Discussion: Bill O'Reilly: 'Of Course' The Benghazi Committee Is 'Political' (VIDEO)

Discussion for article #241582

1 Like

“And here is the bottom of it: Hillary Clinton will not be President of the United States if the FBI comes back and says she broke the law. And they may well. So that’s it. It’s the FBI, it’s not the House Committee on Benghazi. Whatever they say isn’t going to matter to Hillary Clinton. The FBI will matter, and we should have that, I would say, in three or four months,” he said.

Well, Bill, of course it’s political? So this isn’t an investigation into the death of four Americans, but a political investigation into a Presidential candidate that you fear with all your being? Isn’t that somewhat wrong?

Look, to the quote above, what happens when the FBI says things weren’t done properly, but were done within the law at the time? Are you and your minions going to demand that any new law be applied retroactively? How is this going to change anything?

And for you and your minions to say it’s ok to politicize this and and insist that we not politicize gun control, mental health issues, shutting down the government, holding multiple votes to repeal and/or defund ACA, holding multiple votes to defund Planned Parenthood and so many other useless actions in this current Congress, goes beyond the pale.


So in other words, the death of 4 Americans was a tool for Republicans to wield against their political enemies…


Bill is totally oblivious to the problem with it being political, like the fact that they are blowing WAY out of proportion.

Hey, after turning the deaths of 3,000+ Americans and other nationals into political fodder, what’s spitting on the graves of four more?


Moral imbecile.

The Republicans remind me of several students I knew back in college. They’re desperate to prove their point is correct even if it is wrong, and if that means fudging their facts, so be it.

When McCarthy said they were hunting for the truth, the reality is that they have had the truth now for at least a year, and ignored it.


Well, looks like there is a bug going around making GOPers say the truth.

Not that it ultimately makes a difference. The next “non-political” issue is Planned Parenthood. Chaffetz on the results of the investigation into the finances:

“Did we find any wrongdoing? The answer was no,” Chaffetz said.

But then, surprise, surprise:

Chaffetz said Thursday that he still supports digging into Planned Parenthood’s activities, even if they’re using their money appropriately.

"I think there will continue to be investigations," he said.

Sooooooo: the “fiscally responsible” GOP is going to continue to burn up $millions$ more taxpayer dollars to investigate an organization that they have already determined is following the law.

Hey, if you can’t win on substance, try distraction.


The one source of endless fascination for me is how very hard our liberal media works at not noticing the Republicans’ total inability to articulate any of the questions on this long, long list of very troubling unanswered questions of theirs.


Heaven Forbid we politicize the gunshot murders of 26 at Sandy Hook or 9 at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church or another 9 in Umpqua Community College etc. etc. etc.

"But if you think those guys, those Republicans on that panel don't want to bring down Hillary Clinton, you're six years old."

And if you think they don’t already know exactly what happened in great detail, you’re also six years old. And if you don’t realize that the only reason they’re continuing with this is because they haven’t found anything to bring Hillary Clinton down with yet, then a six-year-old could teach you a few things.


The Fox host added that just because the committee is political, does not mean that the investigation is important.

Is it just me or…


No, it’s not. Litotes fail?


Which reminds me of something my Dad used to say, when I fantasized : “…and if your aunt had a pair of balls, she’d be your uncle.”

1 Like

Perhaps you were reading Krugman this morning:

"I often wonder about commentators who write about things like those [Benghazi] hearings as if there were some real issue involved, who keep going on about the Clinton email controversy as if all these months of scrutiny had produced any evidence of wrongdoing, as opposed to sloppiness.

Surely they have to know better, whether they admit it to themselves or not…"

“But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t know what exactly happened, and why the secretary of state was ignorant about the security problems in Benghazi, Libya.”

Actually, Bill, Hillary warned Republicans in Congress that cutting hundreds of millions of dollars from her security budget would be disastrous.

So, the question then becomes: where they ignorant, or fully aware of the disaster that they hoped to create?


It’s not the findings of the investigations that matter. It’s the endless investigations put on by drama queens who have only a pretense of any substance in their little charades and their actual lives as well. O’Reilly serves as their cheerleader.
In the end, if ends were allowed, each subject could look the Chairperson in the eye and say: “So you’ve got nothing.”

Now he tells us. Why not mention that earlier? I mean the rest of knew this already.

O’Reilly: “…why the secretary of state was ignorant about the security problems in Benghazi, Libya.”

What about Ambassador Stevens? Was he ignorant of the dangers of Benghazi? No, he knew that the Brits has closed down their consulate there because of the chaos. Chris Stevens took a calculated risk that did not work out.

The tea baggers live in this alternate universe where the only actors in a screw up such as Benghazi are the people at the top. The rest are just sheep led to the slaughter.

1 Like

Sure it was political but it was against someone I dislike so it’s ok to spend my tax money on it…just don’t dis my guy or I’ll cut your mike!