Rep. Gowdy "I cannot and will not raise money on Benghazi.”

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
Well guess this makes him a hypocrite. The fundraiser email was pretty much doing just that..lol

So tell me, who is using the deaths of these Americans to push their political agenda eh?
-----------------------------------------

Wallstreet Journal Link


BN-CR715_Gowdy0_G_20140507142157.jpg


Shortly before House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) promised Wednesday that a special panel to investigate the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, would not be a “circus,” the House Republicans’ campaign arm sent an email to supporters trying to raise money off the investigation.

The Wednesday morning email from BenghaziWatchdogs.com—a page on the National Republican Congressional Committee website—heralds House Republicans’ work to “hold Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama accountable for their actions” and promises a “thorough investigation of what happened that night.”

BN-CR767_nrcc_F_20140507153031.jpg


“House Republicans will make sure that no one will get away from Gowdy and the Select Committee,” the email says, referring to South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy, who will head the committee.

That didn’t sit well with Rep. Gowdy, who quickly called on the NRCC to stop raising money off the investigation. In an interview on CNN’s “The Lead with Jake Tapper,” Mr. Gowdy said, “I cannot and will not raise money on Benghazi.”

He added: “I also advise my colleagues to follow suit.”

Since the attacks occurred two years ago at a U.S. outpost in Benghazi, leaving four Americans dead, the episode has become a pet issue for Republicans, who charge the Obama administration and former Secretary of State Clinton, a likely 2016 presidential candidate, of interfering politically in the days following the attacks.

Though the Benghazi attacks have long provided fuel for Republican fundraising, the NRCC’s latest efforts bolster Democrats’ accusations that the committee’s creation is politically motivated during an election year. At a Christian Science Monitor event Wednesday morning, Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz called the committee “nothing more than a political ploy” aimed at pumping up Republican turnout in November’s elections. She added that the committee’s creation marked a shift in tactics for the GOP, since “to focus obsessively on the Affordable Care Act has lost its luster.”

The NRCC didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment about Mr. Gowdy’s statement, but earlier it had defended its fundraising tactic. “The Obama administration has not been honest with the American people with regards to Benghazi, and if [House Minority Leader] Nancy Pelosi becomes speaker, the American people will never know the truth,” said spokeswoman Andrea Bozek. She said the NRCC’s goal is to hold accountable congressional Democrats “who continue to try to sweep this controversy under the rug.”

The NRCC’s fundraising has lagged slightly behind its Democratic counterpart in recent months. In April, the committee raised $9.9 million, just shy of Democrats’ $10.3 million. Democrats also have a more substantial advantage in terms of spending money: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had $40.2 million in the bank as of March 31, while the NRCC had $31.2 million.
 

DominionSeraph

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2009
8,386
32
91
Expect a backtracking/disavowing of his statement soon.

Yeah, this doesn't make much sense. Why would he agree to chair the committee if he doesn't plan on harping on the Faux News narrative? Does he plan on using it to show he's an unbiased and sober investigator? He's a Republican from South Carolina, so his constituents won't have any respect for that. They'll be mightily upset if it ends the boring conclusion that there were no military assets in the region and so there's not even the appearance of insufficient action, and that the talking points were merely the most diplomatic preliminary guess and that we didn't have sufficient facts to uniquely support more specific alternative narratives. This is the only way they want it to turn out:

http://s27.postimg.org/bq9dxen3n/Duluth_lynching_postcard.jpg

If you're going to sell your soul to pander to such people, what the hell's the difference in asking them to pay up?
 
Last edited:

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,405
7,924
136
Well, I have to admit his stance does add a bit of luster to his creds, but did he really mean it or was it specifically meant to induce an air of legitimacy to his leadership role, the committee he heads and the very reason this committee was formed in the first place?

Along with Monica Lewinsky crawling out of the woodwork at "just the opportune moment" to maximize damage to H. Clinton's not-even-off-the-ground pres. campaign, it looks apparent that the timing of this committee's formation along with Lewinsky's dragging out of the closet her flogged to the bone and microscopically investigated tryst with Bill is part and parcel of the emerging strategery the Repubs have cobbled together ever since Obama got re-elected and Hillary looked to be the heir apparent.

If these are the opening shots the Repubs have had locked and loaded for Hillary, it's going to be a really fun time leading up to the 2016 elections.
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,111
926
126
Gowdy stands on his principles. I respect that. He seems to be from a casting that many men aren't made of any more. Maybe that is why people have a problem with him. We might find out that this is a really good man, of pure spirit, who really aims to do what is proper and best for our country. Of course, you can't stand for that. Seems anyone that wants to stand for anything good will soon come under attack from the left. It's just not right or fair!
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/republicans-benghazi-fundraising-trey-gowdy-106461.html?hp=f2
Republicans have no intention of listening to Trey Gowdy.

