Trey "Conehead" Gowdy, like Issa before him, is an ass........

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Boreas

The trouble is, whell, that all those investigations and 7 million dollars came up with nothing at all so the headline should have read: "House Benghazi Panel Finds No Evidence of Wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton", not no new evidence.

Agreed. The Post editors just can't help themselves throwing a dig at the Clintons when they pen a headline.

[BlueStreak]

A friend recently commented, once again just as he has numerous times over the last year or so; "When the indictment comes down....".

I reminded him once again that; "First they have to prove that an actual crime was committed, which they haven't. Wishing it was so, doesn't make it so. It's the Constitution, Don. Even Hillary has rights.".

It's that last sentence that makes his face turn red.

[ZeroJunk]

That was all about the upcoming election and a narrative that the administration had a real handle on the middle east and that their policies were working. Sending reinforcement in to protect the ambassador would have sent a signal that maybe it wasn't working, or maybe they just didn't know that it wasn't working.

The insane story about the video that nobody ever saw was concocted to get through the election without tarnishing the Middle East narrative.


Other than lying like all politicians do all the time I don't see what Hillary did that was illegal.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

The trouble is, whell, that all those investigations and 7 million dollars came up with nothing at all so the headline should have read: "House Benghazi Panel Finds No Evidence of Wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton", not no new evidence.

Is that really "the trouble", pimple? Nothing about how the attack was handled, including all of the lying and obfuscation in the aftermath of the attack FOR WEEKS troubles you at all?

Sad.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

Is that really "the trouble", pimple? Nothing about how the attack was handled, including all of the lying and obfuscation in the aftermath of the attack FOR WEEKS troubles you at all?

Sad.

For instance?

[Pio1980]

Bengazi was only ever about marginalizing Hillz as a Presidential candidate.
Money squandered by "the party of fiscal responsibility" (never mind the 24 bil in lost commerce during the recession recovery with the shutdown "nobody" wanted).

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

Bengazi was only ever about marginalizing Hillz as a Presidential candidate.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Yep. Kevin McCarthy Ca.-GOTP spilled the beans on national TV.
We grow 'em stupid in the San Joaquin Valley.

[bobabode]

Ambassador Steven's sister speaks out again.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-d...n-for-benghazi

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Is that really "the trouble", pimple? Nothing about how the attack was handled, including all of the lying and obfuscation in the aftermath of the attack FOR WEEKS troubles you at all?

Sad.

They spent years and untold millions figuring out that State, DoD and the CIA don't effectively communicate and cooperate. I could have told you that 30 years ago. They never have and never will.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

For instance?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...628-story.html

The administration looked for an official to go on the Sunday morning talk shows Sept. 16. Ben Rhodes, President Barack Obama's deputy national security adviser, sent a request to Clinton but never heard back. The thankless job fell to Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Rice had little knowledge of the events. She relied in part on background information from Rhodes.

Here the report gets at the politics of Benghazi, because it shows that among Rhodes' talking points to Rice was this specific goal to communicate to the viewing public: "To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

In other words: In mid-September 2012, in the wake of a terrorist attack in Libya, with Obama up for re-election in two months and Clinton's own presidential aspirations at risk, the White House sent a lesser representative (Rice) in front of the cameras. Armed with bad information, she insisted that four Americans died as the result of a spontaneous protest — not because of Washington's failure to anticipate a terrorist attack on an isolated U.S. compound in unstable Libya on the anniversary of 9/11.

According to the report, several Libya experts at State flipped out when they heard Rice peddling the demonstration story. "Off the reservation on five networks!" wrote one. "WH (White House) very worried about the politics. This was all their doing," wrote another.

Obama, too, went uncorrected publicly by Clinton when, in several public appearances, he conflated Arab world protests about the video with the terrorist attack in Benghazi. In a Sept. 25 speech at the U.N., Obama cited the video six times.

In my opinion, Gowdy and company soft-pedaled this "lapse". They simply presented these facts as they occurred. First, when it was time to face the media, Clinton we're told, wasn't available when the White House Staff (Rhodes) was calling to coordinate a response. So, the gang that couldn't shoot straight brought out a "lesser representative": Rice.

The fact indicate that the State Dept knew early on that this wasn't a spontaneous uprising in reaction to a video: "still in the early hours of the activity" they knew. The YouTube video narrative appears to have come from Ben Rhodes, who gave it to Susan Rice because the White House wanted to "underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

Rice, armed with the video story fiction, spread it all over the media in Sunday morning. I remember watching it, and at the time I was thinking that her story was not at all credible, and wondering why in the hell there were riots going on over a YouTube video that no one had ever hear of before.

We're asked to believe that this was all a great big misunderstanding or miscommunication. Some less than discriminating folks here apparently apparently subscribe to that notion as well:

Originally Posted by finnbow

They spent years and untold millions figuring out that State, DoD and the CIA don't effectively communicate and cooperate. I could have told you that 30 years ago. They never have and never will.

Yet, this "little misunderstanding" continued long after. Obama spewed the fiction all over the UN over a week later. The State Dept KNEW it was BS. Obama and Hillary appeared together and lied to the families about the attack being about a video as the bodies of the victims arrived back in the US:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSooz2wXpes

Why? It can only be concluded that there was a decision to pedal a lie for political expediency. Rhodes didn't work for Clinton. He worked at the White House. Clinton worked for Obama. Obama would have been fully briefed by the State Dept - Clinton and staff - about what happened in Benghazi, probably almost in real time assuming he answered the phone.

For Obama and Clinton to be willing to pedal such a bald faced lie because of concern over their owner personal political fortunes, to continue to do it as the bodies of the victims are being off-loaded right in front of both of them, and continue to do it afterwards, is just about the most disgusting behavior imaginable.