JD, did you miss this part of the link? Vox didn't see it the way you do.That is soooo exact, got a link?
During an appearance on Sean Hannity's Fox News show, McCarthy bragged that the House GOP's investigation into the Benghazi attack had made Hillary Clinton's poll numbers plummet. Furthermore, he presented it as part of a "strategy to fight and win," rather than a nonpartisan effort to find the truth.Originally Posted by flghtr65
- JD Barleycorn
- 10-02-2015, 12:07 PM
- JD Barleycorn
- 10-02-2015, 12:10 PM
I would like to quote the writings posted earlier but that has already been done. I do have one serious question. You write that there was no real time feed in the White House from Benghazi. That Obama, Biden, Panetta or anyone else important was watching......why not. I mean our embassy was under attack by terrorists (according to the head of the CIA, they knew they were terrorists the moment it happened) so why wasn't someone out of bed, down in the situation room watching that shit unfold in real time? I think what you've written (if true) is more damning than a fucked up response. They just didn't care in the West Wing.
- WombRaider
- 10-02-2015, 12:33 PM
I would like to quote the writings posted earlier but that has already been done. I do have one serious question. You write that there was no real time feed in the White House from Benghazi. That Obama, Biden, Panetta or anyone else important was watching......why not. I mean our embassy was under attack by terrorists (according to the head of the CIA, they knew they were terrorists the moment it happened) so why wasn't someone out of bed, down in the situation room watching that shit unfold in real time? I think what you've written (if true) is more damning than a fucked up response. They just didn't care in the West Wing. Originally Posted by JD BarleycornYou've watched too many movies. There's not always a satellite in position or a drone in the area. This was not technically even an embassy.
- flghtr65
- 10-02-2015, 04:17 PM
That is soooo exact, got a link? Originally Posted by JD BarleycornThe link was in post #1. You sleeping JD?
http://www.vox.com/2015/9/30/9423339...1&noRedirect=1
- gnadfly
- 10-02-2015, 05:49 PM
Vox is a joke. It's like the prog's Fox on MSNBC. Ezra and his klan is a laughingstock even to the anointed Dims.
- lustylad
- 10-10-2015, 06:50 PM
The Real Benghazi Investigation
The Clinton-McCarthy spat is a shame. Trey Gowdy has led a model search for the truth.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Oct. 8, 2015 7:06 p.m. ET
Kevin McCarthy unexpectedly withdrew from the House speaker’s race on Thursday, a casualty of a fractured Republican conference. The Californian didn’t do much to inspire confidence last week when he suggested that the House Benghazi committee had been designed to attack Hillary Clinton.
One pity of the McCarthy comments is that they tainted the committee’s work with politics. The bigger pity is that they are dead wrong. South Carolina Republican Trey Gowdy is 18 months into the committee that the House purpose-built to investigate the 2012 terrorist assault in Libya that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. His Benghazi investigation has been a model of seriousness, professionalism and discreetness.
The statistics alone bear this out. The committee has so far reviewed 50,000 new pages of documents. Less than 5% have anything to do with Mrs. Clinton’s work as secretary of state. It has interviewed 51 witnesses. Forty-one of those were brand-new—no committee had bothered to speak with them before, though seven were eyewitnesses to the attack.
Not that you will have seen any of this testimony. Congress generally loves public hearings—members relish parading in front of cameras, grilling and humiliating witnesses. But Mr. Gowdy, a former prosecutor, is more interested in getting information. All 51 of the committee’s interviews have been done in private, attended by committee members or staff from both parties. In a public hearing, the majority Republicans get more time than Democrats to speak. In private interviews, time is divided equally. Mr. Gowdy is fine with that.
If Republican Rep. Darrell Issa were running this committee, is there any doubt that he would have put Clinton fixer Sidney Blumenthal in the public hot seat? Mr. Gowdy’s committee interviewed him privately. When Mr. Blumenthal’s lawyer said he would be out of the country on the proposed interview date, Mr. Gowdy rescheduled; he wanted the Democratic operative to have competent counsel. Former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills’s private interview concluded with the remarkable sight of her, Mr. Gowdy and ranking Democrat Elijah Cummings together at a post-interview press availability, where she thanked the committee for its “professionalism” and “respect.”
The House Select Committee on Benghazi has held three public hearings. Mr. Gowdy allowed Democratic members to choose the first two topics. They predictably focused on the work of the State Department’s Benghazi Accountability Review Board, which they like to claim has already settled what happened in Libya. Mr. Gowdy nonetheless committed to thorough hearings. When Washington Democrat Adam Smith looked likely to miss a hearing because of hip surgery, Mr. Gowdy set up a Skype connection so that he could ask his questions. Mr. Gowdy made the same offer to Illinois’s Tammy Duckworth, who’d just had a child. When she politely declined, he allotted her question time to Mr. Cummings—a fair-play move rarely seen in D.C.
Washington lawmakers love their powers, and Mr. Gowdy has plenty. He has exercised them prudently. The Benghazi committee has issued only threes subpoenas. One to Mr. Blumenthal, whom the committee had trouble tracking down. One to the State Department for a specific batch of emails. And one to Mrs. Clinton, when the news first broke that she had maintained a private server for her email. When Mrs. Clinton later claimed that she was not under subpoena, Mr. Gowdy didn’t complain, he simply released the subpoena to set the record straight. He has declined to answer questions about whether he thinks she has committed any crimes.
