George would have done it differently · Page 7

Free Fall
Auctions

Specials
Auctions

QuickBuy
Auctions

Newly Added
Auctions

Ending Soon
Auctions

Welcome Guest

Forum Terms & Conditions | My Topics

DrMaddVibe
Herf-A-Holic

12 years ago

#121

TW has a buddy!

DrMaddVibe
Herf-A-Holic

12 years ago

#122

First he says he isn't...now he say he is...he was against it before he was for it kinda guy! To think, he wanted to be President?[frypan]

Kerry: I Will ‘Cooperate’ With Benghazi Subpoena, ‘Have Absolutely Nothing To Hide’

WASHINGTON (CBSDC/AP) -- Secretary of State John Kerry said Tuesday during a news conference that he will cooperate with the House Oversight Committee’s hearing on the 2012 Benghazi attack, a day after the State Department said he would not appear.

During a news conference with European Union Foreign Policy Chief Cathy Ashton, Kerry said the State Department has “nothing to hide” after he was subpoenaed by the panel’s chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., last week.

“I also think there’s an issue of the requisite body figuring out who has jurisdiction over this, from what I understand. There are still some questions as to who is going to do what. So we’ll respond, because we have absolutely nothing to hide whatsoever, and I look forward to complying, whatever responsibilities we have,” Kerry said.

Kerry said that it is his obligation to cooperate.

“I’ve guaranteed that we would cooperate in every single way. We have, and I will, and the Department will. That’s our obligation. And of course, we will,” Kerry noted. “But I think everybody needs to take a hard look at – and sort of measure what’s been already put out there versus where this effort is going. And you see a very partisan response on the Hill with respect to it.”

The State Department said Monday that Kerry would not appear before the House Oversight Committee on May 21 to talk about Benghazi.

Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said Kerry planned to travel to Mexico at that time and officials would discuss alternative options with the committee.

“We are committed to working with the committee to find a resolution to this that is acceptable to both sides. We were surprised when they didn’t reach out to us before issuing a subpoena for exactly that reason,” Harf said. “And as I’ve noted here, there have been a number of Republicans who themselves, under the previous administration, said a secretary of state should not be subpoenaed.”

Issa issued a subpoena for Kerry on Friday, saying that the State Department has “failed to meets its legal obligations.”

“This disregard for the rule of law is even more disturbing considering your agency’s role in encouraging governments throughout the world to respect the rule of law and the authority of representative government brought to office through free and fair elections,” Issa said in a letter to Kerry. “By ignoring your own legal obligations and posturing the State Department as immune from congressional oversight, these actions undermine our credibility abroad and erode our moral authority.”

House Speaker John Boehner announced last week he would create a select committee to examine the response to the deadly Sept. 11, 2012, assault on the U.S. diplomatic post in Libya that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Legislative aides said a vote to authorize the panel is expected sometime this week. On Monday, Boehner said Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., would head the investigation.

“I applaud Speaker Boehner for his decision to establish a select committee and am honored to serve as Chairman,” Gowdy said in a statement. “Twenty months after the Benghazi attacks, there remain unresolved questions about why the security was inadequate, our response during the siege itself, and our government’s interaction with the public after the attack. All of those lines of inquiry are legitimate and should be apolitical. Facts are neither red nor blue.”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is calling on the select committee to be bipartisan.

“If this review is to be fair, it must be truly bipartisan. The panel should be equally divided between Democrats and Republicans as is done on the House Ethics Committee,” Pelosi said in a statement Tuesday. “It should require that witnesses are called and interviewed, subpoenas are issued, and information is shared on a bipartisan basis. Only then could it be fair.”

Boehner’s action puts President Barack Obama’s team and House Democrats in a bind. They are concerned about what they believe will be a partisan forum for attacks on the president and his top aides ahead of crucial midterm elections in November, which could swing the Senate to GOP control. But avoiding the committee altogether means sacrificing the ability to counter Republican claims.

