Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

    bigdog where is the coverup ..... there is no new information that came out of these hearings ....

     




    Get the wax out of your ears.  TONS of new info.

     

     




    what new info .... give examples .....

     

     



    The CIA drafted talkng points that suggesting the CIA told everybody there were a lot of terrorists in Libya so it shouldn't be hung out to dry for this mess.  So the state department said "that's not fair - now you're hanging us out to dry" and somebody at the CIA agreed because ultimately all edits were made by the intelligence community.

     

    And our conservative friends, who can smell conspiracy, have now turned their noses to the State Dept and Hillary Clinton because Obama cannot run again in 2016.   And even though they will rail for hours about money spent on scientific studies they don't care about, they don't have a problem spending millions of dollars and countless hours on nine hearings about talking points.

    The coverage is where it should be - Fox News, Breitbart, the conservative bubble, and this forum.  

     



     

    The Republicans are obsessed with this incident, aren't they? If not this, I'm sure it would be something else.

    Prediction time: After what Lindsay Graham said recently that this "Appears To Be As Bad As Watergate", expect them to initiate impeachment proceedings; not that it shall work; but the modus operandi going forward these for these crackpots is to impeach every sitting Dem President.

    And yet, these numbnuts were completely silent about the the war criminal/profiteer Cheney and his duped accomplice W, (Resulting in an explosion of red ink), the related Valerie Plame & Abu Ghraib incidents, the Justice Dept scandal where subpeonas went unanswered, Katrina, 9/11, the deregulation of Wall St,  the tax cuts for the uber wealthy, and a dozen or so similar breaches on par with Benghazi (except no ambassadors were killed) during the previous admin.

    I believe the motive here is to think it shall help with constituents in 2014 & 2016 (including bringing down Hillary), not realizing that the recent failed gun control legislation (where 84-90% of the populace was in favor of, depending on what survey you look at) and women's rights are far more important to them; to wit; yesterday, I unexpectedly saw in my town an angry bipartisan rally decrying the lack of a weapons background check.

     



    Yet another LOL!  Man, my face hurts from the laughter.  Yes, it`s "Republican obsession".......not!   THREE people have come forward speaking of the intimidation, lies, 12 separate incidents of changing talking points, and a completely incompetent administration right to the top.  They were demoted and threatened with being terminated.  Now, the MSM-enablers have FINALLY picked up this story and there`s no more hiding.  This was a coverup and you would have to be blind to not see it.  Email trails, testimony, phone calls, and 12 document changes, are all over the news.  Open your eyes.

     

     

     

    Hence. my "impeachment" comment. You want to compared this to the Justice Dep't Scandal? The croc about WMDs and the coverrups during the IRAQ War? OK then.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    You can dredge up all sorts of stuff about Bush.  how does this innoculate Obama?

     




     

    It's not an innoculation but rather an illustration of the hypocrisy and utter depravity of the neo-con position.

    This witch hunt has nothing to do with the lives lost. If that was the case there should have been a three-fold increase in the rhetoric when 13 American diplomats lost their lives during the previous administration.

    This is poiliticalization of the tragic deaths of 4 Americans purely for political partisanship.

    It lays bare the depths of depravity that the neo-cons will sink to in order to attack Obama.

     



    +++

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:




    Wow. Liberals are still annoying and wrong even after death.

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

    Big Dog make sure you watch Meet the Press tomorrow morning

     



    You make sure YOU watch it!  Because you`re clueless man and you`re proving it more with every post.

     



    Big Dog .. like I said you haven't seen the ball since the kick off ..... 

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    Big Dog I didn't have any of your post deleted ..... they are too entertaining .....

    Seriously I didn't do it ....  I didn't agree with them but there wasn't anything wrong with them  

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    bigdog;

     

    WMDs was the excuse to go to war; that's the difference; the related misinfo encouraged the Dems to go along with it, in an attempt to govern (as opposed to the current Congress, who is just looking to sabotage, even if they seem to agree with it). As far as coverrups, see Valerie Plame, the censorship of the War dead, Abu Ghraib, &  the documentary Iraq For Sale.

     

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    bigdog;

     

    WMDs was the excuse to go to war; that's the difference; the related misinfo encouraged the Dems to go along with it, in an attempt to govern (as opposed to the current Congress, who is just looking to sabotage, even if they seem to agree with it). As far as coverrups, see Valerie Plame, the censorship of the War dead, Abu Ghraib, &  the documentary Iraq For Sale.

     

     

     



    Clinton, Gore, Kennedy, Lieberman, Dodd, Daschle, Kerry, Hillary, Edwards, all spoke of WMD for 20 years.  The Dems that voted for Resolution 114 and the overwhelming vote form Congress (both parties) was undeniable.  

