No true patriot he.
Issa always seems to be about - Issa.
Right. If this would have helped the White House narrative they would have released it themselves long before now.
Nice attempt as distraction, though I give credence to the hypothesis— it’s the same thing I thought when I read the e-mail about the WH warning about the video during the attack. However, there’s nothing convoluted or conspiratorial about Obama’s having to answer the main question, where was he during the attack?
First of all New Republic has this story completely twisted
around.
“Ah…ok. Let’s draw out that conspiracy theory in a little more detail, shall we? What follows is a brief, fictitious dialogue between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the night of September 11, 2012.”
“brief, fictitious dialogue” In other words lets use another
lie to enplane this lie.
“The White House is thrilled with this revelation because it supports the view that their early citations of the YouTube video were sincere”
No Mrs.Beutler it doesn’t you jackass, it exposes the lie
they told when they said it came from the CIA.
I don’t understand that with the appointment of the Select Committee, that Issa’s Committee isn’t required to cease its’ investigation of Benghazi and turn over all information gained to the Select Committee. Obviously, The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader have less power than I thought.
Clinton: Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.
CNN: “It was not an innocent mob,” one senior official said. “The video or 9/11 made a handy excuse and could be fortuitous from their perspective but this was a clearly planned military-type attack.”
“ISSA” is JESUS in Arabic.
I wonder if anyone here actually read the article. Please do so and then explain what Issa did wrong. This is the New Republic doing the “reporting”. Look them up in wikipedia.
Yes, Trey Gowdy is a much better choice than Issa was to lead the Behghazi charge. But this article is just a typical lib hit piece. Issa was simply point out the obvious. This article is just trying to muddy the waters on the on the issue of Hillary’s favorite YouTube video. It won’t work. 60% or so of the people in this country aren’t stupid. Well maybe 52%.
This article is sooo stoopid! I knew that it was gonna be some kinda sh*t sandwich the moment I saw that it was printed in the New Republic. Weak!
“... before the CIA began the process of compiling talking points on its analysis of what happened—the White House believed it was in retaliation for a controversial video”
Only way these tools would have so quickly made that connection was to possess the knowledge of the attack in advance, so they could contrive their storyline
If you really think it was the video, then site me all the evidence.
I find it hard to pay attention to anyone who doesn't know the difference between two different words that sound the same, but are spelled differently and have quite different meanings. He meant to use the word "cite", but he's apparently too ignorant, too dense, and too dependent on spell check to be taken seriously.
Anyone as ineffective as Issa in a private company would have been fired a long time ago.
I don’t see how this helps the WH, everyone knows the apology for the YouTube video was sent out the day before the terrorist attack.
New Republic works overtime to keep conservatives splintered and riled up against one another.
Issa ran the tables against a stone wall from the beginning, stuck chairing an ordinary committee with no teeth, no enforcement mechanism, no political clout and left with issuing his toothless subpoenas, which served the delighted administration with an opportunity to blow those off too, along with humiliating Issa personally.
No Special Prosecutor, and this is what you get. Five different committees were strategically used to drag this out nearer to election cycles.
A Special Committee has more teeth, tools and track talent, but still, even impeachment is unlikely and the Reid senate removes, nor even punishes, anyone.
Within the confines of Republican strategy to drag this out and within the limits of an ordinary committee, Issa met the goal. Imho.
Do we really know who made the video? (I heard there were actually 4 videos in question)
What if the State Department made the videos?
Hmmmm...
I’m back to shoot holes in Benghazi, again. Please don’t read if t’s too upsetting. And understand that my only interest in any investigations is convincing 67 Senators to stop the bleeding and remove “Obama” from office.
“Obama” is the very meaning of “domestic enemy”. He has committed, or caused to be committed crimes and has also conducted a program, with associates known and (especially) unknown to subvert our form of government. Any Congress worthy of their oaths would have removed him 18 months ago.
“Benghazi” is especially galling to patriots, since it involves abandonment of American representatives to be slaughtered by Islamic fanatics. But it’s key to recognize that most US Senators and a very substantial minority in the House are not patriots and don’t give two sh**s about what happened in Benghazi.
No American President has ever been removed by Congress. Only two have come close (Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon). In both cases, it was proven that they had committed or caused to be committed crimes that would be prosecuted in the ordinary way if they were not President or which disordered the constitutional structure.
So, the de facto standard for removal, the historically proven definition of the undefined “high crimes and misdemeanors”, is the personal commission of felonies, the subornation of crimes by Executive Branch employees, and the use of authority under color of law to injure political enemies.
The IRS scandal and the “fast and furious” crimes are both more than sufficient (once they are properly investigated, by competent authorities) to result in Obama’s removal.
Does “Benghazi” meet this standard? No, for 3 reasons.
First: Obama’s authority to deploy, or not to deploy, light infantry forces into urban combat in a city like Benghazi is undisputed. The position of the Americans around Stevens was known to be perilous (that’s why they hired guards), and whether or not their loss was acceptable given the risk/reward involved was, and is, a purely prudential executive judgement. No President is ever going to be removed for exercising judgement within his proper sphere of authority.
Second: The secret operation at the “annex” (probably shipping weapons to Syria) that was the real target of the enemy action. The conduct of foreign policy is the responsibility of the Executive Branch. Attempts by Congress (other than the ratification or not of treaties by the Senate) to conduct foreign policy are only quasi-Constitutional and have mostly been failures. If Ronald Reagan was not ever in danger from buying hostages freedom with weapons (or trying to), “Obama” can’t be removed for conducting foreign policy in this manner.
Third: Obama’s presence or absence for a number of hours on the evening of 9/11/12 is irrelevant, because no one can seriously contend that he would have taken decisive action had he been present.
“Obama”’s cowardice and islamic sympathies were well known to the electorate that chose him twice. The problem that Benghazi represents is a problem with the electorate, and, as such will not and cannot result in his removal.
That’s why Boehner has agreed to convene a select committee. That’s why Pelosi has agreed to participate. “Obama” doesn’t have to run again. Whatever facts are uncovered that are not now known MIGHT hurt an Obama re-election campaign, but they will not shorten his tenure by a single day.
New Republic is a leftist rag, ignore their diversionary trash.
Issa is use LESS
Obama surrendered at Benghazi. What that means is that he cut a deal with Al Qaeda in Benghazi.
Here’s what Al Qaeda gave him:
1. The body of the Ambassador.
2. A cease fire to withdraw the CIA employees.
3. No release of the agreement and details to the press or American public.
Here’s what he gave Al Qaeda:
1. No rescue attempt.
2. No military retribution strikes in Libya.
3. Weapons, armored vehicles and night vision equipment.
4. Five billion dollars.
5. All Americans out of Benghazi.
6. A video with him and Hillary Clinton apologizing to Muslims.
Look whatever the truth is..just get to it..If it a fact it’s a fact ..so to suggest it be held back to make a case is crap..but conversely if it helped Hillary don’t you think she release it herself?