• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP Benghazi hearings a partisan disgrace?

GOP Benghazi hearings a partisan disgrace?


  • Total voters
    72
I'm nobody's "good little brainless drone", and if you come at me with that crap again I'll be reporting it. I have no use for either the republican or democratic parties; they are both corrupt, partisan-drivel political machines that only care about lining their own pockets and gaining personal power.

This newest "Benghazi committee" is simply repeating what about twelve other governmental committees have done over the past two years, and the reason it's doing so is crystal clear: To continue smearing Hillary Clinton and hopefully diminish her chances of running for president. It's the same reason the GOP is suddenly apoplectic with indignation because the State Department under her watch didn't put Boko Haram on the terrorist watch list... never mind the fact that her republican predecessor hadn't done so either. If you can't see that, then you, sir, are the drone. Personally, I think I'm better served by recognizing partisan bull**** whenever and where ever I see it, and not look at a party designation to decide whether it's BS or not.



Yeah, sure. We can all see that the republicans are pure as the driven snow, but the "Dumbocrats" are the partisan ones. Whatever, dude. :roll:

It seems as if the republicans just want a few answers. Whats the harm in asking? There are many questions that have never been answered. H. Clinton was not even questioned thoroughly nor did she give any meaningful answers.
 
It's a select committee of Republicans, re-doing everything that 12 other "select committees" have already investigated and submitted reports on. The few democrats "invited" have not even been told if they will be allowed to call their own witnesses or question those who Republicans will call. C'mon. You didn't really post that with a straight face, did you?

There has been no other select committee on this. These committees are reserved for things like Watergate, Iran contra, and the like.
 
It seems as if the republicans just want a few answers. Whats the harm in asking? There are many questions that have never been answered. H. Clinton was not even questioned thoroughly nor did she give any meaningful answers.
They SAY they just want answers.

Time will tell whether that is true or just the usual BS.
 
If it was even-handed it would be bipartisan, 6-6 evenly split between democrats and republicans, not 7-5 GOP. :roll:

It's a slobber fest pandering to the base, just in time for fundraising. Get your checkbooks out, boys.

No it wouldn't. When there is a potential for stonewalling one party has to have a committee majority or it will end without resolution. The politics will be on display for all to see, why not let the process work itself out unless one fears the outcome?
 
I smell the GOP pining for the old days when they could sick a Special Prosecutor on someone.
 
No it wouldn't. When there is a potential for stonewalling one party has to have a committee majority or it will end without resolution. The politics will be on display for all to see, why not let the process work itself out unless one fears the outcome?

the "process" will be a joke. But, I bet it sells on Fox News.
 
There has been no other select committee on this. These committees are reserved for things like Watergate, Iran contra, and the like.

Do some research, then get back to me. There have been a dozen congressional and governmental investigations, some of them televised. The words "select committee" were chosen by the Republicans who decided to re-do everything that had already been done because... *gasp!*... it's an election year!

If you can come up with a governmental law that says the words "select committee" can only be used for certain occasions and under different congressional rules, then by all means post it. Otherwise, you're whistling in the wind.
 
the "process" will be a joke. But, I bet it sells on Fox News.
I have to ask why you think it is pre-emptivley a joke?

Do you know why there was a cia operation in Benghazi?
Do you know who was directing the operation?
If it was the state department, shouldn't Hillary answer as to why security requests were denied?
If there were many others on the ground who are under gag order shouldn't they be questioned to find out what happened and how episodes like this can be avoided in the future?
If the video was a political ruse, do you want to know why they (who ever they are) felt the need use a ruse?
Do you want to know why there was a Cia weapons operation going on without military cover?
Do you want to know why no military asset was asked to intervene in the attack?
I do
 
I have to ask why you think it is pre-emptivley a joke?

Do you know why there was a cia operation in Benghazi?
Do you know who was directing the operation?
If it was the state department, shouldn't Hillary answer as to why security requests were denied?
If there were many others on the ground who are under gag order shouldn't they be questioned to find out what happened and how episodes like this can be avoided in the future?
If the video was a political ruse, do you want to know why they (who ever they are) felt the need use a ruse?
Do you want to know why there was a Cia weapons operation going on without military cover?
Do you want to know why no military asset was asked to intervene in the attack?
I do
I could care less about Benghazi. It's a GOP witch hunt. If the D had balls, they'd boycott the hearings, and the principle witnesses would challenge each and every one of the subpoenas.
 
If it was even-handed it would be bipartisan, 6-6 evenly split between democrats and republicans, not 7-5 GOP. :roll:

It's a slobber fest pandering to the base, just in time for fundraising. Get your checkbooks out, boys.


elections have consequences.
 
Do some research, then get back to me. There have been a dozen congressional and governmental investigations, some of them televised. The words "select committee" were chosen by the Republicans who decided to re-do everything that had already been done because... *gasp!*... it's an election year!

