister the next day that they knew the attack was "planned" and had "nothing to do with the film."

One day after then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice said on five Sunday talk shows that the attack grew out of a protest over the film, Fox News was first to report on Sept. 17, 2012, based on an intelligence source on the ground in Libya, that there was no protest outside the Benghazi consulate.

Yet, at the hearing, Clinton blamed the "fog of war" for confusion about what happened, and conflicting accounts, though her own statements to her family and foreign government leaders suggest otherwise.

And she pushed back on the notion that she directly blamed the video, stressing that she said in a statement that night that some had sought to use the video to justify the attack.

"I used those words deliberately, not to ascribe a motive to every attacker but as a warning to those across the region that there was no justification for further attacks," she said.

She said they were dealing with "fluid" and "fast-moving" and "conflicting" information that night. She also said there were probably many motivations, suggesting the video may still have motivated some attackers.

Woods said Clinton either lied to her family and senior leaders of foreign governments, or to the victims' families and the American people. He said her lack of candor disqualifies Clinton from being promoted to the nation's top job.

"In order to follow a leader, as a commander-in-chief, the military needs to trust what their leader says. They're putting lives on the line. They have to know that what she says is true in order for them to be able to sacrifice their lives," Woods said.What did this guy think the video maker would be charged with?

[DarrinS]

Hm, Carney's last statement was cut too:



Well, I think we wait to hear from administration officials. Again, it's actively under investigation, both the Benghazi attack and incidents elsewhere. And my point was that we don't have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to the film. But we’re obviously investigating the matter, and I’ll certainly -- I’m sure both the Department of Defense and the White House and other places will have more to say about that as more information becomes available.


Turns out they had more to say about that as more information became available.



They knew it had nothing to do with the video.

[ChumpDumper]

They knew it had nothing to do with the video.And you think their plan was to sell that for several months after initially calling it an act of terror?

lol conspiracy!

[DarrinS]

RPG's and mortars? Could be a spontaneous demonstration by pissed off YouTube critics.

[DarrinS]

And you think their plan was to sell that for several months after initially calling it an act of terror?

lol conspiracy!


I get that this is a non-issue for you.

[ChumpDumper]

I get that this is a non-issue for you.I asked you a question.

And you think their plan was to sell that for several months after initially calling it an act of terror?

[ChumpDumper]

RPG's and mortars? Could be a spontaneous demonstration by pissed off YouTube critics.Were those hard to come by in Libya after the fall of the Qaddafi government?

[ElNono]

I wrote this about the topic back in April this year:


The Republican's biggest problem is that they don't know when to let go. They have somehow turned Benghazi into a meme, amazingly. Didn't even know they were still going with that. I'll be actually surprised if it doesn't backfire by now.

You could see the problems with this thing from a mile away, especially after McCarthy's comments. I don't know why the GOP keeps doing this stuff to themselves.

[ChumpDumper]

I wrote this about the topic back in April this year:



You could see the problems with this thing from a mile away, especially after McCarthy's comments. I don't know why the GOP keeps doing this stuff to themselves.Republicans have been overplaying almost every hand since the Clinton impeachment. These witch hunts satisfy basetards like those in this thread but does nothing for them nationally.

I'm sure they will start threatening to not raise the debt ceiling and try to shut down the government again soon. Those are sure winners. They'll show det mooslem in the White House!

[DarrinS]

I wrote this about the topic back in April this year:



You could see the problems with this thing from a mile away, especially after McCarthy's comments. I don't know why the GOP keeps doing this stuff to themselves.


I agree with you that they are doing it for political reasons. The video narrative was also for political reasons.

[ChumpDumper]

I agree with you that they are doing it for political reasons. The video narrative was also for political reasons.Which were what?

[DarrinS]

Republicans have been overplaying almost every hand since the Clinton impeachment. These witch hunts satisfy basetards like those in this thread but does nothing for them nationally.

I'm sure they will start threatening to not raise the debt ceiling and try to shut down the government again soon. Those are sure winners. They'll show det mooslem in the White House!

You went full boutons

[ChumpDumper]

You went full boutonsYou haven't answered my questions.

[DarrinS]

Which were what?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKCwQnIygcw

[ChumpDumper]

Those weren't my questions, Darrin. I know you have to stonewall now so I will ask you again to see just which stonewalling strategy you use:
And you think their plan was to sell that for several months after initially calling it an act of terror?



Were [RPGs and mortars] hard to come by in Libya after the fall of the Qaddafi government?

[DarrinS]

Those weren't my questions, Darrin. I know you have to stonewall now so I will ask you again to see just which stonewalling strategy you use:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD4a9GHBF_U




Were [RPGs and mortars] hard to come by in Libya after the fall of the Qaddafi government?

[DarrinS]

I agree with you that they are doing it for political reasons. The video narrative was also for political reasons.

I don't know why Chump can't admit the very obvious truth.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't know why Chump can't admit the very obvious truth.I don't know why Darrin has to stonewall instead of just answering simple questions:

And you think their plan was to sell that for several months after initially calling it an act of terror?

Were [RPGs and mortars] hard to come by in Libya after the fall of the Qaddafi government?

[DarrinS]

Chump

http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/07-minister.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

Darrin

http://texturelib.com/Textures/brick/stone%20wall/brick_stone_wall_0057_01_preview.jpg

And you think their plan was to sell that for several months after initially calling it an act of terror?

Were [RPGs and mortars] hard to come by in Libya after the fall of the Qaddafi government?

[DarrinS]

Only low-information voter could ever consider YouTube backlash as possible motivation for that attack. But they were sending a message to that exact demographic.

[DarrinS]

Were [RPGs and mortars] hard to come by in Libya after the fall of the Qaddafi government?

Are you seriously still going with this?

[ChumpDumper]

Only low-information voter could ever consider YouTube backlash as possible motivation for that attack. But they were sending a message to that exact demographic.And you think their plan was to sell that for several months after initially calling it an act of terror?



Are you seriously still going with this?Are you still seriously stonewalling this simple question?

Were [RPGs and mortars] hard to come by in Libya after the fall of the Qaddafi government?

[DarrinS]

Were [RPGs and mortars] hard to come by in Libya after the fall of the Qaddafi government?




This reasoning sounded equally stupid when Carney used it. That's why the press lol'ed at it.

[DarrinS]

If it's not obvious to you that they were purposely trying to minimize the attack for political reasons, then nothing I say is going to convince you otherwise.

[clambake]

i watched some of that questioning, and tried hard to find ONE decent republican. imagine how empty prisons would be if they were prosecuting attorneys.


i'm embarrassed for them.

[ChumpDumper]

This reasoning sounded equally stupid when Carney used it. That's why the press lol'ed at it.Were [RPGs and mortars] hard to come by in Libya after the fall of the Qaddafi government?


If it's not obvious to you that they were purposely trying to minimize the attack for political reasons, then nothing I say is going to convince you otherwise.If you actually stopped stonewalling and answered my questions, you might convince me otherwise.

And you think their plan was to sell that for several months after initially calling it an act of terror?

[DarrinS]

Were [RPGs and mortars] hard to come by in Libya after the fall of the Qaddafi government?

If you actually stopped stonewalling and answered my questions, you might convince me otherwise.

And you think their plan was to sell that for several months after initially calling it an act of terror?


I've wasted enough time on this already.

[ChumpDumper]

I've wasted enough time on this already.You certainly stonewalled magnificently.

Why couldn't you just answer these simple questions?

And you think their plan was to sell that for several months after initially calling it an act of terror?

Were [RPGs and mortars] hard to come by in Libya after the fall of the Qaddafi government?

[tlongII]

What did this guy think the video maker would be charged with?

Who knows? It's irrelevant.