McCarthy Admits Benghazi Designed to Flatten Hillary Poll Numbers

[kaz]

The lie that was told and retold by the administration until long after everyone knew otherwise that they thought it was a spontaneous attack alone easily justified the cost of the investigation. Obama and Rice both clearly lied whatever you want to call it, they both knew it wasn't. If Republicans knowingly lied, you'd be screaming for their heads, not arguing that somehow it wasn't illegal

But it never was a legitimate investigation. It was a charade and a fraud used to discredit a legitimate candidate for office.

It certainly was a legit investigation. Four Americans were killed and it was important enough for those who were indirectly responsible to coverup their failure. That's a warrant for an investigation if ever there was one.

hmmm, how about a warrant issued for the deaths of 4,500 Americans based on the lies by George W, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and the rest of the neo conservatives?

Yet again the partisan omission of the Democrats who did it arm in arm with them

It's a tossup, is this ^^^ a lie, a half-truth or ignorance? Given the record I lean toward a lie but even Kaz deserves a chance to clarify this post.

The D's did not vote in lock-step on the resolution to use force,

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


with a few exceptions the Republicans did. Thus your comment is at best a half-truth. Writing the D's voted arm in arm (aka in lock-step) with the R's is an attempt to deceive the readers.

Of course maybe you actually believe what you wrote, which would not entirely surprise me. You've never shown the acumen necessary to explore matters which might challenge the biases you hold.

You don't hold the Democrats who did it with the Republicans accountable, only Republicans

 

[cereal_killer]

This case?

The top Republican just admitted the "case" was a sham.

No outrage from the right wing.

Just an attempt at denial.

Complete nonsense...look I don't like Republican's or this new speaker. He's a moron like the rest of them, but he didn't say anything was a sham. He pointed out that nobody would have known that Hillary couldn't be trusted had they not put together this committee. This whole Benghazi thing continues to bring her down and this latest spin/lie on what this guy said won't change that. Dems are frantically trying to make this go away for her and nothing is working. This latest one won't go anywhere. No matter how many headlines claim he said it was a sham doesn't make it so.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense understands what he was getting at.

That's not what he said.

Not at all.

Thats exactly what he said. Listen to it again. He's pointing out that without them pursuing this Benghazi issue people would have not understood how untrustworthy Hillary is.

There is nothing about the Benghazi issue that suggests Hillary is untrustworthy.

This is the same as a crime being debated in a courtroom and the judge going on television telling people how evil a certain person he "thinks" did the crime is before the court says that he's even accused.

I'm not disputing that, but the Speaker says otherwise. I'm only addressing the lefts spin doctors trying to make this into a "gotcha!" moment. The establishment-both parties- are nothing but dirty fucking lying rats and a majority of American's are sick of them.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

It certainly was a legit investigation. Four Americans were killed and it was important enough for those who were indirectly responsible to coverup their failure. That's a warrant for an investigation if ever there was one.

hmmm, how about a warrant issued for the deaths of 4,500 Americans based on the lies by George W, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and the rest of the neo conservatives?

Yet again the partisan omission of the Democrats who did it arm in arm with them

It's a tossup, is this ^^^ a lie, a half-truth or ignorance? Given the record I lean toward a lie but even Kaz deserves a chance to clarify this post.

The D's did not vote in lock-step on the resolution to use force,

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


with a few exceptions the Republicans did. Thus your comment is at best a half-truth. Writing the D's voted arm in arm (aka in lock-step) with the R's is an attempt to deceive the readers.

Of course maybe you actually believe what you wrote, which would not entirely surprise me. You've never shown the acumen necessary to explore matters which might challenge the biases you hold.

Then explain these two issues:
A) Why before GWB everyone including the MSM called for the "Liberation of Iraq" Even legislation passed during Clinton's term.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, signed into law by President Clinton, states:
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
105th Congress, 2nd Session
September 29, 1998

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

Former President Clinton
During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
July 22, 2003

Then THESE Democrats Supported the "Liberation of Iraq"..


