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

[Don Vito Corleone]

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.


Thank you. That needed to be said.

I am not saying it's okay for the White House to "blatantly lie about an attack," unless national security dictates that it do so. I am also not saying it is okay for Congress to lodge investigation after investigation of the same topic in order to keep it in play for solely political purposes. Nothing that happened in connection with the attacks in Benghazi, in my view, constitutes a sufficient basis for this use of taxpayers' dollars and government's time and energy.

I am unclear why you are lumping Lerner and the IRS into this discussion. In general I would like to see more transparency from the Obama administration, but given that the President is operating in an environment of really historic levels of hostility from leaders in Congress (who have made it clear through words and actions that they view discrediting the President as more important than doing their jobs), it is unsurprising that the White House has played its cards close to its vest. At least the things the administration is reluctant to provide information about are relatively minor (as compared to, say, the Iran-Contra affair, where the Reagan administration engaged in overtly illegal conduct, including arming our enemies, then outright lied about it to Congress), at least from what we know thus far.

 

[Fern]

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

I think it becoming readily more apparent by the day that you do not keep up with or watch the news.

Gowdy is a relatively 'junior' Congressperson but he has often been in the news the past few years.

Fern

 

[Fern]

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.
-snip-

Had the Obama admin handled Benghazi like Reagan handled those events there would be no "Benghazi thing".

If, within about a week which is more than a reasonable amount of time, they had truthfully announced it was a terrorist attack this would be a nonevent.

Heck, fully cooperating with the subpoenaed would have put this way back in our rear view mirror.

Obama drags shiz out, as we have seen time-and-again, and when you drag things out this is what you get. This is all on the Obama admin; the most open and transparent admin in history.

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Nothing that happened in connection with the attacks in Benghazi, in my view, constitutes a sufficient basis for this use of taxpayers' dollars and government's time and energy.

If we were to learn that we were collecting SAM's from Libya and shipping the to Syrian rebels would it be worth the time and effort to learn that?

I'd still like to know what our Ambassador was doing in Benghazi. IIRC, the story is that he was meeting with a Turkish diplomat; why didn't they meet in Tripoli?

I'd still like to know why we have a gazillion dollar military but cannot protect our diplomats and facilities in a location widely known to he highly dangerous.

I'd like to know why we didn't call on the British for assistance.

I'd like to know if we requested help from the Libyan side.

There's quite a bit I'd like to know.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Well guess this makes him a hypocrite. The fundraiser email was pretty much doing just that..lol

You write this^

Then you quote the below:

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.”

He looks the exact opposite of a hypocrite. You, OTOH, look like a .......

Fern

 

[Fern]

That's nice that he said it and all but real principle would be stepping down from the committee. But that won't happen.

Why in the h3ll would he step down?

You do realize that the NRCC is just a 527 PAC?

Fern

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Had the Obama admin handled Benghazi like Reagan handled those events there would be no "Benghazi thing".

If, within about a week which is more than a reasonable amount of time, they had truthfully announced it was a terrorist attack this would be a nonevent.

Heck, fully cooperating with the subpoenaed would have put this way back in our rear view mirror.

Obama drags shiz out, as we have seen time-and-again, and when you drag things out this is what you get. This is all on the Obama admin; the most open and transparent admin in history.

Fern

Reagan was not dealing with a House caucus oriented entirely toward destroying him. Darrel Issa and most of the fellow members of his caucus are not interested in getting to the truth - they are interested in red meat to use to deflate the President and impair Hillary Clinton's chances as a Presidential candidate. I will say again that there is nothing about the Benghazi incident that legitimately justifies this enormous waste of taxpayer dollars and Congress' time, conducting endless investigation after endless investigation. This is nothing but a shell game being played by the House GOP caucus and its Ministers of Propaganda, Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes.

 

[IronWing]

Reagan was not dealing with a House caucus oriented entirely toward destroying him. Darrel Issa and most of the fellow members of his caucus are not interested in getting to the truth - they are interested in red meat to use to deflate the President and impair Hillary Clinton's chances as a Presidential candidate. I will say again that there is nothing about the Benghazi incident that legitimately justifies this enormous waste of taxpayer dollars and Congress' time, conducting endless investigation after endless investigation. This is nothing but a shell game being played by the House GOP caucus.

