Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:Can you cite anything to back up your position that FOX or any other news organization is not a professional news organization?

Have you watched a newscast in the last five years?

Quote:Some folks died tragically and the right wants to go on a witch hunt for political reasons. It's pretty disgusting if you ask me.

 

So trying to find out the actual facts regarding the incident is a "right wing witch hunt" in your opinion?  Could it be that what happened was a failure of the State Department?  I wonder who was the head of said department?  What if it was Donald Rumsfeld or Condilezza Rice.  Would there be calls to investigate it then?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/42...deo-excuse
 
"<i>In the course of his questioning of Clinton on her conduct surrounding the 2012 Benghazi attack, Ohio Republican congressman Jim Jordan revealed several new, previously overlooked e-mails indicating the Obama administration, the State Department, and Clinton herself all knew the assault was driven by al-Qaeda-linked terrorists — even while they all told the American people and the families of victims that a riot sparked by an anti-Islam YouTube video was responsible.


Jordan began by revisiting Susan Rice’s televised claim in the days after the attack that the tragedy was “a spontaneous reaction as a consequence of a [Youtube] video.” At the time, Republicans cast doubt on the idea that an anti-video demonstration had spiraled out of control. With a tough White House re-election vote just weeks away, they charged that the Obama administration was deliberately shifting the narrative in order to avoid questions over their anti-terrorism policy. And as news continued to trickle out of Libya, it became clear that the attack was a planned by Ansar al-Sharia, an al-Qaeda linked group, and that there had been no demonstration at all."</i>

Sorry, but all credibility of that committee ended when McCarthy bragged about the whole thing being a political ploy.

Quote:Sorry, but all credibility of that committee ended when McCarthy bragged about the whole thing being a political ploy.

 

It doesn't excuse the blatant lies, IMO.

Quote:Sorry, but all credibility of that committee ended when McCarthy bragged about the whole thing being a political ploy.

Let's be honest here.  The current administration made this political regardless of any facts when they orchestrated the entire narrative that the attack was about a YouTube video.  Let me also add that anyone that bought into that concept of an attack that occurred on Sept 11 as anything less than terrorism is an idiot and should not be allowed to vote.  EVER!

Quote:"<i>...the Obama administration, the State Department, and Clinton herself all knew the assault was driven by al-Qaeda-linked terrorists — even while they all told the American people and the families of victims that a riot sparked by an anti-Islam YouTube video was responsible."</i>

 

 

This is the bottom line. They lied to us, blatantly. It's no excuse that most politicians are liars. I'd rather vote for someone with an ounce of integrity. Give me Carson any day over this trash of a candidate.

Well, I watched hours of the latest hearings, and I must confess, I don't get it.     The allegation seems to be that mistakes were made, someone got killed, and the administration tried to spin their way out of it.   So what's unusual about that, except for the fact that this time, Hillary Clinton was involved?  

 

I kept waiting for some sort of smoking gun that justified all the hullabaloo, but it never came.   All they succeeded in doing was to make her look presidential.  I have never liked Hillary Clinton, but after watching these hearings, I actually started to warm up to her. 

 

The Republicans asked their questions with such blatant contempt for the witness, I kept thinking, here it comes, they really have something now, but...  waiting.... waiting...  and?  Nothing. 

 

What did we find out that was new?   That Sidney Blumenthal is a friend of hers and has her email address and sends her a lot of stuff.   So what? 

Quote:What did we find out that was new?  

 

I believe we discovered that she has PseudoBulbar Affect...


 

<span><span>https://youtu.be/AEd30ea6Qtg</span></span>

Quote:Well, I watched hours of the latest hearings, and I must confess, I don't get it.     The allegation seems to be that mistakes were made, someone got killed, and the administration tried to spin their way out of it.   So what's unusual about that, except for the fact that this time, Hillary Clinton was involved?  

 

I kept waiting for some sort of smoking gun that justified all the hullabaloo, but it never came.   All they succeeded in doing was to make her look presidential.  I have never liked Hillary Clinton, but after watching these hearings, I actually started to warm up to her. 

 

The Republicans asked their questions with such blatant contempt for the witness, I kept thinking, here it comes, they really have something now, but...  waiting.... waiting...  and?  Nothing. 

 

What did we find out that was new?   That Sidney Blumenthal is a friend of hers and has her email address and sends her a lot of stuff.   So what?

The rub for me is her initial attitude about people getting killed ("What does that matter" was her response IIRC) then the political circus that came out of it. They all could have all been honest, taken responsibility and let the chips fall where they may. But nooooo. God forbid anyone in Washington do that. And to blatantly lie, backtrack and otherwise make a bad thing so much worse. Especially for the families of the dead.


Every single person involved should face some sort of punishment, but they won't. And the fact that she's a viable candidate to run for POTUS with all of her baggage going WAY back and people seem to be okay with that shows the disturbing mindset of this country. All politicians have skeletons in their closet. Clinton has a graveyard the size of Arlington National Cemetery. And anymore many of those are out in the open.

