Skip to comments.No Showboating at the Benghazi Hearings, Please
Posted on 05/07/2013 9:32:28 AM PDT by chessplayer
Dear Republicans on the House Oversight Committee:
Please do not grandstand. Please do not take the time before the television cameras to tell us how outraged you are, even though what you are investigating is, indeed, outrageous. There will be plenty of time for that after the hearing. All day Wednesday, give us the facts, and then more facts, and then more facts.
Just ask the questions of the witnesses. Let them speak and dont cut them off. Do not give the Obama administration any cover to claim that this is a partisan witch hunt from unhinged political opponents. Dont waste time complaining about the medias lack of interest or coverage so far. Just give them and us the facts to tell the story, a story that will leave all of us demanding accountability.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
“Your country thanks you for having the courage to come forward to speak the truth. My first question is .......”
That should be the extent of “comments”.
“Let them speak and dont cut them off.”
I wish O’reilly and Hannity would follow that advice.
As to the those testifying on behalf of the regime, the GOPers need to be as tough as possible, not let them get away with non-answers, and get under their skin. Liberals have a vey low tolderance for anybody questioning their motives. They will eventually crack and show their true colors. IOW, forget being gentlemen. Be attack dogs.
Even if such commentary offends the media.
Otherwise the only people who will know what actually went on will be you and I.
forget being gentlemen. Be attack dogs.
Like Dems will not make self serving comments.....
Sounds like again we have a liberal RINO rag telling conservatives to “quiet down”
Dems and liberals play dirty. Its time to grow some and realize it. Grow some and impeach the Kenya Muslim.
This is a ‘code word’ for Broadway, which is a ‘code word’ for gay bashing.
Which of course is hate as expressed by Repubs.
The last thing I would want to do is censor anyone's attack on this administration. If they have the balls to fight Obama/Clinton, I will support them!
You said it perfectly!
[[No Showboating at the Benghazi Hearings, Please]]
Sure, as long as dfear leader and ilk don’t trott out the victim’s families from Sandy Hook to try to tug at the heartstrings of Aemrica for political purposes and to try to ban guns- oh wait- that’s already happened
This country needs the witness testimony put in context. Either the media and Dems will do it or Republicans on that committee will do it.
“And look for the media to ‘Gosnell’ the hearings.”
Gosnell, MSM blackout of a significant event.
Should be added to the FR Dictinary.
precisely, the reaso nthe GOP is LOSING the war is because they have been WAY too passive- over and over and over again thel eft w3alks all over them, the right shrinks in fear, and the left get away with bloody murder- literally in some cases- W’eve had our supreme court bullied, our religions attacked, our Christians attacked, our conservatives belittled and bullied, healthcare unconstitutionally forced down our throats, We have states violating our unalienable ruights by rammking htrough unconstitutional bills outlawing guns- rammign htrough ‘emergency bills’ telling resterauints what they can and can’t sell anyl ogner- what peopel can east and can’t eat- and we’re supposed to just be ‘respectful’?
Otherwise, be kind, gentle, and respect the Democrats. Don’t ask questions that could embarrass or accuse the Obama administration.
I don’t know if the hearings will be conducted in the house of in the senate. If they are in the senate, it probably won’t mean squat. If they are in the house we might see some serious fireworks.
Asking a politician to NOT grandstand is like asking a rattlesnake not to rattle his tail.
Grandstanding is in their DNA. So we need to be prepared for emoting emotions worthy of Hollywood.
True. And thats exactly what liberals hope they do.
Otherwise, be kind, gentle, and respect the Democrats. Dont ask questions that could embarrass or accuse the Obama administration.
They can’t do that without turning it into a circus?
“If they have the balls to fight Obama/Clinton, I will support them!”
I fully agree with you, but after hearings like Waco and Fast & Furious, I have had to accept that this is all just Kabuki theater to fool the sheeple into believing that they are represented in our government, and rule of law still exists in the US.
You can trust the Dems to endlessly bloviate to suck up as much time with their BS as possible.
I just PRAY the pubbies DO NOT BLOVIATE but ask POINTED and PITHY QUESTIONS THEN SHUT THE HELL UP AND LET THE WITNESSES TESTIFY, followed BY OTHER POINTED, PITHY QUESTIONS TO BUTTRESS THE TESTIMONY!