     

    None of your rantings have anything to do with the simple fact that al qeada terrorists attacked our embassy on Sept 11th, 2012, a day that should be of the highest alert, killed our ambassador, and the Obama idiots changed the talking points (12 times), tried to blame the calculated attack on a youtube video, and lied to America.  Obama and Hillary lied to the mother of one of the dead soldiers at the freaking memorial, right to her face!  These lies and this crime was commited because an al qeada attack during the campaign wouldn`t work based on the fact that Obama was running around telling us "osama is dead and al qeada is on the run".

    Wake up and be honest.

     



    Never said this wasn't a horrendous policy failure, hence my impeachment credo, to repeat yet again; but the Republican reaction is horrendous as well, especially in light of their non-reactions to umpteen similar and worse policy failures by previous admins.

    When shall you wake up to that? As far as rantings are concerned, I didn't start this rant based excuse for a thread.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    Where's the coverage? Do you watch TV? Every time I turn on a national news channel..there it is. Of course...you have to understand that there have been other stories recently that have taken up some airspace on the news..and rightfully so.

    The Week has been talking about it for 15 minutes now.

    As far as the Globe..If you access their paid content there is no shortage of Benghazi stories.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    The bias can be subtle but it's obvious when you look for it. For example, placement is a large part of it. There's a huge difference between a story given prominent visibility on the front page of a newspaper and one buried next to the obituaries. The Benghazi story has finally taken off despite, not because, of the coverage it has received by most of the news media.

    Compare this story to that of Valarie Plame who was never put into harms way but whose story exploded in the media as soon as there was a public accusation. Its really unconscionable how the media chooses what stories to promote based on their personal politics.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    The bias can be subtle but it's obvious when you look for it. For example, placement is a large part of it. There's a huge difference between a story given prominent visibility on the front page of a newspaper and one buried next to the obituaries. The Benghazi story has finally taken off despite, not because, of the coverage it has received by most of the news media.

    Compare this story to that of Valarie Plame who was never put into harms way but whose story exploded in the media as soon as there was a public accusation. Its really unconscionable how the media chooses what stories to promote based on their personal politics.

     

     

    Disagree, and just the opposite; many overseas were furious over the Valerie Plame incident, where they claimed the real story was censored in the US; the compromise of the global nuclear proliferation intelligence network just so that draft dodger Cheney can run his crooked war profiteering machine in Iraq. Bush was duped accordingly, and regretted/was angered by it afterwards; which is why he didn't pardon Scooter Libby in the Gonzales Justice Dep't Scandal.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    Just like I thought .... Issa is a partisan rat who has a problem speaking the truth ..... btw what did you think of it ?

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    bigdog;

     

    WMDs was the excuse to go to war; that's the difference; the related misinfo encouraged the Dems to go along with it, in an attempt to govern (as opposed to the current Congress, who is just looking to sabotage, even if they seem to agree with it). As far as coverrups, see Valerie Plame, the censorship of the War dead, Abu Ghraib, &  the documentary Iraq For Sale.

     

     

     



    Clinton, Gore, Kennedy, Lieberman, Dodd, Daschle, Kerry, Hillary, Edwards, all spoke of WMD for 20 years.  The Dems that voted for Resolution 114 and the overwhelming vote form Congress (both parties) was undeniable.  

     

    None of your rantings have anything to do with the simple fact that al qeada terrorists attacked our embassy on Sept 11th, 2012, a day that should be of the highest alert, killed our ambassador, and the Obama idiots changed the talking points (12 times), tried to blame the calculated attack on a youtube video, and lied to America.  Obama and Hillary lied to the mother of one of the dead soldiers at the freaking memorial, right to her face!  These lies and this crime was commited because an al qeada attack during the campaign wouldn`t work based on the fact that Obama was running around telling us "osama is dead and al qeada is on the run".

    Wake up and be honest.

     



    Never said this wasn't a horrendous policy failure, hence my impeachment credo, to repeat yet again; but the Republican reaction is horrendous as well, especially in light of their non-reactions to umpteen similar and worse policy failures by previous admins.

    When shall you wake up to that? As far as rantings are concerned, I didn't start this rant based excuse for a thread.

     



    I don`t think impeachment is even on the table. I would completely disregard any talk of impeachment and anyone that suggests it is smoking something.  The MSM has a love affair with Obama and impeachment is out of the question based ob the makeup of the House and Senate. 

     

    What "Republican reaction"?  You have yet to explain this.  This was/is a gross display of incompetence followed by outright lies and quite possibly criminal acts.  Please explain what the "response" should be?  

    Also, still waiting for any factual data you have about deliberate coverups surrounding some of the previous administration blunders you mention.

