gowdy, committee, get sued over absurd (and weak) partisan hatchet job on Clinton

#3
#3
Do you believe Hillary is blameless on this issue? Do you believe she is an honest person?
She has a D after her name, and she is from the royal family of socialists, of course he believes her. Every single thing that emanates from her mouth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#4
#4
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5
#5
Ex-Benghazi Panel Staffer Files New Claim Against Gowdy - ABC News

As I told you guys months ago, Gowdy will be the next Bill McCollum. Tricked into taking the lead role in a pathetic effort to go after a Dem, he's already toxic.

Gone are the phone calls to be on Fox News. Gone are the invites to fund raisers. He'll be on the dust heap of history, soon enough.

Gotta love the last paragraph of the article you linked:

"Podliska also complained about the slow progress made by the GOP-led committee and said staff members have engaged in social activities such as an informal wine club nicknamed "Wine Wednesdays."

Makes the Plaintiff sound very balanced and reasonable. Teehee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#7
#7
Gotta love the last paragraph of the article you linked:

"Podliska also complained about the slow progress made by the GOP-led committee and said staff members have engaged in social activities such as an informal wine club nicknamed "Wine Wednesdays."

Makes the Plaintiff sound very balanced and reasonable. Teehee.

thought the same thing - bet he brought a jug of Carlos Rossi and is upset about the teasing it earned him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9
#9
thought the same thing - bet he brought a jug of Carlos Rossi and is upset about the teasing it earned him.

Complain about the slow progress...I get that.


The wine Wednesday attached to the complaint just seems weird/petty/puerile.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#13
#13
Which is which?

Neither are mutually exclusive.


I do not believe she is personally at fault for Benghazi.

I do not believe she is honest.

(Before you get ahead of yourself, as to the latter, I really don't think any of the folks running are particularly honest.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#14
#14
I do not believe she is personally at fault for Benghazi.

I do not believe she is honest.

(Before you get ahead of yourself, as to the latter, I really don't think any of the folks running are particularly honest.)

You certainly have a way with words.

Do you believe she bears any responsibility for any part of Benghazi?

Lawgator said:
No GV, you're just a partisan hack that can't see this entire Administration is not culpable at all in Benghazi. And even though I continued standing on lies and misinformation after being challenged time and time again, you're still a partisan hack.

I'll save you the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#15
#15
You certainly have a way with words.

Do you believe she bears any responsibility for any part of Benghazi?



I'll save you the time.
HE doesn't have any problem with the Secretary of State using a personal internet server either. Of course "she didn't now" that was against protocol, but has all the qualifications to be POtuS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#16
#16
You certainly have a way with words.

Do you believe she bears any responsibility for any part of Benghazi?



I'll save you the time.


We have to discuss this in the specific areas of criticism that have been offered, which i will try to isolate, here:

1) Clinton prevented more security from being placed there in advance. I do not think she personally had much to do with that. I am sure that there were requests that were sent to her or copied to her, but I doubt that Secretaries of State routinely are the mechanism to achieve that. She is not individually culpable, any more than is any person in the chain of communication who, if they knew the future before it occurred, could have stood up and said that attention needed to be paid to that.

2) Clinton stopped a rescue mission. This claim is laughably dumb, but for some reason it just continues to have traction in the dumber half of the GOP. Well, I guess we just answered why people still cling to that notion, didn't we?

3) Clinton stuck to the video story too long. The first intelligence reports assumed, mistakenly, that there was direct linkage between other protests going on in the ME and this incident. Within days, the Congressional committees were being told differently. Within I believe it was on the order of 10 to 14 days, the reports and the commentary had shifted to characterize this incident more specifically as targeted terrorism.

Now, personally, I roll my eyes at the GOP feigned outrage over this. The initial but incorrect assumption by the intelligence reporters and the administration is understandable. And then I hear that they did it to manipulate the election, but that makes no sense because the mistaken issue as to the video was cleared up a month before the election.

What I think is the real narrative by both sides on this is that the GOP jumped on it to try to continue to portray Obama as a Muslim apologist, whereas in the administration's view if the video was really causing these sorts of things then it was better to criticize that in hopes that it defused what was perceived to be a growing problem.

You see, in the big picture, the GOP critics view Obama's approach to the ME as feckless and slow, whereas the administration views it long term as nuanced and trying to avoid the broad characterizations and generalizations that will lead to longer term and much worse outcomes for all of us.

I am sincerely worried that what we are seeing out of the likes of Carson and Trump is what we are really in for under a GOP administration. Reckless retaliatory bombing, completely ignoring the distinctions between these groups and how we can take advantage of that, registering Muslims, surveilling Mosques just in case, etc.

These are not solutions. These will only add to the problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#17
#17
We have to discuss this in the specific areas of criticism that have been offered, which i will try to isolate, here:

1) Clinton prevented more security from being placed there in advance. I do not think she personally had much to do with that. I am sure that there were requests that were sent to her or copied to her, but I doubt that Secretaries of State routinely are the mechanism to achieve that. She is not individually culpable, any more than is any person in the chain of communication who, if they knew the future before it occurred, could have stood up and said that attention needed to be paid to that.

2) Clinton stopped a rescue mission. This claim is laughably dumb, but for some reason it just continues to have traction in the dumber half of the GOP. Well, I guess we just answered why people still cling to that notion, didn't we?

