The BENGAZI hearing to nowhere number 10...

newfie

Well-Known Member
John Dingell:Washington Post

More congressional reports have been
written about Benghazi than the combined total of all the congressional reports
on the 9-11 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans, the embassy bombings in
Kenya and Tanzania that killed 224, the Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168,
the U.S.S. Cole bombing that killed 17 sailors, and the Boston Marathon bombing
that killed three and injured 260.....

Who's keeping the count? somebody lied to you
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
Wait, are you telling me that the investigation is RIGGED?I hope they bring up that "Bush kept us *safe*!"
I'm saying what makes these four more precious and sacred than any other service member? If you don't want death, get out of the war business. Sadly, I don't think that's re
 

newfie

Well-Known Member
I'm saying what makes these four more precious and sacred than any other service member? If you don't want death, get out of the war business. Sadly, I don't think that's re

this bull:censored2: investigation started because the Obama administration created a cover up story with the video. If you don't like all the investigations then tell your politicians to tell the truth the first time. Once the impression of cover up was created the fun started.
 

bottomups

Bad Moon Risen'
this bull:censored2: investigation started because the Obama administration created a cover up story with the video. If you don't like all the investigations then tell your politicians to tell the truth the first time. Once the impression of cover up was created the fun started.
Kinda like Watergate, Iran-Contra and Iraqi WMD's. Most politicians are hardwired to speak less than the truth.
 

newfie

Well-Known Member
one of the more interesting aspects of this is what best describes the Clinton way of doing things.
1) Hillary wants to hire Blumenthal to work for the state department.
2) Obama says no, don't hire
3) Hillary hires him through the Clinton foundation.
4) Blumenthal who has interests in Libya and is not a foreign policy expert on Libya is now sending her emails and advising her.
5) Hillary often forwarded his emails after she stripped his identifying information from the email.
6) Blumenthal was thus essentially not only influencing Hillary through this setup but also indirectly having access to others in the administration and thus the opportunity to influence them as well, including the president who was sent some of his emails.
7) Hillary has thus also violated Obama's instructions not to hire Blumenthal. Shocker
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
this bull:censored2: investigation started because the Obama administration created a cover up story with the video. If you don't like all the investigations then tell your politicians to tell the truth the first time. Once the impression of cover up was created the fun started.
Oh, it's fun alright. Fun watching the Republicans crap down their legs.;)
 

olroadbeech

Happy Verified UPSer
at the pearly gates st. peter told clinton " all you have to do is tell a truth." to get into heaven.

she just turned around and walked away.
 

newfie

Well-Known Member
Oh, it's fun alright. Fun watching the Republicans crap down their legs.;)

I agree a lot of people enjoy the theatrics of politics. But back to the OP's point about this being a wasteful investigation.

the evidence presented yesterday clearly showed that the Obama administration was selling the video story while Hillary privately by email stated they knew it was a terrorist attack.
this wasteful exercise yesterday could have been prevented if the Obama administration had told the truth on day one.
 

DriveInDriveOut

Inordinately Right
this bull:censored2: investigation started because the Obama administration created a cover up story with the video. If you don't like all the investigations then tell your politicians to tell the truth the first time. Once the impression of cover up was created the fun started.
not sure that justifies the attempt to cover up the truth?
Not that it matters, but what makes you think the Obama administration is responsible for the cover up story? Perhaps the fact that you're talking about Clinton and not the CIA means the real purpose of the investigation was a success.
 

oldngray

nowhere special
I agree a lot of people enjoy the theatrics of politics. But back to the OP's point about this being a wasteful investigation.

the evidence presented yesterday clearly showed that the Obama administration was selling the video story while Hillary privately by email stated they knew it was a terrorist attack.
this wasteful exercise yesterday could have been prevented if the Obama administration had told the truth on day one.

It was a stalling tactic to hide the truth until after the election. Then it became all attempts to cover up and lie.
 

newfie

Well-Known Member
It was a stalling tactic to hide the truth until after the election. Then it became all attempts to cover up and lie.

Hillary's emails clearly show the cover up by the Obama administration. Hillarys emails were not available during the previous so called investigations. Thus this is for better or worsethe first complete investigation of this cover up.
Unfortunately this may be the most dysfunctional panel they could have selected to do the investigation.
 

bottomups

Bad Moon Risen'
It was a stalling tactic to hide the truth until after the election. Then it became all attempts to cover up and lie.
Kind of like the ebola scare the right used before the last elections. Wondering when I can come come out of my bubble suit.
upload_2015-10-23_8-49-0.jpeg
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
I find it amusing but not surprising that the republicans have yet to dare discuss what Benghazi really was and the rat line used to make it all work. And not that any democrats want to either.

Beyond that, this is just political theater used to distract more than anything else.
 

bottomups

Bad Moon Risen'
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.

On Wednesday morning, CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien asked the Utah Republican if he had "voted to cut the funding for embassy security."