They don't care about Obama. This is taxpayer supported campaigning for 2016.

 

[bshole]

They don't care about Obama. This is taxpayer supported campaigning for 2016.

^^^^^^^

Stole my thunder. It is so patently obvious. Notice that the leaders engaging in this train wreck of a show investigation all represent nutso right wing districts.

 

[Thebobo]

Personally I'm still waiting on a Iraq war crimes investigation.
Can you imagine if he had lol we would of had a civil war.
And wall street of course.

This is just politics and everyone knows it and everyone knows that everyone knows it and yet they still continue. They must think we are very stupid.

 

[Oldgamer]

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.

Yep they sure as shit are..disgusting, but not surprising given what is in congress these days.

 

[First]

If we were to learn that we were collecting SAM's from Libya and shipping the to Syrian rebels would it be worth the time and effort to learn that?

I'd still like to know what our Ambassador was doing in Benghazi. IIRC, the story is that he was meeting with a Turkish diplomat; why didn't they meet in Tripoli?

I'd still like to know why we have a gazillion dollar military but cannot protect our diplomats and facilities in a location widely known to he highly dangerous.

I'd like to know why we didn't call on the British for assistance.

I'd like to know if we requested help from the Libyan side.

There's quite a bit I'd like to know.

Fern

Yes, conspiracy theorists generally want to know all sorts of things that either have already been answered or haven't been answered because they're not relevant or particularly interesting, such as asking the fucking British for assistance.

Similarly, you were asking all sorts of questions about why Obama wouldn't released his long-form birth certificate. Gee, ever get an answer to those questions, Truther?

 

[ivwshane]

Had the Obama admin handled Benghazi like Reagan handled those events there would be no "Benghazi thing".

If, within about a week which is more than a reasonable amount of time, they had truthfully announced it was a terrorist attack this would be a nonevent.

Heck, fully cooperating with the subpoenaed would have put this way back in our rear view mirror.

Obama drags shiz out, as we have seen time-and-again, and when you drag things out this is what you get. This is all on the Obama admin; the most open and transparent admin in history.

Fern

Lol, so your issue is that the Obama admin came out with info to give to the public too soon and they should have waited longer until a more concrete picture was put together?

Still no scandal found ass wipe!

 

[mrjminer]

Sad to see some people have no problems with having no accountability for the needless deaths of our citizens, and even make excuses to justify it.

Good job, tools of your respective blind political affiliations!

 

[Fern]

Lol, so your issue is that the Obama admin came out with info to give to the public too soon and they should have waited longer until a more concrete picture was put together?

Still no scandal found ass wipe!

Puhleeze.

We know they knew the truth almost immediately. There was no need to 'hard sell' the video for weeks or even longer.

It can be hard to keep secrets in Washington DC. There were people with ties to the intel community on TV within 24 hrs telling us there was no demonstration and the video wasn't to blame.

My point was that they could have initially declined to pinpoint the attack as unrelated to the video. But they hammered the video like a mofo. Here are Obama's remarks two weeks later:

That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with.

We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our Founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views, and practice their own faith, may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech – the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

I know that not all countries in this body share this understanding of the protection of free speech. Yet in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: there is no speech that justifies mindless violence.

There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/whit...-the-united-nations-general-assembly-20120925

That was from the UN speech two weeks later.

They doubled down on the lie. That makes people angry and doubtful regarding the veracity of other remarks/claims.

They brought this upon themselves. And no, it's not my only issue with Benghazi.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Yes, conspiracy theorists generally want to know all sorts of things that either have already been answered or haven't been answered because they're not relevant or particularly interesting, such as asking the fucking British for assistance.

Well, we disagree. I want to see our govt do all things possible to defend our ambassadors, that includes asking allies for assistance.

Yes
Similarly, you were asking all sorts of questions about why Obama wouldn't released his long-form birth certificate. Gee, ever get an answer to those questions, Truther?

I didn't ask "all sorts of questions about why Obama wouldn't released his long-form birth certificate". I did however, correctly so too, note that the BC initially released was insufficient to determine the type of BC he was issued.

I don't think "truther" means what you think it does.

Fern

 

[First]

Well, we disagree. I want to see our govt do all things possible to defend our ambassadors, that includes asking allies for assistance.

