Bengaaaazzziiiiiiiii. !!!!!!!!
 

This should be interesting ...


http://ringoffireradio.com/2015/10/0...ghazi-committe

I don't endorse the source FYI. Just this article
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think everyone knew it was a sham from the beginning, but I didn't think they'd just come out and admit it.

Going to be the same thing for the Planned Parenthood investigation. Just keep rehashing discredited stories to whip the sheep into a frenzy.

Yeah. No surprise here either.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sheep...you want to talk about sheep...what kind of people vote back in a Governor who increases sale tax by 25%? The sheep bought the "sale tax hasn't gone up in over 30 year crap.....if the price of the item went up so did the amount of tax paid..stupid sheep of Massachusetts thanks a lot.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think it's very unethical for anyone to hold pointless hearings for no reason other than party politics. I didn't like it when the Dems did it to Clarence Thomas, and I wouldn't like it in this case. Let's see if that's what happened. I thought Mccarthy connected the dots between Hilarys polling drop and the hearings, but I didn't think he said that was the only reason for the hearings.

Alan Grayson is maybe the biggest kook in Congress. He said that the GOP healthcare plan is "for sick people to die fast", and I think he genuinely believes that, which makes him psychotic.

Discredited? The Planned parenthood videos have been discredited? I missed that. The recordings were fabricated?

Politicizing an investigation? Nooooo!!! That's never happened before has it?

Hello Pots Meet the Kettles you can bang heads and make noise.

Everything that happens in Washington is Politically based. This country is insane!!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually Jim, a Congressional hearing is standard process to confirm the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice.

1) Rock 2) Move rock 3) Crawl out from under rock 4) Open eyes

Let me personalize this for you. When I see this thread's title all I can think of is Glen Doherty. His and the other three deaths there were preventable, but I am not going there. I have known his parents since 1976. His sister lives here in town. Watch the video. Tell me you wouldn't have wanted someone like this as a close friend. Loss was preventable, but he knew that risk. I have read just about as much as I can and feel justified where I lay the blame for what happened. Just makes me want to puke when I see all the politicizing being used for these Washington asshats, on both sides of the aisle..... That is all I will say.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...-glen-doherty/

Ross, I had no idea you knew someone who was there and I'm sorry if I offended you.

I won't bring this subject up again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not offended, just want to refocus the attention on the leaders we should be looking at to lead a faltering nation and send outstanding men and women like Glen out to meet the challenges of the nation and the world. We need leadership, not politics. And I still don't see anyone I am willing to throw my vote towards.....

He was a great person by any measuring stick......

I was speaking to a workmate yesterday, he's a very bright guy, and couldn't believe how he still steadfastly believed most of the Benghazi conspiracy theories that have been shot down in investigation after investigation.

Personally I think some develop an addiction to the hate and just can't quit it.

Similar to how most Tina Fey quotes are attributed to Palin. People love to beleive what they think should be correct.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, not really like that at all.

True, good point. But when the process turns into an exercise of painting a black man as someone who can't be trusted around women, when there's all kinds of evidence saying the charges were baseless, one could argue it was a political exercise, couldn't one?

Jim, I think you need to read up on Judge Thomas' hearing. It was totally different from Bengazi. It wasn't about rape and was sch. due to his confirmation. There was little opposition until people heard about Anita Hill. She came forward reluctantly.

Maybe the Bengazi investigation will find that Pres. Clinton had sez with a 2nd intern.

Ross, In your opinion are they using the deaths for political motives?

Hell, yes. How many months, or now years, does it take any of these committees of elected officials to reach a conclusion on what happened on the ground there and in Washington? Oh, wait. The agenda changed. Make that multiple agendas, as they "took a turn." The dead and their families deserve better. I hate politics , and politicians even more.

It was a necessary, legitimate exercise that, as usual, immediately descended into pure partisan attacks. Hill came forward reluctantly, because nobody believed her, unless they had a political benefit to supporting her.

My point was, it shouldn't be acceptable to us that both parties use these things for petty partisan attacks. We should demand more.

Thomas' confirmation hearing was legitimate. So is asking the SecState to testify about the disaster that happened on her watch in Libya. Biut politics sems to always get in the way, because we don't elect people who genuinely know how to solve problems and get things done.

I agree once Hill came forward politics prob. took over and unfortunately that always happens. However, at this point 7-8? investigations have found nothing and the time to drop it has long past by (not move on to looking at emails). I don't think there was ever any evidence Clinton ordered the military to stand down.

Has Hilary testified under oath, about Benghazi yet? I doubt she told the military to stand down. I'd like to know why she authorized the State Dept to say it was all a reaction to a youtube video, when no one in their right mind really thought that. That's a fair question (I think), and she has to explain her actions on that front if she wants to be POTUS.

If it turns out to be nothing more than a political witchhunt, the Republicans should have to answer for that. We have too many huge problems to fix, to spend resources on a political attack.

Of course this is a political witch hunt.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Perhaps we need an investigation to uncover why so many people continue to believe non-scandals that have already been investigated. Hell, even the GOP led House investigation cleared the White House and CIA...yet you still believe.

And in the past two weeks:

1) The man in line to take the Speaker's gavel admits the Select Committee is politically motivated

2) A former investigator of the Select Committee admits it's politically motivated

3) Another GOP House member admits the Select Committee is politically motivated

What a waste of taxpayer money. Where's the order to stand down???

Had she previously testified under oath? It's a simple question.

The fact that it's politically motivated, doesn't mean there isn't anything to see there. The hearings against Nixon and Clinton were also politically motivated, that doesn't mean there wasn't genuinely something there.

