Politicspoliticshowdygowdygopelectiomvpunethical

Mon Aug 17, 2015, 06:24 PM

Howdy Gowdy-The Republican Party’s election MVP?

Howdy Gowdy is being described as the GOP most 2016 election most valuable player due to his unethical leaks http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-republican-partys-election-mvp

Kristol’s message offered a peek behind the curtain, acknowledging what everyone knows, but few admit: Gowdy’s role is about the 2016 elections, not about the terrorist attack that left four Americans dead three years ago.

It is, after all, Gowdy’s congressional committee – the eighth Capitol Hill committee to investigate the 2012 attack in Libya – that’s taking the lead in exploring Hillary Clinton’s emails, fueling the fire of a “scandal” that, at least for now, hardly seems to exist.

The South Carolina Republican was on “Fox News Sunday” yesterday and fielded a good question from host Chris Wallace:

WALLACE: Congressman, I want to ask you a question that when I told folks that you were going to be on this show that they asked me, why is all of this your business? What does this have to do with investigating what happened around Benghazi?

GOWDY: Well, probably not much of anything…. y focus is on the four murdered Americans in Benghazi, but before I can write the final definitive accounting of that, I have to make sure that the public record is complete.
Well, that’s half of a decent answer. The far-right congressman was on firm ground when he said his “focus is on the four murdered Americans,” though it was soon followed by a “but,” which effectively negated the first part.

We’re talking about a congressional panel – in the midst of the longest congressional investigation in the history of the United States – whose sole focus is supposed to be on the three-year-old attack. Now, it’s focusing on unrelated emails and its chairman is picking up MVP awards from partisan media activists.
Gowdy's sole function right now is to ignore finding the truth and to be even more unethical than Issa. I did not think that anyone could be more unethical than Issa but Gowdy will likely accomplish this feat.

118 replies, 15551 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 118 replies Author Time Post
Reply Howdy Gowdy-The Republican Party’s election MVP? (Original post)
Letmypeoplevote Aug 2015 OP
graham4anything4HC45 Aug 2015 #1
_eek Aug 2015 #8
graham4anything4HC45 Aug 2015 #10
Starbux Oct 2015 #105
Appalachian Man Aug 2015 #2
EagleKeeper Aug 2015 #3
D.Libby Aug 2015 #4
Bob the Bilderberger Aug 2015 #5
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #54
Valishin Oct 2015 #65
Letmypeoplevote Aug 2015 #6
Letmypeoplevote Aug 2015 #7
Dukota01 Aug 2015 #9
ConservativeDemocrat Aug 2015 #11
who_what_where Aug 2015 #12
ConservativeDemocrat Aug 2015 #13
Dukota01 Aug 2015 #14
brew9876 Aug 2015 #16
ConservativeDemocrat Aug 2015 #18
Dukota01 Aug 2015 #19
ConservativeDemocrat Aug 2015 #21
Dukota01 Aug 2015 #22
ConservativeDemocrat Aug 2015 #23
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #60
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #114
Dukota01 Oct 2015 #115
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #59
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #92
Dukota01 Oct 2015 #98
who_what_where Aug 2015 #24
ConservativeDemocrat Aug 2015 #25
who_what_where Aug 2015 #31
ConservativeDemocrat Aug 2015 #32
meanitt Oct 2015 #110
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #53
Dukota01 Oct 2015 #55
Starbux Aug 2015 #15
opspec2c Aug 2015 #17
Letmypeoplevote Sep 2015 #39
opspec2c Sep 2015 #41
Letmypeoplevote Sep 2015 #42
opspec2c Sep 2015 #44
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #108
Cardinals1982 Aug 2015 #20
Letmypeoplevote Sep 2015 #43
Letmypeoplevote Aug 2015 #26
Letmypeoplevote Aug 2015 #27
Letmypeoplevote Aug 2015 #28
Letmypeoplevote Aug 2015 #29
Letmypeoplevote Aug 2015 #30
Letmypeoplevote Aug 2015 #33
Letmypeoplevote Sep 2015 #34
Letmypeoplevote Sep 2015 #35
Letmypeoplevote Sep 2015 #36
Letmypeoplevote Sep 2015 #37
Letmypeoplevote Sep 2015 #38
Banshee 3 Actual Sep 2015 #40
Letmypeoplevote Sep 2015 #46
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #49
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #57
Banshee 3 Actual Oct 2015 #58
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #63
Banshee 3 Actual Oct 2015 #64
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #72
Banshee 3 Actual Oct 2015 #74
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #77
Banshee 3 Actual Oct 2015 #79
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #80
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #81
Banshee 3 Actual Oct 2015 #85
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #101
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #83
Banshee 3 Actual Oct 2015 #84
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #73
Banshee 3 Actual Oct 2015 #75
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #76
Banshee 3 Actual Oct 2015 #78
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #86
Banshee 3 Actual Oct 2015 #89
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #90
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #88
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #91
Banshee 3 Actual Oct 2015 #93
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #96
Banshee 3 Actual Oct 2015 #97
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #109
Banshee 3 Actual Oct 2015 #117
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #116
Letmypeoplevote Sep 2015 #45
Letmypeoplevote Sep 2015 #47
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #48
kNockYourPunkassDown Oct 2015 #50
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #111
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #51
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #52
saspamco Oct 2015 #56
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #61
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #62
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #66
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #67
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #68
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #69
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #70
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #71
graham4anything4HC45 Oct 2015 #82
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #87
bpilgrim Oct 2015 #94
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #99
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #95
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #100
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #102
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #103
Starbux Oct 2015 #104
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #106
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #107
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #112
Letmypeoplevote Oct 2015 #113
Letmypeoplevote Nov 2015 #118

Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Mon Aug 17, 2015, 06:32 PM

1. Gowdy and Isaa rank with Joseph McCarthy and Richard Nixon on witch hunts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything4HC45 (Reply #1)

Tue Aug 18, 2015, 04:22 PM

8. Richard Nixon?

"When the President does it, that means that it's not illegal"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to _eek (Reply #8)

Tue Aug 18, 2015, 05:31 PM

10. Witch hunts are legal.

So the comment is not viable to the point.

I have to say, nah, will say it on a different thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to _eek (Reply #8)

Thu Oct 15, 2015, 08:20 PM

105. one of Nixon's classic Machiavellian statements

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Mon Aug 17, 2015, 06:32 PM

2. What will Gowdy investigate next? Hillary's Facebook friends list?

Maybe he can find some "classified" information there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Mon Aug 17, 2015, 06:42 PM

3. Strawmen army, recruiting here...n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Mon Aug 17, 2015, 06:56 PM

4. Gowdy

is a grandstanding jackass who wastes millions of dollars on pointless investigations over and over and over again

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Mon Aug 17, 2015, 07:32 PM

5. If it wasn't for Gowdy

we wouldn't know about the email server, for example.

Stand by for questions to Hillary regarding why there are no state department emails on the subject of Benghazi.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bob the Bilderberger (Reply #5)

Sat Oct 3, 2015, 04:09 PM

54. Here are some facts for the conservatives to ignore or not be able to understand

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #54)

Mon Oct 5, 2015, 07:20 PM

65. The better question

is how many of those included the deception and obfuscation that is believed to be the case around this one. That is the kicker that so often is being ignored. The reason this is such an issue has very little to do with the attack. What has people upset is the culture of deception, secrecy, and entitlement that has become SOP in Washington, what you are seeing now is a push back by those not comfortable with that type of behavior from government. Washington needs to learn that they aren't special, they don't get to lie or mislead the people nor does being elected to office or being part of the bureaucracy grant you authority to use the power of your office to manipulate the views and opinions of the populace. Such actions are reserved to be part of political campaigns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Mon Aug 17, 2015, 11:04 PM

6. Fool me Once

Rep. Elijah Cummings is the highest ranking Democrat on the Trey Gowdy Benghazi/Get Hillary special subcommittee. Congressman Cummings is wondering how the NYT got this leak if it was not from Gowdy http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-elijah-cummings/fool-me-once_1_b_7917902.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

When I woke up on Friday morning and read the news, I was stunned. I immediately issued a public statement and released the congressional notification from the Intelligence Community IG.

I then got on the phone with both IGs from the State Department and the Intelligence Community. They confirmed that they never asked the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation of Secretary Clinton's email usage. Instead, they said this was a "routine" referral, and they said they had no idea why the Times story was so flawed. I then issued a second public statement, recounting my phone call with the IGs.

The Times' Executive Editor has suggested that its reporters could not have done anything differently because they relied on anonymous senior government officials, which the paper's Public Editor later explained included tips from "Capitol Hill."

I disagree. The Times could have insisted on seeing the documents they were describing. Or, if the Times spoke with Republicans in Congress, even off the record, they could have checked their facts with me or other Committee Democrats.

Unfortunately, this rush to print anonymous, unverified claims against Secretary Clinton is not unique.

Just last month, Politico was forced to correct a front-page story that relied on an anonymous source who apparently provided doctored information about an email that was produced to the Select Committee, rather than seeing the documents or contacting my office. Chairman Gowdy refused to investigate or condemn this leak.
Trey Gowdy is proving to be even more unethical than Issa and I did not think that this was possible. Trey Gowdy lied to the NYT about the e-mails and he is lucky that the NYT has not burned him yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Tue Aug 18, 2015, 04:16 PM

7. Republicans Still Won’t Shut The Hell Up About Benghazi

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #7)

Tue Aug 18, 2015, 04:48 PM

9. Because Democrats still won't tell the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dukota01 (Reply #9)

Tue Aug 18, 2015, 06:31 PM

11. Democrats have been telling the truth since day one

It's the teabaggers who don't want to hear the truth, and Republicans are pandering to them.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ConservativeDemocrat (Reply #11)

Tue Aug 18, 2015, 06:50 PM

12. You and the OP should start a comedy routine,

because y'all are pretty funny. Do you really believe the stuff you write, or
are you two just trolling the hell out of us?

Were this scandal happening in a GOP Administration, you two would be
killing yourselves trying to "get to the bottom of this" and shouting to the
heavens your outrage over the slowness of the investigation. Quit jerking
us off, you are not fooling anyone but yourselves.