How do you know they didn't? It's safe to say you're assuming this, given that I doubt you've read the Pickering report cover to cover, or thought that perhaps that communication is classified. Lots of perfectly reasonable explanations why we don't know.

Of course, the mere presence of "Unanswered questions!" is itself not evidence of wrongdoing. Especially given how many Benghazi conspiracy theories have been knocked down ("Stand-down order given!")

I didn't ask "all sorts of questions about why Obama wouldn't released his long-form birth certificate".

You most certainly did. Don't make me embarass you by linking your previous comments on the matter.

I did however, correctly so too, note that the BC initially released was insufficient to determine the type of BC he was issued.

I don't think "truther" means what you think it does.

Fern

You, in particular, spent an inordinate amount of time "just asking questions" about his birth certificate generally, his hospital stay and specifically his long-form BC. It's very easy for me to link to your posts. Don't make me do it.

 

[Fern]

How do you know they didn't? It's safe to say you're assuming this, given that I doubt you've read the Pickering report cover to cover, or thought that perhaps that communication is classified. Lots of perfectly reasonable explanations why we don't know.

Of course, the mere presence of "Unanswered questions!" is itself not evidence of wrongdoing. Especially given how many Benghazi conspiracy theories have been knocked down ("Stand-down order given!")

I'm not assuming anything. I want detailed and believable confirmation that we did everything possible. I've got two problems with this issue:

1. We've spent a gazillion dollars on our military and we have no functioning rapid response teams? WTH?

2. If the above is known why in the h3ll do we put ambassadors in dangerous places with critically deficient (the report's words IIRC) security?

You most certainly did. Don't make me embarass you by linking your previous comments on the matter.

You, in particular, spent an inordinate amount of time "just asking questions" about his birth certificate generally, his hospital stay and specifically his long-form BC. It's very easy for me to link to your posts. Don't make me do it.

Go for it, but it's OT in this thread.

My recollection was spending time rebutting dumb lefty claims such as the released BC was the original. How so few didn't realize we didn't have printers back in 1961 is ridiculous.

Otherwise I was spending time explaining that the originally released BC couldn't be used to verify the type of BC he was initially issued and what the ramifications of that were (a plethora of very interesting questions).

I do admit to picking up some information that may be incorrect. E.g., his mother had a trip to see his father before he was born. But no records exist to prove or disprove such claims.

Fern

 

[First]

I'm not assuming anything. I want detailed and believable confirmation that we did everything possible.

Have you read the reports to ascertain for yourself? If you haven't, then you're assuming, and that's just fact given the benign nature of your question.

I've got two problems with this issue:

1. We've spent a gazillion dollars on our military and we have no functioning rapid response teams? WTH?

This isn't a movie. Do you know how the military's budget breaks down on this matter and what the cost would be to fund "rapid" response teams around the world? Any clue? My guess is no.

2. If the above is known why in the h3ll do we put ambassadors in dangerous places with critically deficient (the report's words IIRC) security?

Security was inadequate and many State department officials were punished, as the Pickering report and subsequent reports were clear on. Lots of information is already available publicly about this question, in other words, so I'm not sure why you're asking it here again. It has been answered.

Go for it, but it's OT in this thread.

"IMO, the most logical reason (really, the only logical reason) to stick with the COLB is that the original (or long form) BC would raise far more questions than it answers. In which case, the logical thing is to stick with it and keep fighting lawsuits etc." - Fern 2011

My recollection was spending time rebutting dumb lefty claims such as the released BC was the original. How so few didn't realize we didn't have printers back in 1961 is ridiculous.

Otherwise I was spending time explaining that the originally released BC couldn't be used to verify the type of BC he was initially issued and what the ramifications of that were (a plethora of very interesting questions).

I do admit to picking up some information that may be incorrect. E.g., his mother had a trip to see his father before he was born. But no records exist to prove or disprove such claims.

Fern

Nothing you said here is particularly relevant. Lots of people's BC's, including politicians that hold office, do not have their original raised seal BC. The whole BC debate was quite clearly entirely about his race and heritage. Virtually no one serious participated in the conspiracy debate about it.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Nothing you said here is particularly relevant. Lots of people's BC's, including politicians that hold office, do not have their original raised seal BC. The whole BC debate was quite clearly entirely about his race and heritage. Virtually no one serious participated in the conspiracy debate about it.