"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

B) But then GWB/GOP won and NOW what was under the MSM the "Liberation of Iraq" It became the "INVASION of Iraq"!

So the idiots like Obama,etc, who never comprehended the role of the military did everything to destroy our military in Iraq.
These quotes certainly did what this Harvard study showed: HELPED the terrorists!

Case in point is the below idiots that made speeches that the MSM broadcast loudly around the world IN SPITE of this Harvard showed :
THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT" asked:

"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?
The short answer is YES!!!
According to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's
Kennedy School of Government.

STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across
Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to
information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war.
We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.
The results suggest that insurgent groups respond rationally to expected probability of US withdrawal.

So because of traitors making statements like the below the conflict was encouraged and prolonged with 3,000 more deaths and $600 billion more then necessary!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost",
U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children." Kerry calling our troops TERRORISTS!!!
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

So when it became "politically driven to help the terrorists kill American troops as the above statements have been proven to do, the MSM with their KNOWN
Democrat/liberal biased reporting ALSO nightly showing deaths of US troops... Abu Ghraib done by 11 soldiers NOT the entire military but the MSM/Democrats
knew that the majority of Americans read headlines and constantly pushed our military and the Liberation of IRAQ daily as a "War is Lost" mentality!

Why haven't we invaded and occupied N. Korea? But I digress.

Those D's quoted above should have had easy recall of the Domino Theory and our failed attempt to control the fate of a region where we had little understanding of a specific nation's history or their culture so much different than our own. I can't speak for them, nor can they speak for me. I've walked the Vietnam Memorial Wall on the Mall in The District and read the names of guys I went to school with, played ball with and served with.

We should have learned a lesson from the Vietnam quagmire, instead we created a fiasco in Iraq. Notwithstanding the comments and actions above, more Democrats vote against the 2002 Iraq Resolution than voted for it. 95%+ of the Republican caucus in The Congress voted for it.

I was in a manager's seminar when C. Powell presented our case for Military Action against Iraq to the UN. Every person in the room had a four year degree, most of us had a Master's and there were a few with a Ph.D.

We were released to go to our respective hotel rooms to watch the event, and discuss what when on after viewing it. The vast majority of those attending believed the evidence Powell presented; I found it unconvincing at best, as did a few others in the room, one being a wounded Combat Vet.

President Lincoln said it best:

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."

And today, the Neo Cons have risen again, do we really want to allow the Republican Party to once again send our kids into harms way with a poorly planned mission?

I'm not an isolationist nor am I a pacifist, but I've seen enough quagmires and fiascoes to last several lifetimes.

Welcome home, Brother!

 

[nuhuh]

The CIA was responsible for the acquisition and disbursement of intelligence, Petraeus was the person who pushed the video explanation and was under open investigation by the FBI as early as spring 2012, six months before the attack.

Was Patraeus in charge of protecting the 2o US Embassies that were simultaneously attacked on 9/11/12 and for the security of Ambassador Stevens, the 1st Ambassador to be murdered in over 30 years? NO, that would be Hillary, the State Department, and Obama!

AGAIN, just STOP doing the 'Heisman' by blaming others and pointing fingers.

Know what the CIA was doing in Benghazi? Already proven, they were running guns to Syrian 'Rebels' (who later became ISIS)

I also already posted the story and link showing how the CIA had IMMEDIATELY informed Hillary this was a terrorist attack and that there WAS NO PROTEST....yet the Next Morning Obama has his toady on the Sunday Morning Talk Shows proclaiming this all to be a protest gone wrong!

FACE IT - IT WAS ALL A LIE AND A COVER-UP TO SAVE OBAMA'S RE-ELECTION!