3) Clinton stuck to the video story too long. The first intelligence reports assumed, mistakenly, that there was direct linkage between other protests going on in the ME and this incident. Within days, the Congressional committees were being told differently. Within I believe it was on the order of 10 to 14 days, the reports and the commentary had shifted to characterize this incident more specifically as targeted terrorism.

Now, personally, I roll my eyes at the GOP feigned outrage over this. The initial but incorrect assumption by the intelligence reporters and the administration is understandable. And then I hear that they did it to manipulate the election, but that makes no sense because the mistaken issue as to the video was cleared up a month before the election.

What I think is the real narrative by both sides on this is that the GOP jumped on it to try to continue to portray Obama as a Muslim apologist, whereas in the administration's view if the video was really causing these sorts of things then it was better to criticize that in hopes that it defused what was perceived to be a growing problem.

You see, in the big picture, the GOP critics view Obama's approach to the ME as feckless and slow, whereas the administration views it long term as nuanced and trying to avoid the broad characterizations and generalizations that will lead to longer term and much worse outcomes for all of us.

I am sincerely worried that what we are seeing out of the likes of Carson and Trump is what we are really in for under a GOP administration. Reckless retaliatory bombing, completely ignoring the distinctions between these groups and how we can take advantage of that, registering Muslims, surveilling Mosques just in case, etc.

These are not solutions. These will only add to the problem.

What was the ambassador doing there in the first place? If this question has been answered please excuse the question.
 
#18
#18
We have to discuss this in the specific areas of criticism that have been offered, which i will try to isolate, here:

1) Clinton prevented more security from being placed there in advance. I do not think she personally had much to do with that. I am sure that there were requests that were sent to her or copied to her, but I doubt that Secretaries of State routinely are the mechanism to achieve that. She is not individually culpable, any more than is any person in the chain of communication who, if they knew the future before it occurred, could have stood up and said that attention needed to be paid to that.

2) Clinton stopped a rescue mission. This claim is laughably dumb, but for some reason it just continues to have traction in the dumber half of the GOP. Well, I guess we just answered why people still cling to that notion, didn't we?

3) Clinton stuck to the video story too long. The first intelligence reports assumed, mistakenly, that there was direct linkage between other protests going on in the ME and this incident. Within days, the Congressional committees were being told differently. Within I believe it was on the order of 10 to 14 days, the reports and the commentary had shifted to characterize this incident more specifically as targeted terrorism.

Now, personally, I roll my eyes at the GOP feigned outrage over this. The initial but incorrect assumption by the intelligence reporters and the administration is understandable. And then I hear that they did it to manipulate the election, but that makes no sense because the mistaken issue as to the video was cleared up a month before the election.

What I think is the real narrative by both sides on this is that the GOP jumped on it to try to continue to portray Obama as a Muslim apologist, whereas in the administration's view if the video was really causing these sorts of things then it was better to criticize that in hopes that it defused what was perceived to be a growing problem.

You see, in the big picture, the GOP critics view Obama's approach to the ME as feckless and slow, whereas the administration views it long term as nuanced and trying to avoid the broad characterizations and generalizations that will lead to longer term and much worse outcomes for all of us.

I am sincerely worried that what we are seeing out of the likes of Carson and Trump is what we are really in for under a GOP administration. Reckless retaliatory bombing, completely ignoring the distinctions between these groups and how we can take advantage of that, registering Muslims, surveilling Mosques just in case, etc.

These are not solutions. These will only add to the problem.
You are a real piece of work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#19
#19
What was the ambassador doing there in the first place? If this question has been answered please excuse the question.


i do not believe that has ever been definitively answered, at least not publicly. I think most people assume he was there in a dual role as "ambassador" and intelligence operative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#20
#20
i do not believe that has ever been definitively answered, at least not publicly. I think most people assume he was there in a dual role as "ambassador" and intelligence operative.

That's the first question I would ask and demand an answer for. Everything else flows from that.
 
#21
#21
The video story was cooked to protect Obama while running for reelection. Hillary told Chelsea and the Egyptian Minister that it was a terrorist attack the night it occurred but told the parents of the victims and the American public that it was the fault of spontaneous demonstrations in response to a video for days after.

What do you call that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#22
#22
The video story was cooked to protect Obama while running for reelection. Hillary told Chelsea and the Egyptian Minister that it was a terrorist attack the night it occurred but told the parents of the victims and the American public that it was the fault of spontaneous demonstrations in response to a video for days after.

What do you call that?

A false narrative that idiot liberals bought into hook, line and sinker.

Edit: see poster directly below..
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#23
#23
The video story was cooked to protect Obama while running for reelection. Hillary told Chelsea and the Egyptian Minister that it was a terrorist attack the night it occurred but told the parents of the victims and the American public that it was the fault of spontaneous demonstrations in response to a video for days after.

What do you call that?



A false statement by you, that's what I call it. The facts demonstrate you are simply wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#24
#24
A false statement by you, that's what I call it. The facts demonstrate you are simply wrong.

Are you drunk? That statement is fact as proven by her own damn email. They knowingly lied for weeks about the attack, where's the poor bastard who made that video? Better yet where's the doctor in Pakistan whose Intel helped us get Bin Laden, still in jail I presume.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

VN Store



Back
Top