You're not getting it. Not close.

You don't need to see the long form/original BC to determine the type of BC. A state copy like Obama issued first would ordinarily do the job.

However, the BC Obama first released did not state that he was born in a hospital. That's key. If it gave the hospital of birth there could no question of the type of BC he was initially issued.

So, the issue wasn't (for me anyway) that the 'copy' of the BC wasn't official or forged etc., it was the lack of information.

You probably won't believe this but I'll say it anyway. I went through the HI websites very carefully. When requesting copies of BC's one is (or at least was) permitted to have the copy say as much or as little info as they desired. I.e., Obama chose to not have his birth hospital listed. Why? IDK.

I didn't bother searching the HI website because after this affair it was massively changed and a ton of info was deleted/omitted.

Fern

 

[DominionSeraph]

Puhleeze.

We know they knew the truth almost immediately. There was no need to 'hard sell' the video for weeks or even longer.

It can be hard to keep secrets in Washington DC. There were people with ties to the intel community on TV within 24 hrs telling us there was no demonstration and the video wasn't to blame.

A talking head on Faux News can spout their pet theories with no repercussions. "It must've been Al-Qaeda!" "It was aliens!" "It was the lizard people!" They need no tact, and if they're shown to be wrong Faux News will never remind you of that. The Administration doesn't have that luxury. A preliminary guess needs to be "the best mistake": if no option is guaranteed to be right, go with the one that implies the least. Shooting off to blame a specific terrorist organization gives them free advertising; you are announcing to the world that you fear their organization to the point where they're the #1 thought when anything goes wrong. The statement also calls for action, so you'll have massive egg on your face if it turns out a different organization was responsible and you were calling for the deaths of the wrong people.

But this is beyond you as your mind is set on "massive cover-up".

 

[First]

You're not getting it. Not close.

You don't need to see the long form/original BC to determine the type of BC. A state copy like Obama issued first would ordinarily do the job.

However, the BC Obama first released did not state that he was born in a hospital. That's key. If it gave the hospital of birth there could no question of the type of BC he was initially issued.

So, the issue wasn't (for me anyway) that the 'copy' of the BC wasn't official or forged etc., it was the lack of information.

It doesn't matter that the BC didn't state what hospital he was born in. It could not be more irrelevant. His birth was announced in the local HI newspaper. What hospital he was born in is laughably conspiratorial. He was born in the state of HI, making him a NBC and absolutely qualified to run for president. The "lack of information" about what hospital he was born in is farking nonsensical.

You probably won't believe this but I'll say it anyway. I went through the HI websites very carefully. When requesting copies of BC's one is (or at least was) permitted to have the copy say as much or as little info as they desired. I.e., Obama chose to not have his birth hospital listed. Why? IDK.

Yeah, again, you simply look paranoid and a little desperate. I factually state you were asking questions of Obama's long-form BC, you say "No I didn't" and I of course literally quote and link you saying in 2011 you believe the only logical explanation for why Obama didn't release his long-form BC was that it would raise far more questions than it answers and of course that's just pure conspiratorial tripe given that he, uh, released his long-form BC and no such additional questions arose (this is where you admit the error of your ways). No doubt, you have tons of questions about why he didn't release it sooner, while sane people are telling you to remove the tinfoil from your ears.

I didn't bother searching the HI website because after this affair it was massively changed and a ton of info was deleted/omitted.

Fern

Good gawd. You still think the dude isn't a legit, huh?

Whatever, we have clear documentation you can't reason all that well and aren't capable of dispassionate, rational thought. Your paranoia is odd indeed.

 

[Bitek]

They don't care about Obama. This is taxpayer supported campaigning for 2016.

^^^^^^^

Stole my thunder. It is so patently obvious. Notice that the leaders engaging in this train wreck of a show investigation all represent nutso right wing districts.

Good posts, as was DVC's and kages.

It's shameful how they using these deaths for financial and political gain.

I have no faith any of these hearings will actually produce information that will improve security or deter future attacks.

 

[UberNeuman]

 

[IronWing]

My inner seven year old is now content. I've wanted to do this to this image since first laying eyes on it.

Carry on.