This country CANNOT survive another full term of this BADMINISTRATION. HE’S GOT TO GO and TAKE HILLARY WITH HIM.
(Sorry for the shouting but this could be the big one.)
Anyone wanting on or off this ping list, please advise.
And, more importantly, what are these outraged investigators going to do about it when they find out that lives were unneccesarily sacrificed because of Hillary’s negligence?
Anybody can be outraged or claim to be.
Greta addressed this very question with a committee member (do not remember who) and the response WAS as you indicate. If they blow this.....
Do you remember the Iran-Contra hearings and how the Dems had really primed the pump to take down Ollie North and, through him, Reagan? Oh, how they preened! THEN Col. North appeared and it was a take-down of beauty. A quarter century later I still chuckle when I think of it!
I agree wholeheartedly with this warning to the Congressmen. Shut up and let the witnesses be the story. You can get your ‘glory’ later. Pray God, they listen.
“No showboating before the television cameras to tell us how outraged you are”
Don’t do what democrats do!
And look for the media to Gosnell the hearings. Gosnell, MSM blackout of a significant event. Should be added to the FR Dictinary.What we need is not a name for the particular tactic, but a proper name for what we have been calling the media. IMHO that name should be, "conspiracy journalism
Liberals who hate Adam Smith love his statement that "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. What liberals do not discuss is the fact that the Associated Press newswire is a virtual meeting of all the major journalistic institutions in the country. If there is any truth at all to Smiths dictum, a meeting of people of the same trade which has been operating continuously since the middle of the Nineteenth Century must, by now, have devolved into little else but "a conspiracy against the public.
If AP journalism is a conspiracy, what does it do to the public? Conspiracy journalism misleads the public into trusting the untrustworthy, and distrusting the trustworthy. People who work successfully to a bottom line are trustworthy, and people who seek authority without responsibility are untrustworthy. Conspiracy journalism promotes the critic and denigrates the man in the arena. Give the critic authority, and he will fail to execute his nominal mission even as well as the man he criticized. But what the critic will do successfully is deflect any criticism of his performance by boasting of his wonderful intentions. With the full support of conspiracy journalism.
If I understand correctly what you’ve written, I agree. So, CJ it is! Now, let’s see if the moniker will latch on to the conspiracy journalists and stick like stink.
Here’s a good piece of CJ, from Wikipedia’s entry on Benghazi—the ‘Talk’ about it.
“Accusation sentence 
The opening paragraph says that the “The Republican Party accused the Obama administration of over-emphasizing the role of the video,” - that isn’t the case, at least not according to the article that is supposedly the citation for that sentence. It actually says: “On Sunday, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee told CNN there was no proof indicating the attack was related to protests over an anti-Islam video.” His name is Mike Rogers - this could be considered an accusation by implication, but it is not an accusation, and it certainly isn’t “an entire party”. Further, the person doing the accusation, in that citation is here: ‘On Wednesday, Townsend said a law enforcement source told her investigators from day one “have known clearly that this was a terrorist attack.” ‘. Who knows what party the law enforcement source is. I’m pretty new to editing Wikipedia, so I don’t want to start editing controversial articles, but someone with more experience than me should look at this. Durron597 (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)”
Note that this was edited as of today.
Don’t worry Republicans are experts at not exploiting any event for political advantage and blowing every opportunity. The Praetorian Media will not allow that to happen. The R’s will continue to be the lap dog gentlemen we’ve come to expect.
“But here’s one for you to add to the FR Dictinary: D-i-c-t-i-o-n-a-r-y.”
ha.. thanks. Dang iPad.
Uh-huh, iPad, yeah right, you bet, iPad.
>> No Showboating at the Benghazi Hearings
McCain and Graham?
Wikipedia has the same characteristic as Conspiracy Journalism: it is pretty trustworthy when discussing a topic which is devoid of political implication - and liberal by default when there are political implications.
“Uh-huh, iPad, yeah right, you bet, iPad.”
It’s an iPad 1. Cut me some slack. hehe...