White House press secretary Jay Carney stressed Monday that the administration always cooperates with “legitimate” congressional oversight — including sending witnesses to hearings and providing bipartisan committees with documents. He declined to characterize whether the Obama administration would view a House select committee as legitimate or illegitimate. But he said that what Republicans have said about the committee “certainly casts doubt” about its legitimacy.

Carney also suggested the select committee was unnecessary. “One thing this Congress is not short on is investigations into what happened before, during and after the attacks in Benghazi,” he told reporters.

Boehner and other Republicans accuse the administration of misleading the American people after the attack to protect Obama in the final weeks of his re-election campaign, and of stonewalling congressional investigators ever since. They pointed to emails released only last week as further evidence of White House wrongdoing.

Republicans have pointed a finger at one passage in particular among the 40 or so emails obtained last week by the watchdog group Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Act request. Three days after the attack, Ben Rhodes, then the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications at the White House, stressed the goal of underscoring “that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader policy failure.”

The email was written the Friday before then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on the Sunday television news programs and explained the Benghazi attack as a protest over a YouTube video that mocked the Islamic prophet Mohammed that was hijacked by extremists. Administration officials later changed their description of the attack and said references to a protest were inaccurate.

Establishment of the select committee is almost a formality given the GOP’s control of the House. Democrats controlling the Senate have shown no interest in launching a similar probe.

“With four of our countrymen killed at the hands of terrorists, the American people want answers, accountability and justice,” Boehner said Monday in a statement.

He called Gowdy, a former prosecutor in his second term in Congress, “as dogged, focused and serious-minded as they come.”

The committee will have “the strongest authority possible to root out all the facts,” Boehner said

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/05/07/kerry-i-will-cooperate-with-benghazi-subpoena-have-absolutely-nothing-to-hide/#comments

teedubbya
Herf-A-Holic

12 years ago

#123

Cool. Another committee!

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

12 years ago

#124

Cool. Another committee!

teedubbya wrote:

I'm sure THIS time they're bound to find something.

🙄

DrMaddVibe
Herf-A-Holic

12 years ago

#125

I'm sure THIS time they're bound to find something.

🙄

victor809 wrote:

If only the administration were transparent...like they said they were. Then we could put this constant leaking of information, denying facts and fabrication of YouTube videos that inflammed the Religion of Peace behind us!

:-({|=

teedubbya
Herf-A-Holic

12 years ago

#126

DrMaddVibe wrote:

I agree. History shows us that once the information is out there the hounds get called off. The birthers are a perfect example.

There is no amount of information that could be put out there that would convince a certain segment that Hill Dog didn't do a drive by while sippin on a four oh. They don't want to be convinced and as long as you can continue to insinuate such with zero evidence or stretch things to absurdity it will continue to live. It is part of the game and is ironic folks claiming to not be part of the game get sucked so deep in to it.

teedubbya
Herf-A-Holic

12 years ago

#127

Hil Dog was laid back with her mind on her money and her money on her mind yo. And she wasn't about to take anymore biznit from thos embassy folk even if it meant she had to pop a cap in their arse.

DrMaddVibe
Herf-A-Holic

12 years ago

#128

teedubbya wrote:

Lost me with the birthers comment? The last count was Obama was 0-2 in producing any kind of real documentation to disprove the myth. Both were resounding fakes.

teedubbya
Herf-A-Holic

12 years ago

#129

bahahahahahah

teedubbya
Herf-A-Holic

12 years ago

#130

remember the japaneese dude on gilligans island that was still fighting the war?

LMAO

hey that reminds me.... what ever happened to sherriff joe's delicate investigation?

Edited by user 12 years ago | Reason: Not specified

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

12 years ago

#131

I'd be curious what a venn diagram would look like showing the birther benghazier overlap.

