View Poll Results: GOP Benghazi hearings a partisan disgrace?

Voters
94. You may not vote on this poll
  • Agree

    51 54.26%
  • Disagree

    43 45.74%
Page 3 of 23 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 224

Thread: GOP Benghazi hearings a partisan disgrace?

  1. #21
    Sage

    Mason66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,444

    Re: GOP Benghazi hearings a partisan disgrace?

    Quote Originally Posted by DiAnna View Post
    When hard evidence is brought to prove that there were deliberate lies, not just the media/political spewing of picked-apart words during the confusion in the after attack, I'll look at it. Last I heard the CIA admitted that the talking points given to UN Ambassador Rice had been "reworked" before she received them. The actual reports submitted by bi-partisian investigations have either been cherry-picked for quotes or totally ignored. Husby had Fox News on over the weekend, and they are still harping about Rice's words, when was a terrorist attack a terrorist attack and who knew what when... all crap from a couple weeks after the incident, when Libya was saying one thing and DC was trying to figure out what happened, while being denied access to the site itself.

    Everything else is pure, unadulterated fabrication, speculation, commentary, and partisian bull****.

    I don't have much respect for either the republicans or the democrats when it comes to partisian smokescreens and slight of hand. This time it's the republicans. Next time it'll be the democrats. Bull**** all around.
    This is what the hearings are for.

    How are you going to hear the truth with people like you saying there is nothing to see here.

    It sounds a Little dishonest to me.

  2. #22
    Sage

    Mason66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,444

    Re: GOP Benghazi hearings a partisan disgrace?

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    Eleven (11) embassies were attacked under the administration of GWShiiteForBrains and 61 people died and the same investigators, screamers, partisan turds, and trogolodytes ignored those attacks. I must have missed something. Why not investigate the first eleven to see if a security problem existed and could be corrected. Since we're not doing that, it must be partisan politics and Obama will always be a liar on this matter. Why doesn't the administration just say, "is it possible our security was lax and we need to study all 12 incidents to make security recommendations?"
    No partisanship in this post, that's for sure.

  3. #23
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,361

    Re: GOP Benghazi hearings a partisan disgrace?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mason66 View Post
    This is what the hearings are for.

    How are you going to hear the truth with people like you saying there is nothing to see here.

    It sounds a Little dishonest to me.
    I think we are saying there has been an independent study now lets get back to some real business. It is pointless to try and lay blame on one person for something that was undoubtably a situation where many mistakes were made along the line of command. These "hearings" at least give the impression of a "witch hunt" which will only result in scorn from most Americans. Give it up and stop stalling on immigration reform.

  4. #24
    Sage

    Mason66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,444

    Re: GOP Benghazi hearings a partisan disgrace?

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    I think we are saying there has been an independent study now lets get back to some real business. It is pointless to try and lay blame on one person for something that was undoubtably a situation where many mistakes were made along the line of command. These "hearings" at least give the impression of a "witch hunt" which will only result in scorn from most Americans. Give it up and stop stalling on immigration reform.
    So you are satisfied with how this went down. Most are not.

    The questions need to be answered then everybody can go on to other business.

    What the hell does this have to do with immigration?

  5. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    SE Asia
    Last Seen
    07-12-14 @ 10:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    2,333

    Re: GOP Benghazi hearings a partisan disgrace?

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    Eleven (11) embassies were attacked under the administration of GWShiiteForBrains and 61 people died and the same investigators, screamers, partisan turds, and trogolodytes ignored those attacks. I must have missed something. Why not investigate the first eleven to see if a security problem existed and could be corrected. Since we're not doing that, it must be partisan politics and Obama will always be a liar on this matter. Why doesn't the administration just say, "is it possible our security was lax and we need to study all 12 incidents to make security recommendations?"
    I don't think the anger over this has to do with the consulate being attacked. Embassies and consulates get attacked, it happens. I think the anger is over the response to the attack, at least for those who are legitimately angry and not just grand standing.

  6. #26
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: GOP Benghazi hearings a partisan disgrace?

    I have only a few questions? Did the administration let four great American citizens die for politics? If so, no crime but disgusting. Did we exhaust all resources and the four deaths were an inevitability? If so, well, that's life and it is horrible that they died.

    Is there an active obstruction of justice? That is a major problem if so, it's actually what took Nixon down during Watergate, not the burglary itself(over eager campaign staffers) and even then nobody died.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  7. #27
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: GOP Benghazi hearings a partisan disgrace?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarcogito View Post
    I don't think the anger over this has to do with the consulate being attacked. Embassies and consulates get attacked, it happens. I think the anger is over the response to the attack, at least for those who are legitimately angry and not just grand standing.
    If people died for politics I'm angry, if we did everything possible I'm angry only at the attackers.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  8. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: GOP Benghazi hearings a partisan disgrace?

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    It is not the embassy being attacked that is the issue here. There are four main questions in regard to Benghazi.

    Why was the ambassadors request for more security denied?

    Why wasn't help sent when the embassy came under attack?

    Where was Obama for the seven hours this attack went on?

    Why did the White House lie to us about this being a terrorist attack?
    Heya SL. Perhaps this will help to shed some light on things. Here is a Writer that worked for AP. He now went to work for the National Journal. Perhaps you may recall the Name. Ron Fournier.

    Why Benghazi is a Blow to Obama and Clinton
    Both parties are wrong about the scandal: It’s not Watergate and it’s not nothing.

    Both parties are wrong about Benghazi. Existing evidence does not point to a far-reaching cover-up on the scale of Watergate, as Republicans want you to believe. But it is not, as the White House claims, nothing.

