Rep Trey Gpwdy articulates unanswered questions

[Fishpart]

Obamawan "These aren't the Droids you are looking for"

Insert major media news organization name here "These are not the Droids we are looking for, Move Along...."

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

This is technically new news. It was old before it was new.

All those news which you have in the past dismissed as "old news" were "technically new news". As you've liked to say, it cuts both ways.

I guess one might ask why GOP leaders were still pushing the stand down conspiracy long after they knew it wasn't valid?

-spence

At the time, it "technically" was not a "stand down" order, as we've discussed previously. That is a "technical" military term which encompasses a great deal more than merely ordering, or deciding, not to go. But, in civilian perspective, it might not amount to much of a difference. They shouldn't have used the technical military phrase "Stand down." I don't think they've used the phrase recently, have they? I haven't followed that old story.

Besides, the entire Benghazi issue is about a great deal more than using the phrase "stand down." As we have previously discussed, it is about administrative competence, including that of a person who is seeking the presidency. It is about why the administration was pushing the evil video conspiracy when they knew it wasn't valid as such. It is about the whole notion that the administration's policy negated the true presence and influence of Al Qaeda and its affiliates, and was validating its leading from behind policy and its developing disengagement from the Middle East by the notion that Al Qaeda was on the run and Islamic "extremism" was fueled by our meddling there and would be on the wane if our presence were diminished, even to the point of unconcern with who or what would emerge as a result of the so called "Arab Spring." Optimism about administration policy and perspective was spun for public consumption.

The current picture doesn't support the administration's spin. In those who are not driven by party politics it does not inspire the confidence worthy of maintaining this administration's, and its individual operatives, power.

If the GOP is using this, and a host of other "scandals," in order to replace the Democrat regime with its own, surely you can understand that. In response to Democrat shenanigans in some previous post you merely shrugged them off as "politics." Both parties play "politics." Right? What's good for the goose is good for the gander?

Besides, you often maintain that Bush, or Romney, or any Republican would do the same as Obama. So what's the difference? Why do you even care? You just prefer Frick instead of Frack? Or are you partial to Democrat politicking and spin because it is slicker, "smarter"? Maybe that's your gauge--those who have the "smartest" most influential spin are demonstrating superior ability and therefor most likely will rule the best?

Your article is your dreaded "old news" or "new old news" or shockingly new old stuff that is supposed to divert us from the heart of the matter to focus on peripheral fluff. That is the "competent" technique this administration and its press supporters use in a constant damage control mode. It is a very old, and very rancid technique which, when overplayed, begins to expose itself and wear out its effectiveness. Or not.

Anyway, the Benghazi thing is just another symptom of our broken political process. What has broken it goes to the core of who and what we are as a nation. It goes to the principles of our founding and the rejection of those principles in favor of an indeterminate process of governance. It is no wonder that we gravitate to the slickest, "smartest" spinners of what is good and right.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by detbuch

At the time, it "technically" was not a "stand down" order, as we've discussed previously. That is a "technical" military term which encompasses a great deal more than merely ordering, or deciding, not to go. But, in civilian perspective, it might not amount to much of a difference. They shouldn't have used the technical military phrase "Stand down." I don't think they've used the phrase recently, have they? I haven't followed that old story.

Besides, the entire Benghazi issue is about a great deal more than using the phrase "stand down." As we have previously discussed, it is about administrative competence, including that of a person who is seeking the presidency. It is about why the administration was pushing the evil video conspiracy when they knew it wasn't valid as such. It is about the whole notion that the administration's policy negated the true presence and influence of Al Qaeda and its affiliates, and was validating its leading from behind policy and its developing disengagement from the Middle East by the notion that Al Qaeda was on the run and Islamic "extremism" was fueled by our meddling there and would be on the wane if our presence were diminished, even to the point of unconcern with who or what would emerge as a result of the so called "Arab Spring." Optimism about administration policy and perspective was spun for public consumption.

The current picture doesn't support the administration's spin. In those who are not driven by party politics it does not inspire the confidence worthy of maintaining this administration's, and its individual operatives, power.

