This is topic Benghazi now longest Congressional Investigation in history in forum General Comments at The Ornery American Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/16840.html

Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
quote:
The House committee investigating the Benghazi attacks is now the longest congressional investigation in history, committee Democrats announced today.

As of Monday, the House Select Committee on Benghazi, has been active for 72 weeks -- surpassing the record previously held by the Watergate Committee in the 1970's.

link
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
Ridiculous.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
It will only get worse with Boehner gone. It amazes me to think that he was too cozy with Democrats from the fringe's perspective. Whitewater, anyone?
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Ridiculous.

It really is. The game of deny, delay and destroy evidence has drug this out far longer than it ever should have been. Hillary's game has been to drag it out so long that everyone just forgets or gets tired of it. Obviously this type of defense works with her dedicated apologists and the defenders that see the ends justifying the means.

But what do we really know about Benghazi?

quote:
In March, an investigation by ProPublica and Gawker revealed that a "secret spy network" that was not on the State Department payroll, run by longtime Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal, was "Funneling intelligence about the crisis in Libya directly to the Secretary of State’s private account starting before the Benghazi attack." Now the WEEKLY STANDARD has learned that Tyler Drumheller, the former chief of the CIA's clandestine service in Europe who was working directly with Blumenthal as a member of Clinton’s spy network, was concurrently working as a consultant to CBS News and its venerable news program 60 Minutes.

According to WEEKLY STANDARD sources, Drumheller was active in shaping the network's Benghazi coverage. His role at the network raises questions about what went wrong with the retracted 60 Minutes report on Benghazi that aired in October 2013. Despite his former life as a high ranking CIA official, Drumheller was laden with political baggage, making him a curious choice to be consulting with a major news operation--especially so given that he was working directly with Sidney Blumenthal, whose primary occupation appears to be manipulating media coverage on behalf of the Clintons.

So we have a Sec of State running a personal intelligence agency that has hooks into the mainstream media covering her actions in order to shape the story. That's some full on, real deal, dystopian totalitarian bull**** right there. The only thing really missing is secret police "disappearing" people.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
But Rafi, a well run secret police wouldn't be any good if it wasn't "missing". [Smile]
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Since 2000 we've seen the longest wars in the nation's history, the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, and now the longest pointless congressional investigation in history.

We're on a roll, sort of. But, we haven't really hit the good times, yet. That may start on October 8 when the House elects someone even further to the right than Boehner to steer the ship.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
Any idea what the odds are on getting the longest shutdown?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
"Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi Special Committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today?"
—

Republican House majority leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy, candidate for House Speaker
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
That was a direct quote kmbboots? >_<
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Yes
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
That was a direct quote kmbboots? >_<

From the Washington Post

Video from the interview with Sean Hannity
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
quote:
"I give you credit for that," said Hannity. "I'll give you credit where credit is due."
Wow...
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
If she hadn't been so unwise as to attempt such a poorly considered end-run around FOIA requests with her private server, her numbers would be fine.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
If that's what it was. I'm not really sure at this point if it might have been naivete or hubris, which in this case are pretty much the same thing.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
I'm not sure it even matters anymore after that statement. If it was just stalling tactics, I think she just won.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Wow. That shift was head-spinning. When presented with an admission that Republican leadership exploited a tragedy for political purposed at the taxpayers expense it took less than half a dozen posts to change the conversation.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
It's not like the admission tells us anything new. We already knew they were shameless opportunists and that the Benghazi committee was pure theatre. At most it tells us the Republicans are aware of the farce; which allows they have some self-awareness but not necessarily a lot.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Kmbboots, we live in a post-reality world and have been watching this show and its reruns for almost 20 years. Him opening up is like a demented interview snippet from "In the Republican's Studio".
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Wow. That shift was head-spinning. When presented with an admission that Republican leadership exploited a tragedy for political purposed at the taxpayers expense it took less than half a dozen posts to change the conversation.