    The administration’s response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on U.S. installations in eastern Libya was inaccurate, irresponsible and shrouded by campaign-style spin. It belied President Obama’s oft-broken promise to run a transparent government.
    If nothing else, Benghazi is a blow to the credibility of the president and his potential successor, then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. This could be big.
    Credibility is Obama’s strong suit, a key reason why his personal approval ratings continue to buoy soft job approval scores. He can’t afford to lose that trust.
    Credibility is Clinton’s vulnerability, dating to the unjustified financial accusations that triggered the Whitewater investigation. Doubts persisted about her veracity and authenticity throughout the 2008 presidential campaign.

    Where the administration is most vulnerable is on questions of trust – an issue that, once exposed, can impact how votes consider the president’s words and deeds on all matters. This should be the White House's greatest concern after Wednesday’s hearing on the events leading to the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and two security officers. Four points:

    The original sin: It took the president and his team too long to acknowledge the fact that armed Islamic militants had penetrated the diplomatic compound. Coming as it did during a tense re-election race the administration’s determined reluctance to use the word “terrorists” seems informed, if not driven, by political considerations. When United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice suggested on Sunday talk shows days after the attack that it had begun with protests against an anti-Muslim video, high-ranking diplomat Gregory Hicks said, “I was stunned. My jaw dropped and I was embarrassed.”

    The call. Hicks’ emotional testimony Wednesday accused the administration of political machinations and bullying. Hicks told lawmakers that he was ordered not to talk to members of Congress about the attack. When he did so anyhow, and a State Department lawyer was excluded from the meeting because he lacked the necessary security clearance, Hicks said he received an angry phone call from Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff. Mills is well-respected and known for her fierce loyalty to Clinton. If Hicks is to be believed, issuing a no-communications order is an inherently political act and, by definition, a blow for transparency.

    The demotion. Hicks told lawmakers he was given a scathing review of his management style after the attacks and was later “effectively demoted.” The State Department strongly denies his account, saying it had not and would not retaliate against Hicks. We don’t know who is telling the truth, but Hicks’ testimony forced Obama’s aides to make a devil’s choice between letting the allegations stand or calling a respected and long-serving diplomat, effectively, a liar. They chose the latter.

    The review. The administration’s review of Benghazi criticized the “grossly inadequate” security at the diplomatic compound and led to the dismissal of four State Department officials. Witnesses said the investigation, led by veteran retired diplomat Thomas Pickering, was inadequate. “They stopped short of interviewing people who I personally know were involved in key decisions,” testified Eric Nordstrom, an official in the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security. The testimony of these credible whistleblowers may raise doubts in voters' minds about how honestly the Obama administration faced its failings. Despite that, the Pickering report is a scathing indictment of State Department security efforts on Clinton's watch. If she runs for president, embassy security will be a credible and durable issue.....snip~

    Why Benghazi is a Blow to Obama and Clinton - NationalJournal.com

  9. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: GOP Benghazi hearings a partisan disgrace?

    Quote Originally Posted by mpg View Post
    Everything the gubmint does is a partisan disgrace. Whether or not they're handling it well is different than asking whether or not this needs to be investigated. I don't see how anyone can say with a straight face that it should not be investigated. That level of partisanship would be far beyond disgraceful.
    Well, at least this time.....it is Democrats now saying they want more hearings and not just the Repubs. So that is a change up this hearing brought with it.

    Might have to do with the fact of realizing those in these positions need to know they can trust in their government. That if harm comes their way. That we will do everything in our power to come and get them out. That a Benghazi can never happen again. People need to be operating without hesitation and concerns over questioning that what will happen if they do this or that. Clear Warning signs cannot be ignored. Even Clintons own review hit the State up over their own failures with security.

    Clearly there is a lot of miscommunication taking place and non communication as well Like Panetta and General Dempsey testifying that the State never requested assets. Then testifying that from 2am til the next morning that neither had talked to Clinton. Panetta saying he talked to Obama Once. The same with Clinton. Then Hicks validating that Clinton only called Libya once. That Clapper didn't contact other Dept heads as well. So IMO these issues need to be resolved. As they cannot be allowed to take place going forward. These people need to be in touch with their people of their respective Depts and on top of their jobs. When such events happen.

    If whatever Administration is out misleading the people, and even if it wasn't their intention to do so. Then they need to address that issue and clarify even if it admits that it's initial assessment was wrong.

  10. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: GOP Benghazi hearings a partisan disgrace?

    Quote Originally Posted by DiAnna View Post
    When hard evidence is brought to prove that there were deliberate lies, not just the media/political spewing of picked-apart words during the confusion in the after attack, I'll look at it. Last I heard the CIA admitted that the talking points given to UN Ambassador Rice had been "reworked" before she received them. The actual reports submitted by bi-partisian investigations have either been cherry-picked for quotes or totally ignored. Husby had Fox News on over the weekend, and they are still harping about Rice's words, when was a terrorist attack a terrorist attack and who knew what when... all crap from a couple weeks after the incident, when Libya was saying one thing and DC was trying to figure out what happened, while being denied access to the site itself.

    Everything else is pure, unadulterated fabrication, speculation, commentary, and partisian bull****.

    I don't have much respect for either the republicans or the democrats when it comes to partisian smokescreens and slight of hand. This time it's the republicans. Next time it'll be the democrats. Bull**** all around.
    Try the Fact Checkers.....it might help you to understand beyond the Generalities of the issue. As well as lead you to references that don't care about what either side is saying. Myself I went those and more with overseas sources Reporting. As I was tired of the Left blaming Fox and the Right Blaming the US MSM.

Page 3 of 23 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •