Trey Gowdy news conference on Benghazi

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Ask yourself this question, as a little exercise.

Considering the following:

The current leadership is Democrat,

There is an election in the offing soon(ish),

Lots of work went into this report, allegedly,

What possible reason could the authors of this report, the committee of persons who spent a considerable time repeating themselves and not making any staggering revelations of any kind, have for burying the lead here? What could make even the most restrained political entity or individual, avoid stating, in public, when given a platform to do so, the actual key findings of the report, if they had any merit, weight, or importance what so ever? If there is a point to which the members of the committee are trying to get, in any of the 800 pages they have compiled, why withhold the punchline, when they KNOW that the electorate may not have the patience or the inclination to read the entire article itself?

Now, I have an answer which fits the facts, and that answer is that there is nothing new in the document, because no political entity or member of a committee with this much of a fire under its arse, would restrain themselves from announcing the most crucial findings, the evidenciary proof of those findings, and how they came to their conclusions. They would not be able to resist, gloatingly parading the smoking gun all over the place, getting it photographed, getting it sent up as an image in Times Square on a light board, it would be on every news network. The smoking gun and the ballistics report to match to it, would be the most publicised thing this year. It would make the British exit from the EU look like a local paper headline, something akin to "Milkman saves pet bunny rabbit from untimely death" or some such dross.

Here's another. Its all redundant if the MSM is against you from the start no? You can say what you found, but the media can spin it any way they want (or not report it at all) and to the average person its a case closed non-issue.

What do you do?

a reply to: 200Plus

It doesn't take much intellect to not shoot yourself in the foot and let others decide with the ridiculous 800 page report what to think.

I think he already shot himself in the foot when he headed up this investigation, just my opinion

originally posted by: 200Plus
Trey Gowdy is a lawyer and far beyond the intellectual level of the average poster here.

"He refused to blame Clinton", many here are saying, so as to say the 800 pages exonerate the Obama administration.

What he actually said was closer to "She had a bloody hammer and her husband was beaten to death. I'm not saying she killed him but read the report and determine the facts for yourself".

He is a lawyer and knows better than to poison the well. He also knows what to say, when, and how. He isn't going to get himself in trouble unlike other lawyers who have already lost their license or been disbarred.

I do love how so many people have read 800 pages and know what's in it already and can form such solid opinions.

My god, thank you so much. I only have so many stars to give unfortunately.

originally posted by: 200Plus
Trey Gowdy is a lawyer and far beyond the intellectual level of the average poster here.

You included?

originally posted by: 200Plus

"He refused to blame Clinton", many here are saying, so as to say the 800 pages exonerate the Obama administration.

Not only did he refuse to blame Clinton, he stated clearly that there is no way those four Americans could have been saved.

originally posted by: 200Plus

What he actually said was closer to "She had a bloody hammer and her husband was beaten to death. I'm not saying she killed him but read the report and determine the facts for yourself".

He is a lawyer and knows better than to poison the well. He also knows what to say, when, and how. He isn't going to get himself in trouble unlike other lawyers who have already lost their license or been disbarred.

I do love how so many people have read 800 pages and know what's in it already and can form such solid opinions.

Why read it? Gowdy summarized it. Nothing could have been done to save those lives, and Clinton was not at fault.

Sour grapes makes sweet wine though. Keep treading.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Unlike some here, I'm not afraid to admit there are smarter people in the world.

I did not hear him say Clinton was not at fault. Could you link or point me to that part of the press release or the actual findings?

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Well they called a press conference.

They were right there. The cameras were already rolling, and you cannot be telling me that there were not some VERY right wing media people there waiting to hang Clinton like a piñata, and swing like they were at the batting cages later. If one network had failed to carry it, you can bet your last shiny dollar that someone in that room would have been transmitting live till the end of the show.

Your argument seems to have only a little less weight than the report itself, if what we know of its contents so far are anything to go by.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: 200Plus
Trey Gowdy is a lawyer and far beyond the intellectual level of the average poster here.

You included?

originally posted by: 200Plus

"He refused to blame Clinton", many here are saying, so as to say the 800 pages exonerate the Obama administration.

Not only did he refuse to blame Clinton, he stated clearly that there is no way those four Americans could have been saved.

originally posted by: 200Plus

What he actually said was closer to "She had a bloody hammer and her husband was beaten to death. I'm not saying she killed him but read the report and determine the facts for yourself".

He is a lawyer and knows better than to poison the well. He also knows what to say, when, and how. He isn't going to get himself in trouble unlike other lawyers who have already lost their license or been disbarred.

I do love how so many people have read 800 pages and know what's in it already and can form such solid opinions.

Why read it? Gowdy summarized it. Nothing could have been done to save those lives, and Clinton was not at fault.

Sour grapes makes sweet wine though. Keep treading.

Pretty sure he said this investigation doesnt point to one person, but four.

But this is why you're on The List™ (without due process of course). I didn't set the precedent, just following the trend set by those in power ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: Gryphon66

Unlike some here, I'm not afraid to admit there are smarter people in the world.

I did not hear him say Clinton was not at fault. Could you link or point me to that part of the press release or the actual findings?

Then why come in and make some irrelevant fanboy remark about Gowdy's intellect compared with ours? It's baseless and childish.

You probably didnt' hear him say a lot of things like "my career is now tainted with another flimsy investigation report." Say, when's the last time we heard anything out of Mr. Issa.

"Who?"

Exactly.

He was asked DIRECTLY if Clinton was at fault or if she had any culpability. He chose not to answer. Given the circumstances, he might as well have blown a trumpet from the rooftops.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Well they called a press conference.

