New Disclosures on Benghazi

Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you expect me to talk?

I sure hope so; someone should know what's going on.

I make a terrible Auric Goldfinger... though I bet I could find a better way to cheat some random guy at cards if I tries...
 
Last edited:
Don't blame me because you haven't read the book you yourself cited and so have no clue whatsoever as to what the book's authors meant when they described Brennan as "running his own private war".

Don't ya think that the phrase "Brennan is running his own private war" would send chills down anyone's spine?
 
Report Says GOP Aides Are Beginning to Mock House Republicans’ Benghazi Accusations as ‘Crazy’

Home » Featured • Politics » Report Says GOP Aides Are Beginning to Mock House Republicans’ Benghazi Accusations as ‘Crazy’
Report Says GOP Aides Are Beginning to Mock House Republicans’ Benghazi Accusations as ‘Crazy’
posted by DeadState May 21, 2013 Featured, Politics
inShare
deadstate darrell issa

In an interesting report from Roll Call, GOP aides are apparently criticizing House Republicans, slamming their rhetoric in regards to the Obama administration’s handling of the attacks in Benghazi last year. The aides are arguing that the Party needs to change its focus to more substantive issues.

According to the report, Republican aides are saying the GOP is getting sidetracked chasing unsubstantiated accusations.

“We have got to get past that and figure out what are we going to do going forward,” a GOP aide told Roll Call. “Some of the accusations, I mean you wouldn’t believe some of this stuff. It’s just — I mean, you’ve got to be on Mars to come up with some of this stuff.” Another aide slammed the idea that military forces weren’t properly deployed during the night of the attacks:
Tilting at windmills.
 
Washington Post fact checker Glen Kessler on Tuesday examined the controversy over Benghazi emails the White House released last week, dishing out "three pinocchios" to the administration's claim that Capitol Hill Republicans "doctored" quotes to "smear the president."

It is actually worse than that, the claim was that they doctored the e-mails themselves, for which the Administration deserves the entire four Pinocchios.

Now that distraction and sideshow is out of the way, the pending hot topics for lively and friendly discussion are:

1. Officials in the White House admitting they acted like "idiots" and the other facts exposed last week by CBS and:

2. Brennan's Private War in Benghazi.

Of course there may be additional topics, including Pickering's testimony. (I'd like to hear more about his claim that "The White House pulled me back", wouldn't you?)
 
Washington Post fact checker Glen Kessler on Tuesday examined the controversy over Benghazi emails the White House released last week, dishing out "three pinocchios" to the administration's claim that Capitol Hill Republicans "doctored" quotes to "smear the president."

How Kessler can admit "Clearly, of course, Republicans would put their own spin on what the e-mails meant, as they did in the House report", describe exactly how the description of the emails misrepresented what they actually said, and then have the gall to go ahead rate the claim that the Republicans purposefully disseminated demonstrably false information about what was said in the emails with three Pinocchios kind of astonishes me.
 
How Kessler can admit "Clearly, of course, Republicans would put their own spin on what the e-mails meant, as they did in the House report", describe exactly how the description of the emails misrepresented what they actually said, and then have the gall to go ahead rate the claim that the Republicans purposefully disseminated demonstrably false information about what was said in the emails with three Pinocchios kind of astonishes me.

Yeah....

Anyway: Pickering said "The White House pulled me back." I had been calling Pickering's "offer" to testify on the same day as the whistle blowers as a political stunt.

It seems like Pickering's little slip of the tongue let on more than he intended.

For someone who was supposed to take an OBJECTIVE look at this, he is coming off more and more every day like a political tool.
 
Anyway: Pickering said "The White House pulled me back." I had been calling Pickering's "offer" to testify on the same day as the whistle blowers as a political stunt.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/to-his-f...at-he-refused-to-testify-at-benghazi-hearing/

Issa replied, “You know, let’s not blow things out of proportion. This is a failure; it needs to be investigated. Our committee can investigate. Now, Ambassador Pickering, his people and he refused to come before our committee.”

“That is not true,” Pickering interjected.

Gregory allowed Issa to continue, and Issa added that “We’re inviting him on Monday, along with Admiral Mullen, to come to go through, with his papers, a private deposition so we can get the facts in a nonpartisan way.”

Gregory then allowed Amb. Pickering to respond. “Well, all right, Ambassador Pickering, you just jumped in here,” Gregory said. “You’re willing to appear?”

“Of course,” Pickering said. “I said the day before the hearings, I was willing to appear, to come to the very hearings that he excluded me from. The White House pulled me back, but he said I refused…”

“Please don’t tell me I excluded you,” Issa interrupted.

“Well, we were told the majority said I was not welcome at that hearing. I could come at some other time,” Pickering explained.

Issa didn’t refute the ambassador, instead, fine-tuning his accusation. “Well, as the ambassador just said, the day before the hearing, if the White House said, ‘We’d like to have him,’ there’s a procedure. He could have been the Democratic witness, and we would have allowed him.”

So, by “refused to come before our committee,” Issa meant “was not invited, by the people who weren’t running the hearings.”

Good of him to clear that up.

Why are you taking that one bit out of context and refusing to address what was actually said in that exchange?

It seems like Pickering's little slip of the tongue let on more than he intended.

Okay, Dr. Freud, whatever you say.

For someone who was supposed to take an OBJECTIVE look at this, he is coming off more and more every day like a political tool.