Mr. Gowdy hasn’t needed to use subpoenas because agencies are willingly giving him documents. He has obtained materials from the CIA and Defense Department that those agencies refused to give to other committees. The White House has also agreed to give him material. Mr. Gowdy inspires confidence that, unlike most congressional committees, his group isn’t going to leak information to sabotage political targets.
That’s because Mr. Gowdy handpicked a staff of 16 professionals, many recruited from law-enforcement and legal backgrounds, headed up by retired Lt. Gen. Dana Chipman, who was an Obama-appointed Army judge advocate general. Mr. Gowdy told every hire on day one that leaking was a firing offense.
Keeping the Benghazi committee on the straight and narrow hasn’t been fun. Democrats work with Mr. Gowdy in private but then berate his committee in public. Conservative activists and talk-radio hosts blast him for depriving them of the drama they crave—for not running a get-Hillary committee. The State Department blocks him. And now his own side has made his job that much harder.
Don’t expect Mr. Gowdy to give up. He has run his committee with one goal in mind: finding answers for the families of four dead Americans. Mrs. Clinton flatters herself if she thinks it’s all about her.
.
The Clinton-McCarthy spat is a shame. Trey Gowdy has led a model search for the truth.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Oct. 8, 2015 7:06 p.m. ET
Kevin McCarthy unexpectedly withdrew from the House speaker’s race on Thursday, a casualty of a fractured Republican conference. The Californian didn’t do much to inspire confidence last week when he suggested that the House Benghazi committee had been designed to attack Hillary Clinton.
One pity of the McCarthy comments is that they tainted the committee’s work with politics. The bigger pity is that they are dead wrong. South Carolina Republican Trey Gowdy is 18 months into the committee that the House purpose-built to investigate the 2012 terrorist assault in Libya that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. His Benghazi investigation has been a model of seriousness, professionalism and discreetness.
The statistics alone bear this out. The committee has so far reviewed 50,000 new pages of documents. Less than 5% have anything to do with Mrs. Clinton’s work as secretary of state. It has interviewed 51 witnesses. Forty-one of those were brand-new—no committee had bothered to speak with them before, though seven were eyewitnesses to the attack.
Not that you will have seen any of this testimony. Congress generally loves public hearings—members relish parading in front of cameras, grilling and humiliating witnesses. But Mr. Gowdy, a former prosecutor, is more interested in getting information. All 51 of the committee’s interviews have been done in private, attended by committee members or staff from both parties. In a public hearing, the majority Republicans get more time than Democrats to speak. In private interviews, time is divided equally. Mr. Gowdy is fine with that.
If Republican Rep. Darrell Issa were running this committee, is there any doubt that he would have put Clinton fixer Sidney Blumenthal in the public hot seat? Mr. Gowdy’s committee interviewed him privately. When Mr. Blumenthal’s lawyer said he would be out of the country on the proposed interview date, Mr. Gowdy rescheduled; he wanted the Democratic operative to have competent counsel. Former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills’s private interview concluded with the remarkable sight of her, Mr. Gowdy and ranking Democrat Elijah Cummings together at a post-interview press availability, where she thanked the committee for its “professionalism” and “respect.”
The House Select Committee on Benghazi has held three public hearings. Mr. Gowdy allowed Democratic members to choose the first two topics. They predictably focused on the work of the State Department’s Benghazi Accountability Review Board, which they like to claim has already settled what happened in Libya. Mr. Gowdy nonetheless committed to thorough hearings. When Washington Democrat Adam Smith looked likely to miss a hearing because of hip surgery, Mr. Gowdy set up a Skype connection so that he could ask his questions. Mr. Gowdy made the same offer to Illinois’s Tammy Duckworth, who’d just had a child. When she politely declined, he allotted her question time to Mr. Cummings—a fair-play move rarely seen in D.C.
Washington lawmakers love their powers, and Mr. Gowdy has plenty. He has exercised them prudently. The Benghazi committee has issued only threes subpoenas. One to Mr. Blumenthal, whom the committee had trouble tracking down. One to the State Department for a specific batch of emails. And one to Mrs. Clinton, when the news first broke that she had maintained a private server for her email. When Mrs. Clinton later claimed that she was not under subpoena, Mr. Gowdy didn’t complain, he simply released the subpoena to set the record straight. He has declined to answer questions about whether he thinks she has committed any crimes.
Mr. Gowdy hasn’t needed to use subpoenas because agencies are willingly giving him documents. He has obtained materials from the CIA and Defense Department that those agencies refused to give to other committees. The White House has also agreed to give him material. Mr. Gowdy inspires confidence that, unlike most congressional committees, his group isn’t going to leak information to sabotage political targets.
That’s because Mr. Gowdy handpicked a staff of 16 professionals, many recruited from law-enforcement and legal backgrounds, headed up by retired Lt. Gen. Dana Chipman, who was an Obama-appointed Army judge advocate general. Mr. Gowdy told every hire on day one that leaking was a firing offense.