Well, you selectively quoted what was said. Let's take Take The whole statement:
quote:
"Everybody though Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?" McCarthy asked. "But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought."
So it's not what you say it is unless you spin and twist it, ironically in an effort to exploit the tragedy for political gain. All he's saying is Hillary almost got away with it but they fought for the truth to come out.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
All he's saying is Hillary almost got away with it but they fought for the truth to come out.
Where does he say that?
Rather, he is saying that they put together a special committee to make her numbers drop.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
My point was that she's "unstrustable" for reason that have SFA to do with Benghazi.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
quote:
Because she's untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought."
All things considered, if he is at all honest he had to be smiling to himself guiltily as he said that. Why do you believe such transparent self-serving talking points?
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Where does he say that?
Rather, he is saying that they put together a special committee to make her numbers drop.

He didn't say that either, you're reading in intent that isn't present in the words.

Seems like an occasion where rational people would ask for clarification, does it not? Of course, clarity helps no one in a political sense as much as one sided interpretation and blasting a sound bite.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
Seems like an occasion where rational people would ask for clarification...
So you believe that a rational person would contact the majority leader of the House and ask him to confirm that he was indeed saying -- in a situation where he did not realize he was likely to be caught on the record -- that House Republicans deliberately ginned up investigations against a likely presidential candidate to reduce her popularity? On the grounds that a rational person would expect him to answer honestly?
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
Well it's more like this.
WE know she is untrustworthy. We had to form this committee to show everyone else that.

He COULD believe either she is guilty of wrong doing OR that she is just untrustworthy and the smear is an ends justify the means situation.

Neither of those are cold, “We have to trash her numbers at any cost, let’s try this!”

I believe the last, but he didn’t hand over a smoking gun confirming it. He just said something incredibly dumb that’s going to put his party’s sincerity in (into further?) question regarding Benghazi.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
Was it a Benghazi FOI request that made the State Department take formal notice of how many emails they didn't have?

Ironically, pulling the trigger on this now likely helps Clinton since by the time primary season really kicks off, not to mention the general election, this will be old news. It's possible the full implication of the private server wouldn't have been made public until a year from now which would have been gold for the GOP.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
These days the meaning of one's words can never be pinned on the person speaking them. "We fixed it" could mean it was broken and now works, it's rigged so we'll get it, don't worry about him talking to the cops anymore, or it's now attached to the gizmo at the back of the frammis. What McCarthy is saying is that they fixed it.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
Being the longest running investigation is hardly a suprise, since back in April, the committee chairman had already decided it wouldn't be done (coincidently) until just before the next election. [Roll Eyes]

It's going to be milked to the last possible political drop, regardless of what is found. And guess who's paying for the milking? [Wink]

[ October 01, 2015, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
Can we get an acknowledgment now from anyone here who ever defended the Benghazi investigation as being about genuine concern with events in Benghazi? Because those of this who called this a fraudulent basis for investigation from the start were right, and those who promoted alternate conspiracy theories were wrong. Again.

[ October 08, 2015, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: Greg Davidson ]
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Can we get an acknowledgment now from anyone here who ever defended the Benghazi investigation as being about genuine concern with events in Benghazi? Because those of this who called this a fraudulent basis for investigation from the start were right, and those who promoted alternate conspiracy theories were wrong. Again.

What a nonsensical read of reality. One quote, by one guy, that doesn't actually say what you want to pretend it says, that's been clarified, and you think everyone else has been refuted? You have to be kidding me. You keep overreaching the actual facts.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
What a nonsensical read of reality. One quote, by one guy, that doesn't actually say what you want to pretend it says, that's been clarified, and you think everyone else has been refuted?
Hey, in related news, do you still think there's a great reason out there to investigate Planned Parenthood?
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Can we get an acknowledgment now from anyone here who ever defended the Benghazi investigation as being about genuine concern with events in Benghazi? Because those of this who called this a fraudulent basis for investigation from the start were right, and those who promoted alternate conspiracy theories were wrong. Again.

What a nonsensical read of reality. One quote, by one guy, that doesn't actually say what you want to pretend it says, that's been clarified, and you think everyone else has been refuted? You have to be kidding me. You keep overreaching the actual facts.
The justification for the investigations has always been to "find the truth" about "dead Americans". The truth about that was found, immediately. The rest of it is a fishing expedition trying to embarrass Obama or Clinton. [And keep the base well fed with red meat.]

If the true purpose is to show that the event was abused by the administration for political purposes, then the people in charge have been lying about what they are doing. Understandably, since that would mean their purpose is also political.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
So, no. The nonsensical read of reality is that the investigations are searching for the truth about dead Americans.

