• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Dems May Boycott A Benghazi "Select Committee"

Mike

Well-known member
Makes no sense to me either. You would think the Dems would want to be on the investigative panel. IF........they thought Buckwheat & Co. could actually be defended.
A top Republican on the House intelligence committee slammed his Democratic colleague Sunday for suggesting fellow Democrats boycott the newly announced committee tasked with probing the Benghazi attacks.

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said doing so would be "terribly arrogant" and "wrong."

The call for a boycott was made earlier by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., during an interview on "Fox News Sunday." He was responding to House Speaker John Boehner's announcement Friday that the House would vote on a select committee to investigate Benghazi.

The congressman said Democrats should not give the select committee more "credibility" by joining, dismissing new evidence that Republicans have called a "smoking gun" showing the White House politicized the tragedy.

"I think it's a colossal waste of time," said Schiff, also a member of the intelligence panel. "I don't think it makes sense, really, for Democrats to participate."

King, speaking afterward with Fox News, said this would be a "mistake" for Democrats as it would show they "cannot defend the administration."

"If Democrats boycott this committee, refuse to take part, the American people are going to conclude, and I think quite rightly, that they feel they have something to hide," King said.

Schiff, who called the select committee a "tremendous red herring," acknowledged he doesn't know what Democratic leadership will decide.

Fox News was told on Friday that the panel would be bipartisan. Schiff's comments, though, raise the prospect that his party could try to define the committee as a political vessel by sitting it out. The remarks reflect how the committee, which has not yet been formally approved, already is a political football. It would begin its investigative work in the heat of the midterm election season, poised to level damaging charges against the Obama administration at a sensitive time.

Leading Republicans were adamant that the committee is vital to get to the bottom of what happened in the days and weeks following the Sept. 11, 2012, attack which killed four Americans, including a U.S. ambassador.

The tipping point for those, like Boehner, who were hesitant about forming a select committee, was the release of an email that showed a White House adviser reviewing talking points for then-U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice. The email stressed the role of protests over an anti-Islam video -- which is the faulty explanation Rice went on to use to describe the Benghazi attack's origin on Sunday news shows after the tragedy.

The White House maintains that email referenced protests elsewhere in the Middle East and Africa, but Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., said that claim "doesn't pass the laugh test."

She told "Fox News Sunday" the email shows the need for a select committee. Ayotte said there still hasn't been a clear explanation of why Rice connected the attack to a video.

"The video story clearly came from the White House," she said, calling it a "political explanation leading up to an election."

"This did not fit their narrative," Ayotte said.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said the document was a "messaging email" -- one that Congress never would have seen if not for a court order to release it. He said the claim that a video was to blame was a "lie."

"It wasn't a fog of war problem they had. They created a political smokescreen," Graham told CBS' "Face the Nation."

Former White House adviser David Plouffe, speaking on ABC's "This Week," called the committee "bogus," and suggested more attention should be paid to shoring up security at U.S. embassies.
 

Tam

Well-known member
It is time to get to the bottom of this mess before the Dems go through another election cycle LYING TO THE PUBLIC.
So I say let them boycott, fill the committee with Republicans wanting to get answers for the families that lost their loved ones. And if anyone questions what the Republicans are doing phase the answer as If it was your family would you like to know the true behind their death? Let the Dems that are running in 2014 and 2016 including Hilary explain to the public how they really did not care that the President and his corrupt Administration was bold face lying to the public about everything during his rein of terror on the US.
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
"more attention should be paid to shoring up security at U.S. embassies. :mad:

That's what was asked for many times in Benghazi and never received. :mad:
So why would they do it now? The only reason is to look good to the public
because they've already shown us they don't give a damn.

With all this resistance from the Dems, I agree with you Tam. Let the
Republicans fill the committee. And remember, Gowdy says he has
Evidence those emails were withheld on purpose.

Gee, think they are trying to hide something? :evil:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
A hearing isn't going to help... We should have learned 40 years ago in Iran that you don't maintain an embassy or keep Diplomats in a country that is so politically unstable they can't provide security for our diplomatic entourage.... But we didn't learn from that.. So we won't from any hearing either

The mistake made in Libya was having Diplomats in the country... But we (both parties) can't seem to learn to keep their nose out of foreign wars or problems--and quit thinking we have to be the policemen of the world-- and this time it bit us in the butt again...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Why is Benghazi important to Americans?