A number of Republican candidates and conservative groups have openly used the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks in Benghazi, Libya, as a cash grab. And that’s likely to continue despite a strongly worded rebuke from the new chairman of the Republican select committee assigned to investigate the response to the attacks.
This week, the National Republican Congressional Committee rolled out a new fundraising campaign called “Benghazi Watchdogs” — an effort by the aiming to raise money off Gowdy’s new position. Publicly available domain registration data shows that the site was registered Tuesday.

Other fundraising solicitations about Benghazi include:

A fundraising page from the NRCC with a photo of Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, accompanied by big bold text proclaiming: “Benghazi was a coverup. Demand answers.” — and asking for donations of up to $500.
A May 2 blog post from the National Republican Senatorial Committee titled “Dude, You’re Being Lied To About Benghazi.” The post was in response to former White House spokesman Tommy Vietor’s appearance on Fox News last week where he used the line “Dude, that was like two years ago.” It concludes: “Americans deserve the truth about Benghazi and it’s clear Democrats will not give it to them. Donate today and elect a Republican Senate majority.”
A May email blast from the conservative nonprofit Special Ops OPSEC Education Fund that asks for an “immediate contribution” of $25, $50, $100 or more to “hold Obama and Hillary’s feet to the fire until justice is done.”
A January email from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in the aftermath of the State of the Union noting that Obama “failed to mention Benghazi, the IRS, or the NSA” and asking for donations.
A John Bolton PAC email from April accused Obama, Clinton and former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta of refusing to take responsibility for “leaving Americans to die at the hands of terrorists.”
An email from Senate candidate Joe Miller saying that there is “strong evidence that senior administration officials crafted a false narrative for purely political purposes.”
An email this week from Rep. Scott Rigell’s (R-Va.) campaign asking for “$5, $10, $20, or $50 to help keep him in Congress and hold the Administration accountable” that also asks “Why didn’t the military respond to the events in Benghazi Were there even military assets in the region available? If not, why not? Who made the decision not to send support? House Republicans are committed to finding out the truth about Benghazi.”
An email from House candidate Andy Tobin accusing Obama of “covering up vital information about what happened that night” and asking for donations.
Conservative pundits and former politicians like Mike Huckabee, Allen West and others have sent emails to their lists, according to the liberal watchdog group Media Matters.
Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for the NRSC, said that there hasn’t been a coordinated effort from the committee to fundraise off of the issue, even though his committee wrote a blog post with a fundraising solicitation about the hearings.
GOP is trying to profit off the deaths of four brave Americans that they pretend to care about. Shameful, truly shameful.
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,111
926
126
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/republicans-benghazi-fundraising-trey-gowdy-106461.html?hp=f2


GOP is trying to profit off the deaths of four brave Americans that they pretend to care about. Shameful, truly shameful.

You are either full of shit, or you are drunk from the sewer water. GOP wants the truth. Can you handle the truth? You probably can't. You are probably a jelly doughnut eating, disgusting fat body. How much money do you get on your EBT card each month?
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,405
7,924
136
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/republicans-benghazi-fundraising-trey-gowdy-106461.html?hp=f2


GOP is trying to profit off the deaths of four brave Americans that they pretend to care about. Shameful, truly shameful.

Well, I kind'a look at the Repub's current situation this way: What with the economy continually improving, what with the ACA up, running and gaining momentum despite the incessant all out attacks mounted by the Repubs since the time it was being debated, what with the very rich getting ever richer, what with us getting out of those two wars Bush/Cheney started but couldn't finish, and what with all of those doomsday predictions about Obama that the Repubs were filling the airwaves with being completely and utterly debunked, they don't have stones large enough in the buckets of mud they've been heaving at Obama to do any kind of permanent damage, so they've had to resort to throwing spitballs and flatulence at Obama and Clinton to keep their minions fired up and itching for a fight.

And make no mistake about it, the Repub Congress critters up on the hill have proven they're really good at it what with all the practice and real life experience they've got under their belts.

I can't wait to have this "investigation" up and running to sense the timbre and tendencies that belie the true intent and purpose of this......this.....added opportunity for the Repubs to once again hang Clinton and Obama in effigy and proclaim to their base their "sincere and honest horror and angst over the reckless loss of lives" Obama and Clinton caused.
 
Last edited:

DominionSeraph

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2009
8,386
32
91
Gowdy stands on his principles. I respect that. He seems to be from a casting that many men aren't made of any more. Maybe that is why people have a problem with him. We might find out that this is a really good man, of pure spirit, who really aims to do what is proper and best for our country. Of course, you can't stand for that. Seems anyone that wants to stand for anything good will soon come under attack from the left. It's just not right or fair!

The left? It's the right that gets upset when reality intrudes into their conservative bubble. Truth for a liberal is typically pretty boring.

yellowstone_caldera_map.jpg


What is this? A projection that indicates the Earth is round showing geologic processes that indicate that it is far, far older than 6000 years? Oh my, how ever can this fit into a liberal worldview?
It does. Without issue.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
+1 respect to gowdy on this one.
Agreed, but is it really costing him anything? He probably doesn't need to fund raise using Benghazi, and the Pubbies who do will ignore his plea. (As will the Dems.)

+1 to Gowdy, sure, but this seems a pretty costless stance.
 

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,574
7,672
136
You are either full of shit, or you are drunk from the sewer water. GOP wants the truth. Can you handle the truth? You probably can't. You are probably a jelly doughnut eating, disgusting fat body. How much money do you get on your EBT card each month?

Well that seems like a well thought out mature reply
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
50,748
42,414
136
That's nice that he said it and all but real principle would be stepping down from the committee. But that won't happen.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
37,829
30,482
136
Gowdy stands on his principles. I respect that. He seems to be from a casting that many men aren't made of any more. Maybe that is why people have a problem with him. We might find out that this is a really good man, of pure spirit, who really aims to do what is proper and best for our country. Of course, you can't stand for that. Seems anyone that wants to stand for anything good will soon come under attack from the left. It's just not right or fair!

That's an amazing bio about someone we only heard of last week. You may want to wait until he does something before you have to wide the lipstick off his ass.

404 - evidence not found
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,405
7,924
136
Agreed, but is it really costing him anything? He probably doesn't need to fund raise using Benghazi, and the Pubbies who do will ignore his plea. (As will the Dems.)

+1 to Gowdy, sure, but this seems a pretty costless stance.

Makes sense to me. I'm more favorably modifying my (tentative) position toward Gowdy based on your post, although I do hope he isn't an Issa copycat and would rather stick to the facts of the matter and keep a tight rein on his committee members from both sides of the aisle. One can hope, but I'm not holding my breath over this. ;)

As I've previously mentioned in another thread, I'd like to get to the facts of the matter about Benghazi like everyone else, but without all of the gamesmanship that gets thrown in with these types of controversial incidents our gov't gets tangled up in.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Makes sense to me. I'm more favorably modifying my (tentative) position toward Gowdy based on your post, although I do hope he isn't an Issa copycat and would rather stick to the facts of the matter and keep a tight rein on his committee members from both sides of the aisle. One can hope, but I'm not holding my breath over this. ;)

As I've previously mentioned in another thread, I'd like to get to the facts of the matter about Benghazi like everyone else, but without all of the gamesmanship that gets thrown in with these types of controversial incidents our gov't gets tangled up in.
Agreed, though I too am not hopeful. I don't really know anything bad about Gowdy, but sticking to facts is not a commodity much displayed in D.C.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
This whole Benghazi thing is, in my view, shameless political flackery.

In April 1983, terrorists car-bombed the US Embassy in Beirut, killing 63 people. Six months later, the Beirut Marine barracks truck bomb attack happened, killing 241 service members. This happened in an era when Democrats controlled the House. After the barracks bombing, the House conducted one investigation, which was not public. It identified what it believed were errors in judgment by commanders on the ground and in higher authority, and made recommendations regarding avoiding similar incidents in the future. There was no political grandstanding or effort to blame President Reagan for either incident, nor even when a third attack happened in September 1984, on a Beirut embassy annex, killing 24.

The right's endless emphasis on Benghazi, a year and a half after the fact, reflects nothing more than their fear of Hillary Clinton as a Presidential candidate. It has nothing whatsoever to do with getting to the truth - it just has to do with dragging this out in as prolonged and public a manner as possible.
 
Last edited:

Pulsar

Diamond Member
Mar 3, 2003
5,224
306
126
That's an amazing bio about someone we only heard of last week. You may want to wait until he does something before you have to wide the lipstick off his ass.

404 - evidence not found

So... because YOU only heard about him last week, that means the rest of us don't know anything about him?

Does it make you better when you use the plural 'we' instead of the singular "I"?

Seriously. You have anger and rationality problems.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
29,975
43,611
136
This whole Benghazi thing is, in my view, shameless political flackery.

In April 1983, terrorists car-bombed the US Embassy in Beirut, killing 63 people. Six months later, the Beirut Marine barracks truck bomb attack happened, killing 241 service members. This happened in an era when Democrats controlled the House. After the barracks bombing, the House conducted one investigation, which was not public. It identified what it believed were errors in judgment by commanders on the ground and in higher authority, and made recommendations regarding avoiding similar incidents in the future. There was no political grandstanding or effort to blame President Reagan for either incident, nor even when a third attack happened in September 1984, on an embassy annex, killing 24.

