Fox News' "fact check" story on the hearing is good for an interesting read. The Republicans basically owned Hillary on the facts. :hmm:
wtf was the point of this? trying to get trip her up to admit she was behind the terrorist attacks herself?
Basically, the Republicans wanted to catch Hillary in some kind of gotcha moment. They wanted her to make one mistake, but it didnt happen tonight. The only thing that did happen was the Republicans bolstered her chances at becoming POTUS.wtf was the point of this? trying to get trip her up to admit she was behind the terrorist attacks herself?
And since Fox viewers were never going to vote for Hillary in the first place, the hearing - and this whole committee and its report - is meaningless.Basically, the Republicans wanted to catch Hillary in some kind of gotcha moment. They wanted her to make one mistake, but it didnt happen tonight. The only thing that did happen was the Republicans bolstered her chances at becoming POTUS.
Of course, on Fox they will be saying something different. Blah, blah, blah...
And since Fox viewers were never going to vote for Hillary in the first place, the hearing - and this whole committee and its report - is meaningless.
You know, the same old Republican strategy of wasting taxpayer money to accomplish nothing. Like passing 60 bills to cancel Obamacare.
Hillary Rodham Clinton easily parried barbed Republican questioning Thursday about the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, emerging unscathed from a high-stakes congressional hearing with a smooth and sometimes poignant account of her role in the event that has loomed as among her largest political liabilities.
Mrs. Clintons discipline and steely demeanor, bordering on dismissive at times, disarmed and irritated congressional Republicans as they questioned her handling of Libya as secretary of state, her response to the Benghazi attack and her frequent contacts with Sidney Blumenthal, a Clinton adviser who had been barred by the White House from working at the State Department.
Through the lengthy session, Clinton maintained a relentlessly calm and smiling demeanor, showing few visible signs of fatigue other than a hoarse throat that began to develop in the 10th hour.
But if one of Clintons goals was to convey an image of being more composed and serious than her inquisitors, members of the committee often appeared to help, engaging in one high-decibel shouting match and numerous partisan jabs.
As night fell, the Republicans covered mostly old groundturning their attention to the controversy about Mrs. Clintons use of a personal email server. Mrs. Clinton, aided by the committee Democrats, held her ground in calm fashion. At one point, she sat silently in the witness chair and looked bemused, watching the top Republican and Democrat on the panel spar about procedures.
Now, Mrs. Clinton is likely to come out of a tumultuous period in her campaign with a strengthened position in the Democratic field. She was widely deemed to have won the first campaign debate. And, after months of speculation about Joe Bidens ambitions, the vice president announced on Wednesday he would sit out the contest, leaving Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-styled Democratic socialist, as her chief rival.
I just noticed: You're at 67,500 posts. Is that #1? What's your secret?The weird thing would be if the GOp had any support after this. But they will...they survived their own "Bengazi!" shitstorm to last several years, and the sheep will step in line tomorrow, as usual, patting themselves on the back that they did what the country wanted
seriously: anyone that supports this kind of petulant childishness needs to remove themselves from the voting block, and from my country. Such people are useless fucking twats, to be honest.
I don't like Hillary all that much, but goddamn if you guys haven't done anything but giftwrap her this presidency. way to go, children.
These little teabagging shitcakes made the Congressional hearings against steroids in baseball seem somehow relevant. Well, almost. ...But that's a pretty high bar for irrelevancy.
I just noticed: You're at 67,500 posts. Is that #1? What's your secret?
I'm not even at 10,000 after almost 11 years, and I cannot conceive of maintaining a rate of, what, 20 posts a day, year after year after year.
Is anyone else not concerned about the lack of seriousness by the Republican party when investigating an important matter of foreign policy and national security? I am worried that if another Republican president is elected, Congress will not provide serious oversight and we'll have another 9/11 and thousands of Americans dying in unnecessary wars.
Any human that can stay alert and so focused for nine-ten hours qualifies for the next president.
Do you think Trump, GW, Nixon, Christie, Rubio, Carson could have displayed that stamina?
Hell. I want Hillary answering the phone at 3 am when Putin shoots down an American aircraft.
Rubio would first call Sheldon Adelson to ask what to do.
Jeb would call Dick Cheney. Or god forbid brother George.
Nixon would have pissed his pants and erased a tape.
Reagan would have turned over in bed and told Nancy she was talking in her sleep, again.
Trump would yell out BUILD A FENCE AROUND THAT PHONE, DAMN IT!!!!
And who knows what the hell Carson would do?
I want Hillary answering that phone call at 3 am.
I would of been over the counter ringing there fucking necks after just an hour. I will vote for her now.
Any human that can stay alert and so focused for nine-ten hours qualifies for the next president.
Do you think Trump, GW, Nixon, Christie, Rubio, Carson could have displayed that stamina?
Hell. I want Hillary answering the phone at 3 am when Putin shoots down an American aircraft.
Rubio would first call Sheldon Adelson to ask what to do.
Jeb would call Dick Cheney. Or god forbid brother George.
Nixon would have pissed his pants and erased a tape.
Reagan would have turned over in bed and told Nancy she was talking in her sleep, again.
Trump would yell out BUILD A FENCE AROUND THAT PHONE, DAMN IT!!!!
And who knows what the hell Carson would do?
I want Hillary answering that phone call at 3 am.
All I know is Trump better not complain about a debate lasting three hours is too long anymore...
The cost so far is less than the total we've spent on Origami Condoms ($2,466,482) and Fat Lesbian Studies ($3,531,925).OK then. What a waste of time. I can't believe we're paying for this bullshit. Congress should just refund us their salaries.
The cost so far is less than the total we've spent on Origami Condoms ($2,466,482) and Fat Lesbian Studies ($3,531,925).
I can't believe we paid for that bullshit.
http://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-h...-fat-lesbian-studies-than-benghazi-committee/
For example, Congress does not appear particularly interested in looking at what caused the disaster a few weeks ago, when the U.S. bombed a hospital operated by the charity Doctors Without Borders, in Kunduz, Afghanistan, even though the mistake cost nearly two dozen lives and harmed America's efforts in the area.
In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, a Joint Inquiry in Congress looked at five previous major terrorist attacks or attempted attacks against the U.S. to see where intelligence had failed. The incidents included the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers barracks in Saudi Arabia, the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the 1999 "Millennium" plot, and the strike on the USS Cole in 2000.
These were not minor or inconsequential terrorist operations. They were deadly and they foreshadowed what came later. The embassy bombings, two simultaneous explosions in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam, killed more than 200 people and left more than 4,000 injured.
Congress held a handful of hearings, but no formal investigation.
If congressional leaders believe concern for the safety of diplomatic personnel warrants the magnitude and duration of their efforts, it's curious that Congress spent so little time reviewing the Africa embassy bombings, or any of the many other attacks on American diplomats who have died in the line of duty over the years; people like 33-year-old John Granville, a diplomat working for the U.S. Agency for International Development, shot to death in Khartoum, Sudan in 2008, or David Foy, 51, killed in a massive blast outside the U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan in 2006.
If the issue is the failures of security, of intelligence, or of judgment that have cost the lives of U.S. citizens on dangerous assignments, it's curious that the events of an awful day in late 2009 at Camp Chapman in Afghanistan did not merit this kind of scrutiny. That was when seven Americans working for the CIA were killed when a man who was supposed to be an informant, invited by American agents to be the base, turned out to be a radical jihadi, a suicide bomber who blew himself up. The dead included Jennifer Matthews, 45, one of the CIA's top al Qaeda experts. That incident was investigated by the CIA, not Congress.
If it's terrorism that justifies the obsessive attention to Benghazi, it's interesting that the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the worst terrorist attack before 9/11, was not the target of a slew of congressional panels the way Benghazi is. The only report from Congress on the Oklahoma bombing was privately released by Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher, who was searching for an elusive "foreign connection." The attack, which killed 168 people, was investigated by the FBI.
Fox News' "fact check" story on the hearing is good for an interesting read. The Republicans basically owned Hillary on the facts. :hmm: