Obama Benghazi

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Tiger in NC, May 10, 2013.

  1. LSUMASTERMIND

    LSUMASTERMIND Founding Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Messages:
    12,992
    Likes Received:
    2,461
    say it 3 times and lets see what happens.
     
  2. MLUTiger

    MLUTiger Secular Humanist

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,606
    Likes Received:
    810
    Mmmmm... Cinnamon Toast Crunch.
     
  3. LSUpride123

    LSUpride123 PureBlood

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    33,700
    Likes Received:
    16,641
  4. Tiger in NC

    Tiger in NC There's a sucker born everyday...

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2011
    Messages:
    6,532
    Likes Received:
    1,806
    It wasn't that anyone kept anyone else in check; rather that Clinton and Gingrich worked well together to take on some pretty big issues. Like any other humans, they made some poor choices too....like repealing Glass-Steagall. That said, some cooperation behind closed doors like it was done in the 90's could go a long way in today's politics
     
  5. LaSalleAve

    LaSalleAve when in doubt, mumble

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    44,037
    Likes Received:
    18,027
    Yay more taxpayer dollars spent on nothing.
     
  6. gumborue

    gumborue Throwin Ched

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2003
    Messages:
    10,839
    Likes Received:
    577
    its just a twist on their tried-and-true tactics of calling dems weak pansy-ass doves. this is the way they can do it without appearing hawkish to the dovish US public.

    hopefully its obvious to the public that, even though the public cares most about the economy now, the gop's #1 concern is benghazi.
     
  7. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    It's funny that this is all that they've got. Obama has not been a bit shy of using the military or killing terrorists and pirates.
     
  8. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Do you actually believe this dimwit?

    First of all, he claims to have secret evidence to support his claims. He can't produced this evidence, of course.

    “Well, I have evidence that not only are they hiding it, there is an intent to hide it,” he claimed. “I can’t disclose that evidence yet, but I have evidence that there was a systematic, intentional decision to withhold certain documents from Congress.”

    Well, if you "can't" produce it, you are a liar, Mr. Gowdy.

    Then he goes on to ask questions that have already been answered in the four State Department and Congressional investigations already conducted.

    "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."

    Well, if he had bothered to read any of the reports he would know that the question has already been answered . . . by Hillary herself. 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. Transcript

    Gowdy goes on to ask why military assets were not sent. However, that speculation was debunked by Republicans, the military, and the Senate Intelligence Committee report, which found no military assets were in place to respond in time. The State Department investigation noted that Ambassador Stevens twice rejected offers for military protection a month earlier.

    Gowdy asked why the CIA edited out references to terrorism in the much-ballyhooed talking points that Susan Rice delivered after the attack. Well, the former CIA deputy director, Michael Morell, previously testified that the change was recommended by CIA operations officers and was made before a senior analyst sent the talking points to the office of congressional affairs. He noted that . . .

    "one of the things that we've learned on this process is that the words we use internal to the CIA aren't always the words that people outside of the CIA understands. So, to us, the word extremist was a synonym for the word terrorist. Not only for the analyst, but also our operators. In editing the talking points, I never changed 'terrorist' to 'extremist' and I never changed 'attack' to 'demonstration".
    So why is the GOP overreaching again, after the spectacular failures of the Whitewater witch hunt and the Monica Lewinski special prosecution? Voters were not fooled.

    This is a short-term political play by Republicans that, they hope, could also have some long-term implications for Hillary as a presidential candidate in 2016. Hillary scares the shit out of them, especially if The Slick One decides to run as VP. In presidential years, the candidates are about the business of persuading independent voters to give them a shot. But in midterm elections, it's about the partisans. Of the 40% of the electorate that generally shows up, almost no one is up for grabs. Candidates just need to get their party's loyalists to turn out.

    Huge waste of taxpayer money for political purposes.
     
  9. LaSalleAve

    LaSalleAve when in doubt, mumble

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    44,037
    Likes Received:
    18,027
    That's exactly what this is Red, taxpayer funded dog and pony show to gin up the campaign contributions from the lunatic sect of the Republican Party.

    We pay for this bullshit, it's sickening.
     
  10. LSUpride123

    LSUpride123 PureBlood

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    33,700
    Likes Received:
    16,641
    As if the dems don't do the same thing lol.

    @Red. Try not to swallow the hook.
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2014

Share This Page