Congressman Gowdy has shown a talent for tough questioning of administration officials. Perhaps, finally...Americans will find the truth out about the Benghazi attacks.
Hillary Clinton and those surrounding her think the deaths of 4 brave Americans makes no difference.
"WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE!!!!"
Remember, those that dared to uncover the truth about the Monica Lewinsky/Bill Clinton affair and Clinton's lies under oath about it? The Clinton's methodically destroyed the careers and reputations of those that dared to lead the impeachment proceedings.
Here are just a few examples of the attacks on Trey Gowdy so far by the Clinton apologists:
| >>> | Gowdy is a lunatic: Left-wing
publication Mother Jones has called Gowdy a lunatic
because he is a "tea-party true believer." | |
| >>> | Gowdy is politicizing Benghazi:
Democrat Campaign chief, Congressman Steve Israel, and Nancy Pelosi are accusing
Gowdy of politicizing Benghazi saying, "House Republicans are spending all their
time trying to invent new ways to politicize the Benghazi
tragedy." | |
| >>> | Gowdy is stupid and confused:
Ranking Democrat member Elijah Cummings believes Trey Gowdy is stupid and
confused saying, "I do not understand what the House Republicans are doing on
Benghazi, and apparently they don't either." | |
| >>> | Gowdy's hair is unacceptable: MSNBC is attacking Gowdy's hair. That's right, far-left cable news outfit MSNBC is even attacking Gowdy's hair -- mocking his hair as "unkempt, multi-directional silver locks." |
We recently discussed Senator McCarthy here on the board....
ReplyDeleteWitness now how the Benghazi disaster becomes all about Trey Gowdy and not Hillary Clinton.
The progressives are circling the wagons on their last best chance at retaining power.
The destruction of Trey Gowdy begins.
In April 1983, radical Shiite suicide bombers blew up the US embassy in Beirut, killing 63. Reagan did nothing to prevent this attack, and his ultimate response to it and a later deadly attack on US Marines in Beirut was to quietly withdraw from Lebanon (he called it “redeploying offshore”). Democrats at the time controlled Congress but they didn’t have endless hearings on how Reagan failed our diplomats by not being prepared, nor about whether it was wise for Reagan to shell Lebanese villages from the sea and kill 1,000 people.
ReplyDeleteWho exactly were those "people" in those villages Mick? Perhaps this "response" was justified?
DeleteOn the other hand, we have no one in custody for the events in Benghazi. No retribution, just MoveOn down the road. What differrence does it make?
I guess you're on the tar Gowdy side huh Mick.
No. I really know nothing about Gowdy. There have been several congressional investigations of Benghazi already so I am wondering why have yet another. It was clearly a tragedy and I wish we had a Congress and President who had the intestinal fortitude to take action, but there is little chance of that happening. So, instead we get a politically motivated witch hunt, no action, no retribution. It is no wonder that the Congressional approval rating hit a whopping 5 % last week.
DeleteWe'll see where Mr. Gowdy will take us now won't we Mick. But save me in advance the comparisons to McCarthy, Satan, Nixon, and Scoter Libby for that matter.
DeleteIt would be nice to know where the President and Ms. Clinton were on the evening in question. Simple White house logs would probably answer the question in an instant. Why are they being covered up? We certainly saw the tape of where they were when Bin Laden was killed (Over and over again).
Let's just wait and see where this all plays out.
Perhaps if the White house would release the balance of the emails without being forced to by judicial action this process would be less painful for BO and Hillary.
Let's just wait and see where this all plays out.
William it is all about weakening Hilary Clinton before 2016. Why? Because you can't beat her. That's called politicizing. Being an ambassador in a radical country is a dangerous business. Every rapid deployment force available was sent, Benghazi, and Tripoli, there were no others. Here is a non radical story of what happened by a Libyan close friend of Stevens named Habib Brubaker.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/201211/sean-flynn-j-christopher-stevens-benghazi-libya-ambassador?currentPage=1
Now William I realize that this story doesn't come from the radical right so the details are going to be a little different from what you have been conditioned and indoctrinated to believe. Why aren't you calling this man Habib Brubaker to your hearings? He was in Benghazi with Stevens shortly before the attacks and witnessed much of it. He doesn't say what you want to hear.
As for Gowdy ,he does have bad hair but so might I on some days so I won't hold that against him
As for Tail Gunner Joe, here is a portion of the story of the Army McCarthy hearings from the History Channel:
ReplyDeleteIn early 1954, he charged that the United States Army was "soft" on communism. McCarthy was indignant because David Schine, one of his former investigators, had been drafted and the Army, much to McCarthy's surprise, refused the special treatment he demanded for his former aide. In April 1954, McCarthy, chairman of the Government Operations Committee in the Senate, opened televised hearings into his charges against the Army.
The hearings were a fiasco for McCarthy. He constantly interrupted with irrelevant questions and asides; yelled "point of order" whenever testimony was not to his liking; and verbally attacked witnesses, attorneys for the Army, and his fellow senators. The climax came when McCarthy slandered an associate of the Army's chief counsel, Joseph Welch. Welch fixed McCarthy with a steady glare and declared evenly, "Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness...Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?"
