Gowdy & Company...
- Thread starter soybean
- Start date
Does this man not look and sound like the poster child of Southern inbreeding?...
oes
oes
Might want to turn up the volume she is getting hammered cant wait for session 2.
By an inbred redneck, how?
Me thinks, Tre Gowdy is in his arena and is very comfortable questioning Hillary. Just because someone has a 'twang doesn't mean their slow.
*they're...that might be an indication. ;-)
Wrong. They already released 2 emails where Hillary admitted to family and other world leaders they knew it was a terror attack and had nothing to do with a video.
It's also been made clear Blumenthal was her advisor in all things related to her job as sec of state, despite having zero business doing so or any security clearance.
Look, if you want to vote for Hillary bc you're a blind partisan, go for it. But don't act like she's some poor innocent victim in all of this. Defending her just makes you look stupid.
It's also been made clear Blumenthal was her advisor in all things related to her job as sec of state, despite having zero business doing so or any security clearance.
Look, if you want to vote for Hillary bc you're a blind partisan, go for it. But don't act like she's some poor innocent victim in all of this. Defending her just makes you look stupid.
Touché, however I'm from above the Mason Dixon. Apparently Iowa schooling has failed me and using their in place of they're is proof.
Hillary is not an innocent victim, she is a politician. No different from the politicians who held that office before her. The difference is that she is undergoing a political attack for holding that office. Defending the conduct of the Republicans on this committee makes YOU look stupid.
The absolute worst things, directly related to Hillary, that they will find is that they spun the attack immediately before an election. Politicians spinning bad news before an election. Oh the horror.
Yeah they caught her on the "video excuse" thing and she was made to look pretty silly and like a scumbag politician in that sense (since they linked it to the election...which we all knew was the case) BUT other than that the Rs are playing right into her Witch-Hunt narrative as they sound like a bunch of whiney bitches on a soap-box.
She is doing well outside of the whole blaming the video thing. Which was dumb strategy on her and Obama's part from the beginning (but the American people, outside of Hillary supporters, already knew that).
She is doing well outside of the whole blaming the video thing. Which was dumb strategy on her and Obama's part from the beginning (but the American people, outside of Hillary supporters, already knew that).
The whole video thing, dumb as it was, lasted about 24 hours and had no consequence.
Huh? The susan rice sunday talk show circuit was like a week after the incident.
So is the FBI criminal investigation of Hillary also a political witch hunt?
Law enforcement officials have said that Mrs. Clinton, who is seeking the 2016 Democratic nomination for president, is not a target of the investigation, and she has said there is no evidence that her account was hacked. There has also been no evidence that she broke the law, and many specialists believe the occasional appearance of classified information in her account was probably of marginal consequence.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/15/u...l-to-hillary-clinton-at-state-department.html
It would do you good to get away from the wingnut echo chamber of lies from time to time to reacquaint yourself with reality.
Last edited:
No, I just have higher expectations of those I support, vote, and make excuses for. "Bau for politicians" isnt something we should be okay with. Accepting being lied to about how Americans came to be killed certainly isn't okay with me.
These types of low expectations of those who represent us is exactly why we get horrible results.
Pretty good analysis here:
I’m writing this while Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi testimony is still going on, so it’s possible that at some point later in the afternoon there will be some spectacular “gaffe” that will destroy Clinton’s presidential candidacy and clothe her in shame for all time. But let’s assume that isn’t going to happen. Before today’s hearing, it seemed that everyone — Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative — predicted that Republicans would fail to do her the kind of damage they hoped, and she would emerge triumphant.
That does seem to be how things are developing, but for some less than obvious reasons.
The committee’s Republicans found themselves in something of a quandary going into this hearing, which helps explain why committee chair Trey Gowdy spent most of his opening statement justifying the committee’s very existence. If they comported themselves the way members of Congress often do in this kind of hearing — angry, shouted questions, attempts at “gotchas” — they would have ended up looking worse than the person on the receiving end. But if they decided to be polite and substantive, they might avoid a public relations disaster, but their constituents and the right-wing media would be terribly disappointed — feeding the prevailing conservative narrative that their leaders in Congress are wimps who don’t have the courage to really go after Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton the way they should.
But it goes farther than that. It’s important to remember that today’s hearing was a media event, in that it was staged for the purpose of being watched in the media. It wasn’t intended to obtain new information, and it hasn’t yet. And as a media event, its impact is tethered to the underlying truth of the issue in a way that hamstrings Republicans.