You'll hear a lot about Benghazi in coming days and you'll hear the familiar screeching of partisan politics, now that House Speaker John Boehner has decided to convene a select committee to investigate the 2012 terrorist attack in that dusty fly-bitten town in Libya.



If the past is any guide, you'll hear Republican righteous vindictiveness and Democratic mockery and defensiveness. There will be so many politicians jabbering into microphones, so many practiced mouths curled into what is supposed to look like spontaneous anger, that you'll see right through much of it.

And then many of you will be tempted to turn away and tune out. That's to be expected. Some of the politicos are counting on just that. They're betting on it, and you should probably figure that some of the screaming isn't designed to inform but to turn you off to the whole thing.

One of the problems is that many Republicans have used Benghazi as a club. And many Democrats have shrieked that it was all about nothing. So much noise.

So little light, until very recently, when a few previously hidden White House emails were made public and things changed.

But first, remember that four Americans died there in Benghazi: Ambassador Christopher Stevens, U.S. State Department computer specialist Sean Smith and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.

They weren't murdered because they were Democrats or Republicans. They were murdered because they were Americans.


For days afterward, the message from President Obama, Rice, then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and others was: the video, the video, the video.

By not releasing the Rhodes emails fully to Congress, the Obama White House clearly showed its contempt for the House. And depending on your politics, you might agree with the strategy. It got Obama through his roughest debates and helped confuse the issue enough that he was re-elected.

But if we allow our nation's leaders to let politics obscure how our government works, we are making a fatal mistake. That's how fools lose the Republic.

And those four in Benghazi weren't fools. They died for our country, and years of political cover-up can't obscure that.

Again, their names were Stevens, Smith, Doherty and Woods.

They didn't die for politics.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-kass-met-0504-20140504,0,582931,full.column
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
A hearing isn't going to help... We should have learned 40 years ago in Iran that you don't maintain an embassy or keep Diplomats in a country that is so politically unstable they can't provide security for our diplomatic entourage.... But we didn't learn from that..

The mistake made in Libya was having Diplomats in the country... But we (both parties) can't seem to learn to keep their nose out of foreign wars of problems--and quit thinking we have to be the policemen of the world-- and this time it bit us in the butt again...

Help? Help what? :roll:

1- Lying to the public in order to downplay the "Al Qaeda is decimated" statement in front of an election is as low as one can go.

2-Watching the events unfold live and no real attempt was made to rescue them. NONE!!!! Not even the thought of a meaningful attempt as far as I know..

3-Packing up the very next day and attending a fund raiser.

4- Make a statement that the FBI will find those responsible and nothing has been done. Although CNN has talked with the perpetrators.

5- The crime scene was not secured for weeks. Although CNN retrieved personal articles and sent to family.

6- Family has never been told what, why, or how it happened.

I'll say it like Jesse Jackson said of Buckwheat, "they should cut his nuts out"!

Cowardice and political ambitions are no excuse for dereliction of duty by an elected official.

This, on top of the crap you spouted is plenty for Impeachment and Sentencing.

I'll bet it's a long time before another "Community Organizer" becomes President.

WE TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:roll:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
A hearing isn't going to help... We should have learned 40 years ago in Iran that you don't maintain an embassy or keep Diplomats in a country that is so politically unstable they can't provide security for our diplomatic entourage.... But we didn't learn from that..

The mistake made in Libya was having Diplomats in the country... But we (both parties) can't seem to learn to keep their nose out of foreign wars of problems--and quit thinking we have to be the policemen of the world-- and this time it bit us in the butt again...

Why don't you call Sean Smith's mother and Ty Wood's dad and tell them the hearing are not going to get to the bottom of who left their sons to die to protect the President's campaign rhetoric Oldtimer. :mad:

While you are at it tell them that under Obama the military's once proud record of leaving no man behind doesn't mean a d*mn thing if you hero's campaign rhetoric is in danger of being proven a LIE.

