If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Herald Times Reporter)   Republican with an agenda calls for public Benghazi hearings. Wait, he's a Democrat? Benghazigate is here. Finally, its here. Oh, I thought it would never come. But it came, just the same   (htrnews.com) divider line 369
    More: Interesting, Benghazi, Republican, Democrats, hearings, Elijah Cummings, ADM, Mike Mullen, Joint Chiefs of Staff  
•       •       •

1361 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 May 2013 at 11:10 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



369 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-14 09:29:29 AM  
Didn't finish reading that sentence, did ya subby?
 
2013-05-14 09:32:14 AM  
"...should answer questions about their work at a congressional hearing, not in a private deposition that the Republicans want. "

Close, subbo, but no banana.
 
2013-05-14 10:01:43 AM  
Trolly head line is trollish
 
2013-05-14 10:19:52 AM  
The only scandal is how much time and money has been wasted on this crap. I wonder what the real damage to the economy is. After all, the NCAA tournament only occupies our time for a few weeks out of the year. This sh*t goes on and on my friend.
 
2013-05-14 10:46:15 AM  
Whoever didn't adequately secure the Benghazi outpost in a country just out of a civil war should be fired. Oh, Clinton resigned? Well, sucks to be you, Republicans, doesn't it? Maybe you might as well ask for the head of the IRS (who resigned months ago) to resign for the investigations into the Tea Party...oh...wait..you actually did that too?...oh...ummm, ok, yeah...welll, you keep on shining on you crazy diamonds, I guess.
 
2013-05-14 10:47:41 AM  
Do it.  Everyone saw Pickering call you out on your BS on Sunday, Issa.  Bring him and Mullen into this circus.

Oh, wait: Pickering...absolved former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

And, what's this?  "Mike Mullen, who was part of this report and indeed worked very closely with all of us and shared many of the responsibilities directly with me, made it very clear that his view as a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that there were nothing within range that could have made a difference," Pickering said.

I guess that's not what you want to hear, is it Issa?  And these bozos clearly lack the expertise and gravitas of that Hicks guy, don't they?
 
2013-05-14 10:52:04 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: Whoever didn't adequately secure the Benghazi outpost in a country just out of a civil war should be fired. Oh, Clinton resigned? Well, sucks to be you, Republicans, doesn't it? Maybe you might as well ask for the head of the IRS (who resigned months ago) to resign for the investigations into the Tea Party...oh...wait..you actually did that too?...oh...ummm, ok, yeah...welll, you keep on shining on you crazy diamonds, I guess.


You don't get it, do you?
The PRESIDENT needs to resign for those things.  Immediately.  Or else.
 
2013-05-14 10:53:35 AM  
fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net
 
2013-05-14 11:11:08 AM  
Hillary Clinton is the presumptive front-runner for the Democratic nomination in 2016.

This is all you need to know about the Benghazi "scandal".
 
2013-05-14 11:12:50 AM  
[akbaritsatrap.jpg]
 
2013-05-14 11:13:44 AM  

unlikely: "...should answer questions about their work at a congressional hearing, not in a private deposition that the Republicans want. "

Close, subbo, but no banana.


Now why would they want to keep it as a private hearing? Hmmmmmn.
 
2013-05-14 11:14:09 AM  
I think we should hold hearings.

I think they should be public, and at the end, we should throw Issa and his cohorts in jail for sedition and slander, and forget about the key.

Maybe slip some dirty water in for him to drink from time to time. He can catch rats for food and cook them over burning cars. I hear he has some experience in this area.
 
2013-05-14 11:16:31 AM  

seventypercent: Hillary Clinton is the presumptive front-runner for the Democratic nomination in 2016.

This is all you need to know about the Benghazi "scandal".


Exactly. Everything Republicans do is politically motivated to benefit them and the wealthy. If you don't know this already, you just haven't been paying attention.
 
2013-05-14 11:16:44 AM  
Can someone explain to me just what this scandal is supposed to be about?
 
2013-05-14 11:18:02 AM  
I'd call this investigation a scandal, but it hasn't hit Clinton levels yet. We obviously need a special prosecutor.
 
2013-05-14 11:20:22 AM  
And how does an Arab with spiritual ties to Damascus even become Republican Chairman of the House Oversight panel?
 
2013-05-14 11:20:47 AM  

Pincy: Can someone explain to me just what this scandal is supposed to be about?


As we learned today, it's about penis chopping and rape.
 
2013-05-14 11:21:03 AM  
Issa wants these hearing to be private because he doesn't want the truth to come out...that the GOP destroyed the State Department's security budget and are now seeing the results of the lack of security.  They also know fully well that no military units could have been in Benghazi in time without significant risk to save the ambassador and the staff.  When these hearings are public, then we'll get the truth instead of the GOP / Fox News talking points that have been out there since Benghazi attempted to become a scandal.

This is why the Democrats want the hearings to be public, and they should be.
 
2013-05-14 11:21:28 AM  

Pincy: Can someone explain to me just what this scandal is supposed to be about?


Republican distraction.
 
2013-05-14 11:21:55 AM  

Pincy: Can someone explain to me just what this scandal is supposed to be about?


Well they haven't decided yet. It was either changing the talking points a week later or not sending a group of four special forces guys to their glorious deaths.
 
2013-05-14 11:21:58 AM  
Could someone remind me what the scandal is again?
 
2013-05-14 11:22:33 AM  

Mentat: Pincy: Can someone explain to me just what this scandal is supposed to be about?

As we learned today, it's about penis chopping and rape.


Ahhh!! I'm against both of those things. Who should I vote for/??
 
2013-05-14 11:24:53 AM  

Raharu: Could someone remind me what the scandal is again?


An American overseas died in a terrorist attack while a Black Democrat was President.

What more do you need to know?
 
2013-05-14 11:25:53 AM  

Pincy: Can someone explain to me just what this scandal is supposed to be about?


Same thing as the Obama bows to the Japanese PM scandal.  Obama claimed he didn't, but the video clearly shows he did.  No big deal there, except the need to lie or in the case of Benghazi...massage the talking points to say something about a Youtube Video based riot when it was actually an al queada targeted killing of a US ambassador.

Overall, the "scandal" is the admin's need to link the targeted attack in Libya to the Youtube video uprisings when there was no need to do so.  They appear to have had over-zealous people in the State Department re-writing the CIA talking points to make it appear that it was the same type of issue as Cairo, et al...all when it was unnecessary.  Then they denied doing that while everyone now can see that they did do that.  And, at the same time as the President (in person at the UN, and prior to that in press conferences, and interviews, AND by proxy) was alternately calling it the same as Cairo, and different than Cairo, they claim to have only had one version of the story.

So, tempest in a teapot created by the admins own people, and yet the admin is mad that others, Republicans, are calling them on it.
 
2013-05-14 11:28:09 AM  

I_C_Weener: Pincy: Can someone explain to me just what this scandal is supposed to be about?

Same thing as the Obama bows to the Japanese PM scandal.  Obama claimed he didn't, but the video clearly shows he did...


Stopped reading after that.

You forgot to say "Study it out" as well.
 
2013-05-14 11:28:19 AM  

I_C_Weener: Pincy: Can someone explain to me just what this scandal is supposed to be about?

Same thing as the Obama bows to the Japanese PM scandal.  Obama claimed he didn't, but the video clearly shows he did.  No big deal there, except the need to lie or in the case of Benghazi...massage the talking points to say something about a Youtube Video based riot when it was actually an al queada targeted killing of a US ambassador.

Overall, the "scandal" is the admin's need to link the targeted attack in Libya to the Youtube video uprisings when there was no need to do so.  They appear to have had over-zealous people in the State Department re-writing the CIA talking points to make it appear that it was the same type of issue as Cairo, et al...all when it was unnecessary.  Then they denied doing that while everyone now can see that they did do that.  And, at the same time as the President (in person at the UN, and prior to that in press conferences, and interviews, AND by proxy) was alternately calling it the same as Cairo, and different than Cairo, they claim to have only had one version of the story.

So, tempest in a teapot created by the admins own people, and yet the admin is mad that others, Republicans, are calling them on it.


That's  what makes this ten times worse than Iran/Contra and Watergate.
 
2013-05-14 11:29:34 AM  

I_C_Weener: Pincy: Can someone explain to me just what this scandal is supposed to be about?

Same thing as the Obama bows to the Japanese PM scandal.  Obama claimed he didn't, but the video clearly shows he did.  No big deal there, except the need to lie or in the case of Benghazi...massage the talking points to say something about a Youtube Video based riot when it was actually an al queada targeted killing of a US ambassador.

Overall, the "scandal" is the admin's need to link the targeted attack in Libya to the Youtube video uprisings when there was no need to do so.  They appear to have had over-zealous people in the State Department re-writing the CIA talking points to make it appear that it was the same type of issue as Cairo, et al...all when it was unnecessary.  Then they denied doing that while everyone now can see that they did do that.  And, at the same time as the President (in person at the UN, and prior to that in press conferences, and interviews, AND by proxy) was alternately calling it the same as Cairo, and different than Cairo, they claim to have only had one version of the story.

So, tempest in a teapot created by the admins own people, and yet the admin is mad that others, Republicans, are calling them on it.


It is a tremendous waste of time and money.  And you all know it.  And you're giddy about it.  Somebody needs to step up and give Issa a Joseph Welch vs. Joseph McCarthy smack-down.
 
2013-05-14 11:29:44 AM  
Top. Dems.
 
2013-05-14 11:32:15 AM  

Fart_Machine: Pincy: Can someone explain to me just what this scandal is supposed to be about?

Well they haven't decided yet. It was either changing the talking points a week later or not sending a group of four special forces guys to their glorious deaths.


That second I can't even dignify with quote marks around scandal.  Yes, there might have been some things they could have done.  They didn't .  Hind sight is 20/20.    I do think the Admin (dumb underlings) tried to tie it in to the riots over the Youtube video unnecessarily and frankly when they knew it was different.  The top people didn't think it serious enough to actually take control themselves over the story until the different talking points had been out there.  And then they handled it by claiming they'd been truthful from the beginning instead of saying, "We probably did this wrong, but now we have it clear.  It was a terror attack, not related to the other terror attacks which were about the Youtube video."

Add in that the CIA had an "annex" nearby, from which some went to rescue the consulate and which later cam under attack, and that its purpose (if not existence) was top secret, and you get a reason for obfuscating and hoping it goes away before you have to admit the CIA annex.

Lesson to learn from this:  If you don't change the CIA talking points, you can always blame the CIA.
 
2013-05-14 11:32:29 AM  
It doesn't matter what the "scandal" is about; the Republican voters have received their marching orders via Fox News already and are clamoring for an impeachment of not just Obama, but Biden and Clinton as well. I keep asking them "under what pretense?" and they just foam at the mouth while saying "but but but but he has to be guilty of SOMETHING!".
 
2013-05-14 11:32:46 AM  

Pincy: Can someone explain to me just what this scandal is supposed to be about?


Obama called Benghazi a "act of terror" instead of a "terrorist act" before the election and now, Hillary Clinton is going to run for President in 2016 and F-16s could have been used to reanimate the dead bodies in Benghazi but were not even deployed to do so.
 
2013-05-14 11:33:18 AM  
My teatarded friend on facebook over the weekend posted this:

i39.tinypic.com
This is what talk radio and the echo chamber produces.
 
2013-05-14 11:33:52 AM  

Mrtraveler01: I_C_Weener: Pincy: Can someone explain to me just what this scandal is supposed to be about?

Same thing as the Obama bows to the Japanese PM scandal.  Obama claimed he didn't, but the video clearly shows he did...

Stopped reading after that.

You forgot to say "Study it out" as well.


Ok.
 
2013-05-14 11:34:07 AM  

Gotfire: This is what talk radio and the echo chamber produces.


Good, they apparently produce a ton of bullshiat that no one will read.
 
2013-05-14 11:37:00 AM  

I_C_Weener: Mrtraveler01: I_C_Weener: Pincy: Can someone explain to me just what this scandal is supposed to be about?

Same thing as the Obama bows to the Japanese PM scandal.  Obama claimed he didn't, but the video clearly shows he did...

Stopped reading after that.

You forgot to say "Study it out" as well.

Ok.


If you are trying to make a big deal over whether Obama bowed to the Japanese PM or not, don't be shocked when people don't take you seriously on anything else.
 
2013-05-14 11:42:51 AM  
BENGHAZIGATE HAS COME AND SO HAVE I~~~
 
2013-05-14 11:45:52 AM  

Pincy: Can someone explain to me just what this scandal is supposed to be about?


Someone possibly dropped the ball on security for a diplomatic post and the diplomatic post was overrun and some people died. The person most likely to be that "someone" resigned from the post last year. That someone happens to also be a prime contender for the 2016 Presidential race. They must destroy her because they hate her.
 
