Skip to comments.Did Darrell Issa Just Sabotage the New Benghazi Committee? [Useful idiot alert!]
Posted on 05/25/2014 6:11:37 AM PDT by don-o
Either Darrell Issa is so miffed at Republican leaders for yanking the Benghazi investigation out from under him that he's intentionally undermining the new House Select Committee, or he just vindicated those who believe he wasn't up to the task. Either way he just blew a hole in one big piece of the conspiracy theory.
(Excerpt) Read more at newrepublic.com ...
No true patriot he.
Issa always seems to be about - Issa.
Right. If this would have helped the White House narrative they would have released it themselves long before now.
Nice attempt as distraction, though I give credence to the hypothesis— it’s the same thing I thought when I read the e-mail about the WH warning about the video during the attack. However, there’s nothing convoluted or conspiratorial about Obama’s having to answer the main question, where was he during the attack?
First of all New Republic has this story completely twisted
“Ah ok. Let’s draw out that conspiracy theory in a little more detail, shall we? What follows is a brief, fictitious dialogue between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the night of September 11, 2012.”
“brief, fictitious dialogue” In other words lets use another
lie to enplane this lie.
“The White House is thrilled with this revelation because it supports the view that their early citations of the YouTube video were sincere”
No Mrs.Beutler it doesn’t you jackass, it exposes the lie
they told when they said it came from the CIA.
I don’t understand that with the appointment of the Select Committee, that Issa’s Committee isn’t required to cease its’ investigation of Benghazi and turn over all information gained to the Select Committee. Obviously, The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader have less power than I thought.
It’s a damned good attempt to muddy the waters. These guys are good at Propaganda. The USSR would have killed — and did — for this caliber of propaganda liars.
Clinton: Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.
CNN: It was not an innocent mob, one senior official said. The video or 9/11 made a handy excuse and could be fortuitous from their perspective but this was a clearly planned military-type attack.
“ISSA” is JESUS in Arabic.
Just another”Super-Ego”begging to be Accomodated!!!!!!!!!
State Department officials said the two incidents at the diplomatic missions were not related and said they believe the Benghazi violence was a "clearly planned attack."
Agree very much that a definitive timeline must be produced. I have seen some but I am not certain we have it all. Sharyl Atkisson, are you out there?
“Issa always seems to be about - Issa.”
I think he’s working in the interest of the fascist
party. He runs out there ahead of everyone and exposes all
the evidence that is readily available so the fascist can
bury any corroborating evidence like what, most likely, was
done with this e-mail. Thanks to him, all investigations were
compromised and it gave the fascist administration a heads
up on what to withhold, declare classified or out right
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesperson
September 11, 2012
STATEMENT BY SECRETARY CLINTON
Statement on the Attack in Benghazi
I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today. As we work to secure our personnel and facilities, we have confirmed that one of our State Department officers was killed. We are heartbroken by this terrible loss. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and those who have suffered in this attack.
This evening, I called Libyan President Magariaf to coordinate additional support to protect Americans in Libya. President Magariaf expressed his condemnation and condolences and pledged his governments full cooperation.
Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.
In light of the events of today, the United States government is working with partner countries around the world to protect our personnel, our missions, and American citizens worldwide.
I wonder if anyone here actually read the article. Please do so and then explain what Issa did wrong. This is the New Republic doing the “reporting”. Look them up in wikipedia.
Yes, Trey Gowdy is a much better choice than Issa was to lead the Behghazi charge. But this article is just a typical lib hit piece. Issa was simply point out the obvious. This article is just trying to muddy the waters on the on the issue of Hillary’s favorite YouTube video. It won’t work. 60% or so of the people in this country aren’t stupid. Well maybe 52%.
This article is sooo stoopid! I knew that it was gonna be some kinda sh*t sandwich the moment I saw that it was printed in the New Republic. Weak!
Yeah, the president heard about this obscure video, but couldn’t/ didn’t hear about the VA scandal, the running of guns, the severe problems with the Obamacare website and many, many more????????
Being old school, you surely know that the original forte’ of this board was to deconstruct media lies and spin.
We’re still pretty good at it.
“... before the CIA began the process of compiling talking points on its analysis of what happenedthe White House believed it was in retaliation for a controversial video”
Only way these tools would have so quickly made that connection was to possess the knowledge of the attack in advance, so they could contrive their storyline
Plenty of other scandals for him to go after: Fast and Furious, Lois Lerner IRS, Pigford, VA, Solydra, NSA abusing power, C’mon Darrell, there is plenty to go after.
If you really think it was the video, then site me all the evidence.
I find it hard to pay attention to anyone who doesn't know the difference between two different words that sound the same, but are spelled differently and have quite different meanings. He meant to use the word "cite", but he's apparently too ignorant, too dense, and too dependent on spell check to be taken seriously.