If the Obama Administration and HRC weren't putting up so many roadblocks
trying to obstruct this investigation, it WOULD have been over long ago.

It's not just hypocrisy, it's STUPID hypocrisy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to who_what_where (Reply #12)

Tue Aug 18, 2015, 07:31 PM

13. Get to the bottom of this?

Pal, just for your information, IT DID HAPPEN during a GOP Administration. Over and over again.

Here's just one of the attacks, the 1983 embassy bombing during Reagan's term.

Do you know how many investigations the Democratic house insisted upon after that? Precisely ONE.

Do you know what it concluded? That there were serious errors in judgement by officers on the ground plus up the military chain of command. But called for better security arrangements for all embassies, and ended up authorizing over 100 million to pay for those upgrades. There was no talk about impeaching Reagan, no accusing his Secretary of State of some stupid bullshit conspiracy theory, no constant over-and-over again hearings about conspiracy theories and other political bullshit, none of that.

Do you know why? Because Democrats are ADULTS, like Republicans used to be before taken over by senile old Teabaggers.

Now go back to your childish whining and pretend "amusement" at some other 100% verified fact that shows you for what you really are.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ConservativeDemocrat (Reply #13)

Tue Aug 18, 2015, 07:58 PM

14. I don't recall anyone during the Reagan era trotting out the head of the NSA on all the Sunday

News channels to proclaim the attack on the embassy was the result of a video. All of this while no help was sent for an hours long assault on that embassy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dukota01 (Reply #14)

Tue Aug 18, 2015, 08:05 PM

16. Gee...me either.

But now you're introducing facts...they can't handle that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dukota01 (Reply #14)

Tue Aug 18, 2015, 08:27 PM

18. Instead, Reagan ordered marines into Beruit unarmed

And leave their barracks gates open, and order them to not have ammunition to defend themselves, so that when they themselves were attacked by a truck bomber six months later, they literally had nothing to defend themselves with.

So -

Democratic President - 4 people killed in an embassy, due to a militia group getting pissed that their religion was offended by an hate video "Innocence of the Muslims".
David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times reported that 20-year-old neighbor Mohamed Bishari witnessed the attack. According to Bishari, it was launched without warning or protest and was led by the Islamist militia Ansar al-Sharia (different from the group called Ansar al-Sharia based in Yemen designated by the U.N. and the U.S. Department of State as a terrorist organization). Kirkpatrick reported that Ansar al-Sharia said they were launching the assault in retaliation for the release of the anti-Islamic video, Innocence of Muslims. It was further reported that Ahmed Abu Khattala was called a ringleader of the attack by both witnesses and authorities, though he insisted he did not play a part in the aggression at the American compound. Witnesses, Benghazi residents, and Western news reports have described him as a leader of Ansar al-Sharia, though he stated he was close to the group but not an official part of it. He further stated he was the commander of an Islamist brigade, Abu Obaida ibn al-Jarrah, some of whose members had joined Ansar al-Sharia.
Despite the truth that the video incited violence, Republicans have a problem with facts and truth. Then then start in on a campaign of constant investigations, political football, and impeachment threats.

Republican President - direct presidential orders that cause hundreds of additional marines to die being unable to defend themselves, not even allowed to have live ammunition, no Democratic calls for impeachment.

I think it's clear you're full of shit.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ConservativeDemocrat (Reply #18)

Tue Aug 18, 2015, 11:55 PM

19. "I think it's clear you're full of shit"

Well that's your first mistake, trying to think.

Please prove any of my facts wrong. When you can't it's you that is full of shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dukota01 (Reply #19)

Wed Aug 19, 2015, 12:24 PM

21. Sorry. Misstated that. It is >>>100% clear<<< you're full of shit.

A non sequitur does not need to be disproved to be a non sequitur. There was no slanderous movie that incited a gang to spontaneously attack the U.S. consulate in Beirut. Therefore there was no need for Reagan to send anyone to explain what had happened to the American people. Therefore, bringing up that lack of explanation as a way of arguing that Obama did something wrong (compared to "Saint Reagan", who sent in a bunch of unarmed Marines to die), is so completely illogical, it makes me wonder how your brain works well enough to even be able to type.

I wonder if this is how you go through all of your life:

Democrat: "You idiot! You just rear-ended my car at 30 MPH! Do you even know how to drive?"

Teabagger-Moron: "Yeah, well I just had bacon and eggs for breakfast!"

Democrat: "What the hell? We're talking about driving here!"

Teabagger-Moron: "Once someone else had bacon and eggs for breakfast and someone crashed into them, and your car is silver too which is the color of eggs, so that means it was all your fault."

Democrat: "Not withstanding the fact that eggs aren't silver, are you a complete idiot?"

Teabagger-Moron: "Please prove any of my facts wrong. When you can't it's you that is full of shit."

- C.D.Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ConservativeDemocrat (Reply #21)

Wed Aug 19, 2015, 01:11 PM

22. There ya go, that word salad just proves you're full of shit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dukota01 (Reply #22)

Wed Aug 19, 2015, 04:19 PM

23. Your clear inability to comprehend simple things

...does not make what I say incomprehensible.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

/ I think we're done here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dukota01 (Reply #19)

Sat Oct 3, 2015, 09:04 PM

60. Howdy Gowdy has nothing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dukota01 (Reply #19)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 07:43 PM

114. Howdy Gowdy was fun to laugh at

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #114)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 01:56 PM

115. Are you still dragging up zombie threads?

Must be a pretty sad, silly life you live if your life revolves around dragging up zombie threads.

Sad and silly liberal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dukota01 (Reply #14)

Sat Oct 3, 2015, 08:56 PM

59. For this thread

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dukota01 (Reply #14)

Sun Oct 11, 2015, 03:56 PM

92. For this thread

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #92)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 02:16 AM

98. Are you still reviving zombie threads?

Buy a life!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ConservativeDemocrat (Reply #13)

Wed Aug 19, 2015, 07:00 PM

24. Pretty lame of you to skip over the GWB presidency

Guess you'd rather not discuss the eight-year Liberal hysterics y'all dragged the country
through, Lord knows I would understand THAT.

Reagan ordered the Marines to not have loaded rifles in Beirut? Really? Care to
produce the documentation, I would love to see it.

Reagan was not the one who wanted us out of Beirut, that would be the Democratic-
controlled Congress and all of the (D) Presidential candidates banging their gums.

You and I both know which Party is committing crimes against this country and we both
know who is ever-ready to produce a bullshit fake scandal for political reasons.

You are only fooling yourself. Anyone with a history book knows what the truth is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to who_what_where (Reply #24)

Wed Aug 19, 2015, 07:28 PM

25. I back up my assertions with referenced facts

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/ronald-reagans-benghazi
Around dawn on October 23, 1983, I was in Beirut, Lebanon, when a suicide bomber drove a truck laden with the equivalent of twenty-one thousand pounds of TNT into the heart of a U.S. Marine compound, killing two hundred and forty-one servicemen. The U.S. military command, which regarded the Marines’ presence as a non-combative, “peace-keeping mission,” had left a vehicle gate wide open, and ordered the sentries to keep their weapons unloaded. The only real resistance the suicide bomber had encountered was a scrim of concertina wire. When I arrived on the scene a short while later to report on it for the Wall Street Journal, the Marine barracks were flattened. From beneath the dusty, smoking slabs of collapsed concrete, piteous American voices could be heard, begging for help. Thirteen more American servicemen later died from injuries, making it the single deadliest attack on American Marines since the Battle of Iwo Jima.

You want me to not skip over the GWB Presidency? I was being charitable.

The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.

“The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya.

And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.

Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else.We KNEW it was coming. But Bush didn't even lift a finger. This is, because Bush always wanted to attack Saddam, not Osama bin Laden.Many of the events Clarke recounted during the hearings were also published in his memoir. Clarke charged that before and during the 9/11 crisis, many in the Administration were distracted from efforts against Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda organization by a pre-occupation with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Clarke had written that on September 12, 2001, President Bush pulled him and a couple of aides aside and "testily" asked him to try to find evidence that Saddam was connected to the terrorist attacks. In response he wrote a report stating there was no evidence of Iraqi involvement and got it signed by all relevant agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the CIA. The paper was quickly returned by a deputy with a note saying "Please update and resubmit." After initially denying that such a meeting between the President and Clarke took place, the White House later reversed its denial when others present backed Clarke's version of the events
Yeah. Don't get anyone with even a hint of intelligence started on Bush the Lesser.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ConservativeDemocrat (Reply #25)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 06:32 PM

31. Try again, this time with the TRUTH.

The Marine's had lax security because of their MARINE commander's lack
of foresight, not because CinC Reagan ordered them to "stand down." The
reporter you cited was NOT there when it happened, either.

The 6 August PDB titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In The US" did
NOT in any way, shape or form predict the 9/11 attack. It recapped strikes
committed against the US during Clinton's term and offered vague warnings
of possible plans that did NOT have any connection to airliners full of
passengers flying into buildings. There were no dates, no actual modus
operandi, nothing of substance.

Repeating what Richard Clarke recounted during the 9/11 commission does
nothing to bolster your case. If Bin Laden was so important, why didn't Clarke
do anything about him while HE was in charge? That guy is a half-wit, to put it
charitably. It took Bush and Rice about five minutes to figure out Clarke's
incompetence.

Like I said, crack open a history book. It may save you from looking so ill-informed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to who_what_where (Reply #31)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 08:41 PM

32. Clarke couldn't do more because BUSH stopped him

Clarke said as much.

Do you HONESTLY BELIEVE that a Marine commander would have voluntarily ordered his men to disarm, unless it was forced on him from above? Seriously? You're that ignorant?!?

The PDB was one of multiple warnings given to the Bush Whitehouse, which they absolutely 100% ignored. Had such a briefing been given to President Clinton, there would have been several high-level meetings organized by the Whitehouse to tell the CIA and FBI to coordinate. (Again, Clarke said this.) Had the FBI not been ordered to keep silent by the CIA, they almost certainly would have broken the case open, as there was an agent already suspicious of them.