If you can come up with a governmental law that says the words "select committee" can only be used for certain occasions and under different congressional rules, then by all means post it. Otherwise, you're whistling in the wind.

A select committee is much different than the typical committee hearing. I am well aware of the dog and pony shows that have been held thus far. They served no purpose because they were ineffective at getting the answers to basic questions. This committee has broad authority, subpoena power, and is more difficult to dodge. This should be informative and depending on their findings the final inquiry. That is unless criminal activity is uncovered in which case a special prosecutor will be requested.
 
I could care less about Benghazi. It's a GOP witch hunt. If the D had balls, they'd boycott the hearings, and the principle witnesses would challenge each and every one of the subpoenas.

Maybe you could find it in your heart to care about the four dead who were left with no support? You can't answer any of the questions I listed because the inquiry was stonewalled. That's why a select committee was formed. By saying you could care less, even though you don't know the answers, you show yourself to be the political partisan hack. Its not the repubs on the committee, its you.
 
elections have consequences.

Ironically the GOP has no idea how to wield power. By now most people have shut them out. THe only people listening are the base, which may be just enough to win them a few seats in November since the D's notoriously suck at getting the vote out during the midterms.
 
Ironically the GOP has no idea how to wield power. By now most people have shut them out. THe only people listening are the base, which may be just enough to win them a few seats in November since the D's notoriously suck at getting the vote out during the midterms.

Most people

another thing you have made up.
 
Maybe you could find it in your heart to care about the four dead who were left with no support? You can't answer any of the questions I listed because the inquiry was stonewalled. That's why a select committee was formed. By saying you could care less, even though you don't know the answers, you show yourself to be the political partisan hack. Its not the repubs on the committee, its you.

4 dead? Yeah, right. The GOP doesn't care dead people.

148217_600-1.jpg
 
A select committee is much different than the typical committee hearing....

Prove it, please. Link a source that credibly tells me that congress cannot just form its own committee of majority members and call itself anything it wishes, including "select committee". Until there, our discussion is going nowhere.
 
Most people

another thing you have made up.

Read it and weep...or ignore. I don't care.

GOP Death Watch: The Final Days of the Republican Party | New Republic

What is happening in the Republican Party today is reminiscent of what happened to the Democrats in the late 1960s and early 1970s. At that time, the Democrats in Washington were faced by a grassroots revolt from the new left over the war in Vietnam and from the white South over the party’s support for civil rights. It took the Democrats over two decades to do undo the damage—to create a party coalition that united the leadership in Washington with the base and that was capable of winning national elections. The Republicans could be facing a similar split between their base and their Washington leadership, and it could cripple them not just in the 2014 and 2016 elections, but for decades to come.
 
Maybe you could find it in your heart to care about the four dead who were left with no support? ....

Don't you dare even try to play that empathy card here, sir. Chris Stevens was born in my hometown, he is buried in my hometown, and his grieving parents... who begged that their son's death not be used for partisan politics... still live in my hometown. Do not even go there.

I've changed my mind. Don't bother finding a source for your silly allegations about "select committees" being so very "special." We're done here.
 
But do you? That's the question. Do you? Or is protecting certain politicians more important?

No one on the Right cared about the thousands of American Soldiers killed in Iraq searching for WMD that did not exist. So, don't cry to me now about 4 dead Americans in Libya. It's crap, and we know it.
 

Judis was born in Chicago. He attended Amherst College and received B.A. and M.A. degrees in Philosophy from the University of California at Berkeley. In 1969 he was a founding editor of Socialist Revolution (which was later renamed Socialist Review and then Radical Society before ceasing publication in 2009). In the 1970s he was a founding editor of the East Bay Voice. Judis started reporting from Washington in 1982, when he became a founding editor and Washington correspondent for In These Times, a democratic-socialist weekly magazine.
He has also written for GQ, Foreign Affairs, Mother Jones, The New York Times Magazine, and The Washington Post.

wow, sounds like a very objective guy

maybe so maybe not

one thing he has on his side

stupid people are outbreeding smart ones and lots of immigrants want handouts
 
Judis was born in Chicago. He attended Amherst College and received B.A. and M.A. degrees in Philosophy from the University of California at Berkeley. In 1969 he was a founding editor of Socialist Revolution (which was later renamed Socialist Review and then Radical Society before ceasing publication in 2009). In the 1970s he was a founding editor of the East Bay Voice. Judis started reporting from Washington in 1982, when he became a founding editor and Washington correspondent for In These Times, a democratic-socialist weekly magazine.
He has also written for GQ, Foreign Affairs, Mother Jones, The New York Times Magazine, and The Washington Post.

wow, sounds like a very objective guy

maybe so maybe not

one thing he has on his side

stupid people are outbreeding smart ones and lots of immigrants want handouts
Correct, all the GOP has left en masse is aging white males.
 
Correct, all the GOP has left en masse is aging white males.

that is a stupid claim even for one of your posts.

but you are appealing to mass stupidity
 
Back
Top Bottom