A stunned McCarthy listened as the packed audience exploded into cheers and applause. McCarthy's days as a political power were effectively over. A few weeks later, the Army hearings dribbled to a close with little fanfare and no charges were upheld against the Army by the committee. In December 1954, the Senate voted to censure McCarthy for his conduct. Three years later, having become a hopeless alcoholic, he died.
So here we go. Here we go.
DeleteHow will Gowdy be portrayed in the coming months? You have just foreshadowed it Mick. Today our professional government media is light years more efficient at tar and feathering their opposition. But I expect more from you Mick. Much more.
Let's just wait and see how this all plays out.
I don't know how he will be portrayed, hopefully no as McCarthy redux. As the quote above depicts, McCarthy tarred and feathered himself, needed no help. When he attacked the army because they wouldn't give his boy Private Schein favored treatment, and accused the army of harboring communists, he lost Republican support. Remember this was the Eisenhower era. His antics on the new journalistic medium of television exposed him to the American public. Lets hope that Gowdy holds these hearings in a professional manner and doesn't make those same mistakes.
ReplyDeleteMorning everybody.
ReplyDeleteNow here is something with a world wide interest and dare I say it, a subject the rest of the world tries valiantly to understand. We press our noses harder and harder against the cold glass in the window as we try to get just a little understanding of the political process which is, or has been put in place.
We do not worry too much as to the guilt or innocence of those allegedly involved; we do not even worry if the protagonists are red or blue. What we can be sure of however is that both sides of politics will be involved and that each side will spend weeks, months or even years struggling to wring out every last drop of political blood from the episode.
For us outsiders it is confusing to see the Republicans trying to demolish the Democrats (or perhaps I should say the possibility of a future Democratic presidency) rather than prosecute policies which could be for the betterment of the nation if the Repubs are chosen at the next Presidential election. Will the uncommitted (independents) voters be persuaded to vote for the Repubs following this investigation? Have not the population had enough of scandal and chicanery from public officials over the past several decades? And can either party claim to be cleaner than the other? Of course the picture will become clouded by the MSM as they push the barrow their editorial department directs.
As you would be aware, the affair in Benghazi received little coverage outside America and the salacious details about to be released now will do little for America’s reputation abroad. As an aside and totally off topic, I note with regret there has been no mention on this thread of the latest mass killing in your country. I believe more lives lost than in the Benghazi affair.
Cheers from Aussie
good day King. that is such a true statement. But the difference is there is no Hilary Clinton to try to destroy in the mass shootings (Actually killings he did knife three of them), so it matters not to the right. They stay very silent on gun crimes King. They don't want to upset their future right to own a tank or missile.
Deletehttp://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-has-secret-lunch-with-obama-at-the-white-house-210512165.html
DeleteCoordinating the lies.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/hillary-clintons-benghazi-chapter-107240.html
DeleteHillary's new book about Benghazi, It takes a village to kill four Americans.
William. Thanks for the links contained within your last two posts. I have read both and am better informed. I would however be obliged if you could fill in a gap concerning the relevance from a Tea Party perspective. I see neither as outright propaganda for the Republicans, rather somewhat mild innuendoes. Ms Clintons words quote but there is a difference between unanswered questions and unlistened to answers.” Unquote. does strike something of a balance between the two extremes. MS Clinton would certainly never get my vote for the top job but your political system is certainly virulent in its treatment of the lady.
ReplyDeleteCheers from Aussie
I have stated here before that I think Hillary will decide after the November elections what presidential direction she will take. If the Repubs win handily, which I'm unsure of, I think she sets sail for the sunset.
DeleteMs. Clinton has had many a hard year during the past two decades. The Benghazi issue is reinforced by the animosity residing just below the surface by our professional military. Witness the underwhelming response received by BO this past week.
King, we left people stranded on a battle field. This is something that "we do not do." This is not a Tea Party issue alone. As much as Gowdy would I'm sure side with us in a knife fight he has an important historical role to play. My prediction, he will shine.
We did not leave people stranded on the battlefield William. That is a bit of an overreach. It was an attack on a US diplomatic instillation and not a very well fortified one. Rapid response teams from Benghazi were sent. Rapid response team from Tripoli was sent. That was all the assets that were available that could get there in time.
DeleteWilliam it isn't that no one wanted to send help as you like to think. there wasn't any more help that could mobilize and get there in time.
Do you realize how much time it takes to mobilize even rapid response teams? Hours.
Now I realize that Chuck Norris can get it done in a few minutes but that my friend is the movies. Real life doesn't quite work that way, and William did you know that RTC's have pretty much total autonomy as to if to go or not.? They can make the determination if they can be of help, be timely, etc.
Well since we don't declare our wars anymore preferring to call them various substitute names such as conflict or such I suppose people with guns and granade launchers don't count as a battlefield wile they mow down our people.
DeleteI guess the "war on terror" doesn't apply according to the the lawyers who name such things anymore.