Yes, pal, crack open a history book, or read published articles on this. Note: neither "FOX" nor Stormfront are "History Books".

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to who_what_where (Reply #12)

Mon Oct 19, 2015, 05:27 PM

110. Really?

 

Were this scandal happening in a GOP Administration, you two would be
killing yourselves trying to "get to the bottom of this" and shouting to the
heavens your outrage over the slowness of the investigation.
Democrats would have dumped this investigation years ago instead of doubling down on it and continuing to make asses of themselves like the Republicans are doing right now.

But do keep going....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dukota01 (Reply #9)

Sat Oct 3, 2015, 04:09 PM

53. McCarhy's helpful mouth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #53)

Sat Oct 3, 2015, 06:14 PM

55. Back to propping up your zombie threads again

Because my posts just won't die inside your head

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Tue Aug 18, 2015, 08:02 PM

15. without the McCarthyist Witch hunt what would the GOP do for a campaign in 2016? LOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Tue Aug 18, 2015, 08:08 PM

17. Awwww, Rachel has a sadz.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opspec2c (Reply #17)

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 01:52 PM

39. GOP leader accidentally tells the truth about Benghazi committee

Here are some facts for the silly conservatives to ignore or not be able to understand http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-leader-accidentally-tells-the-truth-about-benghazi-committee

Even die-hard GOP partisans sometimes find it difficult to justify the House Republicans’ Benghazi committee. The party struggled to explain why it was necessary in the first place – the deadly 2012 attack was already examined by seven other congressional committees – and the rationale is even more elusive now that the investigation is the longest in the history of the United States.

Making matters slightly worse, the GOP-led committee has conducted itself in such a way as to raise concerns that the entire endeavor is little more than a taxpayer-funded election scheme.

Keep that in mind when reading about House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) – the likely next Speaker of the House – and his interview on Fox News last night. Roll Call reported this morning on the Republican leader’s on-air comments:

“What you’re going to see is a conservative Speaker, that takes a conservative Congress, that puts a strategy to fight and win. And let me give you one example. Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?

“But we put together a Benghazi special committee. A select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known that any of that had happened had we not fought to make that happen.”
Michael Kinsley once said a political gaffe occurs when a politician accidentally tells the truth. By this measure, the man who’s likely to become Speaker of the House next month made an important mistake last night.

First, I’m reasonably sure “untrustable” isn’t a word.
McCarthy has confirmed that Gowdy is a liar and is very very unethical

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #39)

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 02:20 PM

41. Yes, the public would never know what a crook and liar Hillary is

if it weren't for Gowdy exposing her.

Thank you, Trey!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opspec2c (Reply #41)

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 04:01 PM

42. Democrats Call For Immediate End To Benghazi Investigation After McCarthy Admits Fraud

Due to the massive fraud committed by Howdy Gowdy and the GOP, this fake investigation needs to end http://www.politicususa.com/2015/09/30/democrats-call-benghazi-investigation-mccarthy-admits-fraud.html

After Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) admitted that Republicans lied about the purpose of the Benghazi investigation, several top Democrats are calling out the House Republicans’ abuse of power and calling for an immediate end to the investigation.

Rep. McCarthy got flustered during an interview with Sean Hannity and blew the worst kept political secret in Washington. He admitted that the Benghazi investigation is all about digging up mud on Hillary Clinton.

The ranking member of the Select Committee on Benghazi, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) said, “This stunning concession from Rep. McCarthy reveals the truth that Republicans never dared admit in public: the core Republican goal in establishing the Benghazi Committee was always to damage Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and never to conduct an even-handed search for the facts. It is shameful that Republicans have used this tragedy and the deaths of our fellow Americans for political gain. Republicans have blatantly abused their authority in Congress by spending more than $4.5 million in taxpayer funds to pay for a political campaign against Hillary Clinton.”

The office of Democratic Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, “House Republicans were never interested in a bipartisan investigation to improve the security of Americans abroad. They’ve only been interested in pure extremist political theater. Leader McCarthy: the American people don’t want more politically-motivated “select committees” – not to smear presidential candidates, and not to assault women’s health. They want real leadership to confront the challenges we face as a nation.”

Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) called for an immediate end to the Benghazi investigation and for Republicans to apologize to the families of the Benghazi victims, “Republican Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy pulled the curtain back on the true purpose of the Select Committee on Benghazi – not to get the facts – but instead as a political ploy against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. This stunning admission shows a gross misuse of millions in taxpayer dollars for a purely political purpose. I believe it is time to end this investigation and for Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader McCarthy, and Chairman Trey Gowdy to apologize to the families of the four Americans who died during the attack and the American people for abusing the memories of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.”

Republicans committed an act of fraud. They launched this investigation on false pretenses. The investigation was never meant to be about Benghazi. The Select Committee was also designed to dig up dirt on Hillary Clinton.

House Republicans have wasted $4.5 million of your money trying to get Hillary Clinton. It’s time for the American people stand up and demand that the fraud end now.
The GOP need to reimburese the taxpayers for the $4.5 million wasted on this fraud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #42)

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 04:06 PM

44. Hillary should pay it for stonewalling the investigation and causing it to drag out so long.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opspec2c (Reply #44)

Mon Oct 19, 2015, 04:41 PM

108. Silly but sad conservative

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Wed Aug 19, 2015, 03:38 AM

20. Gowdy's an ugly inbred little shit from the woods

 

He and his partisan fishing expedition can go to hell

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 06:34 PM

26. Benghazi panel has lasted longer than Church Committee

Howdy Gowdy has set a new record for being unethical and partisan http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/251566-benghazi-panel-now-run-longer-than-church-committee

The House’s special panel to investigate the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya, has been running for 469 days as of Thursday, making it officially longer than the Church Committee that overhauled federal oversight of American spy agencies.

The committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.), used the milestone to further accuse Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) of running a politically motivated smear campaign against Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton.

“House Republicans established the Select Committee on Benghazi more than a year and three months ago with a blank check, no time limits, and no rules, and they have now spent the more than $4 million in taxpayer funds,” Cummings said in a statement on Thursday.
“This investigation is not about learning pertinent facts about Benghazi or improving the security of our embassies,” he added. “It is about spending taxpayer funds on political attacks against Secretary Clinton.”

A spokesperson for the committee’s Republican majority, meanwhile, attributed the length of the investigation to foot-dragging by the State Department.

"As the chairman has said many, many times, the sooner the State Department and other executive branch agencies produce responsive documents, the sooner we can finish,” the spokesperson said in a statement to The Hill. “As he has also said many times, he welcomes any assistance Ranking Member Cummings would provide in helping to encourage the agencies to improve their rate of compliance."
469 days of wasted effort by Howdy Gowdy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 05:26 PM

27. Howdy Gowdy is a tool of the Koch brothers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Sat Aug 22, 2015, 10:56 PM

28. Howdy Gowdy's reading list

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Sun Aug 23, 2015, 11:35 PM

29. Brazile: The Right Wing’s email fairy tale

These attacks are really sad and silly http://www.theherald-news.com/2015/08/21/brazile-the-right-wings-email-fairy-tale/aydyd9x/

f you look up “kangaroo court” in the dictionary, you’ll find a big old picture of Rep. Trey Gowdy. Why? Because he is leading a one-man, partisan show trial of harassment against Hillary Clinton. It’s high time someone called him out for it.

Gowdy is the chairman of the so-called House Select Committee on Benghazi – a committee tasked explicitly with investigating the 2012 tragedy in the Libyan city of Benghazi. This is not the first time Benghazi has been investigated. There have been seven different investigations and they have not found a scrap of evidence of any wrongdoing by Clinton, as alleged by Republicans. They have issued nine reports in total (if you’re interested in reviewing the reports, visit democrats.benghazi.house.gov/previous-investigations/previous-reports.)

But last year, House Speaker John Boehner gave Gowdy an unlimited budget of taxpayer dollars to give it another shot.

After more than a year of investigations, and over $4 million spent, what has Gowdy found? Not one bit of evidence that shows any wrongdoing by Clinton, or as a senior Democrat on Capitol Hill explained, “not a drop of evidence to call into question the original findings of the independent Accountability Review Board.” There’s no evidence to support Republican allegations against Clinton. Not a single word of novel testimony. Nothing.

So, instead, Gowdy has turned his taxpayer-funded firepower toward the subject of Hillary Clinton’s email. Let’s be clear: Gowdy’s not interested in the preservation of government emails generally. He’s certainly not interested in the fact that Colin Powell used his own private email as secretary of state and never turned over a single message – or that Karl Rove and others in the Bush White House deleted millions of emails, including those sent on a private server run by the Republican National Committee.

Nope, the Republican Gowdy is focused exclusively on what Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton did with her emails. What does this have to do with Benghazi? I’ll let Gowdy speak for himself. This weekend, on “Fox News Sunday,” he admitted: “Well, probably not much of anything.”
Trey Gowdy is not only a bad attorney but he is even more unethical than Issa. I did not think that this was possible but Howdy Gowdy has proven that he lacks any ethics or honor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 05:53 PM

30. Pro-Clinton group re-ups demand for Gowdy to turn over his emails

This is both amusing and appropriate http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/trey-gowdy-turn-over-emails-correct-the-record-request-121762.html?ml=ri

Clinton’s campaign earlier this month turned over the server that the former secretary of state used for email correspondence during her time at the State Department, along with a thumb drive containing the work-related emails.

“I asked earlier what it is you may have to hide by not releasing your own emails and I recognize that I am unlikely to receive a response,” Brock wrote in a letter to Gowdy (R-S.C.) dated Wednesday.

Correct the Record’s website also features a timer counting the days, hours, minutes and seconds since Gowdy received Brock’s initial request.

“The Select Committee on Benghazi may have uncovered Hillary Clinton’s unusual and unprecedented email arrangement, but it is the FBI that is investigating it. As such, it would be more appropriate for this group to direct its request to the FBI,” said committee spokesman Jamal Ware.

In the letter, Brock goes on to “hazard a few educated guesses” as to why the chairman has not released the emails, speculating that he is “hiding correspondence with GOP presidential candidates, the Republican National Committee or other political committees” that would show a “campaign of character and political assassination against Hillary Clinton in an effort to win a political campaign.”

