Benghazi Hearing Final Score: Gowdy 0, Clinton Won

[Ford]

Yeah. Snot-nosed Congressman grandstands. Madam Secretary - at several points - looks at him thinking "you'd be shitting in your pants if you had to do my job that day."

Not pretty indeed. Also not indicative of any crimes.

Given the responses of pro-hillary media and the forum "liberals" giddyness over her testimony, one might think that a willingness to dodge, coverup, and brazenly lie is no longer a vice, but a timely virtue. Crowing that evasion, dissembling, and bold are not criminal tells us as much about the crow as it does Ms. Clinton.

But, so far, that seems to be "the virtue" - it's not she was a criminal, right?

Maxie, if you're gonna post a video that's supposedly the most important part of the whole 11 hour debacle, you should really post something more smashing than a heretofore unknown GOP hack launching broadsides against a clearly bored and unimpressed former Secretary.


Actually, your video does something you probably didn't intend. It does sum up Thursday's hearing...just not in the way you thought it did. You look at that video and probably need to keep a tissue handy in case you "finish" before the end of the clip, but the media (both left and right as I've already demonstrated...even dedicated anti-Hillary pundits) look at it as indicative of the whole day-long farce.

A lot of GOP grandstanding that pretty much bounced off the former Senator without causing any damage whatsoever.


I know it rankles you to no end, but that's the result of this hearing. Hillary's campaign got a boost, and this hearing capped a good week for her.


Drip...drip...drip goes the tears on your pillow...

 

[Bronzeage]

The real problem the Republicans are facing is that people are just not as stupid as they need to be, in order to believe any of this means a thing.

In the Middle East, thousands of Americans have been killed. For some reason, the GOP gets excited over these four, because, .... wait for it, they think somebody lied about it, afterwards. They aren't investigating to find out why or how it happened. They want to know what a handful of people in Washington DC did and said, after it happened.

No one with 2 cents worth of brains thinks this anything but a sad attempt to torpedo Hillary Clinton. Give it a break. I've been listing to Hillarianoia since Bill's first inauguration. What is it about this woman that is so scary?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ford,

You have one MSM source (the Atlantic) characterizing other sources, and if their FOX news analysis was a sample of its accuracy, then we know it's not credible.

Fox, accurate?

You can simply assume Faux will take the right-wing position on anything and you'll rarely be wrong.



Anyway, it seems a bit odd that they haven't tried a bucket of water--try to melt her. Perhaps they're afraid it's failure will show the truth.

 

[laughing dog]

By the way, one of the most important parts of the Q & A of Hillary is distilled below:

[youtube]<iframe width="660" height="370" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8OzrFDBMd0g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/youtube]

Not pretty.

I agree. She made Mr. Roskam look like a vindicative unreasoning media whore pandering to the conservative loonisphere.

 

[bilby]

The real problem the Republicans are facing is that people are just not as stupid as they need to be, in order to believe any of this means a thing.

In the Middle East, thousands of Americans have been killed. For some reason, the GOP gets excited over these four, because, .... wait for it, they think somebody lied about it, afterwards. They aren't investigating to find out why or how it happened. They want to know what a handful of people in Washington DC did and said, after it happened.

No one with 2 cents worth of brains thinks this anything but a sad attempt to torpedo Hillary Clinton. Give it a break. I've been listing to Hillarianoia since Bill's first inauguration. What is it about this woman that is so scary?

She has a real chance of becoming President.

Der.

 

[Axulus]

Yeah. Snot-nosed Congressman grandstands. Madam Secretary - at several points - looks at him thinking "you'd be shitting in your pants if you had to do my job that day."

Not pretty indeed. Also not indicative of any crimes.

Given the responses of pro-hillary media and the forum "liberals" giddyness over her testimony, one might think that a willingness to dodge, coverup, and brazenly lie is no longer a vice, but a timely virtue. Crowing that her evasion, dissembling, and bald-faced lies are not criminal tells us as much about the crows as it does Ms. Clinton.

But, so far, that seems to be her sole "virtue".

I'm not really understanding this scandal. 4 people die in a dangerous part of the world, and the people who are experts in security working under Hillary weren't perfect and didn't fix some vulnerabilities that existed. Information wasn't perfect as to the underlying reasons for the attack, so they were misattributed to the video, which was later corrected.

What exactly is the scandal here? Why does this require millions of dollars of investigation and multiple rounds of inquiries to figure out what has been known for years?

The fuck up that is Benghazi is nothing in comparison to the fuck up that is 9/11.

 

[Will Wiley]

The real problem the Republicans are facing is that people are just not as stupid as they need to be, in order to believe any of this means a thing.

In the Middle East, thousands of Americans have been killed. For some reason, the GOP gets excited over these four, because, .... wait for it, they think somebody lied about it, afterwards. They aren't investigating to find out why or how it happened. They want to know what a handful of people in Washington DC did and said, after it happened.

No one with 2 cents worth of brains thinks this anything but a sad attempt to torpedo Hillary Clinton. Give it a break. I've been listing to Hillarianoia since Bill's first inauguration. What is it about this woman that is so scary?

She has a real chance of becoming President.

Der.

It is scary
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Nice Squirrel]

And Hillary is covering up exactly what Max? You keep saying that she is, but can't list the exact statutes or actions she is covering up.

 

[maxparrish]

Given the responses of pro-hillary media and the forum "liberals" giddyness over her testimony, one might think that a willingness to dodge, dissemble, and brazenly lie is not a vice, but a awesome virtue. Does not a flock crowing over evasion, dissembling, and bold lies tells us as much about the crows as it does Ms. Clinton? (paragraph edited for clarity).

But, so far, that seems to be her "virtue" - it's not that she is actually a criminal in a legal sense, right?

Maxie, if you're gonna post a video that's supposedly the most important part of the whole 11 hour debacle, you should really post something more smashing than a heretofore unknown GOP hack launching broadsides against a clearly bored and unimpressed former Secretary. ...

If I am "gonna post a video" of one of the more important parts of the inquiry, you needn't have wasted the learning opportunity by being rapt awe of the witness's facial mugging - well, not unless you are looking for Hillary to signal you how to feel. One supposes it never occurred to you to have actually listened to the content of those broadsides, or the lame and unconvincing responses of the witness, true?

Naaawww...Hillary looked unimpressed, why, that's all you needed to know!

Actually, your video does something you probably didn't intend. It does sum up Thursday's hearing...just not in the way you thought it did. You look at that video and probably need to keep a tissue handy in case you "finish" before the end of the clip, but the media (both left and right as I've already demonstrated...even dedicated anti-Hillary pundits) look at it as indicative of the whole day-long farce.

Or you can read or hear the testimony and not let the media define your reality. Among the things you could have learned are:

- E-mails indicate that Clinton and the administration, knew all along the assault was driven by al-Qaeda sponsored terrorists.

- Yet, they cynically lied and dissembled to the American people and the families of victims that a you-tube video was responsible - Clinton even promising the families that the maker of the movie would be "brought to justice" for his film (so much for free speech).

- They continued to parrot the lie days after the attacks, in spite of their knowledge of the actual cause.

What remains to be explained by Clinton (and Obama) is why they lied? Why protect terrorists? Who told Hillary to lie or did Hillary spin this fake explanation on her own?

A lot of GOP grandstanding that pretty much bounced off the former Senator without causing any damage whatsoever.

Yes...yes...get that the suspect did not confess even when her explanations were patently absurd, not atypical of many suspects in interrogation. Like OJ Simpson's impossible yarns and endless denial, it does not make her less guilty.

Drip...drip...drip goes the tears on your pillow...

A good week indeed, but only a week. The drip...drip...drip will likely continue at least till the FBI decides if it has the balls to recommend charges. And it may continue much longer if the judges continue to demand that she and State quit slow-walking FOIA requests.

Stay tuned...

 

[Ford]

Or you can read or hear the testimony and not let the media define your reality.

Oh, poor Maxie. You formed an opinion based on your hatred of all things Hillary, watched the testimony through that lens, and felt it reinforced your already stated opinion that she's the most evil person ever...as bad as OJ, even.

Since nobody had posted anything on the hearing - the latest in a long line of investigations which have yet to turn up even a smidgen of wrongdoing on the part of Clinton - I figured it was time for a thread. I went with media reaction because not everyone can take 11 hours out of their day to watch C-Span. Media reaction can do a decent job of reflecting reality...especially when several independent sources corroborate the narrative. The coverage from both left and right came to pretty much the same conclusion:

This was a net positive for the Secretary.

The right was clearly disappointed, but no right-leaning mainstream source portrayed it as a triumph for Gowdy and his committee.

There are those on the left who despise Hillary, and they concede that she won the day.

Is that "the media" defining reality? No, that's media reporting on reality. That's their job.