Quote:Some folks died tragically and the right wants to go on a witch hunt for political reasons. It's pretty disgusting if you ask me.

 

When the person in charge lied about it and holds a political position, any sort of criticism will be interpreted as being "political reasons.". Some "folks" died because she failed to do her job adequately and then lied to cover it up. She's running for President, and I assume you want us to ignore something that I feel disqualifies her?

Quote:When the person in charge lied about it and holds a political position, any sort of criticism will be interpreted as being "political reasons.". Some "folks" died because she failed to do her job adequately and then lied to cover it up. She's running for President, and I assume you want us to ignore something that I feel disqualifies her?

 

He's hoping...nay praying that you and all America ignores it.

Quote:When the person in charge lied about it and holds a political position, any sort of criticism will be interpreted as being "political reasons.". Some "folks" died because she failed to do her job adequately and then lied to cover it up. She's running for President, and I assume you want us to ignore something that I feel disqualifies her?

 

I think this is yet another example of how the right wing exists in its own bubble and feeds itself what it wants to hear.   And as a result, when things don't happen that they think should logically happen, they get really angry about it.   In this case, the right wing media has been feeding their minions a bunch of stuff about how they have uncovered some sort of smoking gun that disqualifies Hillary Clinton from the Presidency and  might actually send her to jail.   When she winds up not going to jail and gets elected President, they will be even more angry than ever.  

 

Wake up.   People in high office make mistakes all the time that get people killed.  And then they try to spin their way out of it to avoid political damage.  It happens multiple times in every administration, Republican and Democrat.  

Quote:  

 

Wake up.   People in high office make mistakes all the time that get people killed.  And then they try to spin their way out of it to avoid political damage.  It happens multiple times in every administration, Republican and Democrat.  

 

I'm curious, how many times have you posted that line or something similar in defense of a Republican?    

I have two issues with this witch hunt. First.. the very people leading it voted across the board to cut funding to protect our embassies and consulates. This is fact. Yet they exonerate themselves from any culpability with finger pointing and accusing others of not doing enough to protect these people. Second.. where was all this outrage on the many embassy/consulate attacks that occurred during the last presidency? So.. we cannot afford to protect these people, but we can afford to spend tens of millions of dollars investigating one incident while ignoring over a dozen other similar instances. It's ugly and regrettable, but politicizing the deaths of these people to smear the character of someone one party views as a threat is a morally bankrupt move. Not that I think Hillary is the greatest Secretary of State we have ever had, but Condi was never called into question when far more people were killed and injured in similar circumstances on her watch.

Quote:I'm curious, how many times have you posted that line or something similar in defense of a Republican?    

 

I hope I would if the situation was reversed. 

Quote:Sorry, but all credibility of that committee ended when McCarthy bragged about the whole thing being a political ploy.

For those who have all of their news spoon fed to them by the alphabet networks, or other mainstream media resources, that's probably true.  Sadly, a large portion of the country is completely oblivious to anything beyond what they're told by this conglomerate, so they'll be good little mind-numbed drones and believe it when they're told it's all just politics.

 

In reality, I'm continually amazed at how some libs who I thought actually had some level of common sense want to bypass this issue completely.  Not because of the political implications, but because it exposes a level of corruption and misdeeds that nobody in the mainstream media would dare touch on because the taint impacts not only Clinton, but their beloved manufactured messiah, Obama. 

 

The actual purpose of the investigations, rightly or not, is to get to the bottom of what was going on in Benghazi that cost us an ambassador and 3 other American lives.  Why was the ambassador allowed to operate in Benghazi with little security, and what was he doing? 

 

The answer to that question would be devastating to Clinton's political ambitions, and it would taint the already floundering legacy of her boss.  They were running guns.  Dealing weapons that they confiscated in Libya to ISIS and al Qaeda operatives in Syria who were rent-a-warriors fighting the Assad regime.  We were financing and arming the very people who we are also killing in Iran and losing ground to in Iraq. 

 

All of this was happening while our president was running for reelection on the mantra that GM was still alive, and bin Laden was dead.  Al Qaeda was on the run, and he was the great warrior who had ended two wars.  The reality didn't support that manufactured heroism, but nobody in the media was going to challenge anything he said.  So, they're certainly not going to press the issue now as they do their best to prop up a horrible candidate in Clinton. 

 

Sadly, the media will accomplish exactly what they intend to do, and we'll be strapped with another incompetent political shrew in Clinton for 4 years because at the end of the day, holding the office is far more important than finding the truth.

If exposing gun running allegations is the true intent of these hearings, the GOP sure seems to be doing an awful job of painting that picture. Wouldn't they lead with that like the Ollie North Iran Contra Hearings did? Because what they are actually doing on that "alphabet network" C-SPAN looks nothing of the sort.

Quote: 

The actual purpose of the investigations, rightly or not, is to get to the bottom of what was going on in Benghazi that cost us an ambassador and 3 other American lives.  Why was the ambassador allowed to operate in Benghazi with little security, and what was he doing? 

