By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Benghazi Hearings is this important?

scat398 said:
tres said:
why is it that the right investigated benghazi more than they did iraq and 9/11? this is nothing more than using up the clock. the best way to save money in this pathetic country is to defund congress. right now they are literally a waste of tax payers dollars.

well as far as 9/11 there was a great deal of investigation including the 9/11 report by the special commision, I don't disagree that conservatives have focused a great deal of attention to this matter, but I'd like to keep the discussion focused, if possible, on why the administration lied not why are republicans focusing on it.  If you are a left leaning person I'd like to hear your thoughts on why the admnistration lied.

Actually, there was very very little investigation.  And we will never know what the dude sitting in the White House said:

"Tuesday 27 April 2004

    Washington (Reuters) - The White House said on Tuesday it would not allow any recordings or transcripts of private testimony this week by President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to the panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks" http://archive.truthout.org/article/iron-curtain-secrecy-cheney-leads-bush-911-hearing

A court WITHOUT transcrips?  If you go to small claims there are transcrips- and they become public record.  Why is that more imporant than a huge natual security failure that killed close to 3000 people? Please explain why aren't you concered about that?

Even if they aren't released for the 60 years or so they have for sensitive doucments, they should be public records.



 

Really not sure I see any point of Consol over PC's since Kinect, Wii and other alternative ways to play have been abandoned. 

Top 50 'most fun' game list coming soon!

 

Tell me a funny joke!

Around the Network
Zappykins said:
scat398 said:
tres said:
why is it that the right investigated benghazi more than they did iraq and 9/11? this is nothing more than using up the clock. the best way to save money in this pathetic country is to defund congress. right now they are literally a waste of tax payers dollars.

well as far as 9/11 there was a great deal of investigation including the 9/11 report by the special commision, I don't disagree that conservatives have focused a great deal of attention to this matter, but I'd like to keep the discussion focused, if possible, on why the administration lied not why are republicans focusing on it.  If you are a left leaning person I'd like to hear your thoughts on why the admnistration lied.

Actually, there was very very little investigation.  And we will never know what the dude sitting in the White House said:

"Tuesday 27 April 2004

    Washington (Reuters) - The White House said on Tuesday it would not allow any recordings or transcripts of private testimony this week by President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to the panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks" http://archive.truthout.org/article/iron-curtain-secrecy-cheney-leads-bush-911-hearing

A court WITHOUT transcrips?  If you go to small claims there are transcrips- and they become public record.  Why is that more imporant than a huge natual security failure that killed close to 3000 people? Please explain why aren't you concered about that?

Even if they aren't released for the 60 years or so they have for sensitive doucments, they should be public records.


amen bro.  they walked in and saw what really happen and  new damn well if what they saw got out the tremendous backlashed there would have been around the world.

scat watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=m4Lrr3TuFR8



Testimony:

- Thompson testified that he had urged the deployment of an elite response team—known as the Foreign Emergency Support Team, or FEST—but was rebuffed by the White House. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, called the motivation for that decision one of the “mysteries” that need to be solved. Hicks said he pleaded for fighter planes to buzz the compound but was told none were close enough (and that military officials have cast doubt on the effectiveness of such a tactic). Hicks also said higher-ups nixed his request to send four special forces to the burning compound.

- Hicks said he spoke by telephone with Stevens shortly after armed men stormed the compound. “Greg, we’re under attack,” Stevens said, according to Hicks. Hicks said American officials in Libya concluded from unspecified Twitter feeds that al Qaida-affiliated Islamist extremists were carrying out the attack. He confirmed that officials on the ground never believed that the attack grew out of a demonstration.

- Hicks slammed U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s appearance on Sunday news shows days after the attack, when she linked it to angry demonstrations in the Muslim world against the video denigrating Islam. “I was stunned. My jaw dropped,” Hicks said in response to a question from Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C. “I was embarrassed.”

- Rice's comments flatly contradicted Libyan President Mohammed Magariaf's public statement that the attack was the work of terrorists, effectively humiliating him, with the result of delaying the FBI's access to the compound, Hicks said.

- After Hicks received the phone call about Stevens' death, unidentified Libyans called to say Stevens was with them and that American staff should come get him. “We suspected that we were being baited into a trap,” Hicks said. “We did not want to send our people into an ambush.” The Americans stayed put.

- Hicks said that, after years of glowing performance evaluations, higher-ups at the State Department turned on him when he questioned Rice's account of the events. He described his current position as a demotion.

- Hicks said that the State Department directed him not to speak to Chaffetz when he came to Libya as part of a congressional investigation into the attack. "We were not to be personally interviewed by Congressman Chaffetz," Hicks said. (A top aide to Clinton emailed NBC News to dispute the notion of a cover-up.)

- Hicks also suggested that a State Department-commissioned independent investigation into the tragedy, by retired diplomat Tom Pickering and retired Adm. Mike Mullen, had failed to hold senior figures responsible, pointedly naming Patrick Kennedy, undersecretary for management, as someone who bore some responsibility for poor security at the site. (Issa said he had invited Pickering and Mullen to testify, but that they refused.)