“Perhaps you are hiding emails which would reveal how, after you pledged not to use this investigation to raise money for the GOP, you managed to attend fundraising events where Benghazi was specifically raised in a political context,” Brock wrote. “Almost certainly you and your team are hiding correspondence with numerous media outlets, the New York Times being one, which would show that the committee, and perhaps you personally, has selectively leaked erroneous and dishonest information to smear Hillary Clinton.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/trey-gowdy-turn-over-emails-correct-the-record-request-121762.html#ixzz3k3SUciXx
It would be fun to read all of Howdy Gowdy's e-mails with false information to the NYT and the e-mails to Howdy Gowdy from the Koch brothers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Fri Aug 28, 2015, 06:11 PM

33. These are amusing





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Tue Sep 8, 2015, 07:16 PM

34. GOP’s Benghazi panel springs yet another leak

Howdy Gowdy is one of the most unethical members in congress. I am surprised that Howdy Gowdy is even more unethical than Issa http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gops-benghazi-panel-springs-yet-another-leak

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) has argued for months that the House Benghazi Committee is a top-notch, professional enterprise, run in an above-board way. “erious investigations do not leak information or make selective releases of information without full and proper context,” the Republican congressman has said.

It’d be a more comforting sentiment if it were true. We’ve already seen instances in which the GOP-led panel has deliberately leaked deceptive information to the press, and last week, it happened again.

When former State Department Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills agreed to testify, she pleaded with the committee to hold a transparent, public hearing, open for all the world to see, so there’d be no concerns about misleading leaks. Gowdy and his team refused, insisting that Mills answer questions behind closed doors. Committee Democrats asked for a full transcript to be released to the public and the media, but Gowdy and his team refused this request, too.

And right on cue, immediately after Mills spoke to committee, the panel that claims not to leak started leaking. Politico had this front-page piece late last week:

Cheryl Mills, a trusted Hillary Clinton staffer who oversaw the release of her emails, told House investigators that no work-related messages had been withheld or destroyed to keep them from public eyes – and Mills said she never knowingly mishandled classified information, a source familiar with her testimony told POLITICO.

But raising alarms on the right, Mills, Clinton’s former chief of staff at the State Department, also told the House Select Committee on Benghazi that she reviewed and made suggestions for changes to the government’s official, final report on what happened in Benghazi, according to a separate, GOP source familiar with what she said.
This latter point refers to the Accountability Review Board (ARB), one of about nine different government panels that investigated the 2012 attack in Benghazi. The trouble is, we already knew the details Mills shared with the committee last week – Ambassador Thomas Pickering explained more than two years ago that the ARB provided a draft to the Secretary of State’s office before its release. He also explained that neither Hillary Clinton nor Cheryl Mills tried to influence the outcome of the investigation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Mon Sep 14, 2015, 07:38 PM

35. Trey Gowdy wants Hillary Clinton's email to be the story. But what about his $4 million witch hunt?

Howdy Gowdy is even more unethical than Issa. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/14/1421166/-Trey-Gowdy-wants-Hillary-Clinton-s-email-to-be-the-story-But-what-about-his-4-million-witch-hunt

Under Trey Gowdy's direction, the House Benghazi Committee has long since turned into a Hillary Clinton digging expedition, seeking anything—however unrelated to Benghazi—that might hurt Clinton's presidential chances. And, according to a new internal poll conducted by Public Policy Polling for Correct the Record, a pro-Clinton group, voters are starting to notice.

54% of voters nationally think the primary motivation of Gowdy’s investigation is politics and hurting Hillary Clinton, compared to only 40% who think it’s actually about getting to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi.

62% of voters think that Gowdy should release his e-mails related to the investigation, compared to just 27% who don’t think he should have to. There’s a bipartisan consensus on the need for Gowdy to release his e-mails with majorities of Democrats (70/17), Republicans (58/35), and independents (53/33) all in agreement on the matter.

Voters see it as a basic fairness issue- only 39% think it’s reasonable for Gowdy to demand Clinton release her e-mails while declining to release his own, compared to 56% who think he’s employing a double standard by his refusal to make his e-mails available.
This is an internal poll by a pro-Clinton group, and the questions reflect that—basically, this lets us know that voters who hear that Gowdy has "refused repeated requests to release his own emails to shed a light on his investigation which has cost taxpayers over $4 million" will respond by saying yes, he should turn over his emails, and that voters who hear that Gowdy has "turned his focus away from what happened in Benghazi to Hillary Clinton’s choice of email practices and has demanded access to all of her emails including personal emails" and is planning to continue his investigation into 2016 will see Gowdy's investigation as partisan. The fact that voters feel this way given these pieces of information is of limited use if voters never hear it—and the New York Times and Fox News sure aren't putting this in big screaming headlines—but it's a message to Democrats and particularly Clinton supporters that this is a message worth publicizing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Mon Sep 28, 2015, 09:17 PM

36. The Benghazi panel is a scandal of a committee

Howdy Gowdy is a very unethical person and a really bad lawyer https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-real-benghazi-scandal/2015/09/28/36a1f7c2-6602-11e5-8325-a42b5a459b1e_story.html

The committee was impaneled in May of last year and is supposed “to conduct a full and complete investigation” into the terrorist attack on the American installation in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012. Four Americans died in that attack, including the ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens. Congress retaliated. It has launched at least eight investigations, making life miserable if not for the terrorists, then for Hillary Clinton. She was secretary of state at the time.

What is this committee after? It’s not clear. Clinton was no more in charge of State Department security than she was of building maintenance. She was not chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and so could not have given the order not to attempt a rescue. (No rescue was practical anyway.) It was Susan Rice, not Clinton, who made the rounds of the Sunday talk shows giving a mangled account of what happened. Does the committee (in its wisdom) have the two women mixed up?

The committee has Clinton’s e-mails — some of them, anyway — and it has in the finest Washington tradition leaked them. Thus we know she has been e-mailed by Sidney Blumenthal, a former White House aide and, in the required journalistic redundancy, a close confidant. So what? Blumenthal is not a felon or a foreign agent, and since he was and remains a private citizen, the contents of his e-mails were not in the least way classified. Why is it our business?...

Benghazi has become a Republican fixation. It is mentioned with utmost solemnity, virtual code for treason or something close to it. It is no longer an event, a debacle and a tragedy, but a totem: Something went wrong. Someone’s at fault. Why not Clinton? In the latest Republican debate, Carly Fiorina, she of the hallucinatory abortion procedure, accused Clinton of having a “track record of lying about Benghazi.” Yeah, sure. But give us an example, please.

The true Benghazi scandal is not what happened on the Libyan coast, but the use of a congressional committee for political purposes — to damage the likely Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, by rummaging through her e-mails. She’s handled this all wrong, but she shouldn’t have had to handle it at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 08:44 AM

37. Top Republican Admits House Benghazi Committee Designed To Attack Hillary Clinton’s Poll Numbers

The person most likely to be the next Speaker of the House just admitted that Howdy Gowdy is not investigating Benghazi but is using this investigation to hurt Hillary Clinton's poll numbers http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/09/30/top-republican-admits-house-benghazi-committee-designed-to-attack-hillary-clintons-poll-numbers-video/

The House of Representatives Select Committee on the attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi is all about attacking Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers, admits a senior Republican.

Current House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) told Fox News host Sean Hannity during an interview on Monday night that the Select Committee, chaired by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) that Clinton’s dropping poll numbers are evidence of the effectiveness of the committee.

McCarthy, who is reportedly running to take over for recently deposed House Speaker John Boehner, told Hannity:

“Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi Special Committee — a Select Committee — what are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping.”
It is a tacit admission by the second most powerful Republican in the House that the Committee’s true goal is taking out Secretary Clinton as a presidential candidate.

Republicans have tried to pretend as if the committee has no connection to politics, but a committee theoretically about a terrorist attack has morphed into the longest congressional investigation in U.S. history, longer than the probe into the Watergate break-in and the assassination of President Kennedy. At the same time, the committee is now obsessed with Clinton’s emails, and not the attack itself – which has been probed in numerous investigations in the House, Senate, and State Department.

Those investigations found fault with security at the compound, but have found no wrongdoing by senior officials like President Obama or Secretary Clinton, much to the chagrin of Republicans. Instead those bipartisan investigations have made recommendations for security of diplomatic officials, rather than assign partisan blame.
Howdy Gowdy is not looking into Benghazi but is using this committee for partisan political purposes. The man has no ethics

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 01:49 PM

38. New Speaker confirms that Howdy Gowdy is a liar and is unethical

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 01:55 PM

40. For this thread

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #40)

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 06:51 PM

46. Kevin McCarthy’s silver-plated gift to Hillary Clinton: What his Benghazi blunder reveals about the

GOP's warped priorities
Kevin McCarthy strips off the Benghazi committee's thin veneer of credibility, and plays right into Dems' hands http://www.salon.com/2015/09/30/kevin_mccarthys_silver_plated_gift_to_hillary_clinton_what_his_benghazi_blunder_reveals_about_the_gops_warped_priorities/

This is an archetypal example of the Kinsley Gaffe: a politician accidentally uttering a truthful statement. Anyone who’s paid even cursory attention to the GOP’s treatment of the Benghazi attacks will likely have already concluded that the party’s interest in the matter is linked to Hillary Clinton’s presidential ambitions. But it’s still bracing to see one of the most powerful Republicans in Washington come right out and brag about how he and his colleagues set up a taxpayer-funded investigation to damage the political prospects of the opposition party’s leading presidential candidate. It’s downright scandalous, and precisely the sort of political corruption that Republicans argue is at the heart of the Obama administration’s response to Benghazi.

No less remarkable is the fact that McCarthy offered up the politicized Benghazi investigation as an “example” of how he would conduct business as Speaker of the House. He just put it right out there and told Sean Hannity that the McCarthy Congress will be a series of investigations aimed at hurting the Democrats’ chances of electoral success.

He’s also impugned what little credibility Benghazi committee chair Trey Gowdy enjoys, and he’s given critics of the committee all the reason they need to trash the committee as a disreputable and untrustworthy exercise in partisan scapegoating. One Democratic member of the Benghazi committee had already called for the investigation to be shut down, and other Democrats are doing the same in the aftermath of McCarthy’s remarks.

