Discussion for article #222492
I really don’t think they should. This is too good of a chance to beat the GOP over the head with how willing they are to waste time. A democrat should ask ALL of the main questions that get Teabaggers into a lather and preface them with :“Isn’t it true you answered this question on such and such a date?”
Then look at the Speaker and say “What are we doing here? I havve constituents’ business to attend to.”
THEN leave.
ON CAMERA.
6 Likes
No, I agree with Wasserman. Either an evenly balanced committee, or no Dem participation. Reps can get all their moldy talking points out again, fine, but no way can we spot them a majority to write the panel’s conclusions. Fair means balanced. (Now where have we heard that before?)
2 Likes
There’s nothing to consider: either they boycott this bullshit or they’re lending it the false appearance of legitimacy by participating and allowing themselves to be railroaded by the deliberately imbalanced composition of the committee. Fuck…the GOP/Teatrolls should just write the damn decision tomorrow and skip all the pretending to conduct hearings and investigate. Their conclusions are foregone. They’ve already decided what they want to say in the “report” that comes out of the committee and they’re probably already planning the calls for impeachment or censure for either this coming October or sometime during 2016. They’ll issue a completely fantastical cartoon-rendition of the facts and then, not only will they yell and scream about impeachment or censure of Obama, but they’ll also try to retroactively censure Clinton.
3 Likes
This is not a select committee this is a partisan committee. Democrats should boycott it. To be seated would mean that they agree with the premise put out there by the Republicans about Benghazi. If they do happen to be so reluctant and seat themselves on this committee, then they should have the courage at least to call Republicans out for the partisan politics they are displaying and tell Republicans what this committee is truly about. Impeaching the President of the United States and destroying their biggest rival for 2016. This is not about the deaths of 4 Americans, Republicans have already exploited those, along with 3,000 Americans on 9/11/2001, and 6000+ Americans who died in two unfunded wars.
3 Likes
Democrats aren’t that clever, really when it comes to asking the 'gotcha" questions on committees. This committee will however be quite entertaining to say the least. I would be interested to see who, if any that Nancy Pelosi will appoint to this circus!!
1 Like
Republicans think they’re going to get a two-fer out of this nonsense: smear Obama, possibly setting up impeachment proceedings, and undermine Hillary for 2016. Time to bring a gun to the gunfight, no more knives. This is too important for playing nice.
This committee feels like a setup which Repubs are blatantly trying to make Dems boycott the committee (the wack balance of 7 Repubs to 5 Dems should be an absolute non-starter).
Take this with the other demonstrable factoid that Repubs seem to have no adverse consequences to puking outright lies and disinformation (on Benghazi, the ACA, etc.) and when their statements are proven false, never retracting them… how can Dems consider participating in this?
1 Like
This moment is calling for Pelosi to issue an “Have you no decency?” statement, to announce that Democrats will not participate in this witch hunt any longer because the deaths of these 4 Americans should not be politicized. That if Republicans wish to continue with this farce, it will be alone, as Democrats have participated in every single committee investigation so far and found no reason to believe that the White House is guilty of anything. If Republicans cannot accept an even-split on this special committee, then they will go forward with it without the cover of “bipartisanship.”
1 Like
She is absolutely right, there should be NO Dems on this panel!
I disagree. Boycotting this would be a horrible idea; it gives republicans a quick early PR victory, and paves the way for them to go completely off the rails with absolutely no push back in the hearings.
By sitting 5 Dems on the panel, they can ridicule and disrupt the hearings through their entirety. And it makes editing any “findings” at the end of this much more difficult.
But what Wasserman-Schultz is doing is just playing up the angry “lets boycott this nonsense” side of things, knowing that Pelosi is going to have to appoint 5 people anyway. This is all show right now.
1 Like
Can anyone explain how this “select” committee will differ from Issa’s clown act that’s been going on for 2 years?
3 Likes
So they win a “quick early PR victory.” They’ll go forward without the label of “bipartisan,” making it easier to ridicule these hearings from afar and ask why Republicans are wasting time on this farce when voters have bigger issues on their minds like jobs and wages. It’s not as though the “findings” are in doubt with a breakdown of 7-5 in favor of the people claiming that this is “bigger than Watergate” and the chairman of the committee has already gone onto Fox to spread conspiracy theories about how he’s got evidence of the White House purposefully covering things up.
Democrats have nothing to gain by participating in this witch-hunt and everything to lose by giving it an air of legitimacy. It certainly would not be the first time that they’ve refused to play part to a GOP campaign stunt.
2 Likes
Even or nothing. 7-5 is unacceptable, period.
There should be co-chairs to the committee as well. I say we call this a pile of crap from outset, and keep calling it that.
A 7-5 committee is going to just spit the same old lies, and the Mediacracy will only report the final report, not all the debunking that went on the pitiful few times the majority let a Democrat near a microphone.
Don’t even start out giving them a shred of respect. There is nothing new to be learned about Benghazi.
3 Likes
One problem the D’s face is that the outcome has already been determined: that the Administration covered up the real causes of the attack and the events leading up to and following the attack. If the D’s sit on a 7-5 committee, any findings will be labelled “bipartisan,” much in the same way the R’s cite the Bowles-Simpson “conclusions.”
Maybe I’m missing something, but well before the 2012 election, Obama was arguing with Romney to try to establish how SOON the White House characterized Benghazi as a “terrorist act.” I only wish we had received that courtesy on WMDs from the Bush White House.