If there were some truly damning piece of information that the committee had discovered about Clinton in the course of their investigation, then all the public relations and spin in the world wouldn’t save her from their efforts. For instance, for some time Republicans have been obsessed with a conspiracy theory which has it that Clinton issued a “stand down” order to the military, telling them not to go save the Americans who were in danger in Benghazi. Had that been something other than a bizarre fantasy of the most fevered quarters of the right, Benghazi would have been her undoing.
But that turned out to be fiction, and all the other efforts to find some shocking malfeasance on her part failed. Why did it have such a profound effect when Kevin McCarthy justified the Benghazi committee’s work by saying it had brought down Clinton’s poll numbers? Not because he provided some theretofore unknown piece of information, or because everyone was shocked at the very idea that the committee was political. It had an impact because it supplied a vivid illustration of a fundamental truth. That meant reporters could repeat it, refer to it, and use it to frame their subsequent discussion of the issue.
Let me make an analogy. During the Iran-Contra scandal — in which the Reagan administration sold arms to terrorists, then used the profits to fund an illegal war in Central America — Oliver North, who had been a Reagan administration official, testified in dramatic hearings before the committee investigating the matter. His testimony was judged a triumph at the time, the upright former military officer showing the blowhards in suits how real men act. But the fact was that North was a criminal — he admitted lying to Congress to conceal illegal activities, and was later convicted of that crime and of obstructing justice (his conviction was overturned because of the clever immunity agreement his lawyers struck with Congress). North’s dramatic testimony didn’t save the Reagan administration from accountability for the scandal, and when he ran for Senate in Virginia in 1994, he lost (in a year of a huge Republican sweep). His reputation as a liar who believed he was above the law was a key reason.
North may have gone on to a lucrative career as a right-wing radio and television figure, but when it came to the politics, he lost, no matter how well his Iran-Contra testimony went from a short-term public relations standpoint.
Does that mean that media events don’t make any difference? Not at all. But it does mean that there’s only so much a particular media event can accomplish when the message it sends is fundamentally at odds with the facts. That’s particularly true when there is ample time for the facts to get out, circulate, and influence the rest of the debate and discussion around the issue.
Because we repeat and remember those media moments, we often assume that it was the moment itself that shaped subsequent events — that everyone watched it on television, and at that instant their minds were changed. But that’s seldom if ever how it works.
It’s too early to say exactly how we’ll remember this hearing. Perhaps because it has (so far) lacked any fiery moments that make for good sound bites, it will get discussed only for a day or two and then fade from memory. If this hearing does provide a coda to this controversy, it will surely become a symbol for conservatives of how feckless and ineffectual their congressional leaders are, and a symbol for liberals of Republicans’ obsession with faux scandals.
But either way, over the long run, the facts can’t be escaped.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...what-republicans-hoped/?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b
I’m writing this while Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi testimony is still going on, so it’s possible that at some point later in the afternoon there will be some spectacular “gaffe” that will destroy Clinton’s presidential candidacy and clothe her in shame for all time. But let’s assume that isn’t going to happen. Before today’s hearing, it seemed that everyone — Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative — predicted that Republicans would fail to do her the kind of damage they hoped, and she would emerge triumphant.
That does seem to be how things are developing, but for some less than obvious reasons.
The committee’s Republicans found themselves in something of a quandary going into this hearing, which helps explain why committee chair Trey Gowdy spent most of his opening statement justifying the committee’s very existence. If they comported themselves the way members of Congress often do in this kind of hearing — angry, shouted questions, attempts at “gotchas” — they would have ended up looking worse than the person on the receiving end. But if they decided to be polite and substantive, they might avoid a public relations disaster, but their constituents and the right-wing media would be terribly disappointed — feeding the prevailing conservative narrative that their leaders in Congress are wimps who don’t have the courage to really go after Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton the way they should.
But it goes farther than that. It’s important to remember that today’s hearing was a media event, in that it was staged for the purpose of being watched in the media. It wasn’t intended to obtain new information, and it hasn’t yet. And as a media event, its impact is tethered to the underlying truth of the issue in a way that hamstrings Republicans.