The Benghazi committee has always been wrapped in obvious fictions that provide its members and supporters with the barest minimum of plausible deniability as to its true purpose. We were told that the committee was necessary because dang it, we still just don’t know what happened in Benghazi (just ignore the half-dozen or so official investigations that preceded it). Committee chair Trey Gowdy frequently asserts that he is concerned only with information that is relevant to the committee’s mandate (as he’s expanded the investigation to areas that, by his own admission, are outside the committee’s purview and have little or nothing to do with the Benghazi attacks). Gowdy also insists that he’s running a professional investigation that has no interest in partisan politics and is committed to learning the truth about the events that led to the deaths of four Americans (as it leaks at every given opportunity, feeding often misleading information about Clinton’s emails to reporters).

McCarthy’s candor has robbed the committee of its already specious claims to credibility. And he’s handed Clinton a powerful weapon to use against her critics. The Clintons’ political history is defined in part by the self-destructive behavior of Republicans during the 1990s, who turned the congressional oversight process into a nakedly political enterprise to destroy Bill and Hillary. With the likely next Speaker of the House boasting about the Benghazi committee’s political agenda and holding it up as an example of how he’d run things in his chamber, Hillary can say it’s déjà vu all over again, and you’d be hard-pressed to disagree with her.
McCarthy admitted that this investigation was a complete waste of time and was a partisan exercise. Howdy Gowdy has been exposed as a liar and an unethical fraud.

Howdy Gowdy has been exposed and branded as a liar and a partisan hack. He might as well retire becuase this label will hang over him for the rest of his career in Congress. Due to this gaffe, no one will take Howdy Gowdy seriously. Clinton could moon Howdy Gowdy on October 22 and she will still poll better than the lying unethical piece of ### Howdy Gowdy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #40)

Thu Oct 1, 2015, 06:31 PM

49. House Republicans repudiate McCarthy comments on Benghazi probe

McCarthy is a very very stupid person and it has been fun watching his fellow republicans repudiate the truth that McCarthy told about Howdy Gowdy and the fraudulent Benghazi investigation http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/politics/kevin-mccarthy-benghazi-committee-speaker/index.html

House Republicans on Wednesday sharply repudiated Rep. Kevin McCarthy's comments that suggested the Benghazi oversight committee had succeeded by tarnishing Hillary Clinton, saying it undermined their party's messaging on a key issue and raised questions about his ability to be the GOP's top communicator.

The California Republican, who is the leading contender to become the next speaker of the House, said Tuesday night that the GOP-led Congress had succeeded by bringing down Clinton's poll numbers because of the long-running investigation into the 2012 terror attack that killed four Americans.

"Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?" McCarthy said on Fox News. "But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened had we not fought."

Speaking to CNN's Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room," Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said McCarthy should apologize, saying the California Republican made an "absolutely inappropriate statement."

Speaker John Boehner, who is set to retire at the end of the month, sought to provide cover for McCarthy on Thursday. In a statement, he denied that the committee has anything to do with politics.

"This investigation has never been about former Secretary of State Clinton and never will be," Boehner said.

Privately, Republicans were outraged by the remarks, saying the House majority leader had given Democrats unfounded ammunition to argue that the committee's investigation is squarely being driven by politics. Republicans on the committee had tried for months to keep the focus of the inquiry on the administration's handling of the attacks, avoiding getting into the ins and outs of the various aspects on the email stories.

But in one fell swoop, McCarthy undercut their strategy.
The GOP is full of idiots and it may well be that being an idiot will not disqualify McCarthy from being speaker of the House. This will be fun to watch

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #40)

Sat Oct 3, 2015, 08:23 PM

57. Do you tire of being wrong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #57)

Sat Oct 3, 2015, 08:31 PM

58. Do you ever tire of being wrong?

Barbara Boxer’s claim that GOP budgets hampered Benghazi security
“I believe if we want to know what happened in Benghazi, it starts with the fact that there was not enough security. There was not enough security because the budget was cut.”

— Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), speech on the Senate floor, May 14, 2013

OCT. 10, 2012 HEARING:

QUESTION: It has been suggested that budget cuts were responsible for a lack of security in Benghazi. And I'd like to ask Ms. Lamb, you made this decision personally. Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE CHARLENE LAMB: No, sir.

***

QUESTION: So there's not a budget problem. It's not you all don't have the money to do this?

LAMB: Sir, it's a volatile situation. We will move assets to cover that.

MAY 8, 2013 HEARING:

QUESTION: Mr. Nordstrom, you were on that panel. Do you remember what she b] said?

REGIONAL SECURITY OFFICER ERIC NORDSTROM: Yes, she said that resources was not an issue. And I think I would also point to the ARB report, if I'm not mistaken, that they talked to our chief financial officer with D.S. , who also said that resources were not an issue.





SOURCE- http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/barbara-boxers-claim-that-gop-budgets-hampered-benghazi-security/2013/05/15/d1e295cc-bdb0-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

Lw, as usual Lied......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #58)

Mon Oct 5, 2015, 07:09 PM

63. Chaffetz admits to Budget cuts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #63)

Mon Oct 5, 2015, 07:19 PM

64. Do you ever tire of being wrong?

And yet under Testimony to congress US Sate Department admitted the cuts did NOT affect security at Benghazi.

You would think a Lawyer would know you cant get past that point...


Barbara Boxer’s claim that GOP budgets hampered Benghazi security
“I believe if we want to know what happened in Benghazi, it starts with the fact that there was not enough security. There was not enough security because the budget was cut.”

— Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), speech on the Senate floor, May 14, 2013

OCT. 10, 2012 HEARING:

QUESTION: It has been suggested that budget cuts were responsible for a lack of security in Benghazi. And I'd like to ask Ms. Lamb, you made this decision personally. Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE CHARLENE LAMB: No, sir.

***

QUESTION: So there's not a budget problem. It's not you all don't have the money to do this?

LAMB: Sir, it's a volatile situation. We will move assets to cover that.

MAY 8, 2013 HEARING:

QUESTION: Mr. Nordstrom, you were on that panel. Do you remember what she said?

REGIONAL SECURITY OFFICER ERIC NORDSTROM: Yes, she said that resources was not an issue. And I think I would also point to the ARB report, if I'm not mistaken, that they talked to our chief financial officer with D.S. , who also said that resources were not an issue.





SOURCE- http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/barbara-boxers-claim-that-gop-budgets-hampered-benghazi-security/2013/05/15/d1e295cc-bdb0-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

Lw, as usual Lied......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #64)

Thu Oct 8, 2015, 03:54 PM

72. No Shame

Here are some facts for the silly but sad conservatives to ignore or not be able to understand http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/opinion/republicans-have-no-shame.html?_r=0

There are many unanswered questions about the vicious assault in Benghazi last month that killed four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. And Congress has a responsibility to raise them. But Republican lawmakers leading the charge on Capitol Hill seem more interested in attacking President Obama than in formulating an effective response.

It doesn’t take a partisan to draw that conclusion. The ugly truth is that the same people who are accusing the administration of not providing sufficient security for the American consulate in Benghazi have voted to cut the State Department budget, which includes financing for diplomatic security. The most self-righteous critics don’t seem to get the hypocrisy, or maybe they do and figure that if they hurl enough doubts and complaints at the administration, they will deflect attention from their own poor judgments on the State Department’s needs.

At a hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform last Wednesday, Representative Darrell Issa, Republican of California and the committee’s chairman, talked of “examining security failures that led to the Benghazi tragedy.” He said lawmakers had an obligation to protect federal workers overseas. On Sunday, he said more should be spent on diplomatic security.

There are many unanswered questions about the vicious assault in Benghazi last month that killed four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. And Congress has a responsibility to raise them. But Republican lawmakers leading the charge on Capitol Hill seem more interested in attacking President Obama than in formulating an effective response.

But as part of the Republican majority that has controlled the House the last two years, Mr. Issa joined in cutting nearly a half-billion dollars from the State Department’s two main security accounts. One covers things like security staffing, including local guards, armored vehicles and security technology; the other, embassy construction and upgrades. In 2011 and 2012, President Obama sought a total of $5 billion, and the House approved $4.5 billion. In 2009, Mr. Issa voted for an amendment that would have cut nearly 300 diplomatic security positions. And the draconian budgets proposed by Mitt Romney’s running mate, Representative Paul Ryan, would cut foreign affairs spending by 10 percent in 2013 and even more in 2016.

Since 9/11, the United States has spent millions of dollars building new embassies and consulates around the world and fortifying existing ones. But despite the investment, there is still a lot of work to do to bring all facilities into compliance with safety standards that were set in 1985 after the bombing of the American Embassy in Beirut in 1983 and then updated after the attacks on the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. Maybe now Congress will see fit to provide more money to do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #72)

Thu Oct 8, 2015, 04:45 PM

74. You're right Progressives have no shame

And yet under Testimony to congress US Sate Department admitted the cuts did NOT affect security at Benghazi.

You would think a Lawyer would know you cant get past that point...


Barbara Boxer’s claim that GOP budgets hampered Benghazi security
“I believe if we want to know what happened in Benghazi, it starts with the fact that there was not enough security. There was not enough security because the budget was cut.”

— Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), speech on the Senate floor, May 14, 2013

OCT. 10, 2012 HEARING:

QUESTION: It has been suggested that budget cuts were responsible for a lack of security in Benghazi. And I'd like to ask Ms. Lamb, you made this decision personally. Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE CHARLENE LAMB: No, sir.

***

QUESTION: So there's not a budget problem. It's not you all don't have the money to do this?

LAMB: Sir, it's a volatile situation. We will move assets to cover that.

MAY 8, 2013 HEARING:

QUESTION: Mr. Nordstrom, you were on that panel. Do you remember what she said?

REGIONAL SECURITY OFFICER ERIC NORDSTROM: Yes, she said that resources was not an issue. And I think I would also point to the ARB report, if I'm not mistaken, that they talked to our chief financial officer with D.S. , who also said that resources were not an issue.