You know damn well if it was your son you would not be so stupid about allowing Obama and Hillary to skate on all the lies they spewed to cover up their incompetence when it came to their FAILED FOREIGN POLICIES that Rhodes was trying to steer the conversation away from when he told Susan Rice to go out and LIE TO THE PUBLIC.

OBAMA LIED AND 4 AMERICANS DIED. FACE IT, He knew within hours that it was a TERRORIST ATTACK and he could not let it get out it was as he was spewing Al Queada was on the run due to his first terms Foreign Policy being such a SUCCESS. :roll:

Yep they were on the run Oldtimer they ran right into a Consulate that was not being protected due to Hillary's incompetence as the Sec of State. Remember the Bipartisan report that claimed the deaths were PREVENTABLE Oldtimer? Yep they were preventable if Hilary had not screwed up and denied the repeatedly requested addition security in a country where terrorist had already bombed the consulate and all other countries had pulled out for security reasons. But then Hillary and Obama could not pull out or provide extra security without having to admit their claims of a Lybia's success were nothing BUT MORE LIES. Hence 4 DEAD AMERICANS AND THE COVER UP TO PROTECT THEIR AZZES. :mad:

Both Hillary and Obama should be charged with aiding the terrorists with killing Americans and getting away scott free due to their stonewalling the truth and investigation into the whole issue. If Obama was to make the call to send in the troops to protect those people and he did not then he needs to be impeached for failing to uphold the duties as Commander and Chief of the Military that never leaves a man behind. !!!! :mad:
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Just remember, the folks who murdered the four Americans in Benghazi worship the very same God OT does, and when they murdered the Americans, they were following what their holy scripture spells out for them to do.... :shock: :roll:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
A hearing isn't going to help... We should have learned 40 years ago in Iran that you don't maintain an embassy or keep Diplomats in a country that is so politically unstable they can't provide security for our diplomatic entourage.... But we didn't learn from that.. So we won't from any hearing either

The mistake made in Libya was having Diplomats in the country... But we (both parties) can't seem to learn to keep their nose out of foreign wars or problems--and quit thinking we have to be the policemen of the world-- and this time it bit us in the butt again...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93i0wT9jo9I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sgkw6o3Zg_Q
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
A hearing isn't going to help... We should have learned 40 years ago in Iran that you don't maintain an embassy or keep Diplomats in a country that is so politically unstable they can't provide security for our diplomatic entourage.... But we didn't learn from that.. So we won't from any hearing either

The mistake made in Libya was having Diplomats in the country... But we (both parties) can't seem to learn to keep their nose out of foreign wars or problems--and quit thinking we have to be the policemen of the world-- and this time it bit us in the butt again...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93i0wT9jo9I

Like I said- I think we made a huge mistake sending those folks into an unstable country... We should have kept our nose out of their civil war...We should have learned from Iran to keep ambassadors and delegations out of unstable countries that cannot guarantee the safety of our people- but with 8 killed and 52 held hostage for 444 days--- we apparently haven't and still sent them in... So now do you really believe we will learn from this :???:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
A hearing isn't going to help... We should have learned 40 years ago in Iran that you don't maintain an embassy or keep Diplomats in a country that is so politically unstable they can't provide security for our diplomatic entourage.... But we didn't learn from that.. So we won't from any hearing either

The mistake made in Libya was having Diplomats in the country... But we (both parties) can't seem to learn to keep their nose out of foreign wars or problems--and quit thinking we have to be the policemen of the world-- and this time it bit us in the butt again...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93i0wT9jo9I

That video proves that it was Hillary's decision to send an Ambassador into a country unable to provide for his safety and she KNEW it before she sent him.