DrMaddVibe
Herf-A-Holic

12 years ago

#132

The Cavalry That Never Came

A week before the 2012 election, I wrote:

Someone at the highest level of the United States government made the decision to abandon American consular staff to their fate and cede U.S. sovereign territory to an al-Qaeda assault team — and four out of five Sunday news shows don't think it's worth talking about.

In the smoking ruins of that consulate in Benghazi, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods fought for hours and killed 60 of the enemy before they were overwhelmed, waiting for the cavalry that never came. They're still waiting – for Candy Crowley, David Gregory, Bob Schieffer, and George Stephanopoulos to do their job.

Democrats and their media enablers openly giggle at the word "Benghazi" now. So funny, isn't it? Those provincial simpletons at Fox News are still droning on about dead Americans in Benghazi as if anybody but their drooling rubes care about it, ha-ha... If the Democrats are right about that, it doesn't speak well for the American people. Those four Americans died serving the United States - not Obama, not Clinton, but their fellow Americans. And they're owed not the mawkish, hollow, self-serving eulogies written by hack staffers for the President and the Secretary of State to read over the coffins, but the truth about how and why they died. It's odd, even for the insular Obama cultists, that so many people find that a laughing matter.

Yesterday, Hugh Hewitt devoted most of his three hours on air to Benghazi. I put the night in context:

MARK STEYN: Not a lot of U.S. ambassadors get killed in the line of duty.

HUGH HEWITT: Right.

MS: If you discount the poor fellow who was on the plane with General Zia in Pakistan when that mysteriously blew up in mid-flight, you have to go back to Kabul over 30 years ago for the killing of a U.S. ambassador. So it happens extremely rarely.

Within half-an-hour, the President knew what was happening and why it was happening. Yet he did not act. Why? For me, that question remains as important as it was a year and a half ago:

MS: Brave men fought valiantly all through that horrible, long night, and saved dozens of people. But they were waiting for the help that never came, the help that was two hours away but was never ordered. And the official explanation is that 'Oh, well, we could have sent somebody, but they wouldn't have got there in time." Well, you know, just to go back to your sporting analogies, a terrorist attack on a U.S. facility is not a cricket match or a soccer match... You don't know how long it's going to last till the attack ends... Even if they had sent forces and they hadn't gotten there in time to save the ambassador or to save the other three people who died, they could have got there in time when the people who committed this act were still sifting through the rubble of the U.S. facility. And so they would have caught them, instead of these guys being free to wander around, swank around the Maghreb boasting about what they were able to pull off.

So who took the decision not to act, and why?

MS: Was it just about electoral advantage? Was it just to protect Joe Biden's soundbite ...al Qaeda is dead and General Motors is alive? Or is it actually worse than that? In other words, in those first few moments, when the President is informed what's going on, does somebody, does somebody take the decision that because this whole thing is unhelpful to their view of the world, they are not going to send force? Because that, to me, does render whoever made that decision ...unfit for office.

As I go on to say, Chris Stevens was one of them, a Team Obama loyalist. But they abandoned him and dishonored him in death because the President's political needs outweighed his life. The heartlessness of all these caring, compassionate Democrats would impress Putin - if it was ever applied to America's enemies. You can read the entire transcript here.

http://www.steynonline.com/6325/the-cavalry-that-never-came#.U2y-VXhIlVo.twitter

Buckwheat
Herf-A-Holic

12 years ago

#133

The sad tragic truth is that there really isn't much difference between what any of our politicians do. None of the politicians could've prevented this without setting off a bigger set of problems that will get handed down to the next empty suit who occupies the office. Ball of Confusion!!

](*,)

DrMaddVibe
Herf-A-Holic

12 years ago

#134

Buckwheat wrote:

All I ask is that even if I didn't vote for the person...at least act like the Commander In Chief you're supposed to be. In this case, because they were gun running (a global enterprise when you factor in Fast & Furious operation in Mexico!) and dealing with unsavory characters...they got caught red-handed. Exposed. The media is compliant in the whitewashing going on. At least call it what it is before we get to the Ball of Confusion.