If there were some truly damning piece of information that the committee had discovered about Clinton in the course of their investigation, then all the public relations and spin in the world wouldn’t save her from their efforts. For instance, for some time Republicans have been obsessed with a conspiracy theory which has it that Clinton issued a “stand down” order to the military, telling them not to go save the Americans who were in danger in Benghazi. Had that been something other than a bizarre fantasy of the most fevered quarters of the right, Benghazi would have been her undoing.
But that turned out to be fiction, and all the other efforts to find some shocking malfeasance on her part failed. Why did it have such a profound effect when Kevin McCarthy justified the Benghazi committee’s work by saying it had brought down Clinton’s poll numbers? Not because he provided some theretofore unknown piece of information, or because everyone was shocked at the very idea that the committee was political. It had an impact because it supplied a vivid illustration of a fundamental truth. That meant reporters could repeat it, refer to it, and use it to frame their subsequent discussion of the issue.
Let me make an analogy. During the Iran-Contra scandal — in which the Reagan administration sold arms to terrorists, then used the profits to fund an illegal war in Central America — Oliver North, who had been a Reagan administration official, testified in dramatic hearings before the committee investigating the matter. His testimony was judged a triumph at the time, the upright former military officer showing the blowhards in suits how real men act. But the fact was that North was a criminal — he admitted lying to Congress to conceal illegal activities, and was later convicted of that crime and of obstructing justice (his conviction was overturned because of the clever immunity agreement his lawyers struck with Congress). North’s dramatic testimony didn’t save the Reagan administration from accountability for the scandal, and when he ran for Senate in Virginia in 1994, he lost (in a year of a huge Republican sweep). His reputation as a liar who believed he was above the law was a key reason.
North may have gone on to a lucrative career as a right-wing radio and television figure, but when it came to the politics, he lost, no matter how well his Iran-Contra testimony went from a short-term public relations standpoint.
Does that mean that media events don’t make any difference? Not at all. But it does mean that there’s only so much a particular media event can accomplish when the message it sends is fundamentally at odds with the facts. That’s particularly true when there is ample time for the facts to get out, circulate, and influence the rest of the debate and discussion around the issue.
Because we repeat and remember those media moments, we often assume that it was the moment itself that shaped subsequent events — that everyone watched it on television, and at that instant their minds were changed. But that’s seldom if ever how it works.
It’s too early to say exactly how we’ll remember this hearing. Perhaps because it has (so far) lacked any fiery moments that make for good sound bites, it will get discussed only for a day or two and then fade from memory. If this hearing does provide a coda to this controversy, it will surely become a symbol for conservatives of how feckless and ineffectual their congressional leaders are, and a symbol for liberals of Republicans’ obsession with faux scandals.
But either way, over the long run, the facts can’t be escaped.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...what-republicans-hoped/?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b
Does this man not look and sound like the poster child of Southern inbreeding?...
oes
Your statement is petty and shallow, like something the dumb jock in high school would say about another guy checking out his girlfriend.
I am surprised you haven't seen the punches. There have been many. I think anyone watching can easily the level of obfuscation being slung out by the former Secretary. It is actually comical to watch her squirm. The main thing is to get her to lie, lie, and lie, which she is doing. Now she is on the record and the fun can begin.
Nice - an article from Aug? How timely. Do you happen to have the headline stating Dewey defeats Truman?? Lindbergh has landed in France?!?
Maybe we should work with what's going on recently?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/u...-clinton-emails-collide-with-fbi-inquiry.html
I expect Iowa schools (which only come 2nd to Seattle public and private schools) to equip youngsters for the future!
Report: FBI Investigation of Hillary Emails Focuses on 'Gross Negligence
From the Hill October 16th 2015
From the Hill October 16th 2015
Does this man not look and sound like the poster child of Southern inbreeding?...
oes
Southern inbreeding?...lol
And no one has lied about how Americans came to be killed. Funny how no hearings were ever held over the Americans killed in embassy attacks during the Bush administration. Where was your outrage then? Using this horrible tragedy, as the Republicans have been doing, for political gain is the truly despicable activity related to this investigation.
I heard a gem this morning on "Morning Joe" regarding the hearings.....Chuck Todd thought that when all was said and done, nothing would change. About 25% of the folks think she did something wrong, about 25% of folks think she did nothing wrong and about 50% of folks could care less one way or the other.
Was Nixon a Democrat, Lone? How about Reagan? Ollie North? Lone.....GOPers/cons have no high ground here.
