Darryl Issa's criminal past that everyone is too polite to talk about..

[thraashman]

At least he didnt leave her in a pond... 😎

Well yes that was far worse but it doesn't make what Issa did not bad. Because Hitler existed doesn't make Ted Bundy an ok dude.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

False.

To quote the very first line from the CIA's initial analysis of the Benghazi attack:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/images/hayestp.img_assist_custom-497x1400.jpg

As for politicians lying all the time, of course they do. Issa is a particularly vile individual however, and even a cursory look at his career shows he's a scumbag. Sadly, as a former resident of San Diego I was frequently subjected to this turd. As for 'smearing' him or whatever, I doubt it as Issa has nothing. He's spent almost three years now desperately attempting to find something to stick on Obama with no success, but it doesn't mean that you shouldn't remind people who he is.

The Obama administration was lying or incredibly incompetent...you choose.

Official: We knew Benghazi was a terrorist attack "from the get-go"

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57582929/official-we-knew-benghazi-was-a-terrorist-attack-from-the-get-go/

Sen. Dianne Feinstein: We knew Benghazi was a terrorist attack the moment it happened

http://washingtonexaminer.com/sen.-dianne-feinstein-we-knew-benghazi-was-a-terrorist-attack-the-moment-it-happened/article/2529502

But hey...let's get all lathered up and personally attack Issa on unrelated matters for calling Carney a "paid liar". Makes perfect sense to me. 🙄

 

[Bowfinger]

The Benghazi story of a spontaneous riot caused by an obscure YouTube video was completely fabricated and a brazen, shameless lie. Yet you don't appear to give a shit. But now your outraged about Issa? Really?

Speaking of liars ... 🙄

First, the initial Benghazi story was hardly a "brazen, shameless lie" (though you calling it that certainly qualifies). Given the caveats the Obama administration wrapped around it, it was at worst dishonest spin. Further, I condemned that spin in my very first post about Benghazi. So that's another lie by you.

More to the point, however, anyone not living in the nutter disinformation bubble now knows with great certainty that it was the CIA -- NOT Obama -- that first stated the Benghazi attack was tied to the YouTube video. It is in the very first draft of the CIA talking points, before anyone started revising them. It was a reasonable, but wrong, initial assumption. That you continue to parrot that discredited talking point suggest that either we've caught you in another lie, or you are truly that ignorant, living within that partisan disinformation bubble even as you try to pretend you're an independent thinker.

Finally, yes I am "outraged" (mildly) about Issa. He is a shameless, consistent liar. His investigations are shams, intended solely for partisan attacks and self-aggrandizement. He does far, far more harm than good in finding the root cause of issues and identifying effective preventative measures for the future. That is wrong, and you trying to deflect that by yipping about Benghazi, even if it was accurate, doesn't mitigate his wrongness in the least. Unlike you, apparently, I don't believe two wrongs make a right. Your knee-jerk leap to defend Issa only undercuts your credibility.

 

[Bowfinger]

Meh, this is the United States and in the United States you are not guilty of a crime until a jury says you are or you plead guilty. Until such time the author is speculating (albeit much more educated speculation) just like Issa was.

The sheer amount of charges is quite interesting but again, innocent until proven guilty.

Fair point. It nicely meshes with his unethical behavior since taking office, but you are correct that those past allegations are not yet proven.

 

[fskimospy]

The Obama administration was lying or incredibly incompetent...you choose.

Official: We knew Benghazi was a terrorist attack "from the get-go"

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57582929/official-we-knew-benghazi-was-a-terrorist-attack-from-the-get-go/

Sen. Dianne Feinstein: We knew Benghazi was a terrorist attack the moment it happened

http://washingtonexaminer.com/sen.-dianne-feinstein-we-knew-benghazi-was-a-terrorist-attack-the-moment-it-happened/article/2529502

But hey...let's get all lathered up and personally attack Issa on unrelated matters for calling Carney a "paid liar". Makes perfect sense to me. 🙄

Your original post was getting 'all lathered up' about the Obama administration apparently 'completely fabricating a brazen and shameless lie' isn't supported by the initial CIA estimates obtained by conservative news publications. Regardless of what other officials may have thought, your claim that the video link was fabricated is obviously false. Will you acknowledge that?

If you think the Obama administration did a bad job in Benghazi that's fine, but I thought you were trying to make a point about how the Obama administration did something dishonest, not just shift your attack to whatever is necessary to paint Obama in a bad light in order to deflect from Issa's vile behavior.