DrafterX
Herf-A-Holic

12 years ago

#135

One of things that really bugged me about this is how Obama turned it all around when Romney confronted him during the debates.... with the help of the Moderator backin up Obama's lie, Obama made Romney look like a piece of chit... of course the Moderator admitted she was wrong the next day and appologized it was too late... damage was done.. 😟

Buckwheat
Herf-A-Holic

12 years ago

#136

DrMaddVibe wrote:

The reason that I went to "Ball of Confusion" is that all of this is just politicking by both sides. The Republican's false inflated indignation and outrage over Benghazi is just political theater. End the end NOTHING is going to happen over Benghazi. They will hold more hearings and the talking heads at Fox will implode over the story... but in the end NOTHING substantial will happen. All any of these people really care about is getting re-elected or keeping their party in control. I see no real difference from any of the major players on either side. Maybe I'm overly cynical.

DrMaddVibe
Herf-A-Holic

12 years ago

#137

Pilot’s Account Reveal New Cracks in the Benghazi Cover-Up

Eric Stahl, who recently retired as a major in the U.S. Air Force, served as commander and pilot of the C-17 aircraft, made three revelations critically important to the investigation of the Benghazi Select Committee. (Photo: Fox News Special Report With Bret Baier via YouTube)

The pilot who flew the plane carrying U.S. diplomatic and CIA personnel from Benghazi, Libya, to U.S. military base Ramstein in Germany on September 12, 2012, broke his silence this week.

His eyewitness account further undermines the Obama administration’s false narrative of the Benghazi terrorist attack.

In an interview with Fox News’s Bret Baier, Eric Stahl, who recently retired as a major in the U.S. Air Force and whoserved as commander and pilot of the C-17 aircraft, made three revelations critically important to the investigation of the Benghazi Select Committee:

1. The CIA staff revealed that they overheard in real time the Benghazi attackers communicating with each other on U.S. State Department cell phones, presumably picked up as they rampaged through the compound. Their communications suggested nothing but a well-coordinated attack. For that reason, the people who were actually on the ground were mystified by the suggestions coming from Washington that there had been an anti-video demonstration in progress.

2. Upon arriving at Ramstein, the survivors were not questioned by the FBI initially, but instead were led away by U.S. ambassador to Germany Philip D. Murphy to be debriefed that same evening. The Select Committee will want to know what, if any, instructions they were given.

3. Finally, Stahl believes that a rescue attempt could have been made out of Ramstein. Rescuers could potentially have arrived in time to fight back the attack on the CIA Benghazi annex that erupted in the early morning and led to the deaths of Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. He also logically questions the U.S. military posture in Europe and the Middle East on the anniversary of September 11.

“We were on a 45-day deployment to Ramstein air base,” Stahl told Fox News. “And we were there basically to pick up priority missions, last-minute missions that needed to be accomplished.”

“You would’ve thought that we would have had a little bit more of an alert posture on 9/11,” he added. “A hurried-up timeline probably would take us [an] hour-and-a-half to get off the ground and three hours and fifteen minutes to get down there. So we could’ve gone down there and gotten them easily.”

This is one of the missing key pieces in the Benghazi scandal. The Obama administration’s spin machine – which now includes then-secretary of state Hilary Clinton’s book “Hard Choices” — has successfully kept the focus on the “reasons” for the attack, i.e. the anti-Muslim video, and on examining the insufficient security posture of the mission in Benghazi.

The Accountability Review Board (ARB) review, constantly referred to by Clinton, never dug into the failures of judgment made on that fateful night of September 11. The possibility of an aggressive military response features in neither the ARB account nor in Clinton’s book. Stahl himself was never interviewed by the ARB.

Much remains to be learned about Benghazi, but finally cracks in the Obama administration’s cover of secrecy are starting to break open.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/06/13/pilots-account-reveal-new-cracks-benghazi-cover/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Users browsing this topic

Important Information: