US House approves new Benghazi inquiry

[snarky66]

This resembles Iran Contra in a lot of ways.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Pinot]

Here is what we got so far:

• 9 different House and Senate committees have already investigated the attacks

• 13 hearings have been conducted

• 50 briefings have taken place

• 25 transcribed interviews have been conducted

• 8 subpoenas have been issued

• more than 25,000 pages of documents have been reviewed

• 6 congressional reports have been released

But, dissatisfied with the results of these exhaustive reviews, the GOP has now decided to create an openly partisan panel with only one goal: to further politicize this tragedy.

Republicans have got nothing, NOTHING.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-barbara-boxer/the-gops-benghazi-witch-h_b_5315857.html

Edited May 14, 2014 by cdnvic
Please remember to credit your source,.

[Chicog]

Here is what we got so far:

• 9 different House and Senate committees have already investigated the attacks

• 13 hearings have been conducted

• 50 briefings have taken place

• 25 transcribed interviews have been conducted

• 8 subpoenas have been issued

• more than 25,000 pages of documents have been reviewed

• 6 congressional reports have been released

But, dissatisfied with the results of these exhaustive reviews, the GOP has now decided to create an openly partisan panel with only one goal: to further politicize this tragedy.

Republicans have got nothing, NOTHING.

Well Trey Gowdy claims to have something. Then again he also called it a "trial", not an investigation.

Mind you, he's not very bright. He was asked what was his single biggest question for Mrs. Clinton.

GOWDY: Why were we still in Benghazi? The British ambassador was almost assassinated. Our facility was attacked twice. There were multiple episodes of violence. We were the last flag flying in Benghazi and I would like to know why.

You would think he could have saved the taxpayer a lot of money just by going through the transcripts of previous testimony.

The last time that Clinton testified before Congress on Benghazi, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce asked her why (they) were in Benghazi despite the security threats. Her answer: We were in Benghazi as part of an effort to stabilize the Libyan government, and that while she was aware of the security issues and risks, the U.S. operates in many dangerous places around the world and security professionals did not recommend pulling out of Benghazi.

[Ulysses G.]

Republicans have got nothing, NOTHING.

If the dogmatic Huffington Post says so, it MUST be true.

Edited May 14, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[snarky66]

So that tells you mrs clinton is unfit to hold any higher office.

[chuckd]

Republicans have got nothing, NOTHING.

If the dogmatic Huffington Post says so, it MUST be true.

It might also be pointed out the quoted and previously unattributed article from Huffington Post was written by one...Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA).

Not a "smidgen" of bias in the cited article.

For the non Americans, the (D-CA) stands for Democrat.from California.

[Chicog]

I don't think he's the only person on this forum that quotes from biased sources now is he, Chuck?

[Chicog]

So that tells you mrs clinton is unfit to hold any higher office.

We'll see if the American public share your opinion.

That's IF she runs of course.

Personally I think the GOP run the risk of doing the same as Keegan Deane defending the "animal lover" in the season finale of Rake!

If they keep droning on about the same old stuff from now until 2016, people are going to just stop caring.

You can only say "Breaking News" and rehash an old story a few times before you lose credibility.

Edited May 14, 2014 by Chicog

[chuckd]

I don't think he's the only person on this forum that quotes from biased sources now is he, Chuck?

Probably not.

As for me, when I quote an article that is an opinion piece or editorial, I always state words to the following effect:

"WARNING: Following is an EDITORIAL and could cause permanent damage to liberal brains."

And I seldom link to Fox News since I do not wish to cause any heart issues for our good members.

[Chicog]

And I seldom link to Fox News since I do not wish to cause any heart issues for our good members.

Oh I don't know about that, sometimes they offer great comedy value.

[snarky66]

Of course as emails dribble out we need further investigations. white house has no intention of complying with subpoenas. Oversight is a nuisance to the imperial president.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Ulysses G.]