     

     



    I agree there needs to be more fact finding hearings on Benghazi; but for the most part this appears to be on the GOP agenda, not bipartisan. I actually consider Fast & Furious to be a failure of similar magnitude. And I felt Obama should have kept his mouth shut when that Harvard Prof had that incident with the cops. He appears to be lukewarm at best regarding Israel as well; however, while I'm Jewish, that country IMO is clearly no angel; although maybe if they were they would have ceased existing long ago.

    However, where was the outrage over the previous admin's failures? Some were whoppers. Can you imagine the GOP response if Obama did them?

     

    The only reason I mentioned impeachment was a predictive hunch based on Lindsay Graham's tone & reference to Watergate; until if and then you are right about it's prospects.

    I can't give you info on the Valerie Plame incident as it pertains to the compromises discussed above; it was based on word of mouth from European acquaintances, so if you want to conclude hearsay, I couldn't blame you. For other info, check out the documentary "Iraq for Sale" (as mentioned before). Admittedly, as in any media creation, it's subjective. Otherwise:

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19704513/ns/politics/t/bush-orders-miers-defy-house-subpoena/#.UY_ip7UslFs

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Gonzales

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Powell

     

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

    bigdog where is the coverup ..... there is no new information that came out of these hearings ....

     




    Get the wax out of your ears.  TONS of new info.

     

     




    what new info .... give examples .....

     

     



    The CIA drafted talkng points that suggesting the CIA told everybody there were a lot of terrorists in Libya so it shouldn't be hung out to dry for this mess.  So the state department said "that's not fair - now you're hanging us out to dry" and somebody at the CIA agreed because ultimately all edits were made by the intelligence community.

     

    And our conservative friends, who can smell conspiracy, have now turned their noses to the State Dept and Hillary Clinton because Obama cannot run again in 2016.   And even though they will rail for hours about money spent on scientific studies they don't care about, they don't have a problem spending millions of dollars and countless hours on nine hearings about talking points.

    The coverage is where it should be - Fox News, Breitbart, the conservative bubble, and this forum.  

     



     

    The Republicans are obsessed with this incident, aren't they? If not this, I'm sure it would be something else.

    Prediction time: After what Lindsay Graham said recently that this "Appears To Be As Bad As Watergate", expect them to initiate impeachment proceedings; not that it shall work; but the modus operandi going forward these for these crackpots is to impeach every sitting Dem President.

    And yet, these numbnuts were completely silent about the the war criminal/profiteer Cheney and his duped accomplice W, (Resulting in an explosion of red ink), the related Valerie Plame & Abu Ghraib incidents, the Justice Dept scandal where subpeonas went unanswered, Katrina, 9/11, the deregulation of Wall St,  the tax cuts for the uber wealthy, and a dozen or so similar breaches on par with Benghazi (except no ambassadors were killed) during the previous admin.

    I believe the motive here is to think it shall help with constituents in 2014 & 2016 (including bringing down Hillary), not realizing that the recent failed gun control legislation (where 84-90% of the populace was in favor of, depending on what survey you look at) and women's rights are far more important to them; to wit; yesterday, I unexpectedly saw in my town an angry bipartisan rally decrying the lack of a weapons background check.



    Three months ago I would have said the GOP had its eyes on impeachment, but now the focus is shifting from the White House to the State Department, so I think they're already looking past Obama and mounting an anti-Hillary offensive.

    But chances are somebody will be held responsible for Benghazi long before the 2016 election, and that somebody will be blaming the Godless infidels of the US.  And that somebody will be claiming that the US invited this action by mocking the prophet.  Yes, that crazy terrorist somebody will bring this back to ... the video.

    This will happen - this is incredibly simple to foresee.  And when it does, it's going to kill the GOP.  How can it not?

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    You can dredge up all sorts of stuff about Bush.  how does this innoculate Obama?

     




     

    It's not an innoculation but rather an illustration of the hypocrisy and utter depravity of the neo-con position.

    This witch hunt has nothing to do with the lives lost. If that was the case there should have been a three-fold increase in the rhetoric when 13 American diplomats lost their lives during the previous administration.

    This is poiliticalization of the tragic deaths of 4 Americans purely for political partisanship.

    It lays bare the depths of depravity that the neo-cons will sink to in order to attack Obama.

     



    Hypocrisy?  What attack did Bush blame on a video?

    If the statement was "what difference does it make", 90 days after the Bengazi attack, and "a long time ago" 8 months after the attack, how could attacks that happened 5 or more years ago have ANY relevance?

    Face it, your blind allegiance has caused you to put a person above a bad policy.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:



    Again, what was the lie?

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Where is the coverage of the Bengazi hearings?

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:



    He did?  Prove it.

     

Share