Benghazi Hearing Today!!! - Page 6

n david · #51 05-08-2013, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by odooley6985

Question for everyone. What do people think really happened? Surely they dont believe the FOX news report that Obama was watching the attack live and refused to send help. Why would Obama just turn his head while these people were in harms way? What would that profit him?

We know a couple things: 1) he went to bed during the firefight; 2) he woke up the next morning and flew out to Vegas for a fundraiser, while Benghazi was still in chaos.

I think he was thinking about his re-election. He didn't send troops because doing so would admit his spike in the endzone, "Al Qaeda is on the path to defeat, and Osama bin Laden is dead," was wrong. He did exactly what W did, with W's battleship "Mission Accomplished" banner.

So, no he wasn't going to send troops into a firefight that he had been claiming wasn't happening.

Unfortunately for Obama, crawling into bed, then flying to Vegas to pretend nothing was happening in Benghazi, and spending the next months LYING to Congress and the American people about some stupid youtube video...that will haunt him the rest of his Presidency.

He won't be impeached. The media won't let it happen. They're too vested in his administration. They'll put out "polls" which claim Republicans are losing support for their hearings on Benghazi, and that the public is tired of hearing about it. And Democrats will whine about Republicans making it political.

2016 can't get here soon enough.

Pressing-On · #52 05-08-2013, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

concerning susan rice, that has already been vetted, intelligence authored her talking points. concerning security, congress cut the solicited funds. concerning hicks demotion, who cares? that is what happens when you buck the pecking order. i see nothing devastating or watergatish so far. waiting for the media spin.

You may say she had been vetted, but you didn't have a whistleblower come forth and refute her and Hillary's testimony. Now we have one. It's not over by far.

But, like I said, I will be very surprised if anything comes from this. Except you have Gowdy hanging on like a bulldog. WOOF!

Pressing-On · #53 05-08-2013, 04:57 PM

Recap is tonight on C-span at 9:00 p.m. ET for anyone wanting to see it.

Pressing-On · #54 05-08-2013, 05:22 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rglr1WWjY4

REP. JASON CHAFFETZ (R-UT): Mr. Chairman, I think one of the unanswered questions here is, if it's a possibility, if there's any chance that we could get military overflight -- if we could get a military flight there, then we would ask permission in advance.

My concern is there was never an intention, there was never an attempt to actually get these military aircraft over there. I think one of the hard questions that we have to ask is not only about the tankers, but what was the NATO response? We flew for months over Libya. Months!

We conducted an air campaign, we have assets, we have NATO partners. We worked, for instance, with the Italians. It is stunning that our government, the power of the United States of America couldn't get a tanker in the air. Mr. Hicks, when did you think this was actually over -- it was done, we were safe?

GREGORY HICKS, BENGHAZI WHISTLEBLOWER: Not until our personnel landed in Tripoli.

Pressing-On · #55 05-08-2013, 05:25 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct_PHtLkgWw

Gowdy - Did she (Rice) talk to you before she went on the 5 Sunday Talk shows?

Hicks - No, sir.

Gowdy - You were the highest ranking official in Libya at the time? Correct?

Hicks - Yes, Sir.

Gowdy - And she did not bother to have a conversation with you before she went on national television?

Hicks - No, Sir

Gowdy - So, Ambassador Rice directly contradicts the evidence on the ground in Libya. She directly contradicts the President of Libya. She directly contradicts the last statement uttered by Ambassador Stevens. Mr. Hicks who was Beth Jones?

Hicks - Beth Jones is the acting assistant secretary for Near Eastern Affairs at the State Dept.

Dedicated Mind · #56 05-08-2013, 05:33 PM

this is nothing more than partisan criticism. nothing substantial. only being covered by fox. no effect on hillary.

Pressing-On · #57 05-08-2013, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

this is nothing more than partisan criticism. nothing substantial. only being covered by fox. no effect on hillary.

Only being covered by Fox? LOL! Then Dennis Miller is exactly right - "The Press is not going to go after this story. Woodward and Bernstein became Woodward and Bernstein because what they did to Nixon. The key thing in that equation was Nixon. You had a free reign on him. You can't go after this guy. You won't get Woodward and Bernstein status. You will be out of the game. If you're the one that brings down Barrack Obama, you will be out of the game. And if you go after Hillary who is going to run the next 8 years, you'll be more out of the game. So, in this case, it's just not going to happen. The Press it not going dig on this."

Pressing-On · #58 05-08-2013, 05:48 PM

Chaffetz questions State Department Officials at Benghazi Hearing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt9n9ONXxwg

Pressing-On · #59 05-08-2013, 06:06 PM

Gregory Hicks' 30 Minute Recount of Benghazi Attack

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajmNFLEserY

Pressing-On · #60 05-08-2013, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Benghazi Report: Does This Require Impeachment?

The House has finished their investigation into the Benghazi debacle and has now released the report from the investigation. Of course the mainstream propaganda machine (the press) will not release the report, so here it is:

http://www.redstatereport.com/2013/0...e-impeachment/

Aside from the original title question, the last paragraph of the article gives the more likely answer.