The right's endless emphasis on Benghazi, a year and a half after the fact, reflects nothing more than their fear of Hillary Clinton as a Presidential candidate. It has nothing whatsoever to do with getting to the truth - it just has to do with dragging this out in as prolonged and public a manner as possible.


Well said, and pretty much exactly how I've felt about the issue for the last year or so.

This isn't so much a story on security mistakes as it is a testament to the hypocrisy and shallow partisan hackery the GOP is hellbent on displaying. I'd say the last couple years watching and listening to the republicans has been insightful on what desperation and hate does to people and their principles.

I feel sorry for those who are buying into this. I think there really has to be something wrong with you to cheer for and later defend Team Cheney's clusterfuck, and later act like this Benghazi story is some kind of mindblowing fascist act of corruption. People that fall into this category and keep bringing up the 4 lives lost in Benghazi make me want to puke. That's morally bankrupt 'party over country' bullshit if I ever saw it, and the gullible fools should be ashamed of themselves, particularly so for trying to make political hay out of the story (again).
 

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
This whole Benghazi thing is, in my view, shameless political flackery.

In April 1983, terrorists car-bombed the US Embassy in Beirut, killing 63 people. Six months later, the Beirut Marine barracks truck bomb attack happened, killing 241 service members. This happened in an era when Democrats controlled the House. After the barracks bombing, the House conducted one investigation, which was not public. It identified what it believed were errors in judgment by commanders on the ground and in higher authority, and made recommendations regarding avoiding similar incidents in the future. There was no political grandstanding or effort to blame President Reagan for either incident, nor even when a third attack happened in September 1984, on a Beirut embassy annex, killing 24.

The right's endless emphasis on Benghazi, a year and a half after the fact, reflects nothing more than their fear of Hillary Clinton as a Presidential candidate. It has nothing whatsoever to do with getting to the truth - it just has to do with dragging this out in as prolonged and public a manner as possible.

Well said, and pretty much exactly how I've felt about the issue for the last year or so.

This isn't so much a story on security mistakes as it is a testament to the hypocrisy and shallow partisan hackery the GOP is hellbent on displaying. I'd say the last couple years watching and listening to the republicans has been insightful on what desperation and hate does to people and their principles.

I feel sorry for those who are buying into this. I think there really has to be something wrong with you to cheer for and later defend Team Cheney's clusterfuck, and later act like this Benghazi story is some kind of mindblowing fascist act of corruption. People that fall into this category and keep bringing up the 4 lives lost in Benghazi make me want to puke. That's morally bankrupt 'party over country' bullshit if I ever saw it, and the gullible fools should be ashamed of themselves, particularly so for trying to make political hay out of the story (again).


Very much agreed on many points by you two posters..
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/john-boehner-benghazi-fundraising-106493.html
Speaker John Boehner dodged multiple questions Thursday about his party using the Benghazi investigation to rake in campaign cash.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), whom Boehner tapped to chair the committee, has already said it’s inappropriate to try to raise political money off the investigation.

Visitors to the NRCC web site who clicked on a Benghazi-related post this week were then asked to donate money to “stop Democrats from controlling all of Washington.” An NRCC spokesman said they don’t release statistics for how much money they raise online.
Looks like GOP is profiteering off the deaths in Benghazi.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
This whole Benghazi thing is, in my view, shameless political flackery.

In April 1983, terrorists car-bombed the US Embassy in Beirut, killing 63 people. Six months later, the Beirut Marine barracks truck bomb attack happened, killing 241 service members. This happened in an era when Democrats controlled the House. After the barracks bombing, the House conducted one investigation, which was not public. It identified what it believed were errors in judgment by commanders on the ground and in higher authority, and made recommendations regarding avoiding similar incidents in the future. There was no political grandstanding or effort to blame President Reagan for either incident, nor even when a third attack happened in September 1984, on a Beirut embassy annex, killing 24.

The right's endless emphasis on Benghazi, a year and a half after the fact, reflects nothing more than their fear of Hillary Clinton as a Presidential candidate. It has nothing whatsoever to do with getting to the truth - it just has to do with dragging this out in as prolonged and public a manner as possible.
So you believe it's okay for the White House to blatantly lie about an attack as long as it isn't too deadly? And don't forget, it's the administration dragging it out, not the Pubbies, with the IRS claiming it will take years to present Lerner's emails and the White house retroactively re-classifying already declassified documents under subpoena by Congress, redacting things that we now see were nothing more than political calculations designed to limit political damage.

I can't get too bent out of shape over Benghazi because so far I've seen no clear evidence of malfeasance leading to the deaths and because lying to political advantage is SOP in D.C. But I can certainly see legitimate issues here.

Your use of a photo of a lynching in this context is grossly disrespectful to the victims of the lynch mob.
Thank you. That needed to be said.