SOURCE- http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/barbara-boxers-claim-that-gop-budgets-hampered-benghazi-security/2013/05/15/d1e295cc-bdb0-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

Lw, as usual Lied......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #74)

Thu Oct 8, 2015, 09:24 PM

77. Silly conservative

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #77)

Thu Oct 8, 2015, 09:30 PM

79. Silly Progressive

use original thought instead of cartoon parroting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #79)

Fri Oct 9, 2015, 09:20 AM

80. Sad conservative

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #74)

Fri Oct 9, 2015, 07:02 PM

81. Do the conservatives feel guilty about using the deaths of these four heros?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #81)

Fri Oct 9, 2015, 08:50 PM

85. As usual, no original thought just spam cartoons

As for gravedancing, well Democrats invented that...... hell we've seen it this week in oregon as the bosies dont even go into rigor before the Democrats trot out their dancing line

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1&v=1yeA_kHHLow

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #85)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 02:23 PM

101. Where is the accountability?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #74)

Fri Oct 9, 2015, 08:20 PM

83. Here are some facts for the conservatives to ignore or not be able to understand

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #83)

Fri Oct 9, 2015, 08:47 PM

84. Oooh another spam meme with no original thought or sources to back it up

Must be a LMPV post

versus

WaPo article with transcripts-


And yet under Testimony to congress US Sate Department admitted the cuts did NOT affect security at Benghazi.

You would think a Lawyer would know you cant get past that point...


Barbara Boxer’s claim that GOP budgets hampered Benghazi security
“I believe if we want to know what happened in Benghazi, it starts with the fact that there was not enough security. There was not enough security because the budget was cut.”

— Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), speech on the Senate floor, May 14, 2013

OCT. 10, 2012 HEARING:

QUESTION: It has been suggested that budget cuts were responsible for a lack of security in Benghazi. And I'd like to ask Ms. Lamb, you made this decision personally. Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE CHARLENE LAMB: No, sir.

***

QUESTION: So there's not a budget problem. It's not you all don't have the money to do this?

LAMB: Sir, it's a volatile situation. We will move assets to cover that.

MAY 8, 2013 HEARING:

QUESTION: Mr. Nordstrom, you were on that panel. Do you remember what she said?

REGIONAL SECURITY OFFICER ERIC NORDSTROM: Yes, she said that resources was not an issue. And I think I would also point to the ARB report, if I'm not mistaken, that they talked to our chief financial officer with D.S. , who also said that resources were not an issue.





SOURCE- http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/barbara-boxers-claim-that-gop-budgets-hampered-benghazi-security/2013/05/15/d1e295cc-bdb0-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

Lw, as usual Lied......




Pretty poor lawyering counselor .....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #64)

Thu Oct 8, 2015, 03:56 PM

73. Posting the same ignorant and wrong material will not make it correct

Thank you for the laughs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #73)

Thu Oct 8, 2015, 04:49 PM

75. LMAO only one being ignorant is you

Are you saying the WaPo lied?

Are you saying the State Department persons testifying lied?

You haven't supported your claim that the testimony was false or wrong

The Source I used is from May 16th, 2013 and backed by facts

The Source YOU used is from October 14th, 2012 and an opinion piece

In reality there is one ignorant poster here

The Pinocchio Test

Boxer would have been on firmer ground if she had echoed the broad point made by the Accountability Review Board that both Republicans and Democrats in Congress repeatedly have failed to provide the State Department with the requested resources. Instead she narrowly tailored her critique to the two-year period when Republicans were in control of the House, failing to mention that Democrats have also “cut” the president’s budget request. Thus her remarks lacked significant context.

Indeed, it is almost as if Boxer is living in a time warp, repeating talking points from six months ago that barely acknowledge the fact that extensive investigations have found little evidence of her claim that “there was not enough security because the budget was cut.”

State Department officials repeatedly told Congress that a lack of funds was not an issue. Instead, security was hampered because of bureaucratic issues and management failures. In other words, given the internal failures, no amount of money for the State Department likely would have made a difference in this tragedy.

Three Pinocchios

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #75)

Thu Oct 8, 2015, 09:20 PM

76. Again, that article was wrong the first two times you posted it and it is still wrong

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #76)

Thu Oct 8, 2015, 09:29 PM

78. You are the wrong one, my source is a 2013 fact check, yours is a 2012 Opinion

Its really sad how you can't admit your source is outdated

Your cartoon doesnt back you up but then you knew that

No original thought involved in your post, quelle surprise...

I laugh at your claim

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #78)

Sat Oct 10, 2015, 06:14 PM

86. Merely repeating the same lie will not make it true

Facts really scare conservatives. Here the conservative keep on repeating and re-posting a debunked piece on the belief if they repeat the same lie often enough, people may believe it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #86)

Sat Oct 10, 2015, 07:21 PM

89. And thats exactly what you are doing- your sources are 2012, mine are 2013

your source was an editorial opinion piece

mine was a fact check that you refuse to acknowledge trumps your old editorial

Here let me help you with the facts-

Your editorial opinion was dated- October 15th, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/opinion/republicans-have-no-shame.html?_r=0

My factcheck was dated - May 16th 2013
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/barbara-boxers-claim-that-gop-budgets-hampered-benghazi-security/2013/05/15/d1e295cc-bdb0-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html


Clearly to anyone capable of adding and counting My Source is the most recent



I'm sure your rebuttal will be several cartoon spam memes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #89)

Sun Oct 11, 2015, 03:17 PM

90. Silly but sad conservative

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #75)

Sat Oct 10, 2015, 06:59 PM

88. Here are some facts for the sad but silly conservatives to ignore or not be able to understand

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #75)

Sun Oct 11, 2015, 03:55 PM

91. Here are some facts for the conservatives to ignore or not be able to understand

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #91)

Sun Oct 11, 2015, 04:39 PM

93. Memes? kool I have some also













Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #93)

Mon Oct 12, 2015, 08:40 PM

96. Sad and silly conservative

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #96)

Mon Oct 12, 2015, 09:49 PM

97. What about Bill Clintons Benghazi

1998 Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam Embassy Bombings?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #97)

Mon Oct 19, 2015, 04:42 PM

109. For this thread

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #109)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 05:26 PM

117. So as usual for you nothing of any substance to post, just more spamming

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #97)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 05:23 PM

116. Howdy Gowdy is a sad silly person

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 06:48 PM

45. Engel: Shut Down the Benghazi Committee

The ranking Democrat on the relevant House committee has called for the Howdy Gowdy witch hunt to be ended https://democrats-foreignaffairs.house.gov/news/press-releases/engel-shut-down-benghazi-committee

WASHINGTON, DC—Representative Eliot L. Engel, the Ranking Member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, today made the following statement calling for the House Select Committee on Benghazi to be shut down:

“Last night on FOX News, Speaker-in-waiting Kevin McCarthy admitted with pride what many of us have known for a long time: the Benghazi Committee is part of a GOP ‘strategy’ to derail Secretary Clinton’s presidential bid. The victims of the attack in Benghazi and their families deserve better than to be used as a prop in a political sideshow. It’s time to put a stop to it.

“The Benghazi Committee is now one of the longest Congressional investigations in history—longer than the investigations into Watergate, Iran-Contra, Hurricane Katrina, and the assassination of John F. Kennedy. And after 16 months and $4.5 million spent, the Benghazi Committee has held exactly three hearings and uncovered nothing that wasn’t addressed by the numerous other investigations into the attack. Even those who wanted to give this committee the benefit of the doubt should now admit it’s time to shut it down.

“Congress is facing no shortage of important issues. That’s where lawmakers’ time and taxpayers’ resources should be focused. The circus needs to pack up and leave town.”
Howdy Gowdy's star chamber needs to be closed down and Gowdy should resign in shame

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Wed Sep 30, 2015, 07:39 PM

47. In the pocket of the Koch brothers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Thu Oct 1, 2015, 06:30 PM

48. Howdy Gowdy and the GOP have been fundraising off of this fake investigation

?1443721015

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Thu Oct 1, 2015, 06:37 PM

50. Linking to Madcow sadly highlights your lack of intelligence.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kNockYourPunkassDown (Reply #50)

Tue Oct 20, 2015, 08:36 AM

111. Silly but sad conservative

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Fri Oct 2, 2015, 02:13 PM

51. Kevin McCarthy had to apologize to Howdy Gowdy for exposing Howdy as a liar

McCarthy had to apologize for exposing Howdy Gowdy as a liar and a fraud http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kevin-mccarthy-benghazi-explanation-fox

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) stumbled his way through an interview with Fox News on Thursday night while trying to walk back a remark he made earlier this week about the political victories of the Benghazi committee.

McCarthy said on Tuesday night during an interview on Fox's "Hannity" that the special House committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi terror attack had succeeded in hurting Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton's campaign. Democrats and Republicans alike hammered McCarthy after that, with some suggesting it could hurt his bid to succeed John Boehner (R-OH) as House speaker.....

Baier asked McCarthy if he had apologized to Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who is leading the Benghazi committee.

"I talked to Trey," McCarthy said, "and I told him I regret that this has ever taken place. It's never my intention — and Trey goes, 'I know it's not your intention because you know it's not political.'"
The rest of the world now knows what has been obvious for a long time. Howdy Gowdy is a liar and a fraud

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Sat Oct 3, 2015, 04:08 PM

52. Hillary Clinton On McCarthy Comments: 'I Find Them Deeply Distressing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Sat Oct 3, 2015, 06:49 PM

56. Those of you backing Gowdy are just as fucked as I'd hoped you'd be.

Enjoy that downward spiral, you've earned it......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Sun Oct 4, 2015, 10:39 PM

61. Howdy Gowdy wants us to look at actions and not words

Just look at the official record of the fake committee and it is easy to see that the sole and only purpose of this committee is to attack Hillary Clinton http://democrats.benghazi.house.gov/news/press-releases/benghazi-committee-chairman-says-look-at-actions-not-words-and-democrats-agree

WASHINGTON— Today, Benghazi Select Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy tried to explain away Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s confession on Fox News that the core Republican goal in establishing the Benghazi Committee was always to damage Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and never to conduct an even-handed search for the facts. As Chairman Gowdy said: “I would just encourage people to look at what is done as opposed necessarily to what is said.”