It was NOT Patraeu's job to defend the 20 Embassies and to protect Stevens - it was HILLARY'S, the STATE DEPARTMENT'S and OBAMA'S...and THEY FAILED...based on the FACT that 4 Embassies were overrun, 1 US ambassador died, and 3 other Americans trying to protect Stevens died on 9/11/12.

Just STOP this pathetic, embarrassing 'blame-shifting'.

Well your completely out of the ball park talking about blame shifting. These people weren't investigated to any degree and only serves to validate what McCarthy said day before yesterday.

Petraeus was important because he was the author of the original talking points, he was also sharing secret information with his lover all those facts are relevant to the case. The CIA's role is also important and if it didn't strike you yet, arguably nothing likely would have happened were it not for their involvement in gun running. The military could have done a far better job of reacting to the violence that night but no one was held to account. It was Hillary and state all the time and your own people have vindicated their involvement in this and because of that very pertinent fact it is you who are blame shifting.

 

[nuhuh]

hmmm, how about a warrant issued for the deaths of 4,500 Americans based on the lies by George W, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and the rest of the neo conservatives?

Yet again the partisan omission of the Democrats who did it arm in arm with them

It's a tossup, is this ^^^ a lie, a half-truth or ignorance? Given the record I lean toward a lie but even Kaz deserves a chance to clarify this post.

The D's did not vote in lock-step on the resolution to use force,

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


with a few exceptions the Republicans did. Thus your comment is at best a half-truth. Writing the D's voted arm in arm (aka in lock-step) with the R's is an attempt to deceive the readers.

Of course maybe you actually believe what you wrote, which would not entirely surprise me. You've never shown the acumen necessary to explore matters which might challenge the biases you hold.

Then explain these two issues:
A) Why before GWB everyone including the MSM called for the "Liberation of Iraq" Even legislation passed during Clinton's term.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, signed into law by President Clinton, states:
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
105th Congress, 2nd Session
September 29, 1998

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

Former President Clinton
During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
July 22, 2003

Then THESE Democrats Supported the "Liberation of Iraq"..


"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

B) But then GWB/GOP won and NOW what was under the MSM the "Liberation of Iraq" It became the "INVASION of Iraq"!

So the idiots like Obama,etc, who never comprehended the role of the military did everything to destroy our military in Iraq.
These quotes certainly did what this Harvard study showed: HELPED the terrorists!

Case in point is the below idiots that made speeches that the MSM broadcast loudly around the world IN SPITE of this Harvard showed :
THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT" asked:

"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?
The short answer is YES!!!
According to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's
Kennedy School of Government.

STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across
Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to
information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war.
We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.
The results suggest that insurgent groups respond rationally to expected probability of US withdrawal.

So because of traitors making statements like the below the conflict was encouraged and prolonged with 3,000 more deaths and $600 billion more then necessary!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost",
U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children." Kerry calling our troops TERRORISTS!!!
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

So when it became "politically driven to help the terrorists kill American troops as the above statements have been proven to do, the MSM with their KNOWN
Democrat/liberal biased reporting ALSO nightly showing deaths of US troops... Abu Ghraib done by 11 soldiers NOT the entire military but the MSM/Democrats
knew that the majority of Americans read headlines and constantly pushed our military and the Liberation of IRAQ daily as a "War is Lost" mentality!

Why haven't we invaded and occupied N. Korea? But I digress.

Those D's quoted above should have had easy recall of the Domino Theory and our failed attempt to control the fate of a region where we had little understanding of a specific nation's history or their culture so much different than our own. I can't speak for them, nor can they speak for me. I've walked the Vietnam Memorial Wall on the Mall in The District and read the names of guys I went to school with, played ball with and served with.

We should have learned a lesson from the Vietnam quagmire, instead we created a fiasco in Iraq. Notwithstanding the comments and actions above, more Democrats vote against the 2002 Iraq Resolution than voted for it. 95%+ of the Republican caucus in The Congress voted for it.

I was in a manager's seminar when C. Powell presented our case for Military Action against Iraq to the UN. Every person in the room had a four year degree, most of us had a Master's and there were a few with a Ph.D.