Anyone as ineffective as Issa in a private company would have been fired a long time ago.
The video was a hook that was started earlier in the day in a press release from our Embassy in Cairo that was meant to forestall a planned demonstration against our embassy in Cairo later that day.
I don’t see how this helps the WH, everyone knows the apology for the YouTube video was sent out the day before the terrorist attack.
I’ll also add that the release of the apology could have just stoked already heated Islamic groups to riot for the killing of one of their leaders by a drone.
New Republic works overtime to keep conservatives splintered and riled up against one another.
Issa ran the tables against a stone wall from the beginning, stuck chairing an ordinary committee with no teeth, no enforcement mechanism, no political clout and left with issuing his toothless subpoenas, which served the delighted administration with an opportunity to blow those off too, along with humiliating Issa personally.
No Special Prosecutor, and this is what you get. Five different committees were strategically used to drag this out nearer to election cycles.
A Special Committee has more teeth, tools and track talent, but still, even impeachment is unlikely and the Reid senate removes, nor even punishes, anyone.
Within the confines of Republican strategy to drag this out and within the limits of an ordinary committee, Issa met the goal. Imho.
Do we really know who made the video? (I heard there were actually 4 videos in question)
What if the State Department made the videos?
I’m back to shoot holes in Benghazi, again. Please don’t read if t’s too upsetting. And understand that my only interest in any investigations is convincing 67 Senators to stop the bleeding and remove “Obama” from office.
“Obama” is the very meaning of “domestic enemy”. He has committed, or caused to be committed crimes and has also conducted a program, with associates known and (especially) unknown to subvert our form of government. Any Congress worthy of their oaths would have removed him 18 months ago.
“Benghazi” is especially galling to patriots, since it involves abandonment of American representatives to be slaughtered by Islamic fanatics. But it’s key to recognize that most US Senators and a very substantial minority in the House are not patriots and don’t give two sh**s about what happened in Benghazi.
No American President has ever been removed by Congress. Only two have come close (Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon). In both cases, it was proven that they had committed or caused to be committed crimes that would be prosecuted in the ordinary way if they were not President or which disordered the constitutional structure.
So, the de facto standard for removal, the historically proven definition of the undefined “high crimes and misdemeanors”, is the personal commission of felonies, the subornation of crimes by Executive Branch employees, and the use of authority under color of law to injure political enemies.
The IRS scandal and the “fast and furious” crimes are both more than sufficient (once they are properly investigated, by competent authorities) to result in Obama’s removal.
Does “Benghazi” meet this standard? No, for 3 reasons.
First: Obama’s authority to deploy, or not to deploy, light infantry forces into urban combat in a city like Benghazi is undisputed. The position of the Americans around Stevens was known to be perilous (that’s why they hired guards), and whether or not their loss was acceptable given the risk/reward involved was, and is, a purely prudential executive judgement. No President is ever going to be removed for exercising judgement within his proper sphere of authority.
Second: The secret operation at the “annex” (probably shipping weapons to Syria) that was the real target of the enemy action. The conduct of foreign policy is the responsibility of the Executive Branch. Attempts by Congress (other than the ratification or not of treaties by the Senate) to conduct foreign policy are only quasi-Constitutional and have mostly been failures. If Ronald Reagan was not ever in danger from buying hostages freedom with weapons (or trying to), “Obama” can’t be removed for conducting foreign policy in this manner.
Third: Obama’s presence or absence for a number of hours on the evening of 9/11/12 is irrelevant, because no one can seriously contend that he would have taken decisive action had he been present.
“Obama”’s cowardice and islamic sympathies were well known to the electorate that chose him twice. The problem that Benghazi represents is a problem with the electorate, and, as such will not and cannot result in his removal.
That’s why Boehner has agreed to convene a select committee. That’s why Pelosi has agreed to participate. “Obama” doesn’t have to run again. Whatever facts are uncovered that are not now known MIGHT hurt an Obama re-election campaign, but they will not shorten his tenure by a single day.
New Republic is a leftist rag, ignore their diversionary trash.
“Ill also add that the release of the apology could have just stoked already heated Islamic groups to riot for the killing of one of their leaders by a drone.”
I agree. The only reason everyone even knew about that video is because of the big advertising push by the WH. If the state department or whatever really thought the video was a cause of violence, why did they deliberately fan the flames? So our freedom of speech could be blamed?
These are all valid points.
However, the issues are the cover-up and obstructionism. Illegal weapons trading probably won’t go anywhere (as you pointed out).
The cover-up is obvious. And Clinton is deep in the middle of it. The Benghazi investigation will end her political career.
Obstructionism is the fault of this administration. This will grease the wheels in the F&F and IRS investigations.