I think your mistake is that you have long ago accepted that the purpose of the investigations was to uncover intentional manipulation of the media - but that's not the stated purpose of the investigation.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
Some interesting news on this today.

quote:
A former investigator with the House Select Committee on Benghazi is accusing the Republican-led panel of carrying out a politically motivated investigation targeting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton instead of the thorough and objective fact-finding mission it was set up to pursue.

Major Bradley Podliska, an intelligence officer in the Air Force Reserve who describes himself as a conservative Republican, told CNN that the committee trained its sights almost exclusively on Clinton after the revelation last March that she used a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state. That new focus flipped a broad-based probe of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, into what Podliska described as "a partisan investigation."

Podliska, who was fired after nearly 10 months as an investigator for the Republican majority, is now preparing to file a lawsuit against the select committee next month, alleging that he lost his job in part because he resisted pressure to focus his investigative efforts solely on the State Department and Clinton's role surrounding the Benghazi attack. He also alleges he was fired because he took leave from the committee to fulfill his military service obligations, which would be an unlawful firing.

"I knew that we needed to get to the truth to the victims' families. And the victims' families, they deserve the truth -- whether or not Hillary Clinton was involved, whether or not other individuals were involved," he told CNN in an exclusive TV interview that will air Sunday on "State of the Union." "The victims' families are not going to get the truth and that's the most unfortunate thing about this."

Podliska told CNN that the committee, which has spent $4.6 million so far and is chaired by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-South Carolina, pulled resources away from probes of other individuals and agencies to focus almost exclusively on Clinton and the State Department she helmed for four years. Clinton will testify before the committee for the first time Oct. 22 and the committee is set to release the findings of its investigation next year, in the heat of the presidential race.

Podliska alleges that the committee's staff director told him he was fired for three reasons: using work email to send a social invitation to colleagues, assigning an "unauthorized project" to an intern, and allegedly putting classified information on an unclassified system. Podliska, an intelligence officer who was hired for his expertise with the intelligence community, strongly denies the latter. He also disputes the legitimacy of the other two reasons cited to him by the committee, in particular assigning any "unauthorized projects" to interns.

A committee spokesperson "vigorously" denied Podliska's allegations about why he was fired and defended the objectivity of the panel's investigation.

"We are confident that the facts and evidence give no support to the wild imagination fueling these and any future allegations, and the Committee will vigorously defend itself against such allegations. The Committee will not be blackmailed into a monetary settlement for a false allegation made by a properly terminated former employee," the committee spokesperson, who declined to be named, told CNN in a statement.

The committee statement also accused Podliska of his own bias in his work on the committee, a claim the former staffer's lawyer firmly denied.


The statement added that Podliska had never previously accused the committee of conducting a biased investigation targeting Clinton, although Podliska said he repeatedly made the case to his superiors that the committee's work should be more all-encompassing.

Podliska said he decided to come forward because the committee's skewed focus is detracting from the objective of uncovering the truth surrounding the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens. "What happened was wrong," Podliska said.

"I'm scared. I'm nervous. I know that this is, you know, I'm going up against powerful people in Washington. But at the end of the day I need to live with myself," he said. "I told my wife, I will view myself as a coward if I don't do the right thing here."

He insisted that his claim is not politically motivated, explaining that he has long been a conservative Republican -- "more on the libertarian side" -- and plans to vote for the GOP nominee in 2016.

"I am going to vote for the Republican nominee in 2016. I do not support Hillary Clinton for president," he said.

It takes guts to whistleblow on your own party, but I'm glad there somebody who'll do it. Of course, one could always call this 'sour grapes', but then again if he's right about the reason for his dismissal it looks bad for the committee regardless.

[ October 10, 2015, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
Still waiting for one of you who thought this investigation was legitimate to acknowledge your error. But also in recognition that to be a Republican today requires a significant level of faith-based belief in an imaginary world, and a stubborn refusal to admit when you are shown to be wrong (see Obamacare discussion, below, with one exception of one person here who did have the integrity to acknowledge his earlier error)
 
Posted by LetterRip (Member # 310) on :
 
JoshCrow,

thanks for the information, curious how it will pan out.