We were released to go to our respective hotel rooms to watch the event, and discuss what when on after viewing it. The vast majority of those attending believed the evidence Powell presented; I found it unconvincing at best, as did a few others in the room, one being a wounded Combat Vet.

President Lincoln said it best:

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."

And today, the Neo Cons have risen again, do we really want to allow the Republican Party to once again send our kids into harms way with a poorly planned mission?

I'm not an isolationist nor am I a pacifist, but I've seen enough quagmires and fiascoes to last several lifetimes.

Welcome home, Brother!

Amen

 

[easyt65]

Well your completely out of the ball park talking about blame shifting.

REALLY?! So far you have tried to blame the investigating committee for failing to protect the 20 US Embassies that were attacked on 9/11/12. You have tried to blame the CIA and General Patraeus for failing to prevent the death of Ambassador Stevens, the 1st US Ambassador to be assassinated in over 30 years, and the 3 other Americans that died that day WHILE attempting to deflect any blame from Hillary - acting Secretary of State, the State Department, and the Obama administration.

I would say your own words show I am 'spot on' about the CONTINUED 'blame-shifting' and denial.

 

[easyt65]

BTW, the CIA's initial report, which you claim WERE the 'talking points', which were sent to the White House and State Department within the 1sh hour of the attack, specifically outlined that this WAS a terrorist attack. They also made it clear this was NOT a PROTEST as the Obama administration LATER falsely claimed. It has been PROVEN that the State Department and While House collaborated in modifying that report 13 times before it was ever released, removing every reference to 'terrorism' from the report.

This goes hand-in-hand, collaborating each other, the reports that came out last week about how the Obama administration has been manipulating and reporting false Intel regarding terrorism since....when was that - OH YEAH, 2012! (When was the Benghazi attack again? OH YEAH, 2012!)

 

[nuhuh]

Well your completely out of the ball park talking about blame shifting.

REALLY?! So far you have tried to blame the investigating committee for failing to protect the 20 US Embassies that were attacked on 9/11/12. You have tried to blame the CIA and General Patraeus for failing to prevent the death of Ambassador Stevens, the 1st US Ambassador to be assassinated in over 30 years, and the 3 other Americans that died that day WHILE attempting to deflect any blame from Hillary - acting Secretary of State, the State Department, and the Obama administration.

I would say your own words show I am 'spot on' about the CONTINUED 'blame-shifting' and denial.

What you fail to acknowledge is that your own investigations have come up with nothing and one of them has outright vindicated Hillary and State, yet you rail as if you have some super secret information (or will soon) that will implode Hillary and State. Let me spell it out one more time. Issa and Gowdy have spent twenty million of taxpayer dollars investigating something that has no meat. There is nothing there after 8 full investigations and all that money spent. The investigation has shifted from Benghazi and now we are concentrating on email. It's a fucking fishing expedition and you people are spell bound that they will find something. Let me tell you right now they will find nothing and this will end up in the repository of nothing along with all of your other investigations and millions of dollars that have come up with nothing. Stupid fucking wasteful people with an agenda is what this is about.

 

[nuhuh]

BTW, the CIA's initial report, which you claim WERE the 'talking points', which were sent to the White House and State Department within the 1sh hour of the attack, specifically outlined that this WAS a terrorist attack. They also made it clear this was NOT a PROTEST as the Obama administration LATER falsely claimed. It has been PROVEN that the State Department and While House collaborated in modifying that report 13 times before it was ever released, removing every reference to 'terrorism' from the report.

This goes hand-in-hand, collaborating each other, the reports that came out last week about how the Obama administration has been manipulating and reporting false Intel regarding terrorism since....when was that - OH YEAH, 2012! (When was the Benghazi attack again? OH YEAH, 2012!)

Yeah that was Petraeus, but you didn't see the value in questioning him about that and Susan Rice was vindicated for her role in that which you continue to ignore.