Keeping the Benghazi committee on the straight and narrow hasn’t been fun. Democrats work with Mr. Gowdy in private but then berate his committee in public. Conservative activists and talk-radio hosts blast him for depriving them of the drama they crave—for not running a get-Hillary committee. The State Department blocks him. And now his own side has made his job that much harder.
Don’t expect Mr. Gowdy to give up. He has run his committee with one goal in mind: finding answers for the families of four dead Americans. Mrs. Clinton flatters herself if she thinks it’s all about her.
.
- Jackie S
- 10-10-2015, 07:03 PM
- MrGiz
- 10-10-2015, 07:10 PM
So.... I just wanna know.... Who WAS... or IS McCarthy fucking? 
- i'va biggen
- 10-10-2015, 07:26 PM
- lustylad
- 10-10-2015, 07:29 PM
Lemme get this straight - when the Benghazi attack occurred 2 months before the 2012 Presidential election, Democrats quickly politicized it from the get-go by concocting a phony story about a youtube video to keep the incumbent's campaign talking points ("the tide of war is receding", "al queda is on the run") from looking hollow and false. Following the election, Democrats and the Obama administration tried to stonewall every Congressional inquiry into what really happened and why. Successive investigations dragged on and on - without even discovering that many of the documents sought by Congress were stored illegally by the Secretary of State on a private server!
And now, after 3 years of stonewalling and trying unsuccessfully to run out the clock, Democrats are bitching and moaning because we're approaching another Presidential election - and that makes everything smell "political"?
Of course it's (partly) political - you douchebags made it that way from Day 1! If you wanted to put the whole Benghazi fiasco behind you, you should have fucking co-operated 3 years ago instead of covering up and stonewalling at every turn.
Fucking cockroaches.
.
And now, after 3 years of stonewalling and trying unsuccessfully to run out the clock, Democrats are bitching and moaning because we're approaching another Presidential election - and that makes everything smell "political"?
Of course it's (partly) political - you douchebags made it that way from Day 1! If you wanted to put the whole Benghazi fiasco behind you, you should have fucking co-operated 3 years ago instead of covering up and stonewalling at every turn.
Fucking cockroaches.
.
- i'va biggen
- 10-10-2015, 07:36 PM
Lemme get this straight - when the Benghazi attack occurred 2 months before the 2012 Presidential election, Democrats quickly politicized it from the get-go by concocting a phony story about a youtube video to keep the incumbent's campaign talking points ("the tide of war is receding", "al queda is on the run") from looking hollow and false. Following the election, Democrats and the Obama administration tried to stonewall every Congressional inquiry into what happened. Successive investigations dragged on and on - without even discovering that many of the documents sought by Congress were stored illegally by the Secretary of State on a private server...There have been 13 public hearings on Benghazi to date, if there have been no conclusions forthcoming, it reeks of incompetence. Maybe you should slap Darrel.
And now, after 3 years of stonewalling and trying unsucccessfully to run out the clock, Democrats are bitching and moaning because we're approaching another Presidential election - and that makes everything smell "political"?
Of course it's (partly) political - you douchebags made it that way from Day1! If you wanted to put the whole Benghazi fiasco behind you, you should have fucking co-operated 3 years ago instead of covering up and stonewalling at every turn.
Fucking cockroaches.
. Originally Posted by lustylad
- Rey Lengua
- 10-10-2015, 07:36 PM
Lemme get this straight - when the Benghazi attack occurred 2 months before the 2012 Presidential election, Democrats quickly politicized it from the get-go by concocting a phony story about a youtube video to keep the incumbent's campaign talking points ("the tide of war is receding", "al queda is on the run") from looking hollow and false. Following the election, Democrats and the Obama administration tried to stonewall every Congressional inquiry into what really happened and why. Successive investigations dragged on and on - without even discovering that many of the documents sought by Congress were stored illegally by the Secretary of State on a private server!And strongly applauded and defended for their actions by woomby, Lil Cotex, timpage and Ekim The Inbred Chimp for all of their delays and denials. The libs STILL believe the Clinton's when they say those famous Clinton words " I DID NOT... "
And now, after 3 years of stonewalling and trying unsuccessfully to run out the clock, Democrats are bitching and moaning because we're approaching another Presidential election - and that makes everything smell "political"?
Of course it's (partly) political - you douchebags made it that way from Day1! If you wanted to put the whole Benghazi fiasco behind you, you should have been up front and fucking co-operated 3 years ago instead of covering up and stonewalling at every turn.
Fucking cockroaches.
. Originally Posted by lustylad
- I B Hankering
- 10-10-2015, 07:51 PM
There have been 13 public hearings on Benghazi to date, if there have been no conclusions forthcoming, it reeks of incompetence. Maybe you should slap Darrel. Originally Posted by i'va biggenCite which one of those hearings wherein the investigators had all of the necessary documents from the Secretary of State and which one had Hildabeast testify under oath, Ekim the Inbred Chimp.
- lustylad
- 10-10-2015, 08:14 PM
- Rey Lengua
- 10-10-2015, 08:16 PM