2013-05-14 11:55:54 AM  

Mentat: Pincy: Can someone explain to me just what this scandal is supposed to be about?

As we learned today, it's about penis chopping and rape.


Oh great.  Does that mean I have to add "Penis-Chopper" and "Rapist" to the Big Spiffy List of All the Bad Things Fartbama Is?
 
2013-05-14 12:02:09 PM  
It came?  I didn't come.
I'm dissatisfied...we're not in sync.

Is it over yet?

/wistful yearnings
 
2013-05-14 12:04:35 PM  

Mrtraveler01: I_C_Weener: Mrtraveler01: I_C_Weener: Pincy: Can someone explain to me just what this scandal is supposed to be about?

Same thing as the Obama bows to the Japanese PM scandal.  Obama claimed he didn't, but the video clearly shows he did...

Stopped reading after that.

You forgot to say "Study it out" as well.

Ok.

If you are trying to make a big deal over whether Obama bowed to the Japanese PM or not, don't be shocked when people don't take you seriously on anything else.


If you think that was my point, then "Ok" again.
 
2013-05-14 12:05:27 PM  

bdub77: The only scandal is how much time and money has been wasted on this crap. I wonder what the real damage to the economy is. ...


Is it your assertion that the amount of money spent on these "investigations" has any bearing on the state of our economic situation? Seriously, I want someone to show me how much money we have spent on this and how that has effected the economy. If your assertion is that the legislators are not doing their job, therefore, we are not bolstering the economic recovery, I would ask that someone show how many "jobs bills" are being hung up because of this investigation. Show me anything that might even possibly be construed as a hindrance or diversion in the legislative process. I'd even accept some Kos potato numbers as a start.
 
2013-05-14 12:05:42 PM  
He's hiding something.
 
2013-05-14 12:08:10 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: He's hiding something.


He's got to. I mean he's a Democrat after all.

Study it out people!
 
2013-05-14 12:09:28 PM  

I_C_Weener: Lesson to learn from this: If you don't change the CIA talking points, you can always blame the CIA.


So that obviously means it's justified to spend countless hours and money "investigating" and harping about how it's worse than Iran-Contra and Watergate combined.
 
2013-05-14 12:11:56 PM  
Dear Republicans,

The election is over. Romney and Ryan lost.

Get over it already!

Signed,

America
 
2013-05-14 12:14:09 PM  
I find this whole story fascinating in a scary sense.  It has become clear, to me anyway, that Issa would readily, eagerly become the next McCarthy if he could.  He would set himself up as a one-man tribunal, and the inquisition would never end, if he could help it.  He's in this for self-aggrandizement and power.  He could become a monster, if we let him.  Right now, he's kind of like a smallpox virus in a lab dish.  The question is whether some unfortunate incident will occur.
 
2013-05-14 12:15:54 PM  
i.qkme.me
 
2013-05-14 12:16:09 PM  

IdBeCrazyIf: Trolly head line is trollish


Drudgish
 
2013-05-14 12:16:56 PM  
From interview with Pickering, a few days ago:

SIEGEL: You're saying, Ambassador Pickering, that to have dispatched that second group to Benghazi would have made our staff at the embassy in Tripoli potentially that much more vulnerable?

PICKERING: It was, and that was on the basis of testimony we heard from people who were at Tripoli at the time.

SIEGEL: We should say here you were a career diplomat for many, many years and an ambassador in many hot spots. Do you regard this wave of hearings as a genuine effort to get at what might have been a scandalous misrepresentation of what happened in Benghazi, or as a political sideshow?

PICKERING: I believe, from my own personal experience, the latter is much more preeminent at this stage than the former, particularly as I listen to the hearings and found indeed very little that I thought added to certainly the issues we were concerned with.


/Diplomatic to the last...
//  http://www.npr.org/2013/05/10/182938646/benghazi-investigator-reacts- t o-criticism-of-his-report
///Issa would no more want Pickering and Mullen yapping live on CSPAN than he would want to flip a bottle full of scorpions over onto his genitals
////remember: never lose control of the narrative - or lose count of the slashes...
 
2013-05-14 12:19:14 PM  
Is Scandalgate a thing yet?
 
Displayed 50 of 369 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report