Politics and Religion

Why? Two GOP Congressmen publicly called the Benghazi panel a political witchhunt against HRC..
saltyballs 81 reads
posted

For the record, I find Chris Matthews to be a complete dope-head on many issues, just like Rev. Al Sharpton. The U.S. public saw right through the farcical Benghazi hearings. There have been 7 Benghazi investigations - most LED by Republicans - plus one Independent investigation - ALL have concluded Hillary and the White House did nothing wrong.  

Another Republican lawmaker says the House Select Committee on Benghazi was meant to go after former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Rep. Richard Hanna, R-New York, said Wednesday on New York's' WIBX 950, "Sometimes the biggest sin you can commit in D.C. is to tell the truth." "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," said Hanna, who is not a member of the committee. "After what Kevin McCarthy said, it's difficult to accept at least a part of it was not. I think that's the way Washington works. But you'd like to expect more from a committee that's spent millions of dollars and tons of time."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/14/politics/hillary-clinton-benghazi-committee/
Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the likely successor to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), told Fox News’s Sean Hannity explicitly on Tuesday night that the Clinton investigation was part of a “strategy to fight and win.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kevin-mccarthys-truthful-gaffe/2015/09/30/f12a9fac-67a8-11e5-8325-a42b5a459b1e_story.html#comments

-- Modified on 6/29/2016 1:20:26 PM

Can we finally put this to bed?

Of course not! Trump will float all sorts of conspiracy theories revolving around it, but can we at least not spend any more tax payer dollars on it?  ;)

-- Modified on 6/28/2016 10:44:28 AM

That part is over.  

But any R candidate, as any D candidate, would mention it as an election year issue bc it is a real scandal and no, I dont feel like debating that point any longer as we have done that to death.

But Dump will add the conspiracy theories so you got me there Matt. lol

saltyballs88 reads

Nothing surprises me coming from the "do nothing" party. Democrats foresaw the outcome of this GOP Benghazi fishing expedition long before the hearing began. In 2012, four of our U.S. embassy staff, including our Ambassador, were killed at our U.S. consulate in Benghazi. House Republicans then wasted $7+ million over a period of 4 years trying to pin blame on Hillary Clinton. Just recently, 52 people were shot dead in an Orlando Night club and our Senate/House Republican's spent several days blocking Gun bills making it difficult for people on the terrorist watch list to buy guns. So, I ask? What the fuck is wrong with you people?

pot/kettle92 reads

the most disgusting thing to come out of all this mess is this:  Sec. Hillary Clinton looked into the eyes of the parents/family members of the deceased Americans from the Benghazi attack and knowingly lied to their faces about the reason behind the attack which killed their loved ones.

For this reason alone she should be disqualified and never considered for the role of Commander-in-Chief.

Period

Al Qaeda, was responsible for the death of their loved ones?

        Can you even make a weak argument that it many any difference at all?  Did Hillary lie to the families because she intended to hurt them?

      Did she lie for any personal gain?

        As best we can tell, she was simply staying consistent with admin message at the time.  In her speech right after meeting with the families, she told it correctly albeit with less than desired clarity.

      Yet despite causing no harm to the families, despite no intent to hurt by Hillary, despite no intent to make personal gain, despite saying it correctly in the speech, you would disqualify the most qualified presidential candidate ever from being Commander in Chief?

         As lies go, this was about as trifling as it gets. Start disqualifying presidential candidates for lies and you end up with Jimmy Cater as president.

         Did you read the NY Times article on the 1966 nuclear accident in Spain? The Air Force officers told the soldiers “go clean it up, it’s perfectly safe.” Checked them with a Geiger counter afterwards, noted the readings off the chart, and told them “you’ll be fine.”

       That is the kind of lie you should be worried about, Mr. Pot, not this one. Those are the officers that should be disqualified if not prosecuted

pot/kettle68 reads

Why? Because she shared a White House bedroom with a former President?  Because she moved to a state simply to become its Senator? Because she failed miserably at getting healthcare legislation supported when her husband laid it out on a silver platter for her?  Because she was a mediocre Secretary of State for four year?  Because she is a woman and has a recognizable name?  

Yes, the last one might be the only reason why she is supposedly qualified.

Dr.Hackenbush92 reads

Posted By: marikod
Did she lie for any personal gain?
Does saving President Obama's reelection chances count? Not personal enough?  

How about saving her legacy as Secretary of State as the person that "won over" Libya as the shining star of how the Arab Spring was supposed to play out?

saltyballs145 reads

......in that ill fated war? 4,486 dead U.S. soldiers plus 32,226 injured U.S. Troops all because of a Bush lie about Iraq's WMD's . The life time costs to U.S taxpayers for taking care of the families of those dead troops plus the health care costs of ALL those injured troops will cos in the $1Trillion or so. So, yes spare us your faux outrage over 4 dead U.S. diplomats in Benghazi.



-- Modified on 6/28/2016 6:14:22 PM

bigguy3073 reads

Posted By: saltyballs
......in that ill fated war? 4,486 dead U.S. soldiers plus 32,226 injured U.S. Troops all because of a Bush lie about Iraq's WMD's . The life time costs to U.S taxpayers for taking care of the families of those dead troops plus the health care costs of ALL those injured troops will cos in the $1Trillion or so. So, yes spare us your faux outrage over 4 dead U.S. diplomats in Benghazi.  
   
 

-- Modified on 6/28/2016 6:14:22 PM

pot/kettle105 reads

He -- like Senators Clinton, Kerry, Edwards and many others, as well as Prime Minister Blair of the UK -- believed the intelligence reports that were provided.

Dems love to convince themselves that Bush lied.  They had to find some way to vent against him

Dr.Hackenbush79 reads

Posted By: saltyballs
So, yes spare us your faux outrage over 4 dead U.S. diplomats in Benghazi.
You do not know that 2 of the 4 dead were not even close to being diplomats. Those two were ex-Navy Seals. Tyrone Woods was a State Department Security Officer and Glen Doherty was a CIA private security contractor. Only Ambassador Chris Stevens was a true diplomat. While Sean Smith might be considered a diplomat by some he was essentially a State Department IT guy.

Given your lack of understanding about the simplest of facts you are obviously only regurgitating commentary that Hillary Clinton's 4th Estate stenographers want you know and say.

Try reading the report. MSNBC's Chris Matthews apparently did and he actually had some very cogent remarks and questions tonight.

saltyballs92 reads

The bitterly partisan panel found FAILINGS, but NO BLAME for the former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. This Benghazi GOP witch hunt is now OVER irregardless of what you might think. It's unfortunate it resulted in four dead U.S.diplomats. It certainly won't be the last death of a U.S. diplomat at a foreign outpost in a dangerous region,

Here is a list of the attacks at both the U.S. Embassies and the U. S. Consulates, during the Bush Administration:

1. June 14, 2002...U.S. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
2. Feb. 28, 2003...U.S. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
3. July 30, 2004...U.S. Embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan
4. Dec. 6. 2004...U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudia Arabia
5. Mar. 2, 2006...U.S. Consulate Karachi, Pakistan
6. Sept. 12, 2006...U.S. Damascus, Syria
7. Jan. 12, 2007...U.S. Embassy in Athens, Greece
8. July 9, 2008...U.S. Consulate in Istanbul, Turkey
9. Mar. 18, 2008...U.S. Embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
10.Sept. 17, 2008...U.S. Embassy in Sana'a, Yemen

I do NOT recall Republicans spending this much time and money investigating all the above embassy attacks when Bush II was in office. Oh nevermind, they couldn't use the deaths of those individuals to their political advantage.

 


-- Modified on 6/29/2016 6:52:21 AM

Dr.Hackenbush87 reads

Maybe you can point out which attacks on your list was lied about and covered up by the administration in office.

You really should have watched Matthews on MSNBC last night.

saltyballs82 reads

For the record, I find Chris Matthews to be a complete dope-head on many issues, just like Rev. Al Sharpton. The U.S. public saw right through the farcical Benghazi hearings. There have been 7 Benghazi investigations - most LED by Republicans - plus one Independent investigation - ALL have concluded Hillary and the White House did nothing wrong.  

Another Republican lawmaker says the House Select Committee on Benghazi was meant to go after former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Rep. Richard Hanna, R-New York, said Wednesday on New York's' WIBX 950, "Sometimes the biggest sin you can commit in D.C. is to tell the truth." "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," said Hanna, who is not a member of the committee. "After what Kevin McCarthy said, it's difficult to accept at least a part of it was not. I think that's the way Washington works. But you'd like to expect more from a committee that's spent millions of dollars and tons of time."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/14/politics/hillary-clinton-benghazi-committee/
Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the likely successor to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), told Fox News’s Sean Hannity explicitly on Tuesday night that the Clinton investigation was part of a “strategy to fight and win.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kevin-mccarthys-truthful-gaffe/2015/09/30/f12a9fac-67a8-11e5-8325-a42b5a459b1e_story.html#comments

-- Modified on 6/29/2016 1:20:26 PM

Dr.Hackenbush115 reads

Clinton's stenographers in the press have told you everything you need to know. It must be reassuring to be able to put all your trust in those that think the same as you and zero trust in those that don't.

saltyballs80 reads

According to media reports, the 800 page Benghazi committee report found no evidence of wrong doing by Hillary. That's good enough for me! It's now time for the House Select Investigation committee to pack up their Benghazi bags and go home....lol

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/us/politics/hillary-clinton-benghazi.htm

Dr.Hackenbush113 reads

It's a shame you can't realize or don't want to know that those telling you what to think are themselves dishonest. All that matters to you is the hoped for headline meets your expectations or reinforces your assumptions. It feels good.

saltyballs100 reads

Hopefully right wing media types will get the message and stop sending Benghazi memo's to their clueless readers. Benghazi is dead!

Since it's purely a hypothetical, I would like to think I would feel the same way Chris Steven's family feels!  ;)

That the Repub finally had the goods on Hillary, that she was going to fry...so what was different in this hearing as oppose to the others, other then it was held closer to the election...what did we learn if anything???

Register Now!