There had to be a significant reason......
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
A hearing isn't going to help... We should have learned 40 years ago in Iran that you don't maintain an embassy or keep Diplomats in a country that is so politically unstable they can't provide security for our diplomatic entourage.... But we didn't learn from that.. So we won't from any hearing either

The mistake made in Libya was having Diplomats in the country... But we (both parties) can't seem to learn to keep their nose out of foreign wars or problems--and quit thinking we have to be the policemen of the world-- and this time it bit us in the butt again...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93i0wT9jo9I

Like I said- I think we made a huge mistake sending those folks into an unstable country... We should have kept our nose out of their civil war...We should have learned from Iran to keep ambassadors and delegations out of unstable countries that cannot guarantee the safety of our people- but with 8 killed and 52 held hostage for 444 days--- we apparently haven't and still sent them in... So now do you really believe we will learn from this :???:

The hearings are going to get to the bottom of why Hillary and Obama did not provide requested Security, why they did not send in the Military to protect their personal once the TERRORISTS ATTACKED and WHY THEY LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FOR WEEKS AFTERWARDS. If you are too stupid to understand that then it is no surprize you voted for Obama and have spent the last 5 years defending this incompetent twit occupying golf greens under the priviledge of the Oval Office. :mad:
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Mike said:
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
A hearing isn't going to help... We should have learned 40 years ago in Iran that you don't maintain an embassy or keep Diplomats in a country that is so politically unstable they can't provide security for our diplomatic entourage.... But we didn't learn from that.. So we won't from any hearing either

The mistake made in Libya was having Diplomats in the country... But we (both parties) can't seem to learn to keep their nose out of foreign wars or problems--and quit thinking we have to be the policemen of the world-- and this time it bit us in the butt again...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93i0wT9jo9I

That video proves that it was Hillary's decision to send an Ambassador into a country unable to provide for his safety and she KNEW it before she sent him.

There had to be a significant reason......

This reminds me that on Sept. 12, Hilary said on tv, that Chris Stevens was a personal friend of hers and that she asked him personally to be the
Ambassador.

With friends like her, who needs enemies?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Considering how many others that are connected to the Clintons that have turned up dead is it any wonder Ambassador Stevens is dead too?

Lots of deaths ruled suicide when it comes to that list of people. One even had a gun shot to the back of the head.

Suzanne Coleman - Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was Arkansas Attorney General. Died of a gunshot wound to the back of the head, ruled a suicide. Was pregnant at the time of her death.

And it was pretty suicidal to stay in a Consulate that Hillary ordered you to be at, that was not up to security code due to Hillary waiving the requirements, with no personal security because Hillary had refused the requested security to protect him on the Ann. of 911 after the Consulate was already bombed only weeks earlier.

Have to wonder how many of the other deaths connected to the Clintons had Hillary's hands all over them to this extent? :?
 

Tam

Well-known member
51% Think Benghazi Merits Further Investigation; 34% Disagree
Monday, May 05, 2014

Most voters suspect the Obama administration hasn’t been completely forthcoming about how it reacted to the murder of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and several other Americans in Benghazi, Libya. Just over half think the Benghazi matter deserves further investigation.

Only 32% of Likely U.S. Voters are satisfied with the administration’s explanation of its response to the Benghazi situation in September 2012, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Fifty percent (50%) are not satisfied with the administration’s explanation. Eighteen percent (18%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

And I was just on MSNBC and of the 2500 that have voted in their latest poll on supporting the GOP's Special Committee on Benghazi, not exactly a Conservative polling site but 55% agreed with the GOP's. Now it will be interesting to see if they report on the results. :wink:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-do-you-agree-house-gop-creating-special-benghazi-committee

Fox News Poll: 66 percent say Congress should continue to investigate Benghazi
By Dana Blanton
·Published February 21, 2014
·FoxNews.com

The latest Fox News poll finds that most Americans think Congress should continue to investigate the Obama administration’s handling of the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

The attack took place in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012 and resulted in the deaths of a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.

Sixty-six percent of voters want Congress to keep investigating the White House’s handling of Benghazi. That includes 50 percent of Democrats, 68 percent of independents and 83 percent of Republicans.

About a third opposes lawmakers continuing to investigate the attack (31 percent).

So much for the Lefts claims nobody cares. :roll: [/quote]
 

Mike

Well-known member
Tam, in all fairness to OT, with him living in a Podunk part of the world where he is shut off from all modern communications, he most likely didn't know about the latest e-mail release from the Whitehouse guy who is related to the head of CBS News.

You know, the e-mail that was kept secret until recently and released only because a Judge told them to?

Yep, the one that steered them to blaming the video just to hide the policy failure?