In one of these threads, you said the Planned Parenthood videos had been discredited. Funny, since PP just announced that they will no longer be engaging in the exact behavior that the videos revealed.

In other words, PP basically said "we didn't do any of those things that are in the videos, and in addition, we won't be doing those things anymore."

Makes sense.

The videos were edited to imply a profit motive that doesn't exist.

The decision to deny reimbursement isn't an admission, it's asserting their position that this is about science and not money.

You can still be against abortion and admit you're 100% wrong here.

So it all comes down to whether or not there was profit, or just enough to cover expenses?

I have no problem with valid scientific research, and the tissue has to come from somewhere. What repulsed me, and many others, was the casual, inhuman attitude of the ghouls that work there, talking flippantly about butchering babies over wine, while discussing sports cars. Maybe that's what all scientists do. It was ugly. And I'm not wrong in stating that.

That is exactly it - expenses. They just said they would not even ask for any $ to cover their expenses now.

Now if only Carly would admit that her accusations where out and out lies.

I'm just surprised Jim could have been complaining so long about this and not taken the time to understand the key accusation.

As for Carly, it's scary to think someone who wants to be POTUS would bone up on the issues by buying into the equivalent of Facebook memes.

One of the big issues is that entire gaps in her emails around Benghazi were missing. Before people were on to her having her own server (that she is not supposed to). Seeing that she may have conducted her own extragovernmental intelligence in Libya, hidden on her email server, outside of proper and official channels, where people died - yeh it is important.

Even if she is completely clean wrt Benghazi (in the realm of possibility) she may have been covering for her server that she should not have had.

I understood that there was little if any evidence that they profited by it, but rather, just covered their expenses. My concern was how ghoulish they acted, and whether or not they altered abortion procedures to maximize the harvest.

Furthermore, I didn't like the way they claimed the tapes were "edited", yet never denied the accuracy of what was on the tapes.

Again, how do you take an organization seriously that says "those tapes were edited. Besides, what was shown on there, we promise not to do again".

It seems that what was on those tapes (as opposed to claims of profiteering) was exactly accurate. Yet you claimed the videos were "discredited". Since PP promises not to do it again, that seems to imply that they were engaged in that practice up until now, which seems to imply that the tapes were perfectly accurate.

Curious as to why 7 previous investigations didn't find any gaps. Perhaps it's because the initial Daily Caller piece that made the accusation more recently ended up walking it back.

Actually the number of stories, let by many in the NYT have been corrected because they contained bad information.

The DOJ has made a statement her use of private email and choosing which emails to file was within the law.

The Blumenthal thing doesn't appear to implicate her. The one incident of him passing along a CIA source could get him in trouble but I don't see how she is tarnished.

blind devotion

Quote:

The top House Republican Benghazi investigator says the emails Hillary Clinton has handed over for review have “huge gaps” that challenge her credibility over what happened in the 2012 attacks in Libya. “There are gaps of months and months and months,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said on Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...#ixzz3opmwSLSg

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/us...uiry.html?_r=0

Quote:

“I don’t think it posed a national security problem,” Mr. Obama said Sunday on CBS’s “60 Minutes.” He said it had been a mistake for Mrs. Clinton to use a private email account when she was secretary of state, but his conclusion was unmistakable: “This is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.” Those statements angered F.B.I. agents who have been working for months to determine whether Mrs. Clinton’s email setup did in fact put any of the nation’s secrets at risk, according to current and former law enforcement officials. ....... “Injecting politics into what is supposed to be a fact-finding inquiry leaves a foul taste in the F.B.I.’s mouth and makes them fear that no matter what they find, the Justice Department will take the president’s signal and not bring a case,” said Mr. Hosko, who maintains close contact with current agents.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...y%20Blumenthal

Quote:

What? A former journalist, Blumenthal was a top aide in the second term of the Bill Clinton administration and helped on messaging during the bad old days. He served as an adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, and when she took over the State Department, she sought to hire Blumenthal. Obama aides, apparently still smarting over his role in attacks on candidate Obama, refused the request, so Clinton just sought out his counsel informally. At the same time, Blumenthal was drawing a check from the Clinton Foundation. (Jr - emphasis mine) How serious is it? Some of the damage is already done. Blumenthal was apparently the source of the idea that the Benghazi attacks were spontaneous, a notion that proved incorrect and provided a political bludgeon against Clinton and Obama. He also advised the secretary on a wide range of other issues, from Northern Ireland to China, and passed along analysis from his son Max, a staunch critic of the Israeli government (and conservative bête noire). But emails released so far show even Clinton’s top foreign-policy guru, Jake Sullivan, rejecting Blumenthal’s analysis, raising questions about her judgment in trusting him.

This is from March. How many more have been released? How many stories of missing emails have been pulled back? Reading online quite a few.

And given the revelations of the last week as to the true nature of the investigation I'm not sure I'd believe anything Trey Gowdy says. How much of the poor reporting do you think came from misleading leaks from his investigation?

This is a completely different topic. I said the DOJ remarked it was legal. Your post is that Obama's remarks rankeled the FBI if there was a possible security breech.

I'm shocked, shocked that Clinton would have any communication with a longtime friend and confidant.

About the only thing here that could have legs is the naming of a covert CIA agent, but the source of that leak at the CIA is now deceased. Otherwise all you've got is a lot of shoulda coulda woulda.

And that, Spence, is why the FBI does its investigation - hopefully without external pressures.

Such as Obama saying the accusation is politically motivated, rather than valid. I'm sure the FBI loved that. The guy can't ever shut his yap - always wrong, yet never in doubt.