 

[JimH52]

House Republicans repudiate McCarthy comments - CNNPolitics.com

So, the millions of dollars and thousands of hours spent were just to bring Hillary Down? WOW! The truth finally comes out!!

 

[Davros]

I don't see anything wrong with what he said.

 

[easyt65]

What you fail to acknowledge is that your own investigations have come up with nothing ...

We just established:
- It was Hillary's, The State Department' , and Obama's responsibility to adequately defend the 20 US Embassies that were attacked - 4 overrun - and to protect the life of Ambassador Stevens, the 1st US Ambassador in over 30 years to be assassinated BECAUSE HILLARY, THE STATE DEPARTMENT, AND OBAMA FAILED TO DO SO.

- The CIA Report that was sent declaring this was a terrorist attack and that there was NO protest was manipulated by Hillary, the State Department, and Obama 13 (THIRTEEN) times, eliminating every reference to terrorism and turning it into the talking points that were used the following morning to LIE to the world by calling this a protest over a video.

- That this false manipulation of Intel is a DIRECT part of the Obama administration's releasing false Intel Reports , from 2012 to this year, to hide the fact that his administration's record / policy against terrorism has been a FAILURE!

"Bu...bu...but.."

BUT NOTHING...except 'this' butt (yours) that's gettin' torn up....

 

[easyt65]

Yeah that was Petraeus, but you didn't see the value in questioning him about that and Susan Rice was vindicated for her role in that which you continue to ignore.

BLAMESHIFT ALERT, BLAMESHIFT ALERT!

The CIA, Patraeus' CIA, submitted it's report to the State House and the WH AFTER WHICH TIME it was proven that the report was altered 13 times, removing every reference to terrorism...and became the B$ talking points Rice pushed the next morning on the Sunday Talk Shows. FUTHERMORE it was proven last week that the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, has been manipulating and producing false Intel - continuing to lie about their lack of foreign policy success against terrorism since 2012!

You just KEEP on embarrassing yourself over and over again! Seems like you would be tired of this by now...

 

[nuhuh]

What you fail to acknowledge is that your own investigations have come up with nothing ...

We just established:
- It was Hillary's, The State Department' , and Obama's responsibility to adequately defend the 20 US Embassies that were attacked - 4 overrun - and to protect the life of Ambassador Stevens, the 1st US Ambassador in over 30 years to be assassinated BECAUSE HILLARY, THE STATE DEPARTMENT, AND OBAMA FAILED TO DO SO.

- The CIA Report that was sent declaring this was a terrorist attack and that there was NO protest was manipulated by Hillary, the State Department, and Obama 13 (THIRTEEN) times, eliminating every reference to terrorism and turning it into the talking points that were used the following morning to LIE to the world by calling this a protest over a video.

- That this false manipulation of Intel is a DIRECT part of the Obama administration's releasing false Intel Reports , from 2012 to this year, to hide the fact that his administration's record / policy against terrorism has been a FAILURE!

"Bu...bu...but.."

BUT NOTHING...except 'this' butt (yours) that's gettin' torn up....

No, you just established that fact and it is wrong.

Your investigative committee's have found nothing period.
Your own investigative committee vindicated Hillary and State.
This investigation has nothing to do with a record/policy against terrorism.
You're all over the place, you have nothing, nothing at all.

 

[easyt65]

No, you just established that fact and it is wrong.

So you actually think it WAS the investigating committees and the CIAs job to protect US Embassies and US Ambassadors and NOT Hillary, the State Department, and Obama's JOB?!



You believe that the FACT that it was proven that the State Department and WH modified the CIA's report 13 times and believe that the original CIA report - that specified this was a terrorist attack and that there was NO PROTEST is what Rice used the next morning on the Sunday shows to proclaim this was NOT a terrorist attack and that this WAS a protest...that she suddenly became unable to read or understand English or just haven't had coffee yet?!