Ya think that may be why he thinks no one cares?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Like I said- I think we made a huge mistake sending those folks into an unstable country... We should have kept our nose out of their civil war...We should have learned from Iran to keep ambassadors and delegations out of unstable countries that cannot guarantee the safety of our people- but with 8 killed and 52 held hostage for 444 days--- we apparently haven't and still sent them in... So now do you really believe we will learn from this :???:


OT, it wasn't an unstable Country and there was NO civil war, before obama ousted the leader...without Congressional authority.

Libya had the highest standard of living in Africa, before the "community organizer" found an excuse to help them with their African Spring.

But, with as many Muslim Brotherhood advising him, is it any wonder that obama sided with the terrorists, to overthrow the government and cause the chaos, that allowed him to move in the "weapons traders"?

This is not a simple case of not being able to protect an "embassy"...and that's what the Democrats are afraid of being exposed, in any type of competent hearings.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Like I said- I think we made a huge mistake sending those folks into an unstable country... We should have kept our nose out of their civil war...We should have learned from Iran to keep ambassadors and delegations out of unstable countries that cannot guarantee the safety of our people- but with 8 killed and 52 held hostage for 444 days--- we apparently haven't and still sent them in... So now do you really believe we will learn from this :???:


Clinton credited with key role in success of NATO airstrikes, Libyan rebels
By Joby Warrick, Published: October 30, 2011 E-mail the writer


TRIPOLI, Libya — At 5:45 p.m. on March 19, three hours before the official start of the air campaign over Libya, four French Rafale jet fighters streaked across the Mediterranean coastline to attack a column of tanks heading toward the rebel city of Benghazi. The jets quickly obliterated their targets — and in doing so nearly upended the international alliance coming to Benghazi’s rescue.

France’s head start on the air war infuriated Italy’s prime minister, who accused Paris of upstaging NATO. Silvio Berlusconi warned darkly of cutting access to Italian air bases vital to the alliance’s warplanes.

 With ousted leader Moammar Gaddafi killed and his last loyalist bastion of Sirte under revolutionary forces’ control, officials pledged to replace his dictatorship with a more democratic but also a more strictly Islamic system.

“It nearly broke up the coalition,” said a European diplomat who had a front-row seat to the events and who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters between allies. Yet the rift was quickly patched, thanks to a frenzied but largely unseen lobbying effort that kept the coalition from unraveling in its opening hours.

“That,” the diplomat said, “was Hillary.”

Seven months later, with longtime U.S. nemesis Moammar Gaddafi dead and Libya’s onetime rebels now in charge, the coalition air campaign has emerged as a foreign policy success for the Obama administration and its most famous Cabinet member, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.


Some Republicans derided the effort as “leading from behind,” while many others questioned why President Obama was entangling the nation in another overseas military campaign that had little strategic urgency and scant public support. But with NATO operations likely to end this week, U.S. officials and key allies are offering a detailed new defense of the approach and Clinton’s pivotal role — both within a divided Cabinet and a fragile, assembled-on-the-fly international alliance.

What emerges from these accounts is a picture of Clinton using her mixture of political pragmatism and tenacity to referee spats among NATO partners, secure crucial backing from Arab countries and tutor rebels on the fine points of message management.

Clinton, in an interview, acknowledged “periods of anguish and buyer’s remorse” during the seven months of the campaign. But, she said, “we set into motion a policy that was on the right side of history, on the right side of our values, on the right side of our strategic interests in the region.”

Now tell us Oldtimer how could Obama and Hillary not put an Ambassador in Libya when the Obama Administration/campaign was toting it as a Foreign Policy Success and Hillary was figuring on riding her mixture of political pragmatism and tenacity to referee spats all the way to the White House in 2016? There is no way these two could afford to not put the Ambassador in danger as to not do it they were going to have to admit Libya was NOT A FOREIGN POLICY SUCCESS.

I have to laugh/scream every time I hear the Dems claiming the Republicans are politicizing the issue with their investigations to get to the truth when we all know Obama and Hillary turn it political the moment they decided to protect their campaign rhetoric over telling the friggin truth.
:mad: [/quote]
 
Top