The new revelations of emails proving the lie in the White House’s claim that the IRS targeting was not political or directed at conservatives is going to bolster the claims of the Benghazi COVER UP as well.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/krauthammer-new-emails-proves-lie-in-white-house-claim-irs-didnt-target-gopers/

Edited May 15, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[chuckd]

The new revelations of emails proving the lie in the White House’s claim that the IRS targeting was not political or directed at conservatives is going to bolster the claims of the Benghazi COVER UP as well.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/krauthammer-new-emails-proves-lie-in-white-house-claim-irs-didnt-target-gopers/

Here is the initial news release from Judicial Watch on that matter. The e-mails are good reading.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-documents-show-irs-hq-control-tea-party-targeting/

[Ulysses G.]

The latest Fox poll reveals that Democrats are just as eager for a definitive investigation into Benghazi as are Republicans in Congress.

A majority (55 percent) of self-identified Democrats agree with the 67 percent of respondents who approve of the creation of a select committee to investigate the attacks. 66 percent of independent voters share interest in a thorough Benghazi investigation. While Democratic voters disagree with the majorities who believe that both President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been dishonest with the public in regards to the attack, they clearly want answers to the many outstanding questions surrounding Benghazi.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/poll-shows-everyone-wants-investigation-into-benghazi-except-reporters/

[Chicog]

Funny how selective interpretation can throw a completely different slant on it, notwithstanding that Fox polls are more loaded than Bugsy Siegel's dice.

Continuing the Benghazi investigation is not without peril for Republicans. Despite their distrust of the White House on this issue, voters doubt Republican motives are pure. The number saying Republicans are investigating Benghazi for political gain is more than double the number who see the GOP as doing it to find the truth (63-30 percent).

Source: Foxnews.com

[Pinot]

The polls often tell you what you want to hear, especially a Fox News poll.

[Ulysses G.]

Um, you hotshots realize, do you not, that Fox News doesn't conduct it's own polls, right? When you read of a Fox News poll or a NBC poll or a Washington Post poll, all that means is that they were the ones who put up the money to conduct the poll. In fact, Fox News conducts its polls via the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research ®. This approach is designed to eliminate any possible prejudice. Fox News polls consistently showed Obama beating Romney in the 2012 Election cycle to the displeasure of its conservative viewers. I don't recall any of you having a problem with those Fox polls, though.

As far as playing politics with Benghazi goes, it is Washington and regardless of motives for investigating it, it has become pretty obvious that there was a COVER UP that seems to emanate from the White House itself. .

Edited May 16, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Chicog]

Um, you hotshots realize, do you not, that Fox News doesn't conduct it's own polls, right? When you read of a Fox News poll or a NBC poll or a Washington Post poll, all that means is that they were the ones who put up the money to conduct the poll. In fact, Fox News conducts its polls via the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research ®. This approach is designed to eliminate any possible prejudice. Fox News polls consistently showed Obama beating Romney in the 2012 Election cycle to the displeasure of its conservative viewers. I don't recall any of you having a problem with those Fox polls, though.

As far as playing politics with Benghazi goes, it is Washington and regardless of motives for investigating it, it has become pretty obvious that there was a COVER UP that seems to emanate from the White House itself. .

Oh you are in comedic mood today.

The poll company doesn't come up with ridiculously loaded questions like this; Fox News does.

“In the aftermath of the Benghazi terrorist attacks, the Obama administration incorrectly claimed it was a spontaneous assault in response to an online video, even though the administration had intelligence reports that the attacks were connected to terrorist groups tied to al Qaeda. Do you think the Obama administration knowingly lied about the attacks to help the president during the ongoing re-election campaign, or not?”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2014/05/14/fox-news-poll-what-voters-think-obama-benghazi-scandal/

"eliminate any possible prejudice".

Yeah right.

Edited May 17, 2014 by Chicog

[Ulysses G.]

Nothing loaded about that question. It is 100% factual. That is exactly what happened. If they included dishonest information, it would be a different matter.

The truth is that Fox News is the only one that will ask those kind of questions, which is why their polls are so valuable for anyone who wants to know what the public really thinks about certain issues concerning scandals like Benghazi, that the rest of the media try to ignore. By the way, the answer to the question is YES, but partisans have the option to ignore the facts and vote no if they wish and many do.

Edited May 17, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[chuckd]

"Fair and balanced" it is.

What does MSNBC say about it all? NBC? CBS? ABC? NPR? CNN?

Post your links and let's see what they say.

[Scott]

Please stay on topic. The topic is not the media. It's the new investigation into Benghazi.

[Chicog]

We shouldn't, of course, forget that the GOP are milking the American deaths you so cherish for all the filthy lucre they can. It is not big pile of moral high ground on which they are standing.

This is a win-win, low risk political undertaking for Speaker Boehner. It is a pure political plum to his Tea Party caucus, which has been requesting such a select committee inquiry of Benghazi since shortly after the tragedy occurred. This concession to his crazies will buy him goodwill. He is trusting the ambitious Gowdy to keep it sane. If they turn up something new and embarrassing on the Obama Administration, great. If they the find nothing new, so what, they will have raised potentially millions of dollars before the election, and the committee goes out of business at the end of this Congress.

http://verdict.justia.com/2014/05/16/new-republican-benghazi-inquiry-money#sthash.6ecwrTvA.dpuf

[chuckd]

We shouldn't, of course, forget that the GOP are milking the American deaths you so cherish for all the filthy lucre they can. It is not big pile of moral high ground on which they are standing.

This is a win-win, low risk political undertaking for Speaker Boehner. It is a pure political plum to his Tea Party caucus, which has been requesting such a select committee inquiry of Benghazi since shortly after the tragedy occurred. This concession to his crazies will buy him goodwill. He is trusting the ambitious Gowdy to keep it sane. If they turn up something new and embarrassing on the Obama Administration, great. If they the find nothing new, so what, they will have raised potentially millions of dollars before the election, and the committee goes out of business at the end of this Congress.

http://verdict.justia.com/2014/05/16/new-republican-benghazi-inquiry-money#sthash.6ecwrTvA.dpuf

Is it any easier to forget when the Democrats do it? It would seem so.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/10/democrats-have-a-history-of-fundraising-off-tragedies/

http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2013/04/23/dnc-thank-you-boston-first-responders-draws-criticism-denounced-gop-political-ploy/HiXaE0UYBmdnnAnbyTiESL/story.html

Glass houses...stones...etc.

[Chicog]

I wouldn't disagree Chuck, but then again I'm not a scum-sucking, bottom-feeding politican who lies through his teeth and tries to take the moral high ground for ulterior motives.

[snarky66]

"GOP milking" versus liberals who just don't give a damn. ANYTHING to protect Barry's incompetent back.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited May 17, 2014 by snarky66

[Scott]

Off-topic post deleted.

[Chicog]

Then and now - what a difference eh?

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2014/05/ronald-reagans-benghazi.html

n September of 1984, for the third time in eighteen months, jihadists bombed a U.S. government outpost in Beirut yet again. President Reagan acknowledged that the new security precautions that had been advocated by Congress hadn’t yet been implemented at the U.S. embassy annex that had been hit. The problem, the President admitted, was that the repairs hadn’t quite been completed on time. As he put it, “Anyone who’s ever had their kitchen done over knows that it never gets done as soon as you wish it would.” Imagine how Congressman Issa and Fox News would react to a similar explanation from President Obama today.

[Ulysses G.]

No American ambassadors were killed, there were no lies to to win an election and no COVER UPS afterwards. There is no real comparison, just one more attempt to spin what took place in Benghazi and ever since.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[impulse]

Best quote from all the Googling I've done:

If you compare the costs of the Reagan Administration’s serial security lapses in Beirut to the costs of Benghazi, it’s clear what has really deteriorated in the intervening three decades. It’s not the security of American government personnel working abroad. It’s the behavior of American congressmen at home.

Source: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2014/05/ronald-reagans-benghazi.html

The investigation isn't about Benghazi. It's because they think they got real close to rattling Ms. Clinton with the last spectacle, and they want another bite at that apple. I'm just surprised it took their consultants so long to look at the game tapes from last time and come up with the questions they think will set her off this time.

Good luck with that. I was never a Hillary fan before, but she's growing on me.

[Chicog]

No American ambassadors were killed, there were no lies to to win an election and no COVER UPS afterwards. There is no real comparison, just one more attempt to spin what took place in Benghazi and ever since.

Oh, sorry I didn't realise one American ambassador was worth more that 241 US servicemen. What's the acceptable ratio then?

On with the witch hunt.