So, here are the facts about what the Select Committee has done to date:

The Select Committee was given an unlimited, taxpayer-funded budget, and it has now spent more than $4.5 million in one of the longest and least productive investigations in congressional history—focused on Hillary Clinton.
The Select Committee’s webpage shows that 22 of the past 27 press releases have focused on Hillary Clinton.
The Select Committee’s first witness request was for Hillary Clinton.
The Select Committee has officially released documents only one time in the past 17 months—Hillary Clinton’s emails with an associate who was not employed by the State Department.
The Select Committee has held only three hearings to date—it’s fourth will be with Hillary Clinton.
The Select Committee abandoned its plans to obtain public testimony from Defense Department and Intelligence Community leaders.
The Select Committee has never held one hearing with anyone from the Department of Defense.
The Select Committee has only held one hearing with a representative from the Intelligence Committee – the CIA’s head of Legislative Affairs.
The Select Committee will have interviewed or deposed eight current and former Clinton campaign staffers by October 22.
The Select Committee has conducted only four interviews with Defense Department witnesses.
The Select Committee excluded Democrats from interviews of witnesses who provided exculpatory information that debunked Republican conspiracy theories.
The Select Committee sent armed Marshals to serve a subpoena on longtime Clinton associate Sidney Blumenthal despite the fact that he was completely cooperative and had no direct knowledge of the Benghazi attacks.
The Select Committee asked Blumenthal more than 160 questions about his relationship and communications with Clinton, but fewer than 20 questions about the Benghazi attacks; more than 50 questions about the Clinton Foundation, but only 4 about security in Benghazi; and more than 45 questions about David Brock, Media Matters and affiliated entities, but no questions at all about Ambassador Stevens or other personnel in Benghazi.
The Select Committee blocked the public release of Blumenthal’s deposition transcript after he answered hundreds of questions about his emails with Hillary Clinton.
The Select Committee Chairman explained that he “never expected Witness Blumenthal to be able to answer questions about the attacks in Benghazi, Libya.”
The Select Committee began leaking inaccurate information almost immediately after the interview with Cheryl Mills, despite orders by the Chairman that it be treated as if it were classified.
The Select Committee Chairman refused to investigate or condemn a leak in which Politico was forced to correct a front-page story that relied on apparently doctored information about an email produced to the Select Committee.
The Select Committee is being used by Republican fundraisers to attack Hillary Clinton.
The Select Committee Chairman was scheduled to appear as a “special guest” at a Texas fundraiser for Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio.
The Select Committee Chairman’s name, image, and position was used to solicit political donations by Stop Hillary PAC, which describes itself as “created for one reason only—to ensure Hillary Clinton never becomes President of the United States.”
The Select Committee’s attacks on Hillary Clinton were described by the conservative PAC America Rising as a taxpayer-funded political activity: “This has all occurred without a single cent of paid advertising taking place.”
The Select Committee does not plan to release its findings until “just months before the 2016 presidential election.”
The Select Committee has been criticized by conservative commentators: “Whatever the findings are in this investigation—it will forever be plagued by allegations of unfairness, and politics if this investigation is dragged into 2016. That would not be fair to the American people.”
Howdy Gowdy reallly needs to resign from congress in shame for his lies and false statements

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Sun Oct 4, 2015, 11:34 PM

62. What’s next in the Kevin McCarthy-Benghazi-Hillary mess?

The next step in this fake investigation is a privileged motion on the House that will force a vote on whether to keep or disband this bogus committee or a complaint to the ethics committee on the complete lack of ethics of Howdy Gowdy https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/10/02/whats-next-in-the-kevin-mccarthy-benghazi-hillary-mess/

A House Democratic aide tells me that some Democrats are considering a next step: Offering a “privileged resolution” on the McCarthy comments — a resolution that would basically ask for House recognition of the idea that McCarthy admitted that taxpayer funds are being used for political purposes. The details are technical, but in essence, if the privileged resolution is drafted correctly, it would probably force the House of Representatives to deal with it and hold a vote on it, no matter who introduces it.

So basically, House Republicans would be forced to vote on whether they stand behind the McCarthy remarks. They would probably vote to “table” the resolution, putting an end to action on it. But Democrats would then try to point to that vote as evidence that Republicans support his comments, i.e., as evidence that they support the notion that the Benghazi probe has morphed into a tool to drive up Clinton’s negatives.

The interesting thing to consider here is how that could impact a race for Speaker. Just when the jockeying is intensifying among Republicans over who they should support for Speaker, GOP members would be asked to go on record on McCarthy’s comments.

Another option being considered by Democrats, according to the House Democratic aide, is a request for action by the House Ethics Committee. At her presser yesterday, Dem leader Nancy Pelosi suggested that McCarthy’s comments may have revealed an “ethics violation of the rules of the House,” adding that McCarthy had “clearly, gleefully claimed” that the Benghazi probe “had a political purpose and had a political success.” To my knowledge, however, no Democrat has publicly said that he or she would actually appeal to the House Ethics Committee.

Congressional expert Norman Ornstein tells me that filing such a complaint would result in some action, though it might not amount to much. “It is the case that any member of Congress can file an ethics complaint and that the committee would be obliged to deal with it,” Ornstein said. “But ‘obliged to deal with it’ is a loose phrase. The ethics committee is pretty much toothless. They rarely do anything. Taking it up, and actually doing something with it, are different matters entirely.”
Either action or both actions will force Howdy Gowdy and McCarthy to defend this bogus committee. The public will not be happy to hear that $4.8 million has been wasted by the GOP.

Since it is clear that Howdy Gowdy has lied repeatedly and have acted very unethically, I sort of like the ethics charges. I really believe that Howdy Gowdy needs to resign in disgrace

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 09:05 AM

66. House Benghazi panel may have broken ethics rules: Pelosi

Howdy Gowdy broke ethics rules http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/01/us-usa-congress-benghazi-idUSKCN0RV5BS20151001?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

A probe of the 2012 Benghazi attacks may have violated congressional ethics rules, House of Representatives Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said on Thursday after a top Republican indicated it was aimed at hurting Democrat Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy.

Angry Democrats called for the Benghazi panel to be disbanded following the remarks on Tuesday evening by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. He is campaigning to be the next speaker of the House when the current speaker, John Boehner, retires on Oct. 30.

McCarthy on Thursday voiced regret for making the remarks after some House Republicans said they thought he should apologize for, or explain, them. Others expressed understanding for what they saw as a media stumble.

"Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?" McCarthy told Fox News on Tuesday. "But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her (poll) numbers today? Her numbers are dropping."

Democrats said McCarthy's comments revealed the truth about the committee and countered the long-standing Republican contention that the panel was set up to find out what happened in the 2012 attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans.

Pelosi said political efforts by the Benghazi committee could violate ethics laws that ban using taxpayers' dollars for political purposes.

"The question is, is this an ethics violation of the rules of the House?" she said. "I think he (McCarthy) clearly, gleefully claimed that this had a political purpose and had a political success."
Ethics charges should be brought against McCarthy and Howdy Gowdy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 05:04 PM

67. Howdy Gowdy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 05:18 PM

68. Couldn't Be More Plain

Last edited Tue Oct 6, 2015, 06:42 PM - Edit history (1)

Someone had fun documenting all of Howdy Gowdy's lies about Hillary Clinton. Howdy Gowdy is a bad liar and an idiot

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Wed Oct 7, 2015, 02:11 PM

69. Democrats Release New Video and Fact Sheet: “Couldn’t Be More Plain”

The Democrats are having fun going after Howdy Gowdy http://democrats.benghazi.house.gov/news/press-releases/democrats-release-new-video-and-fact-sheet-couldn-t-be-more-plain

WASHINGTON— Today, Democrats on the Select Committee on Benghazi released a new video and fact sheet rebutting claims made by Chairman Trey Gowdy that the Committee is not focused on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The new video and fact sheet come after Republican Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy admitted on national television that the purpose of the Select Committee has always been to damage Hillary Clinton’s bid for President.



FACT SHEET:

How the Benghazi Committee Targeted Hillary Clinton

Gowdy Cancelled All Planned Hearings Other Than Hillary Clinton’s After NYT Email Story

Before the New York Times broke its story on March 2 about Hillary’s Clinton’s emails, Gowdy had sent to Committee Members an investigative plan that set out monthly hearings with all the different agencies involved in preparing for and responding to the attacks in Benghazi, including the State Department, the Defense Department, and the Intelligence Community.
After the New York Times’ email story broke on March 2, however, Gowdy completely abandoned this plan and began focusing almost exclusively on Hillary Clinton.
Since then, Gowdy has not held any of the hearings on his schedule, and his upcoming hearing with Hillary Clinton is the only hearing now scheduled.
For example, Gowdy abandoned the hearing he had planned for April with former Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary Leon Panetta.
The Committee has never held even one public hearing with anyone from the Department of Defense. The Committee has held only one hearing with an intelligence official, but it was with the CIA’s head of Legislative Affairs regarding the status of document production.
Gowdy Dropped Key Interviews with Top Defense and Intelligence Leaders

Gowdy also abandoned plans he had made in February to start conducting interviews of the following top defense and intelligence leaders in April: former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, former CIA Director David Petraeus, General Martin Dempsey, and former Director of the National Counterterrorism Center Matt Olsen.
He never invited any of these defense or intelligence leaders for interviews.
Gowdy then announced that he planned to start conducting the following interviews in June: former Defense Secretary Panetta, General Martin Dempsey, and General Carter Ham.
Those interviews were also abandoned.
Gowdy Scheduled New Interviews and Depositions of Hillary Clinton’s Associates

