Trey Gowdy Destroys the Media in 3 Minutes

We're in for TWO YEARS of claims of "Trey Gowdy destroying (something/someone)"

 

and on the simple question about Stevens' presence in Benghazi.... do folks on the right think that US Ambassadors are required to raise their hands and say, "mother may I" whenever they want to travel within the country they are the ambassador of? In 1981-2, Ambassador Dillon (Lebanon) would drop by UN outposts in the dangerous areas of southern Lebanon unannounced all the time. I really doubt he ever sent a message to Al Haig saying, "Mister Secretary, sir... can I have permission to leave the embassy compound and drive around a bit?"

 

A1. Doesn't matter in the scheme of the attack.

A2. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/10/3...rnings-in-benghazi-attack.html?pagewanted=all

A3. http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/benghazi.asp

A4. See above link.

A5. See above link.

A6. Not sure if that has been asked, but not sure if it would matter though. Who else would have assets in the area? But okay I will give you a foul tip on that for now.

A7. I don't really see how that matters? Who else would you have preferred?

A8. People were protesting the video all over the Middle East. The attack used the protests as cover.

 

I'm sorry, but I can't take seriously anyone who uses snopes as a reference on this one.

 

what a cop out. Do you think that the links and sources cited by snopes are false?

 

You seem to forget that Nixon was going toward impeachment because of the missing tape and coverup.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course, as long as the WH keeps stonewalling any investigation.

 

And yet you didn't refute it.

- - - Updated - - -

He didn't disagree with the NYTs ironically.

 

And the wait is almost over, is it not? Hold your water!

 

Is it? Whatcha got this time to "blow this wide open!"

 

Probably. I don't read Snopes. Whether true or false, the website is not the ultimate authority on truth. It's run by a couple of liberals that aren't the least bit objective about such things.

 

Hi Goldy, well for one obvious thing, If Hillary is found to be responsible in any way of a cover up there goes her Presidency ..PooF* That would be punishment enough.
Sometimes consequences go way beyond conviction of any crime. If that Bridge finished Christie, this will make that Bridge look like a walk in the park.

 

Republicans reverting to this tragedy to score political points signals their unconditional surrender on the Affordable Care.

Just as their "Birther" conspiracy, their "Islamist" nonsense about the twice-elected President, and their "Socialist!" hysteria all fizzled, their goofball stunts like shutting down Yellowstone National Park to undo healthcare reform will not be repeated.

Americans are increasingly supporting the end of gender-discrimination in marriage law, and even Randy Paul is following Jabba the Bush's lead in saying nice things about undocumented aliens. Comprehensive immigration reform is inevitable.

So, with reality conspicuously intruding, and no new scandals to contrive, they'll try a desperate Issa revival, and attempt to drag out their exploitation.

Nostalgia cuts both ways. If Randy and Jabba get hissy at one another over the Iraq fiasco, or Secretaries of State Powell and Rice are called to testify about their involvements in more-deadly overseas terrorist attacks during their tenures to lend comparative perspective, Repubs could find themselves deeply mired in a fetid heap of their making yet again.

Everyone has come to expect Republican Inquisitions.



What's one more?

 

Actually it is run by an American man and his Canadian wife. I would post a link but you would probably tell me it is a liberal lie too.

 

so you never have clicked on any of their links to see what they lead to?

 

1) yes it matter what was so important we would put him in a known hostile area that many others left because of the hostility

2) so your trying to say because they wasn't specific threats it was safe that would be like a terrorist saying he is going to kill Americans but because he didn't say black Americans it was safe for blacks that is absurd

3)4) your link didn't answer the question

5) snoopes claim no request for assistance was denied and they use the WH as the source for that lol
anyways that was proven debunked a hold in place order was given to the military team in Tripoli
"Admiral Mike Mullen admitted Thursday that a “hold in place” order was given during the assault on a U.S. State Department facility in Benghazi on September 11,"
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/09/20/hold-in-place-order-was-given-during-benghazi-attack/
7) it matters because this was the most tragic event in Clintons time as SoS and she ran and hid
8 ) not one smidgen of intelligence from on the seen there in Benghazi pointed to a video. every one said it was a preplanned terrorist attack that was there and or had real time intel. the video never was mentioned till way after the attack the next day it just some how appealed in the talking points with not one once of evidence showing it started as a demonstration over a vid

your lame far fetched laughable illogical answers is proof why there was a need for the select committee to get the real answers not absurd excuses like you just gave

 

As usual, a Lefty that doesn't know any of the facts. Hillary Clinton TESTIFIED that funding was NOT a problem.

 

No, he isn't dumb. Neither is Issa, or Ted Cruz.

But all three are famous for crackpot claims.

Gowdy will have to resort to showmanship, since we know all the facts already.

 

and please provide any crackpot claims made by Gowdy
don't make inflammatory accusations with out backing them up
typical liberal tactic spread lies so to try to discredit and distract

 

Good questions.

It's a pretty much give me that a politician lying to the public isn't a crime or most elected officials would be in jail before anyone had the opportunity to cast a vote for the sorry bastards.

The only possible 'criminal scenario' is if it can be proven that the administration knew about the attack and allowed it to happen, or even aided so it would happen, therefore being accomplices.

 

Hold your water, I'm telling yea!

 

No crime but firing or impeachment can be used for someone not doing their constitutional duties.

 

what "constitutional duty" are you suggesting was not done?

 

So basically you believe an Admiral who states aircraft that were not combat ready over a General who states aircraft would not have made a difference. In the end the General made the call and you prefer the Admiral and his story.

I have read enough and heard enough from the people involved in Libya to agree that these hearings are more attacking Clinton then anything.

 

Well, for one, Congress has oversight responsibility which is their Constitutional duty and the WH is trying every trick in the book to get around that little problem for them.

 

So, you're with the "Two wrongs make one right" argument here?