 

The answer to that question would be devastating to Clinton's political ambitions, and it would taint the already floundering legacy of her boss.  They were running guns.  Dealing weapons that they confiscated in Libya to ISIS and al Qaeda operatives in Syria who were rent-a-warriors fighting the Assad regime.  We were financing and arming the very people who we are also killing in Iran and losing ground to in Iraq. 

 

 

Withdrawn.  

Quote:For those who have all of their news spoon fed to them by the alphabet networks, or other mainstream media resources, that's probably true.  Sadly, a large portion of the country is completely oblivious to anything beyond what they're told by this conglomerate, so they'll be good little mind-numbed drones and believe it when they're told it's all just politics.

 

In reality, I'm continually amazed at how some libs who I thought actually had some level of common sense want to bypass this issue completely.  Not because of the political implications, but because it exposes a level of corruption and misdeeds that nobody in the mainstream media would dare touch on because the taint impacts not only Clinton, but their beloved manufactured messiah, Obama. 

 

The actual purpose of the investigations, rightly or not, is to get to the bottom of what was going on in Benghazi that cost us an ambassador and 3 other American lives.  Why was the ambassador allowed to operate in Benghazi with little security, and what was he doing? 

 

The answer to that question would be devastating to Clinton's political ambitions, and it would taint the already floundering legacy of her boss.  They were running guns.  Dealing weapons that they confiscated in Libya to ISIS and al Qaeda operatives in Syria who were rent-a-warriors fighting the Assad regime.  We were financing and arming the very people who we are also killing in Iran and losing ground to in Iraq. 

 

All of this was happening while our president was running for reelection on the mantra that GM was still alive, and bin Laden was dead.  Al Qaeda was on the run, and he was the great warrior who had ended two wars.  The reality didn't support that manufactured heroism, but nobody in the media was going to challenge anything he said.  So, they're certainly not going to press the issue now as they do their best to prop up a horrible candidate in Clinton. 

 

Sadly, the media will accomplish exactly what they intend to do, and we'll be strapped with another incompetent political shrew in Clinton for 4 years because at the end of the day, holding the office is far more important than finding the truth.

First off, the media did not invent Kevin McCarthy's quote. Certain alphabet networks had been speculating for months now that it was just a political ploy, and I didn't give them much credence until McCarthy came out and bragged about how his political ploy had hurt Hillary in the polls. That's the point at which I stopped caring.

 

I'm not a particular fan of Obama, and certainly not a fan of Clinton. That said, and be honest, if Benghazi had happened under Condoleeza Rice's watch with the exact same circumstances, right down to this exact House of Representatives and Rice being the front-runner in a Presidential campaign, would this committee even exist? Or would Benghazi simply have been brushed under the table as an unfortunate, unforeseeable disaster? Now spin that the other way: if Rice were Secretary of State and it happened under a particularly divisive Democrat-controlled House of Representatives, would this same committee exist, and would the "damage her campaign" motivations still be a factor?

 

My answer would be this: if the administration and control of the House belonged to the same party, regardless of party, this would have stopped being an issue long ago. There would have been a few cursory investigations that found no wrongdoing, the military might have unretired Petraus just so they could pin it on him and fire him again, and it wouldn't even be talked about in the current campaign cycle. Likewise, we're seeing what happens when a party that's, frankly, desperate to figure out how to beat Hillary Clinton in the general election if she makes it that far, will do to further their goal. Kind of like what we'd see if the Democrats were desperate to take Condi Rice down a peg in her hypothetical bid for the top office.

 

That's not to condone what we were doing in Benghazi, but it's also disingenuous to suggest that the Bush administration hadn't been doing exactly the same thing elsewhere in the world, or the Clinton administration, or the first Bush, or especially Reagan (Iran Contra, anyone?). The US created Al Qaeda by arming and abandoning the Mujahideen, much like we created ISIS, and so on. We excel at creating our own enemies, but very rarely is a big deal made of it. Blame the mainstream media, blame partisan politics, whatever. I won't disagree all that strongly because I think that the tendency of the US to arm and provide the ideological ammunition for those who wish it harm is a long-standing problem that needs to be addressed, and the way we do business needs to change. I just can't take an inquest seriously in the slightest when it's walked like a witch hunt and quacked like a witch hunt for years now, and then a man in the opposing party who just happens to be running for Speaker of the House brags about it being a successful witch hunt. I don't need the mainstream media to spoon feed that to me; I can just look at McCarthy's exact words online:

 

"And let me give you one example. Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's un-trustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened had we not fought and made that happen."

 

I don't know about your take, but to me that sounds like a man who could not care less about the lives lost in Benghazi. He's just happier than a pig in [BLEEP] that his political ploy did exactly as he intended it to from the start. That's why I'm sick of hearing about Benghazi, and why nothing that committee finds will ever hold credibility for me.

 

And there's still no way on God's green earth (or in hell, for that matter) that I'm voting for Hillary Clinton.