 

[Bowfinger]

The Obama administration was lying or incredibly incompetent...you choose.

Official: We knew Benghazi was a terrorist attack "from the get-go"

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57582929/official-we-knew-benghazi-was-a-terrorist-attack-from-the-get-go/

Sen. Dianne Feinstein: We knew Benghazi was a terrorist attack the moment it happened

http://washingtonexaminer.com/sen.-dianne-feinstein-we-knew-benghazi-was-a-terrorist-attack-the-moment-it-happened/article/2529502

But hey...let's get all lathered up and personally attack Issa on unrelated matters for calling Carney a "paid liar". Makes perfect sense to me. 🙄

There is a difference between your "brazen, shameless lie" and initial differences in opinion. Hicks jumped to the conclusion it was terrorism based on some combination of his first-hand knowledge on the ground there and perhaps his being caught in the heat of the moment, with a friend killed. The CIA initially declined to make that leap, instead assuming it was more likely related to the YouTube demonstrations. Hicks was right, and the CIA was wrong (or at least overly cautious).

Nonetheless, the Obama administration got its initial information from the CIA, not Hicks. Your attacks on Obama for that are purely mindless partisan hackery, nothing more.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Your original post was getting 'all lathered up' about the Obama administration apparently 'completely fabricating a brazen and shameless lie' isn't supported by the initial CIA estimates obtained by conservative news publications. Regardless of what other officials may have thought, your claim that the video link was fabricated is obviously false. Will you acknowledge that?

The CIA was incompetent in their initial evaluation. If it took more than 5 days for our administration to figure this out and allowed this misinformation publically disseminated, then they're incredibly incompetent at best...and liars at worst.

 

[EagleKeeper]

This just blows me away, and shows how callous this guy is: Issa was in a car accident with a woman who needed to be hospitalized. He drove away before the police could arrive because, as he told the person he hit, he didn't have time to wait. Issa didn't face charges, but he was sued over the matter, and agreed to an out-of-court settlement.

He hits a woman with his car and doesn't want to wait and aid her till the ambulance arrives, because his is too busy? Wtf?

Any different than running off the road while driving drunk and leaving a young woman to drown?

 

[fskimospy]

The CIA was incompetent in their initial evaluation. If it took more than 5 days for our administration to figure this out and allowed this misinformation publically disseminated, then they're incredibly incompetent at best...and liars at worst.

While I'm sure that your evaluation of intelligence processes is really well informed, that's neither here nor there.

You claimed that the video link was a shameless and brazen fabrication despite obvious evidence to the contrary. Your analysis of the Obama administration in regards to this was incredibly incompetent at best... and a lie at worst. Better check that beam in your eye, brotha.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

There is a difference between your "brazen, shameless lie" and initial differences in opinion. Hicks jumped to the conclusion it was terrorism based on some combination of his first-hand knowledge on the ground there and perhaps his being caught in the heat of the moment, with a friend killed. The CIA initially declined to make that leap, instead assuming it was more likely related to the YouTube demonstrations. Hicks was right, and the CIA was wrong (or at least overly cautious).

Nonetheless, the Obama administration got its initial information from the CIA, not Hicks. Your attacks on Obama for that are purely mindless partisan hackery, nothing more.

"The CIA initially declined to make that leap"...that's rich. Yet they made a huge leap in assuming that a YouTube video caused a spontaneious demonstration which escalated into an attack. Their "intelligence" had zero basis in fact. The incompetence of the CIA and this administration is appalling.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Finally, yes I am "outraged" (mildly) about Issa. He is a shameless, consistent liar. His investigations are shams, intended solely for partisan attacks and self-aggrandizement. He does far, far more harm than good in finding the root cause of issues and identifying effective preventative measures for the future. That is wrong, and you trying to deflect that by yipping about Benghazi, even if it was accurate, doesn't mitigate his wrongness in the least. Unlike you, apparently, I don't believe two wrongs make a right. Your knee-jerk leap to defend Issa only undercuts your credibility.

You're the one who brought up Benghazi...not me. Then you accuse me of deflecting when I comment on your post. Wow....just wow. Anyway, I'm done talking about Benghazi and don't wish to derail this thread any further than it already has.

I am not an Issa fan either and I'm not defending him in any way. Should I now accuse you of being a liar for assuming otherwise? My beef is the knee-jerk personal attacks in apparent retaliation for calling Cagney a "paid liar". You talk of mindless partisan hackery...I see it in spades.

 

[Bowfinger]

"The CIA initially declined to make that leap"...that's rich. Yet they made a huge leap in assuming that a YouTube video caused a spontaneious demonstration which escalated into an attack. Their "intelligence" had zero basis in fact. The incompetence of the CIA and this administration is appalling.

How about you quote their exact wording you sanctimonious hack? As I remember it, they didn't cite it as a certainly. They stated it appeared likely. That is what rational people (i.e., non-nutters) call accurate information and NOT jumping to conclusions based on incomplete information.

It is, in fact, in marked contrast to what Hicks did (yet you embrace him because he told you something that reinforced your bias). Based on what's been publicly released, Hicks' "conclusion" about terrorism was an emotional leap based on what he believed, not any conclusive factual evidence. I don't really fault him for that because he was so personally close to the situation, and he was ultimately determined to be correct, but nonetheless he was jumping to conclusions.

But whatever. I'm sure Issa appreciates you carrying his water so diligently. You've nicely deflected attention from his blatant dishonesty. Good boy.

 

[thraashman]

"The CIA initially declined to make that leap"...that's rich. Yet they made a huge leap in assuming that a YouTube video caused a spontaneious demonstration which escalated into an attack. Their "intelligence" had zero basis in fact. The incompetence of the CIA and this administration is appalling.

Actually the CIA had plenty of reasons for the initial assessment of it being related to the video, such as the protests in Egypt being directly related to it on the same day, witnesses saying that they heard those present in the attack say it was related to the video, etc. Your intelligence in this situation appears to be no better than that which you accuse the CIA of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_U.S._diplomatic_missions_attacks

 

[blackangst1]

At least he didnt leave her in a pond... 😎

Any different than running off the road while driving drunk and leaving a young woman to drown?

Beat me to it 😉

 

[dank69]

"The CIA initially declined to make that leap"...that's rich. Yet they made a huge leap in assuming that a YouTube video caused a spontaneious demonstration which escalated into an attack. Their "intelligence" had zero basis in fact. The incompetence of the CIA and this administration is appalling.

You should start a thread about incompetence so you can keep it out of this thread about liars.

 

[werepossum]

I liked Issa's response. He hopes Obama watches Plouffes twitter so he can stay up to date on what is going on within the IRS.

LOL +1

Pretty scary, huh? Yep, scary shit when people are clueless to the REAL past of some of these elected officials.

Funny how the REAL past equals unproven allegations from a person who just created another thread bemoaning seizures for unproven allegations. I mean, as long as the accused has (R) after his name.

 

[Bowfinger]

You're the one who brought up Benghazi...not me. Then you accuse me of deflecting when I comment on your post. Wow....just wow. Anyway, I'm done talking about Benghazi and don't wish to derail this thread any further than it already has.

I am not an Issa fan either and I'm not defending him in any way. Should I now accuse you of being a liar for assuming otherwise? My beef is the knee-jerk personal attacks in apparent retaliation for calling Cagney a "paid liar". You talk of mindless partisan hackery...I see see it in spades.

My post was in context, offering an example of how blatantly Issa is willing to lie. It was in support of the subject of the OP. It was also NOT about the Benghazi events, but rather Issa's lie about Pickering refusing to testify. You're the one who launched off a tangent by dredging up Obama and his administration's initial comments about the attack. Note that that really has nothing to do with what I said, serving only to deflect attention from Issa. I guess that makes your post above yet another lie. GG.


Edit: re. "I'm done talking about Benghazi and don't wish to derail this thread any further than it already has" -- is that your concession that you're tired of getting owned in your smoke-blowing?

 

[kage69]

Beat me to it 😉

So you're predictable too? Got it.


I think it's hilarious the right spends so much effort trying to avoid dealing with 2000-2008, often replying to references to the period with the standard B B But Bush!!! cop out like it's all ancient, irrelevant history.

..and then bring up Chappaquiddick like it means anything, today, to anyone. Ted's dead guys, time to find another punching bag, maybe this time go with one that doesn't make you look like hypocrites or Pavlov's dog.

 

[Atreus21]

I'm sure you were slobbering all over Ted Kennedy's schlong while he was alive though weren't you? :thumbsup:

I was about to say this. Damn it.