As the U.S. House of Representatives was readying a new special committee to investigate the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, many Democrats were arguing that continuing to probe the Sept. 11, 2012, attack -- which killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens -- amounted to a political witch hunt.
On May 5, 2014, Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif., told MSNBC host Ed Schultz that there has already been exhaustive testimony and investigation of the incident.
"This thing is just going on and on to boredom actually," Garamendi said. "The Armed Services Committee actually did a hearing and the result was there’s nothing here. That’s obviously a great tragedy, but Ed, during the George W. Bush period, there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world. Sixty people died. In Karachi, there was a death of one of our diplomats, and those were not investigated during that period of time because it was a tragedy."
Readers asked us whether it’s true that under Bush, "there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world, (and) 60 people died."
We turned to the Global Terrorism Database, a project headquartered at the University of Maryland. The database documents terrorist attacks around the world going back to the 1970s, and experts told us it is the best resource available for this fact-check.
We searched the database for descriptions between January 2001 and January 2009 that included the term "U.S. embassy." We supplemented these with a few other attacks listed in a Huffington Post opinion piece that Garamendi’s staff said was their main source for the claim. The Huffington Post column Garamendi cited purposely didn't count any attacks in Baghdad. So we decided to construct our count from scratch.
While Garamendi spoke of "embassies and consulates," we found several U.S. diplomatic targets killed in the line of duty outside official compounds -- such as in convoys or their homes -- and we included them in our count. Once we cross-referenced the attacks in the article and those in the database, we narrowed down the total to 39 attacks or attempted attacks on U.S. embassies and embassy personnel.
Of these 39 attacks, 20 resulted in at least one fatality. (Our complete list is here.) This is higher than Garamendi's claim, though if you only count attacks on embassy and consular property, there were 13.
Garamendi also understated the number of deaths. In the 20 incidents with at least one fatality, the total death toll was 87 -- quite a few more than the 60 Garamendi cited. If you only count those at embassies and consulates proper, the number of deaths drops to 66.
We should note that the vast majority of these deaths were not Americans. We counted 63 deaths that were either of non-Americans or of people whose nationality is unknown. Another three were U.S. civilians. Another 21 were workers at the U.S embassy or consulate, either of American or foreign nationality.
So, using what we think is the most reasonable definition, Garamendi's numbers are a bit low.
What about the implicit comparison he made between Benghazi and these previous attacks? That’s a little shakier.
Generally, the experts we contacted agreed that Garamendi was making a reasonable point that there has been a steady, and comparatively overlooked, series of deadly attacks on U.S. embassies in recent years.
Still, these experts also said there are valid reasons to treat Benghazi differently from the earlier attacks.
"Is Benghazi different? Absolutely," said Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and an adjunct assistant professor in Georgetown University’s security studies program.
One reason, he said, is that an American ambassador died in the attack, which hadn’t happened since the 1970s. Another relevant question, Gartenstein-Ross said, "is whether what happened was put to the American people in an honest manner, not just with respect to the administration, but also with respect to the intelligence community."
Gartenstein-Ross added that he wasn’t endorsing "how the Republicans go about" investigating this question. But he did say it’s a "real, legitimate question."
"As always, what causes the problem is not so much what happens, but the response to it," said Theodore R. Bromund, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "‘If the administration had come out shortly after the attack and said, ‘Our consulate was attacked by organized Islamist forces, and we will pursue these terrorists and bring them to justice, one way or the other,’ I very much doubt there would be much juice in these hearings, if indeed they were being held at all."
Lance Janda, a military historian at Cameron University, agreed that Benghazi brings up important issues.
"We probably should have had more United States forces on site or at least nearby," he said. And the administration had a "muddled response in terms of releasing information," he added.
Our ruling
Garamendi said that "during the George W. Bush period, there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world. Sixty people died." There are actually different ways to count the number of attacks, especially when considering attacks on ambassadors and embassy personnel who were traveling to or from embassy property. Overall, we found Garamendi slightly understated the number of deadly attacks and total fatalities, even using a strict definition. Garamendi’s claim is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...benghazi-were-there-13-attacks-embassies-and/
Plain and simple . Obama and Hillary lied to to the American people protect themselves politically. Obama went to sleep so he can fly his sorry ass to a fund raiser in Vegas .We still don't know were Hillary was during the attack . Obama and Hillary are the scum of the earth and go to hell .
ciggy...don't let this get you down....he didn't question your job as a parent....yet!
Similar threads
