848 posts....still waiting for the explosion.
I heard a faint pop a little earlier... sounded like a mini-fart...
That's funny, I don't even have fox news. Basic cable.
Drudge report probably, having seen your posts here. You continued lack of facts in almost all of your posts seems just like Drudge. Your anger issues also show a part of Rush too, do you listen to him as well?
So please explain what this new investigation will find?
Please explain what you find wrong about the three previous official investigations. Be specific with facts, not made-up lies.
It's really interesting that you and the others all keep posting about how important this is, and how bad it is, but never have anything valid to point out.
I will help you all. Here all three official government reports all saying no conspiracy. The last one was even lead by the GOP, and had a GOP majority, so you can't even claim the Democrats wrote it or covered anything up.
2012 State Dept report
2014 Senate intel Committee report
2014 House Intel committee report
To Fern, boomerang, Matt1970, and all the other trolls that are anxiously awaiting a magical impeachment from this, point out how all three of these reports did not cover everything that you claim happened.
Because once again (I know, you all do this all the time) you all are basically admitting you are lying and trolling, by refusing to post anything of substance.
The reports are released....due your homework and tell us where the reports are wrong, and document with evidence.
You must have me confused with someone else. You are more than welcome to look back through my posts and see if I link to Drudge report or if I mention how important yet another investigation is. I eagerly await your findings.
He doesn't seem to neatly fit within your stereotype...how sad is that?And we eagerly await the day you don't dodge a question.
It really doesn't matter where you get your info because it's bad info no matter what.
He doesn't seem to neatly fit within your stereotype...how sad is that?
You must have me confused with someone else. You are more than welcome to look back through my posts and see if I link to Drudge report or if I mention how important yet another investigation is. I eagerly await your findings.
He doesn't seem to neatly fit within your stereotype...how sad is that?
My bad. I should have quoted Jhhnn and/or GarfieldtheCat...posts 837 and 824. My apologies.What stereotype is that? A person so entrenched with the team mentality that they purposely ignore facts that are contrary to their beliefs or that they require no facts to form their beliefs in the first place?
You quoted me yet I'm not sure why.
My bad. I should have quoted Jhhnn and/or GarfieldtheCat...posts 837 and 824. My apologies.
Trey Gowdy's unexpected Benghazi twist
When Trey Gowdy got the job to run the House’s new Benghazi select committee, there was good reason to fear bad things.
Gowdy, a former prosecutor, was known for theatrical outbursts in hearings, rank partisanship and a fascination with Benghazi conspiracy theories about talking points, stand-down orders and Hillary Clinton’s culpability.
But when the South Carolina Republican chaired his panel’s first public hearing Wednesday, Gowdy did something completely unexpected: He played it straight.
There was no discussion of talking points or stand-down orders, and only one of the seven Republicans on the panel — Jim Jordan of Ohio — even mentioned Clinton. Instead, Gowdy adopted as the theme of his first hearing an idea suggested by one of the committee’s Democrats, Adam Schiff of California: How well the State Department has been implementing recommendations to prevent future attacks on U.S. diplomats like the one in Libya two years ago that killed four Americans.
This is exactly what congressional oversight should be: a bipartisan effort by legislators to make sure executive-branch officials don’t repeat past mistakes. The resulting bonhomie was unprecedented in the two years of Benghazi bickering.
“I thank you for holding this hearing today,” Elijah Cummings (Md.), the panel’s hard-nosed ranking Democrat, told Gowdy. “. . . I want to thank our colleague Representative Schiff for proposing the topic for today’s hearing, and, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for accepting that topic.”
Cummings’s gratitude flowed freely. He said the hearing was a “transformational moment — the kind of oversight that can be productive. It can be critical. It can sometimes even be tedious. But it can also save lives.”
Over three hours, there were so many thank-yous it could have been the Oscars.
“Honestly, I commend Mr. Schiff,” Gowdy said. “This was a wonderful idea.”
When Cummings asked the chairman whether he would have a State Department official return in a few months to report on progress implementing the new security recommendations, Gowdy immediately agreed.
“I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland for all of his help and . . . the cooperative nature with which he has always worked with me,” Gowdy said. “And I think it’s an excellent idea. . . . I will pledge to you: It will be done.”
All that was missing was a group hug.
The contrast with previous Benghazi hearings led by Rep. Darrell Issa of California could hardly have been greater. Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee (on which both Gowdy and Cummings serve) made investigations a show about himself — leveling unfounded accusations about high-level wrongdoing in the Obama administration, interrupting hearings to argue with Democrats, even shutting off the microphone (at an IRS hearing) when he didn’t like what Cummings was saying.
Gowdy let everybody else on the panel get a turn before he asked his questions. He didn’t enforce time limits strictly, and he abandoned the top row of the dais in favor of a seat closer to the witnesses. He didn’t quarrel, shout or ask gotcha questions.
Other members of the panel followed Gowdy’s example, with the exception of Jordan, who speculated about a conspiracy between Clinton and Mike Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as a way to discredit the State Department’s own report on Benghazi. Jordan, referring to the Democrats, grumbled that “this was a hearing they called.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...673f56-3ea2-11e4-b0ea-8141703bbf6f_story.html
As predicted, a fair hearing was always going to be boring, plodding and completely unrevealing with regards to new salient facts.
You must have me confused with someone else. You are more than welcome to look back through my posts and see if I link to Drudge report or if I mention how important yet another investigation is. I eagerly await your findings.
I never claimed you posted drudge links. I said your posts are like drudge, since 99% of the time there are no facts. So my statement is true.
Christian radio? Chain e-mails? Your dopey conservative friends?
Wait, did this thread go from insulting Gowdy's appearance to being totally OK with him?
First you said I get my info from Fox news, then you said "Drudge report probably", now you have to backtrack and say my posts are like Drudge. Want to make any final adjustments?
No, once again you prove you can't read.
Since we all realize you are reading impaired, I will make it easy for you.
Get info from doesn't equal post links from.
I realize you have logic issues, but it really isn't that hard to figure out, is it?
I said you get info from fox...i didn't say post links from. Just like you probably read drudge and listen to rush.
Once again you fail at logic. Just like your fail troll attempt claim that I supported Obama since I didn't post in every thread that citizen him. You were wrong then, you are wrong now.
So what are you posting abut Benghazi? What in those three reports don't you believe? Facts please. Or are you admitting you are just trolling the thread?
I post links to support my claims, you claim I get my info from Drudge. Are those dots a little to far apart for you to connect? What other evidence would you have that I get my info from Drudge?
So what are you posting abut Benghazi? What in those three reports don't you believe? Facts please. Or are you admitting you are just trolling the thread?
Dodge #3. Are we going to get an answer from you on this anytime soon?