Why do you think those people are crazy? They’re entitled to their opinions. The only thing they are lacking is proof.
Has Chris Christie turned over every single email anyone has ever asked for? If he hasn’t, how do we know there isn’t proof?
Elections have consequences.
- Barack Obama
The last I heard on the subject was that the Democrat party was planning on boycotting the investigation.
7 R’s and 0 D’s?
7 R’s and 1 D?
I assume you’ve conceded the Benghazi/Hillary/Obama debate.
There’s nothing to debate. A bad thing happened because bad people did something. It’s happened over a dozen times in recent years. I, for one, am very glad we have the leadership we do at times like this. YMMV. End of debate.
The Obama administration has dragged out the investigation of the alleged cover up and the alleged cover up of the cover up as long as it could. Unless Obama is going to claim Executive Privilege for himself and Hillary or himself and whomever, the investigation will continue and maybe I’ll find out what Obama was actually doing that day.
Not if you gerrymander heavily enough. More Americans voted for Dems than Reps in the last House elections - but what consequences do they get, other than Obamacare! :eek:and its reinstated replacement Benghazi! :eek:
Oh, please. :rolleyes:
You really don’t see that your Christie posts are being mocked? If that’s the case, then tell us - what position do you think “won” what you call the “Benghazi/Hillary/Obama debate”? What are the facts you think are being conceded, and what conclusion do you “winners” draw from them?
Or maybe you already know, and the people “dragging out” this shit are not the administration. Do you at least concede that’s a possibility?
That is a ridiculous statement. House Republicans have dragged out a lengthy series of supposed investigations, all of which plow the same well furrowed ground and reveal nothing new of the slightest consequence. And all of which ignore the only subject that actually would matter, that being how might future attacks be foreseen and prevented.
Ray Charles can see that the only justification for these never-ending “have you quit beating your wife” investigations [sic] is purely political.
A nice graphic showing how the official GOP talking point has changed in the last month, as the success of Obamacare has become deniable only by the diehards.
Misdirection for the easily misdirected.
Why do you care? What does it matter what he was doing? Would it have changed anything? Since it’s been confirmed that there was no personnel in any position to have helped, what could Obama have done to change the situation? That’s why you’re alone on this, everyone else can clearly see it’s immaterial.
What’s the point of this question? Panetta and Ham and other military types had already said there was no military assets available to respond quickly and the only video feed was a drone high in the sky (and even experienced operators would have had great difficulty trying to make sense of a drone’s images of an unfamiliar city in the dark–I don’t expect Obama to be sitting there trying to decide which set of dots represented which militia). Would it have made any difference in the overall situation or outcome if Obama were in the situation room or the dining room or the Oval Office or the gym? Would your opinion of him change in any of those rooms?
Carney says that Obama received updates from his national security staff through the evening. Assuming for purposes of argument that is true, does it matter to you WHERE those updates take place?
For that matter, we do know where Obama was for part of the night. Around 7pm EDT (just after 1am in Libya), Obama was in the family quarters, from where he called Netanyahu of Israel and discussed the Middle East situation; the two were on the phone for about an hour. Would it change your opinion of Obama in any way if that phone call had been made from the Oval Office or the situation room instead? Would it have changed the phone call in any way?
I know this is old in this thread, but I laughed outloud when I read the phrase “damaging to the integrity of the debate process”.
Presidential “debates” have to be the most worthless milestone in the presidential campaign. They rarely have an impact on the election, they perpetuate the myth of the undecided voter (elections today are all about getting as much of your base out as possible–the only indecision is whether or not they’ll vote at all, not which candidate they’ll vote for), and they are basically structured like parallel, interlaced press releases.
Whatever “integrity” is being damaged is one that perpetuates their non-relevance as anything other than entertainment value. Crowley probably harmed her chances to host another one, but so what? The interjection certainly improved her media Q-rating, didn’t really change either candidate’s prospects, and made for an interesting distraction for those who still watch.
I for one am willing to concede whatever I’m supposed to be conceding. I will even go so far as to say that Obama should NOT serve as prez after 2016. All I ask in return is that you get the Rs and FOX to shut up about Benghazi.
Congratulations, you win. Logic, Reality, and Maturity lose. Now go have a cognac and a nice cigar with your cronies.
(post shortened)
Did they close the other thread?
As far as Benghazi is concerned, questions were asked and questions weren’t answered. What happened to transparency? What’s the WH SOP? If we don’t provide specific answers they must stop asking questions?
Ravenman changed to subject to Christie. Because of that, I assumed he conceded the Benghazi/Hillary/Obama debate.
(post shortened)
It’s a question. A question that I would like to know the answer to. Why do you object to questions being asked? Is it a national security issue?
So, doorhinge has found a new cause!
Well, it does seem a bit petulant. Like a desperate attempt to say, “See, Obama was watching Breaking Bad in his underwear while people died!!!”
Hehe well said. I didn’t mean that to sound as wide-eyed as it did. But I do hate to see anyone gratuitously providing fodder to charges of liberal media bias.
It wasn’t Ravenman, it was I, Procrustus. And, yes, I was mocking you. One thread seems not enough for all the mocking.
Sure it’s a question. Is it a question that merits a congressional investigation?
Such investigations are not “free.” The time, money, effort, and energy spent on an investigation is time/money/effort/energy not available for other investigations and other activities (such as bringing the bad guys to justice, or preventing similar incidents elsewhere). Is your question of sufficient importance that it needs or deserves an investigation to get the answer? If so, please explain this importance.