Benghazi Hearings (Page 6)

But it is not going to change...because they are too invested in their opinion at this point. I mean you do actually think any would really say they were wrong and indeed now this is a big deal. Of course not.

And I also just want to congratulate you on the use of "beclown" in a sentence. :golf clap:

X2

I heard "besmirch" at least a dozen times last week.  It's good to hear some archaic words making a come-back.

Most interesting morning show today was David Gregory's.  He had Issa sitting next to Pickering.

Pickering made a lot of statements throughout the interview countering Issa, but the most interesting statement was "Our investigation was on the lead-up to the attack and the attack itself.  We didn't look at the reaction or spin afterward."

Just thought that was interesting as people have been using his ARB report to suggest this has been fully reviewed when clearly it hasn't.  

Again, I maintain that for most of us, this is all about making sure administrations (this one and future) realize that when they send people into hostile areas, they need to have planned for contingencies.  If they fail to plan, they have to do something, anything to support boots on the ground who are calling for help. 

And I also want to say... at some point it HAS TO MATTER. 4 Americans died in that attack, and I find it dishonorable to cover your political arse with that little fact. Yes, I get politics and some people die... but when they do, then honor them and do what's right. This happens over and over... friendly fire, or what not... but the family is still here to listen to that.. and you are lying to them. "What difference does it make"? Are you flippin kidding me? UFBelievable

I'm not sure what you are referring to. Could you provide some specifics or explain what you are referring to specifically?

Here's an idea... how about we elect somebody not named Bush or Clinton... move along now, there are 300 million people to choose from.

Personally I get a kick out of the manufactured "manufactured outrage"

It's an 8-minute clip.  It's pretty darn funny. 

The same folks beating the Benghazi drum might want to look back at the drum beating back in the day folks were looking to prosecute Cheney/Bush for cherry-picking bad intell. that directly led us into Iraq.  I'm pretty sure more than 4 Americans died as a result of that blunder.  It goes both ways.

There are plenty of well-written articles out there that illustrate just how over the top the whole beating of the Benghazi drum has been.  I just thought Stewart's was a lot more fun to post.    

As scary and disgusting as it may be... really.. who else do they have?

That...

It's why I am more of a Libertarian than anything.  I have just seen too much blind loyalty in the two major parties.  To me they are as ugly as a sofa cover on a Kardashian.

Ditto, I was furious when Bush pushed into Iraq, and don't get me started on TARP and entitlements. 

I agree that Patraeus will be interesting to say the least.

Unless he's got skeletons, that's a slam dunk.  Rubio is the man.  

I guess you missed the new talking points by the White House Mouth Piece, Bush was soooooooo yesterday,,,,, Now it's all Roooooooooomney caused this all to happen..... Come on man keep up!!!

I'm outraged by the lack of outrage you have displayed in your response!

Bush and co cherry-picked intel so they could topple a dictator. 

Obama and co changed intel they received so they could get elected. 

Both were wrong.

Bill Kristol and Dennis Kucinich were agreeing yesterday about Benghazi.  That just goes to show that if this wasn't political at all, there would be outrage about this incident.  

He's pretty clean.  Son of Cuban immigrants (some dispute about the refugee status are you a refugee if you left before the stuff hit the fan?).  

His wife was Miss Florida and a Dolphins Cheerleader, so I'm sure they'll use that against him...

When he was running initially, he could talk about any issue exceptionally well and would speak from the heart.  Since he was elected to the senate, I hear from people who have met him that he's gone all talking-point-ish.  

I still like him.  But I also think he has completely tied his future hopes to immigration reform.  If it is seen as a success, he's a shoo-in.  If not, I guess we get Hillary.  But what difference at this point does it make anyway?

I think Rubio was the early "favorite" because the R's were in damage control mode and feeling they had to win the Hispanic vote to survive.  Hence, Rubio shoots to the top.

Rubio then jumps in on amnesty full tilt and it's been backfiring on him in a big way in most conservative circles.  Most conservatives believe that amnesty will lead to the death of the Republican party because 85+ percent of the new immigrants will vote D due to entitlements.  I'm listening to Laura Ingraham on my PC right now and she's ripping Rubio apart.  I don't know of any conservative radio host that has any love for Rubio, so I would say it's pretty safe that he has a 0% chance of getting the nomination at this point.

Personally, I like him but he's too much of an establishment guy for me to vote for him.  If he were to win he'd just be another big spending anti civil rights Republican.

I'm hopeful that one of the more libertarian candidates can get through the establishment blackball.  Rand Paul, or Ted Cruz would be fun. 

Way off topic now, but do you mean Ted Cruz, the fake hispanic? 

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/05/05/Gov-Bill-Richardson-on-Ted-Cruz-He-should-Not-be-defined-as-a-Hispanic-He-demeans-the-office

If Richardson considers himself a hispanic, then I've been checking the wrong box for years.  My family is from the Iberian Penninsula, I was born in San Diego but I grew up in Central America.  Do I qualify as hispanic?

Cruz is very intelligent and a very good attorney.  I wish he had some leadership credentials.  I always worry about anyone who has no leadership credentials being in the ultimate position of leadership...

I'm not sure what his race has to do with anything.  I like him because of his support of individual rights and lower taxes.  The Libertarian message resonates top to bottom in America, but I don't know if either Cruz or Paul can get through the primaries due to the establishment.

In a survey launched by Young America’s Foundation and conducted by the polling company, Kellyanne Conway, Inc., more than 60 percent of college-age students feel that government should not take an active role in their day-to-day-lives, and half of respondents believe that the federal government is mostly hurting economic recovery.

and yes, we're way off topic. 

Back to Benghazi...

Oh, his race has nothing to do with anything.  I was just bringing-up the only real attack on him thus far which was Richardson saying he "wouldn't consider Cruz to be defined as hispanic" which I thought was a ridiculous attack on someone. 

So back on Benghazi, I hear Petraeus is supposed to testify.  This could be interesting.  He certainly knows who told him to change the talking points.  

His Affair issue could definitely explain why he didn't fight back when everyone and their mother was blaming the "intel community's assessment in-regard to the video".  Also explains why they didn't take action sooner when the FBI had been investigating him since May 2012. 

OK, here comes some Tin-Foil Hat stuff:

So, they investigate in May 2012, find dirt that summer, keep dirt for when they need it.  Then Benghazi goes down in September.  They tell him "toe the line or we'll release this info".  He toes the line.  Immediately after the election, they "leak" the story, he goes down on November 9th, just in-time for Veteran's Day.  

I just find that timeline very interesting. 

The Washington Times had an interesting article on Patraeus. 

CURL: Watch out for Petraeus in Benghazi scandal

Rule number one in washington is to never throw the CIA under the bus.