Issa is use LESS
Obama surrendered at Benghazi. What that means is that he cut a deal with Al Qaeda in Benghazi.
Here’s what Al Qaeda gave him:
1. The body of the Ambassador.
2. A cease fire to withdraw the CIA employees.
3. No release of the agreement and details to the press or American public.
Here’s what he gave Al Qaeda:
1. No rescue attempt.
2. No military retribution strikes in Libya.
3. Weapons, armored vehicles and night vision equipment.
4. Five billion dollars.
5. All Americans out of Benghazi.
6. A video with him and Hillary Clinton apologizing to Muslims.
Cover up of what? Obstruction of what?
It's not illegal to tell a story your way, as along as you don't lie under oath or order others to do so.
And it's not illegal to use your political friends to slow down or stop your political enemies, especially when stopping them doesn't require much effort.
The Benghazi posse here seem to believe that "if only the people knew about "Obama", this will all turn out right".
The problem is, the people DO know about "Obama", and they re-elected him.
It's a very big problem, and "Benghazi" is not the solution.
Do you prefer that we just post articles that support conservative viewpoints? If so, why?
This helps get rid of "Obama" how?
Your lists are plausible, but if true, I’m not confident that those who know this and have access to the evidence will come forward. Nor will the media report the story which has been the catalyst for public disclosure in past coverups. I’m afraid that lips will stay sealed.
Little barry bastard boy’s regime knows that the more convoluted they can have their media whoredom make the treacherous fecklessness the less likely the average American voter is to actually start paying attention. The most dangerous piece of regime appointmentary is John Brennan to head CIA. And he was approved by too wide a margin thus exposing republicant complicity in the deconstruction of the Republic.
I agree with your point that the Benghazi incident cannot result in impeachment, but none of Obama's criminal activities will either. He will not be impeached, period. To do so requires political power and the Republicans do not have it.
That does not mean that Benghazi, Fast and Furious, Keystone Pipeline, BLM, illegal immigration and all the rest should be allowed to stand. He cannot be removed, but his actions and agenda can be discredited and that is beginning to happen. His lies and the lies of the press can be melted away, but only if the pressure is unrelenting.
“Courage is the foundation of all the other virtues.”
I guess that makes cowardice the foundation of all the vices.
If we have become a nation of greedy, self-serving cowards, then our nation will die, and deservedly so. I don’t think the Democrats will like what it would be replaced with.
If I recall correctly, that was done before there was any word of a video out there. I found it peculiar that it was sent out ahead of time.
The cowards are being offered the benefits of being a beneficiary of a corrupt government while being threatened with their property, harm to their loved ones, and even loss of life if they break ranks. This is how the Mafia operated for years.
The Mafia was broken by offering an alternative choice: cooperate with us and enjoy protection and an escape, or spend the rest of your life in a 9x9 cell while everyone else gets richer at your expense.
I don’t see anyone offering an alternative choice.
Question! Did the religious tolerance at the beginning of our Nation include such for Muslims? I don’t recall in my learnings that the Koran and Islam were in the used religions. It appears such speak is more twisting of history to justify Jihad in the USA.
Treason is when an American provides “aid and comfort” to an enemy. Obama provided aid to the enemy, Al Qaeda. Hillary and Obama provided comfort to Al Qaeda when they made and released their “We’re sorry!” commercial. Al Qaeda required that specifically to prove the treason of Hillary and Obama.
It is the Democrat Party that stands ever-threatening against any action being taken against Hillary and Obama. They threaten to turn our government into more of an extension of the Democrat Party or to rile their members into insurrection if action is taken against their leaders. That is how all bullies and enforcement rackets work.
I like a good brawl. Those tough-talking Democrats are like all bullies and they’ll sing a different tune once they take a shot in the old snot box and taste their own blood. Then they’ll be talking about how they were just kidding and we didn’t understand them and gee they’re sorry.
The White House, the American "free press"...same thing, an incestuous blood relationship.
Where was the CIC as all this was going down?
He was NOT a “hands-on” part of this operation.
The American people have a right to know the answer.
All these hearings are so much show.
Let’s cut to the chase.
Where the hell did Patrick Fitzgerald come from...the Scooter Libby prosecutor?
(or was it his friend Gerald Fitzpatrick?)
Well, "the voters" did. Not so sure about "the people".
Post whatever you want, just don’t be surprised or offended by criticism when you post leftist propaganda.
Quite frankly, I do prefer articles that support conservative viewpoints and/or expose leftists for the scum they are.
In my view, the Free Republic home page disclaimer has set the standard:
“Free Republic is a site dedicated to the concerns of traditional grassroots conservative activists. We’re here to discuss and advance our conservative causes in a more or less liberal-free environment. We’re not here to debate liberals. We do not want our pages filled with their arrogant, obnoxious, repugnant bile.”