If the GOP is using this, and a host of other "scandals," in order to replace the Democrat regime with its own, surely you can understand that. In response to Democrat shenanigans in some previous post you merely shrugged them off as "politics." Both parties play "politics." Right? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Besides, you often maintain that Bush, or Romney, or any Republican would do the same as Obama. So what's the difference? Why do you even care? You just prefer Frick instead of Frack? Or are you partial to Democrat politicking and spin because it is slicker, "smarter." Maybe that's your gauge--those who have the "smartest" most influential spin are demonstrating superior ability and therefor most likely will rule the best?

Your article is your dreaded "old news" or "new old news" or shockingly new old stuff that is supposed to divert us from the heart of the matter to focus on peripheral fluff. That is the "competent" technique this administration and its press supporters use in a constant damage control mode. It is a very old, and very rancid technique which,when overplayed, begins to expose itself and wear out its effectiveness. Or not.

Couldn't be summed up better than that.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The current picture doesn't support the administration's spin. In those who are not driven by party politics it does not inspire the confidence worthy of maintaining this administration's, and its individual operatives, power.

Actually it does support the administrations narrative, that's why the conspiracies haven't held. The legitimate critisim has long since been aired and addressed.

Besides, you often maintain that Bush, or Romney, or any Republican would do the same as Obama. So what's the difference? Why do you even care? You just prefer Frick instead of Frack? Or are you partial to Democrat politicking and spin because it is slicker, "smarter"? Maybe that's your gauge--those who have the "smartest" most influential spin are demonstrating superior ability and therefor most likely will rule the best?

If the best spin lead to the best rulers the GOP would reign supreme.

Your article is your dreaded "old news" or "new old news" or shockingly new old stuff that is supposed to divert us from the heart of the matter to focus on peripheral fluff. That is the "competent" technique this administration and its press supporters use in a constant damage control mode. It is a very old, and very rancid technique which, when overplayed, begins to expose itself and wear out its effectiveness. Or not.

By your own measure this is about the character of potential leadership. That some are disingenuously manipulating the perception of that leadership isn't just politics, it's dishonest. That they're wasting taxpayer money do it is even worse.

Anyway, the Benghazi thing is just another symptom of our broken political process. What has broken it goes to the core of who and what we are as a nation. It goes to the principles of our founding and the rejection of those principles in favor of an indeterminate process of governance. It is no wonder that we gravitate to the slickest, "smartest" spinners of what is good and right.

You still riding that tired train?

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence:

Actually it does support the administrations narrative,

No, the current picture in the Middle East does not support the Administration's "narrative." It is a narrative without basis.

spence:
that's why the conspiracies haven't held.

That's correct. The administration's conspiracies haven't held.

spence:
The legitimate critisim has long since been aired and addressed.

Important "legitimate" criticism has been deceitfully addressed, or evaded, by the administration. Of course, if Spence doesn't consider it "legitimate," it must not be. Not.

spence:
If the best spin lead to the best rulers the GOP would reign supreme.

Democrat (progressive) spin has absolutely been the most influential. It has "transformed America," and continues to fundamentally do so. I don't know if that makes it the best. I don't care for either.

You obviously are a sucker for one "side" and are so stuck in the "center" and its fleeting moment that you are oblivious of history.

spence:
By your own measure this is about the character of potential leadership. That some are disingenuously manipulating the perception of that leadership isn't just politics, it's dishonest. That they're wasting taxpayer money do it is even worse.

Could you be, at least once in this post, specific? Anyway, the disingenuous, dishonest, manipulation of the perception of Hillary's leadership potential or political accomplishments as being great stuff is a wasteful bunch of crap. Well . . . not so wasteful for her or the Dems if she gets elected. But that's the nature of influential spin . . . turning turds to gold.

As for wasting taxpayer's money, you must either be joking or are somehow blinded to how trivial a "waste" of spending that money on a search for answers is compared to what has actually been and is continuing to be and will further be the waste of our nation's wealth to the tune of unsustainable national debt. Until you address that and comment on how it can be reversed (other than the pitiful notion of politicians acting "responsibly") your perception of what is wasteful is not only disingenuous, dishonest, but just more caca.

spence:
You still riding that tired train?