You have your own reality you've made up in your head, and are throwing a temper tantrum because the reporting from "the media" doesn't jibe with your own reality.

 

[ZiprHead]

Maxie, if you're gonna post a video that's supposedly the most important part of the whole 11 hour debacle, you should really post something more smashing than a heretofore unknown GOP hack launching broadsides against a clearly bored and unimpressed former Secretary. ...

If I am "gonna post a video" of one of the more important parts of the inquiry, you needn't have wasted the learning opportunity by being rapt awe of the witness's facial mugging - well, not unless you are looking for Hillary to signal you how to feel. One supposes it never occurred to you to have actually listened to the content of those broadsides, or the lame and unconvincing responses of the witness, true?

Naaawww...Hillary looked unimpressed, why, that's all you needed to know!

Actually, your video does something you probably didn't intend. It does sum up Thursday's hearing...just not in the way you thought it did. You look at that video and probably need to keep a tissue handy in case you "finish" before the end of the clip, but the media (both left and right as I've already demonstrated...even dedicated anti-Hillary pundits) look at it as indicative of the whole day-long farce.

Or you can read or hear the testimony and not let the media define your reality. Among the things you could have learned are:

- E-mails indicate that Clinton and the administration, knew all along the assault was driven by al-Qaeda sponsored terrorists.

- Yet, they cynically lied and dissembled to the American people and the families of victims that a you-tube video was responsible - Clinton even promising the families that the maker of the movie would be "brought to justice" for his film (so much for free speech).

- They continued to parrot the lie days after the attacks, in spite of their knowledge of the actual cause.

What remains to be explained by Clinton (and Obama) is why they lied? Why protect terrorists? Who told Hillary to lie or did Hillary spin this fake explanation on her own?

A lot of GOP grandstanding that pretty much bounced off the former Senator without causing any damage whatsoever.

Yes...yes...get that the suspect did not confess even when her explanations were patently absurd, not atypical of many suspects in interrogation. Like OJ Simpson's impossible yarns and endless denial, it does not make her less guilty.

Drip...drip...drip goes the tears on your pillow...

A good week indeed, but only a week. The drip...drip...drip will likely continue at least till the FBI decides if it has the balls to recommend charges. And it may continue much longer if the judges continue to demand that she and State quit slow-walking FOIA requests.

Stay tuned...

Found this at another forum:

Quote:
The C.I.A. analysts quickly scrubbed references to Al Qaeda from the key part of the draft, investigators on Capitol Hill now tell me.
Or was it interagency blame dumping?

Quote:
On Friday evening of Sept. 14, the updated talking points were e-mailed to the relevant officials in various departments, including Nuland. She wondered why the C.I.A. was giving members of Congress talking points that were far more assertive than anything she could say or defend herself. She also noted that the talking points left the impression that the C.I.A. had issued all sorts of warnings before the attack.

Remember, this was at a moment when the State Department was taking heat for what was mostly a C.I.A. operation, while doing verbal gymnastics to hide the C.I.A.’s role. Intentionally or not, the C.I.A. seemed to be repaying the favor by trying to shift blame to the State Department for ignoring intelligence.
Then again, knee-jerk but innocent CIA scrubbing to hide their covert operations in Libya is also the most likely possibility supported by the evidence:

Quote:
On Saturday morning, what’s called a deputies committee meeting was held at the White House. I’m told the talking points barely came up at that meeting. Instead, the C.I.A. representative said he would take proactive measures to streamline them. That day, the agency reduced the talking points to the bare nub Susan Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations, was given before going on the Sunday talk shows.
The NYT Op Ed ends with the most likely interpretation of the evidence:

Quote:
Several things were apparently happening. Each of the different players had their hands on a different piece of the elephant. If there was any piece of the talking points that everybody couldn’t agree upon, it got cut. Second, the administration proceeded with extreme caution about drawing conclusions, possibly overlearning the lessons from the Bush years. Third, as the memos moved up the C.I.A. management chain, the higher officials made them more tepid (this is apparently typical). Finally, in the absence of a clear narrative, the talking points gravitated toward the least politically problematic story, blaming the anti-Muslim video and the Cairo demonstrations.

Is this a tale of hard intelligence being distorted for political advantage? Maybe. Did Victoria Nuland scrub the talking points to serve Clinton or President Obama? That charge is completely unsupported by the evidence. She was caught in a brutal interagency turf war, and she defended her department. The accusations against her are bogus.