 

[Attic]

Issa should not have tossed out "paid liar". Really, IMO what would have been really strong if Issa apologized for that and moved on. Carney is clearly deceptive in a number of his responses, but no reason to take pot shots, because both sides know this. It's a don't hate the player hate the game situation, but Issa went personal.

Plouffe, only thing worse is the folks who can't see through that toolbag. Supporting his conduct here is outrageous IMO, and standard unfortunately.


Perhaps the eye has been taking off the ball to some extent, for that Plouffe has to get credit. That it is successful is a bad sign of where we are at.

 

[fskimospy]

I was about to say this. Damn it.

Seems like that would basically be a BUH BUH BUT KENNEDY, wouldn't it? As someone else mentioned it seems a bit incongruous for people who complain that Bush being brought too much as he isn't in office anymore to then bring up a 30 year old incident when Republicans are criticized.

 

[ivwshane]

DEFLECT DEFLECT!

Lol irony at its best!

We have a thread discussing the moral character of a congressman with an "R" after his name and the righty wing nuts come to his defense by deflecting.

I especially like how a particular idiot responded when he read the word Benghazi but didnt bother reading the context it was used in. It reminds me of pavlovs dogs and the bell they would respond to.

You see, Issa's character was called into question because he is accusing this administration of lying and yet he has zero evidence of it and yet he has a history of lying himself (see the meet the press interview). It's right up their with politicians that claim gay marriage will ruin the sanctity of marriage while simultaneously having an affair. Or a politician who complains about government waste and pork and then requests pork for his district. Or that politician who claims the stimulus doesn't create jobs and yet asks for stimulus money to help create jobs.

All of them really aren't a big deal and are par for the course when you are part of a group of people who are viewed as being worse than, a root canal, cock roaches, or a used car salesman.


But don't let me stop you from deflecting and doing the very same things you complain about in every thread when people bring up Bush, or bring up some other non related topic.

All together they make great examples of hypocrisy.

 

[Atreus21]

Lol irony at its best!

We have a thread discussing the moral character of a congressman with an "R" after his name and the righty wing nuts come to his defense by deflecting.

I especially like how a particular idiot responded when he read the word Benghazi but didnt bother reading the context it was used in. It reminds me of pavlovs dogs and the bell they would respond to.

You see, Issa's character was called into question because he is accusing this administration of lying and yet he has zero evidence of it and yet he has a history of lying himself (see the meet the press interview). It's right up their with politicians that claim gay marriage will ruin the sanctity of marriage while simultaneously having an affair. Or a politician who complains about government waste and pork and then requests pork for his district. Or that politician who claims the stimulus doesn't create jobs and yet asks for stimulus money to help create jobs.

All of them really aren't a big deal and are par for the course when you are part of a group of people who are viewed as being worse than, a root canal, cock roaches, or a used car salesman.


But don't let me stop you from deflecting and doing the very same things you complain about in every thread when people bring up Bush, or bring up some other non related topic.

All together they make great examples of hypocrisy.

Actually it's hypocrisy for both sides. You guys deflect then accuse us of deflecting. :shrug.

 

[Atreus21]

Seems like that would basically be a BUH BUH BUT KENNEDY, wouldn't it? As someone else mentioned it seems a bit incongruous for people who complain that Bush being brought too much as he isn't in office anymore to then bring up a 30 year old incident when Republicans are criticized.

True, kind of like the tactic on which this entire thread is predicated.

 

[Oldgamer]

Lol irony at its best!

We have a thread discussing the moral character of a congressman with an "R" after his name and the righty wing nuts come to his defense by deflecting.

I especially like how a particular idiot responded when he read the word Benghazi but didnt bother reading the context it was used in. It reminds me of pavlovs dogs and the bell they would respond to.

You see, Issa's character was called into question because he is accusing this administration of lying and yet he has zero evidence of it and yet he has a history of lying himself (see the meet the press interview). It's right up their with politicians that claim gay marriage will ruin the sanctity of marriage while simultaneously having an affair. Or a politician who complains about government waste and pork and then requests pork for his district. Or that politician who claims the stimulus doesn't create jobs and yet asks for stimulus money to help create jobs.

All of them really aren't a big deal and are par for the course when you are part of a group of people who are viewed as being worse than, a root canal, cock roaches, or a used car salesman.


But don't let me stop you from deflecting and doing the very same things you complain about in every thread when people bring up Bush, or bring up some other non related topic.

All together they make great examples of hypocrisy.

Well put...