And you believe this PROVEN manipulation of Intel by the WH has NOTHING to do with the falsification of Intel by the WH regarding terrorism that has - coincidently - been going on since 2012?!



Thank you for pointing out that I had established the FACTS and that you still believe them to be wrong.

 

[Eaglewings]

House Republicans repudiate McCarthy comments - CNNPolitics.com

So, the millions of dollars and thousands of hours spent were just to bring Hillary Down? WOW! The truth finally comes out!!

I wonder why McCarthy brought this out. I thought he was getting in because of his strong right support.
He should have waited until he got in. lol




~

 

[Nyvin]

This case?

The top Republican just admitted the "case" was a sham.

No outrage from the right wing.

Just an attempt at denial.

Complete nonsense...look I don't like Republican's or this new speaker. He's a moron like the rest of them, but he didn't say anything was a sham. He pointed out that nobody would have known that Hillary couldn't be trusted had they not put together this committee. This whole Benghazi thing continues to bring her down and this latest spin/lie on what this guy said won't change that. Dems are frantically trying to make this go away for her and nothing is working. This latest one won't go anywhere. No matter how many headlines claim he said it was a sham doesn't make it so.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense understands what he was getting at.

That's not what he said.

Not at all.

Thats exactly what he said. Listen to it again. He's pointing out that without them pursuing this Benghazi issue people would have not understood how untrustworthy Hillary is.

There is nothing about the Benghazi issue that suggests Hillary is untrustworthy.

This is the same as a crime being debated in a courtroom and the judge going on television telling people how evil a certain person he "thinks" did the crime is before the court says that he's even accused.

I'm not disputing that, but the Speaker says otherwise. I'm only addressing the lefts spin doctors trying to make this into a "gotcha!" moment. The establishment-both parties- are nothing but dirty fucking lying rats and a majority of American's are sick of them.

Umm...it kinda is a "gotcha!" moment. The future Speaker of the House goes on live television and states that a congressional investigation that is supposed to be partisan-neutral (paid for with taxpayer money....) is being utilized to throw mud at Hillary Clinton.

Do you not find ANYTHING corrupt about that whatsoever???? Is that good government to you?????

The entire purpose of the Select Committee is to find out what happened in Benghazi, not to find out how Hillary is guilty.

 

[nuhuh]

No, you just established that fact and it is wrong.

So you actually think it WAS the investigating committees and the CIAs job to protect US Embassies and US Ambassadors and NOT Hillary, the State Department, and Obama's JOB?!



You believe that the FACT that it was proven that the State Department and WH modified the CIA's report 13 times and believe that the original CIA report - that specified this was a terrorist attack and that there was NO PROTEST is what Rice used the next morning on the Sunday shows to proclaim this was NOT a terrorist attack and that this WAS a protest...that she suddenly became unable to read or understand English or just haven't had coffee yet?!



And you believe this PROVEN manipulation of Intel by the WH has NOTHING to do with the falsification of Intel by the WH regarding terrorism that has - coincidently - been going on since 2012?!



Thank you for pointing out that I had established the FACTS and that you still believe them to be wrong.

Gee, too bad your own investigative committee's have come up with nothing after three years of intense investigation and actually vindicated
verb
past tense: vindicated; past participle: vindicated
clear (someone) of blame or suspicion.
You have nothing, you will continue to have nothing and you will end up holding an empty bag. At some point, you will realize that you have nothing and have had nothing all along. Probably not for a long time though.

 

[Pete7469]

Bullshit.

The media took McCarthy's comments out of context. He did not say the point of the Benghazi hearings was to take down hitlary, that was just a side effect.

So some moonbat journalists corner some GOP reps who probably had no idea what was really said, and demand they condemn McCarthy for comments he didn't even make.

Moonbat subterfuge 101.

 

[Disir]

So, they can pay all of the tax payer money back. Make sure that Issa pays as well.