"Absolutely," Chaffetz said. "Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have…15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”

For the past two years, House Republicans have continued todeprioritize the security forcesprotecting State Department personnel around the world. In fiscal year 2011, lawmakers shaved $128 million off of the administration's request for embassy security funding. House Republicans drained off even more funds in fiscal year 2012 -- cutting back on the department's request by $331 million.

Consulate personnel stationed in Benghazi had allegedly expressed concerns over their safety in the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks that killed four Americans, including Amb. Chris Stevens. Chaffetz and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, claim those concerns were ignored.

"It seems to be a coordinated effort between the White House and the State Department, from Secretary [Hillary] Clinton to President Obama's White House," Chaffetz told Fox and Friends on Tuesday.

Chaffetz and Issa co-signed a letter to the State Department, demanding answers on to the Benghazi security detail. State Department officials and other witnesses will testify before the House Oversight Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense, and Foreign Operations on Wednesday.

Ahead of the hearing, some Democrats claim that partisanship and campaigning are corrupting the Libyan investigation, The New York Times reports. The charges come as some GOP members attempt to frame the incident as a failure of the Obama's foreign policy and to call criticize the administration for engaging in a "cover-up" of what really occurred.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
"Absolutely," Chaffetz said. "Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have…15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”

Dare to ponder that thought and let it sink in.

Also "if" Benghazi was a CIA op as a weapons depot to transfer Libyan weapons to Syrian "Freedom Fighters", what was Ambassador's Stevens real purpose being in Benghazi to begin with? If he was a part of the transfer of weapons to jihadists, why would his getting greased not be a point to celebrate?
 

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
one of the more interesting aspects of this is what best describes the Clinton way of doing things.
1) Hillary wants to hire Blumenthal to work for the state department.
2) Obama says no, don't hire
3) Hillary hires him through the Clinton foundation.
4) Blumenthal who has interests in Libya and is not a foreign policy expert on Libya is now sending her emails and advising her.
5) Hillary often forwarded his emails after she stripped his identifying information from the email.
6) Blumenthal was thus essentially not only influencing Hillary through this setup but also indirectly having access to others in the administration and thus the opportunity to influence them as well, including the president who was sent some of his emails.
7) Hillary has thus also violated Obama's instructions not to hire Blumenthal. Shocker


And to quote the next president....:

"what difference does any of this make? "

Nothing from 1 to 7 has anything to do with bengazi or the deaths of the american personell who lost their lives there.

But thanks for proving that NONSENSE is the only thing right wingers want to grasp to.

TOS.
 

BrownArmy

Well-Known Member
Dare to ponder that thought and let it sink in.

Also "if" Benghazi was a CIA op as a weapons depot to transfer Libyan weapons to Syrian "Freedom Fighters", what was Ambassador's Stevens real purpose being in Benghazi to begin with? If he was a part of the transfer of weapons to jihadists, why would his getting greased not be a point to celebrate?

And that's just it, isn't it?

Instead of asking, "Why didn't Ambassador Stevens have your personal e-mail Secretary Clinton?", the real question is:

"Why was Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi?"

That's a question Sec. Clinton would never answer, and so the charade continues.

What a farce, and honestly, is anyone surprised?

Many Ambassadors killed in the last two decades, and no 'investigations' at this level in any way shape or form.

Politicians working around the margins to further their agenda.

Honestly, most of the diatribes by the Republican 'questioners' seemed perfectly aligned with sound-bites that could be played in their respective districts.

Nothing new, no bombshell, not much to see here folks.

I'm not a Hillary fan, but I have to say this worked in her favor.

Lulz.
 
Last edited:

newfie

Well-Known Member
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.

On Wednesday morning, CNN anchor Soledad O asked the Utah Republican if he had "voted to cut the funding for embassy security."

"Absolutely," Chaffetz said. "Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have…15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”

For the past two years, House Republicans have continued todeprioritize the security forcesprotecting State Department personnel around the world. In fiscal year 2011, lawmakers shaved $128 million off of the administration's request for embassy security funding. House Republicans drained off even more funds in fiscal year 2012 -- cutting back on the department's request by $331 million.

Consulate personnel stationed in Benghazi had allegedly expressed concerns over their safety in the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks that killed four Americans, including Amb. Chris Stevens. Chaffetz and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, claim those concerns were ignored.

"It seems to be a coordinated effort between the White House and the State Department, from Secretary [Hillary] Clinton to President Obama's White House," Chaffetz told Fox and Friends on Tuesday.

Chaffetz and Issa co-signed a letter to the State Department, demanding answers on to the Benghazi security detail. State Department officials and other witnesses will testify before the House Oversight Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense, and Foreign Operations on Wednesday.

Ahead of the hearing, some Democrats claim that partisanship and campaigning are corrupting the Libyan investigation, The New York Times reports. The charges come as some GOP members attempt to frame the incident as a failure of the Obama's foreign policy and to call criticize the administration for engaging in a "cover-up" of what really occurred.

democratic smokescreen . We're spending close to two trillion dollars on our budget. they could find the money if they wanted to.
question is what happened to the 600 requests for additional security that were never answered.
 
Top