By the end of this month, Republicans will have interviewed or deposed 8 current or former Clinton campaign staffers, compared to only a total of four Defense Department officials.
Gowdy sent armed Marshals to serve a deposition subpoena on longtime Clinton associate Sidney Blumenthal despite the fact that he was completely cooperative and would have voluntarily appeared without a subpoena, but was never asked.
Gowdy later admitted that he “never expected Witness Blumenthal to be able to answer questions about the attacks in Benghazi, Libya.”
The Select Committee asked Blumenthal more than 160 questions about his relationship and communications with Clinton, but fewer than 20 questions about the Benghazi attacks; more than 50 questions about the Clinton Foundation, but only 4 about security in Benghazi; and more than 45 questions about David Brock, Media Matters and affiliated entities, but no questions at all about Ambassador Stevens or other personnel in Benghazi.
Gowdy Stepped Up Aggressive Press Campaign Against Hillary Clinton

Since March, Gowdy’s press releases have focused almost entirely on Secretary Clinton.
Over the past nine months, he has issued 22 press releases related to Secretary Clinton (including one on Sidney Blumenthal’s emails with Clinton), but only 5 press releases on any other topic during that period.
Of the 5 non-Clinton press releases, three (1, 2, 3) are about the State Department’s compliance with document production, one marks the anniversary of 9/11, and one is Gowdy’s interim progress report.
The only documents Gowdy has publicly released over the past 17 months were Clinton’s emails with Sidney Blumenthal, and Gowdy did this unilaterally with no debate or vote by the Select Committee.
At the same time, he has blocked the public release of Blumenthal’s deposition transcript, which would reveal all the questions Republicans asked about Hillary Clinton and other issues that have nothing to do with Benghazi.
Almost immediately after the interview with Cheryl Mills, Republicans began leaking inaccurate information to damage Clinton with unsubstantiated or previously debunked allegations, while refusing to release the complete transcript.
Gowdy refused to investigate or condemn a leak that made more unsubstantiated allegations against Clinton despite the fact that Politico was forced to correct a front-page story that relied on apparently doctored information about an email produced to the Select Committee.
Gowdy’s Taxpayer-Funded Political Campaign Against Clinton

The Committee was given an unlimited, taxpayer-funded budget, and it has now spent more than $4.6 million in one of the longest and least productive investigations in congressional history—focused on Clinton.
The Committee is being used by Republican fundraisers to attack Clinton.
The Committee’s attacks were described by the conservative PAC America Rising as a taxpayer-funded political activity: “This has all occurred without a single cent of paid advertising taking place.”
Gowdy’s name, image, and position has been used to solicit political donations by Stop Hillary PAC, which describes itself as “created for one reason only—to ensure Hillary Clinton never becomes President of the United States.
Gowdy appeared at a GOP political event in June where local Rep. Chuck Fleischmann explained: “Whether you are Hillary Clinton or any other lefty out there, you better beware because Trey Gowdy is out there and he is going to get you.”
Gowdy reportedly does not plan to release his findings until “just months before the 2016 presidential election.”
Gowdy’s approach has been criticized even by conservative commentators: “Whatever the findings are in this investigation—it will forever be plagued by allegations of unfairness, and politics if this investigation is dragged into 2016. That would not be fair to the American people.”
The Democrats have done an impressive job of documenting Howdy Gowdy's lies and unethical conduct

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Wed Oct 7, 2015, 03:01 PM

70. Gowdy: McCarthy's Apology For Benghazi Remark 'Doesn't Fix It'

Howdy Gowdy is upset that his lies have been exposed and that his record of unethical conduct has been exposed. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trey-gowdy-kevin-mccarthy-benghazi

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), the chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, seemed dismayed when discussing House Majority Leaader Kevin McCarthy's (R-CA) recent comments about the Benghazi panel with the Washington Post.

"I heard from him at 6 a.m. the next morning," Gowdy told the Post on Tuesday when asked about McCarthy. "How many times can somebody apologize? Yes, he’s apologized as many times as a human can apologize. It doesn’t change it. It doesn’t fix it. The only thing you can say is, instead of listening to someone else’s words, why don’t you look at our actions?"

Last week, McCarthy boasted on Fox News that the Benghazi committee had been successful in damaging Hillary Clinton's poll numbers, forcing Republicans to defend the committee's work.

According to the Post, Gowdy trailed off while discussing forgiveness:
Howdy Gowdy is stomping his foot and trying to convince people that he is not unethical. The trouble is that the facts show that Howdy Gowdy is a liar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Wed Oct 7, 2015, 06:25 PM

71. Howdy Gowdy is violating the Hatch Act

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #71)

Fri Oct 9, 2015, 07:08 PM

82. A special prosecutor should look into Gowdy and McCartney and this partisan witchhunt

What the Republicans have done in this Joseph McCarthy redux witchunt (which was one of the most despicable things in American history), has made Nixon look like a saint.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Sat Oct 10, 2015, 06:15 PM

87. Benghazi Committee Ex-Staffer Alleges He Was Fired For Refusing To Target Clinton

It is all over. Another GOP insider is blowing the whistle on the unethical conduct of Howdy Gowdy Howdy Gowdy fired a staffer for sin of investigating the facts and refusing to be unethical ant target only Hillary Clinton http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bradley-podliska-benghazi-committee-allegations

A former staffer for the Republicans on the House Select Committee on Benghazi alleged that he was unlawfully fired in part because he resisted focusing his investigative efforts on Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton, The New York Times and CNN reported Saturday.

Air Force Reserve Major Bradley Podliska, who served as an investigator for 10 months until he was fired in June, told the news outlets that he plans to file a federal lawsuit next month against the select committee for wrongful termination. He alleged to CNN that he lost his job in part because he resisted the "partisan investigation" the committee pursued following revelations that Clinton exclusively used a private email account during her tenure as secretary of state. Podliska also said that his taking a leave from the committee to fulfill his active duty obligations factored into his termination, which would be unlawful.

In a statement to the Times, the select committee denied Podliska's allegations and countered that the staffer was fired in part because "he himself manifested improper partiality and animus in his investigative work," including toward Clinton.

"The committee vigorously denies all of his allegations," the statement read. "Moreover, once legally permitted to do (sic), the committee stands ready to prove his termination was legal, justified and warranted — on multiple levels.”

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) caused a stir last week when he credited the select committee with dragging down Clinton's poll numbers. His Republican colleagues denounced those comments while Democrats seized on the "gaffe" as evidence that the select committee was created by Republicans to disrupt Clinton's presidential bid. McCarthy dropped out of the running for House speaker on Thursday.

Podliska, who described himself as a conservative Republican, told CNN that he decided to come forward because he didn't feel the committee was carrying out its stated purpose to uncover the truth about the deaths of the four Americans who died in the September 11, 2012 attacks in Benghazi.

"What happened was wrong," he told CNN.
Howdy Gowdy has no honor or ethics. This latest revelation again confirms the facts disclosed by Kevin McCarthy. Howdy Gowdy is a liar and a fraud. The truth about Howdy Gowdy lies are being revealed and the only honorable thing is for Howdy Gowdy to resign in disgrace

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Sun Oct 11, 2015, 06:09 PM

94. Ken Starr

 


deja vu

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bpilgrim (Reply #94)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 09:10 AM

99. Starr was a decent attorney compared to Howdy Gowdy

Howdy Gowdy is a really stupid attorney and showed his hand. This from the NYT article

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Mon Oct 12, 2015, 05:42 PM

95. Exclusive: Ex-Benghazi investigator alleges Rep. Gowdy violated federal law

Howdy Gowdy is a really stupid and a bad lawyer who knows that his lies has been exposed. Howdy Gowdy is willing to violate the law in order to try to stave off his resignation in disgrace http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/benghazi-investigator-alleges-trey-gowdy-violated-federal-law

The legal battle between the House Benghazi Committee and its former investigator, Todd Podliska, escalated Monday afternoon, when Podliska’s lawyers alleged that Chairman Trey Gowdy violated government confidentiality rules and federal law in responding to a lawsuit filed by Podliska.

“Both Representative Gowdy and the committee have clearly violated terms of the confidentiality agreement and the Congressional Accountability Act,” said Peter Romer-Friedman, one of Podliska’s attorneys, to MSNBC on Monday afternoon.

The lawyers allege that Gowdy and the committee improperly released confidential information regarding an employment dispute with Podliska, in an effort to discredit him.

MSNBC and NBC News reached out to Gowdy’s office with the new claims, and will update reporting with any response.

The skirmish began over the weekend when Podliska alleged publicly that the committee improperly targeted Hillary Clinton in an effort to damage her politically. A draft of a lawsuit to be filed by Podliska claimed he was fired in part because he refused to go along with the anti-Clinton effort, and also in retaliation for him leaving the committee on Reserve Air Force duties.

Gowdy has categorically denied Podliska’s allegations that he was fired for refusing to go after Clinton. Gowdy has said Podliska was actually terminated for his own errors on the job, including the mishandling of classified information.

At issue in the new claims made Monday by Podliska’s lawyers are critical comments leveled by Gowdy about Podliska over the weekend, in response to the ex-staffer’s charge that the committee improperly targeted Clinton. Gowdy, the Benghazi committee chairman, told NBC News’ Kristin Welker that Podliska was a “lousy employee” who mishandled classified information, and that his criticism of the committee’s focus on Hillary Clinton only arose when he “was losing in mediation on his reservist claim.” That referred to Podliska’s claim that the committee retaliated against him for leaving the country to serve in the Air Force Reserves.
You do not release confidential information in order to try to save your own hied. Howdy Gowdy broke the law in order to try to save his tarnished reputation and now Howdy Gowdy has no choice but to take the 5th Amendment during any deposition in this lawsuit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 01:23 PM

100. It is time to investigate the investigators

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Tue Oct 13, 2015, 05:36 PM

102. Alan Grayson is using Howdy Gowdy in his first ad

#t=13

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Thu Oct 15, 2015, 07:47 PM

103. Howdy Gowdy needs to be investigated

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Thu Oct 15, 2015, 08:17 PM

104. these GOP scumbags make my skin crawl!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2015, 01:30 PM

106. Howdy Gowdy is a liar

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Mon Oct 19, 2015, 09:49 AM

107. Learn to speak Benghazi

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 07:41 PM

112. Hillary Clinton needs to thank Howdy Gowdy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 07:42 PM

113. This cartoon fits this thread

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Wed Nov 4, 2015, 11:47 PM

118. One of these two is Draco Malfoy

:large

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicspoliticshowdygowdygopelectiomvpunethical