-spence[/QUOTE]

You were tired of it the moment it left the station. But, amazingly, you're not tired of this undisciplined, unprincipled, dishonest, disingenuous, corrupt, ad hoc, imposture of democratic government which determines for us, and against us, what is allowed, and spends our money in any way and amount it deems necessary to bend our will and mold our minds to accept its edicts as more beneficial and wise than our own desires.

And, amazingly, you cannot see that what you consider new, up to date, this so-called "progressive" rule, is as old as the tyrannical top down rule of men over men. IT is the tired old train, not that of our founding government. The train I "still ride" is still the newest concept of government . . . bottom up, consent of the governed.

It was getting off that founding train that has led us to your preferred top down soft despotism (which is progressively getting less soft and becoming harder and harsher). And has led us into the massive waste of profligate government spending. Your notion that it only requires "responsible" leaders (benevolent dictators?) to make us whole, efficient, and "moving in the right direction" (whatever that is), ignores human nature. It is that very nature which is the basis for our founding government.

That is why that original train works and why our current "tired train" of fake democracy doesn't.

[buckman]

I hate to bring this old thing up again . I mean "what does it matter " it's been done to death ........ Well except for the Sec of States secret email accounts ... Illegal email accoubts .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

I hate to bring this old thing up again . I mean "what does it matter " it's been done to death ........ Well except for the Sec of States secret email accounts ... Illegal email accoubts .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Was it illegal?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Was it illegal?

Absolutely
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Absolutely
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I believe the law just says the emails have to be retained and made available. What law are you reading?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

I believe the law just says the emails have to be retained and made available. What law are you reading?

How about this from 2012 in the State Departments own words as a reason for firing Ambassador Gration.

Gration violated State Department policy by using a private, unsanctioned e-mail service for official business. In its executive summary listing its key judgments against the U.S. ambassador to Kenya who served under Hillary Clinton, the inspector general stated that Gration’s decision to willfully violate departmental information security policies highlighted Gration’s “reluctance to accept clear-cut U.S. Government decisions.” The report claimed that this reluctance to obey governmental security policies was the former ambassador’s “greatest weakness.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

I haven't read that it was illegal but certainty inappropriate in my mind.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I haven't read that it was illegal but certainty inappropriate in my mind.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He wasn't fired, he resigned. It appears that use of private email was a concern but his leadership issues were the big problem.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

He wasn't fired, he resigned. It appears that use of private email was a concern but his leadership issues were the big problem.

It was a forced resignation
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

It was a forced resignation
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yea but there is a difference.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by spence

He wasn't fired, he resigned. It appears that use of private email was a concern but his leadership issues were the big problem.

I wasn't commenting on the whole thread but the fact that Hillary used the private email account. I heard that it wasn't illegal and that Pres. Obama actually stated that it shouldn't be done (not Hillary specifically but all Sr Gov. ees). I think it is innappropriate for gov. business to be conducted on private accts. Plus the issue of security.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I wasn't commenting on the whole thread but the fact that Hillary used the private email account. I heard that it wasn't illegal and that Pres. Obama actually stated that it shouldn't be done (not Hillary specifically but all Sr Gov. ees). I think it is innappropriate for gov. business to be conducted on private accts. Plus the issue of security.

That is a very fair assessment. One more item on a very long list of very questionable decision-making on her part. But I'd vote for her over Senator Warren (Princess Spreading Bull, who me thinks like-um the tee-pee of Great White Chief) any day of the week...

Now, given all the sniper fire she routinely came under as SecState, she was probably too afraid to leave her house to go to work. I still can't fathom how anyone recovers from that lie.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

That is a very fair assessment. One more item on a very long list of very questionable decision-making on her part. But I'd vote for her over Senator Warren (Princess Spreading Bull, who me thinks like-um the tee-pee of Great White Chief) any day of the week...

Now, given all the sniper fire she routinely came under as SecState, she was probably too afraid to leave her house to go to work. I still can't fathom how anyone recovers from that lie.