Greg,

I'm not sure what you think you will accomplish with your attempts to get people to 'confess', especially when you include gratuitous insults.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Ornery is not the court of public opinion, so the House will not be saved from spiraling into chaos by anyone's admission here, there or anywhere. I doubt even FOX could stop it if they cared to try, which they don't.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Wow. That shift was head-spinning. When presented with an admission that Republican leadership exploited a tragedy for political purposed at the taxpayers expense it took less than half a dozen posts to change the conversation.

in your cosmos Sean H speaks for Republican Congress?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
It wasn't Hannity's quote that was the issue, Pete.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Wow. That shift was head-spinning. When presented with an admission that Republican leadership exploited a tragedy for political purposed at the taxpayers expense it took less than half a dozen posts to change the conversation.

in your cosmos Sean H speaks for Republican Congress?
If you were responding to what you quoted, I assumed that NobleHunter was speaking for NobleHunter. At least in my cosmos. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
LR, you are right.

And maybe I should back off for a while.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
LR, you are right.

And maybe I should back off for a while.

For what it's worth, I don't see too many people 'confess' to making mistakes on a general basis, here or elsewhere. I think I understand your desire to hold people accountable to what they say, but then again who is really 'pure of heart' in this sense? The fact that the Obamacare thread involved quantitative elements made it into a sort of easy snare where if someone made claims there would be a numerical results years later that would prove the claim to either be accurate or not. But should the possibility of a numerical evaluation in that one case really stand to 'prove' that people will make errors and not admit it? But we already know they do! Proof of it isn't required.

I think the best we can aspire to here is to try to understand each other and to recognize that when we disagree it's not always of primary importance to determine "who is wrong". There can be reasons for disagreement other than error, even though of course errors and faulty reasoning also occur. While I suppose we should try to point out these errors (and in so doing frequently have debates over basic facts or interpretations) it may be of more value to realize the basic valuations individuals have that lead them to their typical positions. Maybe understanding the person's outlook on life is more important than whether or not they are the best debaters.

You seem to believe, for instance, that Republican/conservative positions are often based on spurious claims. But are they? What claims are really at the core of conservatism? Are the errors you suspect perhaps not endemic to individuals rather than to the conservative philosophy? If certain conservatives employ bad reasoning to realize their values, might we not envision better reasoning on their behalf and yet not feel the values themselves must be considered refuted along with the bad arguments?

[ October 12, 2015, 11:52 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
I mostly agree with that (see, I'm accusing you of being right), but being wrong is the hallmark of certain posters here. What really galls me, and I think Greg and some others, is poor thinking. That happens because of bad analysis sometimes, but far more often is due to simple bias. That's what needs to be called out and "corrected", though it is almost never admitted or "fixed".
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
I mostly agree with that (see, I'm accusing you of being right), but being wrong is the hallmark of certain posters here. What really galls me, and I think Greg and some others, is poor thinking. That happens because of bad analysis sometimes, but far more often is due to simple bias. That's what needs to be called out and "corrected", though it is almost never admitted or "fixed".

Biases can be a good thing. If one has faith in one's first principles then it would be foolish indeed to agree with concepts counter to them just because they sound logical on paper. Sometimes it can be hard to formulate an argument against the logical-sounding proposition, and an attempt to do so will create a weak, 'biased' argument that you could easily spot as merely trying to reiterate a previous supposition. You'd be right to point that out, but wrong to imply that it therefore means the person is full of it. It just means they aren't up to the task of creating a good enough argument to back up their beliefs in the scenario provided.

Let's say you give a moral realist the dilemma "kill one person to save 100" (a lousy but old example). If killing is wrong under any circumstances then the person will say they won't do it. But then one can accuse them of killing the 100 out of selfish pride, of not knowing math, of being hypocritical, and of being a coward. If the person then offers some argument about killing harming all of humanity or human sacrifice being a sinful proposition, you'll ask for evidence of this and won't get it. So the moral realist's argument will appear to be 'weak' even though it's actually entirely tenable and consistent as a philosophical position. Furthermore, if moral realism is correct (which it's entirely possible it is, ontologically) then no amount of argument either way will change the fact that the person's position is the right one.

So I find the issue of being right and wrong often muddier than would be convenient for those who enjoy debate as I do.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
Dang it. Another perfectly good title shot down by the facts.

Benghazi ain't the longest investigation ever, or even one of the longest.

Although I still question the purpose of the whole thing (other than to try to smear Hillary).
 


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1