Discussion for article #241786
Benghazi!
Seriously, anyone with two brain cells rubbing together knew this.
6 Likes
My granny used to say "a blind man with wooden glasses could see’’ this Benghazi probe is utter bullshitry.
7 Likes
“This may not be politically correct, but I think that there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people and an individual, Hillary Clinton,” Hanna said.
Too bad for Trey Gowdy.
Apparently there were no interns available to throw under the bus.
♫♪ Have mercy, been waitin’ for the bus all day. ♫♪
jw1
5 Likes
The Congress has oversight responsibility over the Executive branch. Who oversees the overseers?
I guess the good news is their Planned Parenthood select committee is tarnished before it even starts. Couple a partisan witch hunt with edited video’s and mostly white male inquisitors, yep, what could go wrong?
15 Likes
ACME Benghazi Investigation blows up in face of Representative Wile E. Coyote. Hillary Road Runner says: “Great Timing, boys. Bee-beep!”
12 Likes
At this point, most people are only shocked to hear people claim the on-going Hillary House Committee was at one time actually supposed to be concerned with Benghazi.
5 Likes
Yes, but Rep. Hanna doesn’t believe in defunding Planned Parenthood.
You think the GOP won’t bring this up in response to what he said? Watch.
1 Like
It’s supposed to be the voters. Unfortunately, gerrymandering means that despite getting over 50% of all the votes cast for house elections, Dems only won close to 30-40% of seats. In addition, gerrymandering has made the right wing seats even more extreme and led to the dysfunctional lower body of Congress that we’ve seen for the past 5 years.
5 Likes
There are at least three legitimate, important lines of questioning about the Benghazi attacks. How many Marines would have been needed to repel the two attacks? 10? 50? Let’s say 50. Since the attacks were planned in advance, what would’ve stopped the planners from simply sending enough guys to overwhelm however many Marines had been there? Who’s to say we wouldn’t have had 54 dead instead of 4?
Second, would private contractors have done a better or worse job of defending the Ambassador? At a higher or lower cost? I think I already know the answers, but it bears repeating: Contractors to a worse job at a higher cost.
Third, How is it that the entire NATO operation to enforce the UN Resolution over Libya managed to suffer only one fatality, a British airman who was killed in a traffic accident? How does that compare with the Bush Administration’s “Coalition of the Willing” in Iraq? What better result did Bush accomplish for the cost of over 6,700 dead and over 125,000 wounded, injured and sick? What does this teach us about when we should deploy and who we should choose for allies?
14 Likes
Hillary’s reviewing her Benghazi Committee options, ice pick, poison darts or shuriken?
2 Likes
As others are pointing out here, the fact that this investigation (and the email “scandal” and the whitewater “scandal” and the Vince Foster “scandal”, etc.) was politically motivated has been clear from the very beginning.
What continues to disappoint is that the media have continuously failed to call the Republicans on this. I’m not just talking about Fox News, which is obviously a partisan organization, but the other news networks (aside from some individuals on MSNBC) and major newspapers have fed this nonsense. Is this part of a general bias in the Media against the Clintons? Is it the desire to keep a story going for commercial reasons? Do the corporate news organizations want a Republican president who will better serve their business interests?
The bottom line is that given the obviously partisan nature of all of these investigations, how is it that the major news organizations continually fail to investigate the investigators and their motives?
12 Likes
Two likes for you: one for the comment, the other for working ZZ into your answer.
(Why is it that the blues make me feel less blue, as in tapping my feet and smiling?)
1 Like
Wonder if they’re going to face her again, or quietly find a reason to postpone her appearance.
I’m willing to bet, based on their total lack of ethics and shame, that they’ll go with asking her questions and then shouting her down as soon as she gets two words out.
1 Like
Probably because much of the media’s strings are pulled by the same folks influencing Congress.
Or am I being cynical?
2 Likes
Love that tune!
1 Like
I am still amazed HowdyGowdy is having Clinton testify in public as her opening statement alone will destroy him, the committee’s other Republican members and any tiny shred of credibility that is left. And they don’t dare try to shush her anytime during her follow-on testimony as that would further cement the war on women the Pubbies embrace far too often.
Dumb indeed on their part yet…dumb they are!
6 Likes
The advertising revenue at stake is obscene. And the MSM will always promote a horse-race scenario.
Horse-races-- both in the primaries and the General Election-- generate far more advertising than if not.
Even in an election situation like this one-- where you’ve got one party that is wildly dysfunctional–
the MSM will try to engender the narrative portraying both parties as equal as possible.
Thus campaigns see a benefit to advertise-- and can fundraise off of that narrative.
jw1
3 Likes
Karma is a bitch ain’t it??
3 Likes
Do you think now the NYTimes will get off her fucking back.
1 Like