Because just like that lie Jim , this story also won't get any serious play by the media . Its just not as important as say .... Someone saying Obama doesn't love his country . You would think it would be seeing how hypocritical this was, as well as dangerous to this country's national security. I'm sure her emails have been scrubbed by now . Trey dropped the ball on this as he knew about this in August .
Complete BS and another reason why I don't think this President does love this country !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I haven't read that it was illegal but certainty inappropriate in my mind.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why would she do it ?pops into my mind
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[CTSurfrat]

Do as I say, not as I do...

Sent to Diplomatic and Consular Staff in June 2011, the unclassified cable, with Clinton’s electronic signature, makes clear to “avoid conducting official Department from your personal e-mail accounts” and employees should not “auto-forward Department email to personal email accounts which is prohibited by Department policy.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...yees-while-she

This was done for the sole reason to avoid scrutiny and protect her for a future presidential run.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[sburnsey931]

The existence of Mrs. Clinton’s personal email account was discovered by a House committee investigating the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi as it sought correspondence between Mrs. Clinton and her aides about the attack.

Two weeks ago, the State Department, after reviewing Mrs. Clinton’s emails, provided the committee with about 300 emails — amounting to roughly 900 pages — about the Benghazi attacks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us...lags.html?_r=0


How could they possibly have conducted a thorough investigation without The Sec of States correspondence.

When she testified before congress didn't she mention that all of her emails were locked up in her house and give me a year to clean them up and i'll forward them to you.
When the 1st committee received all the data for their investigation no one noticed there wasn't The Sec of States emails...... I say "bull#%&#.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by sburnsey931

The existence of Mrs. Clinton’s personal email account was discovered by a House committee investigating the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi as it sought correspondence between Mrs. Clinton and her aides about the attack.

Two weeks ago, the State Department, after reviewing Mrs. Clinton’s emails, provided the committee with about 300 emails — amounting to roughly 900 pages — about the Benghazi attacks.

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-private-email-at-state-department-raises-flags.html?_r=0[/url

How could they possibly have conducted a thorough investigation without The Sec of States correspondence.

When she testified before congress didn't she mention that all of her emails were locked up in her house and give me a year to clean them up and i'll forward them to you.
When the 1st committee received all the data for their investigation no one noticed there wasn't The Sec of States emails...... I say "bull#%&#.

Spence only invokes the smell test if it applies to Cheney.

[Nebe]

Clinton story is being burried?!? How about obamas big trade deal with Asia?? Absolutely no coverage. Why?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Clinton story is being burried?!? How about obamas big trade deal with Asia?? Absolutely no coverage. Why?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I can't find anything either . Maybe "big" is a stretch
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

The fishing expedition that is going to ensure will be hilarious.

BREAKING NEWS

NEW INFORMATION OBTAINED BY FOX NEWS THROUGH A VERIFIED SOURCE FAMILIAR WITH THE CLINTON EMAILS REPORTS THAT ON MAY 29TH 2010 ACTING SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON ENDED A SENTENCE WITH A PREPOSITION IN VIOLATION OF CLASSICAL GRAMMAR RULES AND AN AFFRONT TO THE TRIVIUM.

[buckman]

And red flags here Spence ?
"Because the emails were housed on her private account, the process was overseen by Clinton and her aides, not archivists like it would have been if the email was housed on government servers."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by buckman

And red flags here Spence ?
"Because the emails were housed on her private account, the process was overseen by Clinton and her aides, not archivists like it would have been if the email was housed on government servers."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A perfect way to "edit" your legacy. God I hope she isn't out next president.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

I'm thinking the Trey Gowdy renewed vigor into Clinton could backfire big time.

He's going to stir the pot and dig deeper, likely find nothing, and exonerate her in the process...just wait and see.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm thinking the Trey Gowdy renewed vigor into Clinton could backfire big time.

He's going to stir the pot and dig deeper, likely find nothing, and exonerate her in the process...just wait and see.

It will be a tall task to exonerate her stupidity in this instance. This was reckless at best for a person of her position.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

It will be a tall task to exonerate her stupidity in this instance. This was reckless at best for a person of her position.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Whiplash effect. Because of who she is, the more outrageous the offense once it turns out there's no there there the more likely it goes away.

[buckman]

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not if she testifies truthfully.