House Majority Leader Admits Benghazi Committee Part of Political Attack Strategy?

a reply to: Indigo5

So...you don't like Hillary...that makes it OK that a do-nothing congress decides to spend millions in tax-payer dollars, countless hours on the job, while collecting a tax-payer paid check...conducting a glorified political attack ad at the expense of those who actually died in the attack?

That's your take on the story.
That's what you see when you wear colored lenses... that color.

a reply to: theantediluvian

The main reason for it was to see if she released the location of or knew the location was compromised prior to the attack.

It has already been shown in previous emails on that server that his locations and movements were discussed. If it was because of her server that these attacks were able to be pinpointed to his location....that would be pretty damning.

Again...why wipe it if there is no information regarding this on there? That is something guilty parties do, regardless of any other information on it.

The very fact that she even USED this server should be grounds for her dismissal as a candidate....it shows she does not follow her own rules.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: jimmyx

so congressional hearings are only about political one-upmanship?...

That was what the 2014 CIA 'report' was.

A parting 'gift'.

huh?....do you mean the CIA torture report?....what does that have to do with the 8 congressional hearings ranting against Hillary Clinton in regards to Benghazi?

News Flash!

Big Gov party spends $4.5 million of tax payers money to lower an opposing parties presidential candidates place in the polls, and this is good.

While I have no use for Hilary, I find this political manipulation quite disgusting!
***SNIP***


GO Bernie!!!

a reply to: theantediluvian

If you are secretary of state, and a US embassy is attacked and diplomats are killed, I feel as if an investigation is the very least we can offer for the one's who's lives were lost. Or where they just collateral damage and not that important?

The E-mail scandal should be enough all by itself to prove that Hillary needs to be far away from control of anything. (strictly from a fully understanding IT position, I realize that non IT people don't fully grasp the gravity of this )

Be a proud democrat. That's cool. But to cling to Hillary at this point is much like purchasing a ticket to ride the Titanic. (that ship has sailed and sunk)

For the pugnacious politicos: New policies for the Political Mud Pit forum...

Attention Please -

A reminder that threads involving mud throwing will no longer be moved and will be trashed. Please don't destroy threads by taking your mud throwing outside the Mud Pit.

Blaine91555
Moderator

a reply to: butcherguy

Why is the CIA report seen as that?

It was one investigation and if it was aimed at any one particular it was at Bush who can't be elected...

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: johnwick
a reply to: theantediluvian

So....???

I'm just saying, they did their jobs, and exposed hitlery for who she is.

A completely devoid of any human decency or morals type.

Your problem is it was politically motivated...... Isn't all political action?

I don't get it...

so congressional hearings are only about political one-upmanship?.....you might want to tell that to the families of the men that were killed and who had requested a hearing....there have been 8 hearings on this so far, 5 million dollars spent, the Benghazi hearings have taken more time than Watergate, 9/11, Iran-contra, etc...Benghazi hearings are now the longest running in the history of congress.....

And if there is not a political pay off for the political class to bring this up, they won't, no matter who's family was killed etc...

I'm just being real, this is how political action works.

It is never, not ever on merit or actual morality.

It is always about political gain, by costing a loss to an opponent.

Every time.

Accept this, and you will understand politics and politicians.

a reply to: butcherguy

Correct.
For the Progressives to say that only Republicans play politics is obscene.

Who said that?

It certainly wasn't me and I haven't seen anyone else say it so what is that comment in reference to? Honest question. There are lots of political shenanigans and there's hardly an issue or topic that hasn't been heavily politicized and clearly neither party is above it.

What's any of that got to do with the topic at hand though? Did you watch the video and do you believe that Kevin McCarthy believes that the Select Committee was established for reasons other than investigating whether or not the attack could have been prevented, if somebody's malfeasance or treachery is to blame and what changes could be made to protect against similar attacks?

If you believe that he does and from your comment above, it doesn't exactly sound like you're saying he doesn't, I have to ask why you'd want to defend him unless you also believe that it's okay to abuse congressional powers of investigation as a means of campaigning and expect tax payers to foot the bill?

What happened to the Video lies?

And all that Susan Rice did and said?

a reply to: theantediluvian
I haven't defended him.
I do not like Hillary Clinton.
That doesn't mean that I liked or like any of the Bush family.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: butcherguy

Why is the CIA report seen as that?

It was one investigation and if it was aimed at any one particular it was at Bush who can't be elected...

Because it was just that.
Did it serve to make Republicans look bad? Or is Bush a Democrat, and we just haven't found out yet?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Why do you think about 62% of Republicans feel betrayed by their party? Even if he said this, it doesn't mean that Benghazi is a none issue or even that he thinks it's a none issue. What it means is that he's so caught up in partisan politics that he'd rather play the game than do what's right which means holding off on any real work on Benghazi until he thinks it will be most damaging.

It's like McConnell in the Senate not fighting on the issues most of his caucus got elected to fight on and when they pass using the excuse that they'll be excellent election issues in 2016. You can only play that game so many times before your voting base starts to think what you're shoveling stinks.

We don't want Benghazi done as an October surprise. We want it done now.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I agree. I don't like Hillary, but this has been investigated ad nauseum, wasting millions. It is time to let the dead rest. The knew the risks, especially the security personnel.

Benghazi was not an embassy or a consulate. It was a diplomatic mission to aid rebel-led insurgencies. The amount of security is typically low at such places in order to not draw attention.

a reply to: butcherguy

Not to say they wouldn't do it, but is any report that makes the other party look bad to be seen as only a political move?

Or was that just a report about how we were torturing people which both sides had their hands in?

Now one side was very vocal about how it should not have been released or that it was false ect.
That is what they caught more blow back for IMO.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: theantediluvian

If you are secretary of state, and a US embassy is attacked and diplomats are killed, I feel as if an investigation is the very least we can offer for the one's who's lives were lost. Or where they just collateral damage and not that important?

The E-mail scandal should be enough all by itself to prove that Hillary needs to be far away from control of anything. (strictly from a fully understanding IT position, I realize that non IT people don't fully grasp the gravity of this )

Be a proud democrat. That's cool. But to cling to Hillary at this point is much like purchasing a ticket to ride the Titanic. (that ship has sailed and sunk)

1. Who said those killed were "collateral damage and not that important?" Did I? No. I have absolutely no problem with even multiple investigations but how many investigations are enough? 2, 3, 10, 100? November 8, 2016?

2. I've been an IT professional for most of adult life (two decades) and before that, I spent my teenage years gaining all sorts of unauthorized access. Hell, I even have ACTUAL experience administrating email servers. I agree that she shouldn't have been sending or receiving anything sensitive/top secret through her own private email server.

None of that has anything to do with what Kevin McCarthy said though does it?

3. I'm neither a Democrat nor a supporter of Hillary Clinton. In fact, I have absolutely ZERO affection for Hillary Clinton. None. Zip. Zilch. Kevin McCarthy is the person who made this about Hilary Clinton (literally?), not me, so if you're done making horrendously incorrect assumptions, maybe you'd like to address what he said and the implications?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: butcherguy

Not to say they wouldn't do it, but is any report that makes the other party look bad to be seen as only a political move?

Or was that just a report about how we were torturing people which both sides had their hands in?

Was it a group of Republicans that wrote the report?

a reply to: butcherguy

See the edit and I am over talking about the report.

Nothing close to what Benghazi has become.