Bengaaaazzziiiiiiiii. !!!!!!!!

[scottw]

Originally Posted by joebaggs99

Wasted time and resources... Those millions of tax dollars on his last vacation should have been used for food for the poor in MHO.

fixed it...

"It’s hard to imagine how Democrats complaining about the cost of the House Special Committee on Benghazi manage to keep a
straight face. After all, the total cost to date is under 5 million dollars, not even close to the actual cost of a weekend Obama family
getaway. Even more to the point, Elizabeth Harrington of the Free Beacon took a look at what the federal government pays for
other kinds of information:
The amount of taxpayer funding that has gone toward the investigation into the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, is
less than the amount the federal government has invested in “Origami condoms” and studies on why lesbians are
obese. (snip)
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) gave $2,466,482 to Daniel Resnic to develop three versions of the Origami
condom, including the “first of its kind” anal condom. Resnic was later accused of wasting the money on full#^&body
plastic surgery, trips to Costa Rica, parties at the Playboy mansion, and patents for inventions such as “rounded
corners.”
The NIH has also given $3,531,925 to researchers to determine why lesbians are obese and gay men are not. Results
have included: gay men have a “greater desire for toned muscles” than straight men, lesbians have low “athletic selfesteem,”
and young men think about their muscles.
The Democratic members on the Benghazi committee also like to point out that the Benghazi investigation has lasted
532 Days, “longer than the investigations of Pearl Harbor, the Kennedy assassination, Iran#^&Contra, and Hurricane
Katrina.”
The federally funded investigation into lesbian obesity has lasted for 1,460 days, or four years since it began in
September 2011.
These two projects cost taxpayers $5,998,407."

[joebaggs99]

Originally Posted by scottw

fixed it...

"It’s hard to imagine how Democrats complaining about the cost of the House Special Committee on Benghazi manage to keep a
straight face. After all, the total cost to date is under 5 million dollars, not even close to the actual cost of a weekend Obama family
getaway. Even more to the point, Elizabeth Harrington of the Free Beacon took a look at what the federal government pays for
other kinds of information:
The amount of taxpayer funding that has gone toward the investigation into the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, is
less than the amount the federal government has invested in “Origami condoms” and studies on why lesbians are
obese. (snip)
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) gave $2,466,482 to Daniel Resnic to develop three versions of the Origami
condom, including the “first of its kind” anal condom. Resnic was later accused of wasting the money on full#^&body
plastic surgery, trips to Costa Rica, parties at the Playboy mansion, and patents for inventions such as “rounded
corners.”
The NIH has also given $3,531,925 to researchers to determine why lesbians are obese and gay men are not. Results
have included: gay men have a “greater desire for toned muscles” than straight men, lesbians have low “athletic selfesteem,”
and young men think about their muscles.
The Democratic members on the Benghazi committee also like to point out that the Benghazi investigation has lasted
532 Days, “longer than the investigations of Pearl Harbor, the Kennedy assassination, Iran#^&Contra, and Hurricane
Katrina.”
The federally funded investigation into lesbian obesity has lasted for 1,460 days, or four years since it began in
September 2011.
These two projects cost taxpayers $5,998,407."

I said it is a waste of funds and resources. Never mentioned Democrats or Republicans. Let's read and stay on track. with all do respect.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by joebaggs99

I said it is a waste of funds and resources. Never mentioned Democrats or Republicans. Let's read and stay on track. with all do respect.

on the big scale of needless federal waste of funds and public resources which could have fed hungry children, this is pretty low in terms of cost and outrage, much of which could have been avoided if the folks under scrutiny had been more cooperative and honest .... but that's not in their nature

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

much of which could have been avoided if the folks under scrutiny had been more cooperative and honest .... but that's not in their nature

Bingo. Why did it take Hilary 3 years to turn over the last batch or emails?

[scottw]

pretty much sums it up....

Hillary Clinton showed us a glimpse of her soul at Benghazi
hearings. It was chilling

By K.T. McFarland

Published October 23, 2015

I did not watch the Benghazi hearings, unlike many others, in hopes of catching Secretary Clinton out, with my ears perked up for
some admission that could sink her presidential ambitions.
Secretary Clinton did not disappoint in her performance on Thursday.
She admitted to no wrongdoing, nor to breaking any laws.
Mistakes were made by others, the fault lies elsewhere.
Secretary Clinton was far more adept at bobbing and weaving than the members of Congress who questioned her were at
pinning her down.
She put up with hours and hours of questions, and no one laid a glove on her.
She brushed off blame by saying security decisions were handled at lower levels of the State Department professional staff, not
by the secretary.
She didn't receive Ambassador Stevens' requests for more security #^&#^& implying that if only she had things might have turned out
differently.
It was a masterful performance. She showed enormous discipline and nearly super#^&human stamina.
She let nothing slip. But in the end she let everything slip. She got a perfect score, but failed the test.
She didn't mean to, but she showed us a glimpse into her soul.
It was chilling.
We now know that when Secretary Clinton met the plane carrying the bodies of the four Americans who died at Benghazi she lied
about what happened.
Hillary Clinton showed us a glimpse of her soul at Benghazi hearings. It was chilling.
She stood over the flag#^&draped coffins of four dead Americans and blamed their deaths on an Internet video, which caused a
demonstration outside the consulate to turn into a deadly attack.
She looked into the eyes of the families of the fallen heroes and swore she would bring the videomaker to justice. But she was
lying .
She knew they died from a planned terrorist attack from an Al Qaeda#^&like group. That's what she told her family and foreign
leaders according to newly released emails.
Why? Because the Obama administration had an election to win eight weeks later, and a terrorist attack that killed four
Americans didn't fit into that plan.
President Obama asked voters to reelect him because he had killed Usama bin Laden. Al Qaeda was on the ropes. Qaddafi was
dead and the Libyan war a success. The wave of war was a receding. President George W. Bush's War on Terror was over
because Obama and Clinton had won it.
A terrorist attack that killed Americans at Benghazi did not fit into that campaign narrative, so it had to be retold and spun into a
different story. It wasn't radical Islamist terrorists, but a spontaneous demonstration that got out of control in reaction to an
obscure Internet video.
In the end, the Benghazi hearings probably didn't change many minds.
Secretary Clinton's supporters will say it was a waste of time, a politically motivated witchhunt.
Secretary Clinton's detractors will say she never answered the questions.
But for me it wasn't the questions or the answers that mattered.
It wasn't about negligence or criminality or incompetence.
Instead it was #^&#^& and still is #^&#^& about character. And Secretary Clinton has been found wanting.

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

pretty much sums it up....

Sounds like another crybaby who's astonished their scandalous narrative isn't supported by any facts.

Here's an even more accurate version.

http://www.theonion.com/article/beng...on-limit-51708

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Sounds like another crybaby who's astonished their scandalous narrative isn't supported by any facts.

Here's an even more accurate version.

http://www.theonion.com/article/beng...on-limit-51708

Spence, without quoting MSNBC or anyone like that, just your thoughts...

(1) do you agree that in the immediate aftermath of the attack, the administration was sticking to the "video" theory? Was there any hint, in the first 48 hours, that they weren't confident it was the video? For God's sake, one of the victim's father, said that Hilary told him that they were going to arrest the guy who made the video.

(2) do you believe, based on Hilary's private communications that have come to light, that she must have though there was a chance it was a planned terrorist attack?

If you agree with (1) and (2), how can you not hold her accountabke for blaming an innocent US citizen, for 4 murders? How would you like it is teh SecState went on national TV and called you out for something you didn't do?

It's not like her word is all that credible at this point. She's a pathological liar (I was shot at in Kosovo, Bill didn't cheat on me but was framed by the GOP, there were no work emails among what I deleted from my server). So why do you continue to accept everything she says, as God's word?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Sounds like another crybaby who's astonished their scandalous narrative isn't supported by any facts.

Here's an even more accurate version.

http://www.theonion.com/article/beng...on-limit-51708

nope...just stunned at the incredible dishonesty of this woman and that she still garners any support despite all of the years of evidence...very disturbing.....facts are irrelevant to her, the "facts" are what she says they are..shifting sands of political convenience, she is everything that you feign to abhor but "seem" to approve because you share some political views I guess, or perhaps have "enemies" in common...but hey...it works for her, and maybe you....and fools continue to support and defend her