Pay Us Back! Republicans Have Spent $20.5 Million of Your Money On Benghazi Probe

[Kal'Stang]

Moderator's Warning:

Moved to a more appropriate location.

 

[Cardinal]

The families of those killed in Benghazi disagree.

Do they?

 

[joG]

Pay Us Back! Republicans Have Spent $20.5 Million Of Your Money On Benghazi Probe
Pay Us Back! Republicans Have Spent $20.5 Million of Your Money On Benghazi Probe

The House Republican investigation into the Benghazi attacks has passed its 700th day and spent $6.5 million in taxpayer money to uncover no new evidence. It is time for Republicans to pay us back every cent that they have wasted…………………..

This is a great example of government fraud waste and abuse……………And the taxpayers are going to put a stop to it come November

I do not really understand the criticism of the left on this. We did have a problem that has shown itself before and we are in danger of happening again. To look into the thing closely is not a bad idea. On the other hand, I would probably have spent less public time on it, as the issues are technical and remote from the man on the street. It is highly unlikely to be of a category that should decide anyone's vote or remotely change many lives. We have much more urgent questions to answer.

So just ignore it and don't act as though you really cared about the Dollars spent more that the election propaganda value.

 

[RetiredUSN]

I want some of the $550,000,000 tax dollars back that went to Solyndra, that Obama once praised as a "true engine of economic growth"

 

[imyoda]

I do not really understand the criticism of the left on this. We did have a problem that has shown itself before and we are in danger of happening again. To look into the thing closely is not a bad idea. On the other hand, I would probably have spent less public time on it, as the issues are technical and remote from the man on the street. It is highly unlikely to be of a category that should decide anyone's vote or remotely change many lives. We have much more urgent questions to answer.

So just ignore it and don't act as though you really cared about the Dollars spent more that the election propaganda value.

From day one this entire "investigation into wrong-doing has been politically motivated ...............along the way GOP members of Congress admitted it..........as a few others spoke with contempt of some of the many committees which investigated this so-called wrong-doing........

And please do not tey6 to blow it off as some form of liberal bellyaching............this is not political in that way.........it is the taxpayer who's aware of what going on Democrat, Republican, Independent............ are outraged by the contempt and misuse of government powers and in doing so look to ruin the reputations and careers of not only HRC but anyone that stands in their way......

Rather than not being able to understand yall should be ashamed of all those involved in this self serving and dirty politics who dare call them selves Republicans........

 

[OpportunityCost]

Do they?

Why don't you check Google and get back to me on that one. I already know the answer, but I will leave the discovery up to you because I don't feel like playing cat and mouse with you over the source and you lining up a bazooka shot with the messenger.

So you go get your answer. The thread will still be here, or where its been moved to LOL.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I did look, Rice's comments were not false. The video was believed to play a role. There was actual intelligence from actual eyewitnesses that the associated press in Libya actually reported on :

"As the attack in Benghazi was unfolding a few hours later, Mr. Abu Khattala told fellow Islamist fighters and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him."

Whether or not that's the whole story is controversial, but that shows that Rice's statement had merit in one potential explanation at the time.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/1...nswer-questions-on-assault.html?referer=&_r=0

How many millions of dollars and years of investigation does an ambassador's death that is absolutely no mystery require ?

Except that this was 5 days later. The administration knew within 24 that it was a coordinated terrorist attack. They sent Rice out with talking points that were disinformation--whether she knew it or not would be a point of investigation.

The so called central figure in the NY Times story was directing attacks---that would argue to a chain of command and a coordinated assault and not a protest. You can admit it was a false narrative, anyone that isn't blinded by partisanship knows why Rice was on those shows giving bad information; it was an election year. Which would argue why State and the WH has been so reluctant to give information, we still don't know who gave the order to alter the talking points given to Rice.

 

[joG]

From day one this entire "investigation into wrong-doing has been politically motivated ...............along the way GOP members of Congress admitted it..........as a few others spoke with contempt of some of the many committees which investigated this so-called wrong-doing........

And please do not tey6 to blow it off as some form of liberal bellyaching............this is not political in that way.........it is the taxpayer who's aware of what going on Democrat, Republican, Independent............ are outraged by the contempt and misuse of government powers and in doing so look to ruin the reputations and careers of not only HRC but anyone that stands in their way......

Rather than not being able to understand yall should be ashamed of all those involved in this self serving and dirty politics who dare call them selves Republicans........

You sound biased.

 

[Cardinal]

Why don't you check Google and get back to me on that one. I already know the answer, but I will leave the discovery up to you because I don't feel like playing cat and mouse with you over the source and you lining up a bazooka shot with the messenger.

So you go get your answer. The thread will still be here, or where its been moved to LOL.

Okay, so you made a drive-by "zinger" then in the hopes that nobody would challenge you on it. In fact, I see you've even poisoned the well by pre-attacking me for challenging your source, because it's probably some far right blogger.

 

[Absentglare]

Except that this was 5 days later. The administration knew within 24 that it was a coordinated terrorist attack. They sent Rice out with talking points that were disinformation--whether she knew it or not would be a point of investigation.

The so called central figure in the NY Times story was directing attacks---that would argue to a chain of command and a coordinated assault and not a protest. You can admit it was a false narrative, anyone that isn't blinded by partisanship knows why Rice was on those shows giving bad information; it was an election year. Which would argue why State and the WH has been so reluctant to give information, we still don't know who gave the order to alter the talking points given to Rice.

Do you think it's standard operating procedure to explain every detail of an on-going investigation so as to tip off the people you're looking for ?

 

[OpportunityCost]

Do you think it's standard operating procedure to explain every detail of an on-going investigation so as to tip off the people you're looking for ?

Do you think its standard operating procedure to lie to the American people about a terrorist attack during an election year?

 

[OpportunityCost]

Okay, so you made a drive-by "zinger" then in the hopes that nobody would challenge you on it. In fact, I see you've even poisoned the well by pre-attacking me for challenging your source, because it's probably some far right blogger.

Nope, there are lots of references to this one, head to Google and check them out. You don't need to have a right wing source for this but I'm not going 12 rounds with you over a source so I'm asking you to go look and check out a basic point.

 

[Absentglare]

Do you think its standard operating procedure to lie to the American people about a terrorist attack during an election year?

Do you think it's standard operating procedure to already know all the details about an attack that just occurred ?

 

[fmw]

And the taxpayers are going to put a stop to it come November [/B]

What a dreamer. Congress has been wasting money for centuries. Suddenly it is going to stop in November. Taxpayers have nothing to say about it.

 

[humbolt]

Yeah, ah, so what? This partisan nutter crap and false hysteria over such money is silly. When the government has to be sued in order to reveal even tidbits of information in it's hands that would settle the issue, I think the partisanship on display resides primarily with the executive branch and those goof balls here that defend it.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Do you think it's standard operating procedure to already know all the details about an attack that just occurred ?

In this case it was known within 24 hours what the cause was. It was downplayed for political reasons. You can address this or you can keep begging the question.

 

[Absentglare]

In this case it was known within 24 hours what the cause was. It was downplayed for political reasons. You can address this or you can keep begging the question.

Based on ...?

Do you not realize that the white house played no role in supposedly doctoring the talking points ?

 

[OpportunityCost]

Based on ...?

Do you not realize that the white house played no role in supposedly doctoring the talking points ?

Benghazi Attack, Revisited

But the report also said that it failed to get a “full account” of what changes were made, who made them and why — despite “repeated requests” for that information.

Plausible deniability probably isn't just a plot point for movies.

 

[Absentglare]

Benghazi Attack, Revisited


Plausible deniability probably isn't just a plot point for movies.

Why do you think the CIA owes you an explanation ?

 

[OpportunityCost]

Why do you think the CIA owes you an explanation ?

Because I don't think the CIA changed the talking points independently. Because we still don't know WHO made that call. Because the explanation is not owed me, it is owed to Congressional Oversight.

Further, I don't think this would be your stance if it were a Republican administration.

 

[American]

FBI formally confirms its investigation of Hillary Clinton's email server | MSNBC

When are Dems going to pay back the country for the classified data exposed to hackers on Clinton's unsecure server?

 

[Absentglare]

Because I don't think the CIA changed the talking points independently. Because we still don't know WHO made that call. Because the explanation is not owed me, it is owed to Congressional Oversight.

Further, I don't think this would be your stance if it were a Republican administration.

I don't make mountains out of molehills to criticize republicans, i don't have to. We have the housing bubble and the Iraq war to complain about. No need to manufacture controversy about a couple of interviews.

 

[reinoe]

I want some of the $550,000,000 tax dollars back that went to Solyndra, that Obama once praised as a "true engine of economic growth"

I understand your concerns. I would also like to ask...did you know that American solar energy companies failed in large part because the Chinese flooded the market with cheap, subsidized solar panels? The Chinese undercut an emerging American business while it was still in development. If you are truly angry about Solyndra, then you should also support a renegotiation of our trade deals.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I don't make mountains out of molehills to criticize republicans, i don't have to. We have the housing bubble and the Iraq war to complain about. No need to manufacture controversy about a couple of interviews.

Out come the deflections. You don't think its an issue, so it doesn't need investigated. The bottom line is someone changed those talking points. Someone decided to lie to the American people to influence an election. THAT is important, whether your partisanship allows you to admit it or not.

 

[Absentglare]

Out come the deflections. You don't think its an issue, so it doesn't need investigated. The bottom line is someone changed those talking points. Someone decided to lie to the American people to influence an election. THAT is important, whether your partisanship allows you to admit it or not.

Preliminary reporting is not expected to be perfect.

When President Bush 2 was informed on 9/11, he sat, uncaring, in a room with little children. He didn't call it a terrorist attack, he just sat there.

But i recognize that's just silly to complain about.