They were right there. The cameras were already rolling, and you cannot be telling me that there were not some VERY right wing media people there waiting to hang Clinton like a piñata, and swing like they were at the batting cages later. If one network had failed to carry it, you can bet your last shiny dollar that someone in that room would have been transmitting live till the end of the show.

Your argument seems to have only a little less weight than the report itself, if what we know of its contents so far are anything to go by.

I don't think you understand the MSM climate in America..

a reply to: Wardaddy454

LOL ... I'm sorry that I occupy such a "dramatic position" in your mind; I usually forget that you're here until you post something.

My advice: stick to the facts, learn to draw reasonable conclusions from those facts, and for goodness sake, get over the personal BS.

Haha honestly I just included you because you were here. Have been sticking to facts, you're the one making circumstantial claims because Gowdy didn't come out and say it in plain terms for you that Clinton et al are guilty of something.

Are you in the process of reading the report? I am. Lets both read it and then compare facts eh?

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
Haha honestly I just included you because you were here. Have been sticking to facts, you're the one making circumstantial claims because Gowdy didn't come out and say it in plain terms for you that Clinton et al are guilty of something.

Are you in the process of reading the report? I am. Lets both read it and then compare facts eh?

Ha ha. You can't make up your mind what you wanted to do with your list, can you? Aside from looking silly.

I've noted what Gowdy said (no way to save those Americans) and didn't say (regarding Clinton) given a direct question and opportunity to say, something, anything, negative about Clinton. Instead, silence ... that whether you like it or not, speaks VOLUMES.

So what "facts" are you dealing with? The same repetitive right-winger BS that has been spewed for years.

/yawn

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
Haha honestly I just included you because you were here. Have been sticking to facts, you're the one making circumstantial claims because Gowdy didn't come out and say it in plain terms for you that Clinton et al are guilty of something.

Are you in the process of reading the report? I am. Lets both read it and then compare facts eh?

Ha ha. You can't make up your mind what you wanted to do with your list, can you? Aside from looking silly.

I've noted what Gowdy said (no way to save those Americans) and didn't say (regarding Clinton) given a direct question and opportunity to say, something, anything, negative about Clinton. Instead, silence ... that whether you like it or not, speaks VOLUMES.

So what "facts" are you dealing with? The same repetitive right-winger BS that has been spewed for years.

/yawn

Like I said, lets read the report. Or are you planning to ignore it and disappont Plato, Socrates and Aristotle

Not that I really care. We both have our minds made up, and I gotta head off to dinner anyway. Happy lefting! *waves*

a reply to: Wardaddy454

I don't think you do either to be quite honest.

Fox News is not exactly a hotbed of lefty propaganda, is it? Tell me otherwise, go ahead. That way, I will know that you have simply lost your grip and have started making insane statements with no basis in fact or reality.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

no military assets were moving towards Benghazi"

That's cause they were too busy changing their clothes.

Because apparently a US MARINE uniform was 'offensive'.

Benghazi Probe Finds Marines' Response Was Slowed by Uniform Changes

In my opinion both the armed services, and civilians alike should be given the one finger salute to both CLinton, and the current administration.

Did I really hear people complaining about $7 million over 2 years?. Although I find that ridiculous, just keep in mind Obama spent $170 MILLION (1sr term) and $180 MILLION on a one night inauguration party (2nd term) while the country was trying to recover from the recession.

Not to be partisan, George Bush spent $140 MILLION on his 2nd term party in 2005.

Just saying at least they have 800 pages of proof government f'ed up for the 2 years and $7mill... what did we get for the $350mill for 2 one nighter?

Funny how perspective works.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Except the media is running with answer he gave when he was asked if it was an anti-Hillary witch hunt. It wasn't, but it does indict her handling of the State Dept. in large and the administration as a whole on their narrative. She also had her role to play when it came to knowingly lying about the two narratives - the truth about what the attack actually was and what the administration fed the public during the election cycle (the video).

a reply to: neo96

That, in and of itself, is an outrage.

When a military unit is deployed into a hot zone, it is absolutely imperative that before they get there they have had time to handle, check, and re-check all weapons which will be deployed with them in the field, and had the opportunity to put all the miscellaneous items they will need into their fatigues and assault harnesses. This should be done while they are still airborne in normal circumstances, but changing kit several times adds far too many possible variables to a mission profile, like someone leaving their grenades in the wrong pants (I know it seems stupid, but stupid things happen from time to time).

When time is a factor, the chances of something going wrong increase, because the amount of time preparing for a given action is necessarily lower, the approach to the location where the action is will be necessarily faster, the risks are simply greater. You do not put fast response troops through an amateur dramatics style wardrobe change four times, before you deploy them to their operational area. That is just absolutely bloody stupid from an operational stand point. I know these people are professionals, but give the dudes a break!

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: shooterbrody

Who was in charge when this event happened?
This was a result of Obamas foreign policy was it not?
Foreign policy that was to be executed by the administrations chief foreign policy adviser, the Secretary of State.

So who else would be responsible for this event?

Who would be responsible for the "event?"

How about the Islamic militants who attacked the compound in Benghazi?

What you're saying is no different than saying that Bush 43 was responsible for the various attacks on embassies/missions during his presidency or 9/11 or that Roosevelt was responsible for Pearl Harbor instead of the Japanese.

We generally hold administrations responsible for events that occur during their time in office.
Obama owns this the same way Bush jr owns iraq. Had Obama not campaigned to do the opposite of what Bush jr was doing I may have given him more leniency. Had Hillary voiced ANY opposition to Obamas foreign policy I may have held her less responsible. To this day she blames others instead of stepping up and taking responsibility for her actions.

Obama failed to solve the Libya problems.

He escalated and got caught.