- Gowdy provided one of the few surprises in the hearing, reading what he described as an email from the day after the attacks in which Acting Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs Beth Jones said she had told the Libyan governor that "the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists." That raised fresh questions about why top Obama aides emphasized the role of spontaneous demonstrations against the video in public remarks for days afterwards.

Lawmakers mostly listened respectfully. But they missed no opportunities to score partisan points.

Issa started the session by describing the administration’s version of the events as “their facts.” Issa accused the State Department and the White House of refusing to provide witnesses and documents to his committee.

Issa vowed to “make certain that our government learns the proper lessons” from the deaths of Stevens and three other Americans, and ensure that “the right people are held accountable.”

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/benghazi-hearing-promises-partisan-fireworks-144356871.html





leave it to comedy central to show the comedy of it all

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=r1zMJoRR7i4



It sure mattered to her back then.



Around the Network

This hearing isn't as important as some are twisting it to be, not unless you also think that the several embassies that were attacked (and ambassadors killed) during Bush's 8 years were equally "Suspicious" and thus equally important.



DevilRising said:
This hearing isn't as important as some are twisting it to be, not unless you also think that the several embassies that were attacked (and ambassadors killed) during Bush's 8 years were equally "Suspicious" and thus equally important.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambassadors_of_the_United_States#Ambassadors_killed_in_office



DevilRising said:
This hearing isn't as important as some are twisting it to be, not unless you also think that the several embassies that were attacked (and ambassadors killed) during Bush's 8 years were equally "Suspicious" and thus equally important.

But those attacks weren't covered up and lied about, we know what happened and why they happened.  This administration lied about what happened, then got caught and said "oh we didn't know at the time, but we do now". And then for the past four months has been threating every person in the military or or state department to shut their f&@$ing mouths or else.  Liberals seem to think that it's ok for liberals to lie because for them the end justifies the means, when people die because liberals were fighting for the greater good, sure no problem no accountability is needed, but this republicans and conservatives when they lie, it's war crimes, and kill me all.



tres said:
Zappykins said:
scat398 said:
tres said:
why is it that the right investigated benghazi more than they did iraq and 9/11? this is nothing more than using up the clock. the best way to save money in this pathetic country is to defund congress. right now they are literally a waste of tax payers dollars.

well as far as 9/11 there was a great deal of investigation including the 9/11 report by the special commision, I don't disagree that conservatives have focused a great deal of attention to this matter, but I'd like to keep the discussion focused, if possible, on why the administration lied not why are republicans focusing on it.  If you are a left leaning person I'd like to hear your thoughts on why the admnistration lied.

Actually, there was very very little investigation.  And we will never know what the dude sitting in the White House said:

"Tuesday 27 April 2004

    Washington (Reuters) - The White House said on Tuesday it would not allow any recordings or transcripts of private testimony this week by President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to the panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks" http://archive.truthout.org/article/iron-curtain-secrecy-cheney-leads-bush-911-hearing

A court WITHOUT transcrips?  If you go to small claims there are transcrips- and they become public record.  Why is that more imporant than a huge natual security failure that killed close to 3000 people? Please explain why aren't you concered about that?

Even if they aren't released for the 60 years or so they have for sensitive doucments, they should be public records.


amen bro.  they walked in and saw what really happen and  new damn well if what they saw got out the tremendous backlashed there would have been around the world.

scat watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=m4Lrr3TuFR8

Yeah I  watched the hearing that representative is an embarrassment.  Death is a part of life, hey asshole I bet his family will trade his death for yours, what a piece of work. 



Zappykins said:
scat398 said:
tres said:
why is it that the right investigated benghazi more than they did iraq and 9/11? this is nothing more than using up the clock. the best way to save money in this pathetic country is to defund congress. right now they are literally a waste of tax payers dollars.

well as far as 9/11 there was a great deal of investigation including the 9/11 report by the special commision, I don't disagree that conservatives have focused a great deal of attention to this matter, but I'd like to keep the discussion focused, if possible, on why the administration lied not why are republicans focusing on it.  If you are a left leaning person I'd like to hear your thoughts on why the admnistration lied.

Actually, there was very very little investigation.  And we will never know what the dude sitting in the White House said:

"Tuesday 27 April 2004

    Washington (Reuters) - The White House said on Tuesday it would not allow any recordings or transcripts of private testimony this week by President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to the panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks" http://archive.truthout.org/article/iron-curtain-secrecy-cheney-leads-bush-911-hearing

A court WITHOUT transcrips?  If you go to small claims there are transcrips- and they become public record.  Why is that more imporant than a huge natual security failure that killed close to 3000 people? Please explain why aren't you concered about that?

Even if they aren't released for the 60 years or so they have for sensitive doucments, they should be public records.


I believe government officials of both parties should be held accountable for their actions, don't you?