Whereas Hicks is as pure as the driven snow, naturally.
 
Whereas Hicks is as pure as the driven snow, naturally.

I honestly find some of your posts fascinating. This is no different:

How in the world do you think the "context" helps you, in fact it is completely and totally supports what i said: Look at the entire sentence:

“I said the day before the hearings, I was willing to appear, to come to the very hearings that he excluded me from. The White House pulled me back, but he said I refused…”

The White House pulled me back. Amazing!

/ridiculous attack on Hicks acknowledged and ignored.
 
Yellow light on this story because it's second-hand

So, the fact that these unnamed "whistleblowers" are repeating long-debunked conspiracy claims makes me highly suspect.

Also, it's PJ Media, which follows in the same journalistic vain as WorldNetDaily. Not that they couldn't actually tell the truth once in a while, but the odds are pretty low.
 
Now the scandal is the claim that Pickering refused to cooperate with Congressional investigations?

[ETA: and I note that this is a far cry from the earlier allegation made by Newton's Bit and repeated by 16.5 that the Obama administration overtly lied to deflect responsibility for the deaths at Benghazi. We've gone from an allegation of treasonous action to what is essentially people saying, "Did so!" and "Did not!"]

What exactly is the point of this thread?

And I'm so glad this thread didn't descend into pointless poring over of the minutia of who said what when and who knew what when. Instead, it's been a robust discussion of U.S. policy and politics.
:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
How in the world do you think the "context" helps you, in fact it is completely and totally supports what i said: Look at the entire sentence:

“I said the day before the hearings, I was willing to appear, to come to the very hearings that he excluded me from. The White House pulled me back, but he said I refused…”

The White House pulled me back. Amazing!

It looks to me that he was willing to appear, but the White House "pulled him back", saying "we were told the majority said I was not welcome at that hearing".

You're cutting his later statements out in an effort to imply that it was the White House which did not want him testifying, not Issa's committee that didn't want him testifying. And, as the article notes, Issa himself did not refute Pickering's statement that he was told that Issa's committee did not want him testifying.

/ridiculous attack on Hicks acknowledged and ignored.

Merely pointing out your hypocrisy in getting mortally offended that anyone would dare impugn Hicks' motives for testifying (despite his hyperpartisan hack lawyers), while you blithely proceed with calling Pickering a "political tool".
 
It looks to me that he was willing to appear, but the White House "pulled him back", saying "we were told the majority said I was not welcome at that hearing".

You're cutting his later statements out in an effort to imply that it was the White House which did not want him testifying, not Issa's committee that didn't want him testifying. And, as the article notes, Issa himself did not refute Pickering's statement that he was told that Issa's committee did not want him testifying..

And you are missing the point. Pickering was asked to come to the hearing in March, advised that he wasn't available and then declined to reschedule.

Fast forward to May. The Hearing are scheduled for a full day of testimony of the Whistleblowers.

The DAY before the Whistleblowers are set to testify for a whole day, Pickering announces he is ready and wants to testify too! The next day! The same day as the whistleblowers, with no time to prepare for his testimony at all.

Pickering claims he was TOTALLY ready to testify and stuff, and that he was in no way trying to distract anyone from the proceedings and testimony long before scheduled, but the White House pulled him....

Wait a tick. The White House? Who said anything about the freaking White House? The White House put you up to this stupid stunt Pickering?

You "volunteered" to testify with no notice on a day when testimony is already scheduled? How stupid do you think people are, White House Pickering?
 
And you are missing the point. Pickering was asked to come to the hearing in March, advised that he wasn't available and then declined to reschedule.

Fast forward to May. The Hearing are scheduled for a full day of testimony of the Whistleblowers.

The DAY before the Whistleblowers are set to testify for a whole day, Pickering announces he is ready and wants to testify too! The next day! The same day as the whistleblowers, with no time to prepare for his testimony at all.

Funny that Issa himself didn't complain at all about that. In fact, he specifically said that there was no problem whatsoever with Pickering telling the committee he wanted to testify the day before. His claim is not that Pickering's request came too late and gave the committee no time to prepare for his testimony when they already had a fully day of "whistleblower" testimony scheduled. His claim is that the White House simply didn't make a formal proper request to have the Democrats call him as a witness, whereupon, Issa asserts, "we would have allowed him".

If Issa really wanted to hear from Pickering, and it was perfectly okay to have Pickering testify on one day's notice if the Democrats called him as a witness, then why didn't Issa just call Pickering as a Republican witness?

And if he was perfectly willing to have Pickering testify in public without a private deposition if he had been called as a Democratic witness, why is he now refusing to allow Pickering to testify in public without a private deposition first?

It's almost like Issa really doesn't want Pickering to testify at all, and is more than happy to contradict his own claims just as long as the end result is no public testimony from Pickering.

Wait a tick. The White House? Who said anything about the freaking White House?

Issa did. Didn't you see it? "[T]he day before the hearing, if the White House said, ‘We’d like to have him,’ there’s a procedure."

And you are aware that the State Department is part of the executive branch, right? Why are you so surprised that the interface between members of the legislative branch hold a hearing and the members of the executive branch that they want to have testify at those hearings would be the White House?

You "volunteered" to testify with no notice on a day when testimony is already scheduled? How stupid do you think people are, White House Pickering?

You're really banging the "Obama orchestrated everything!" conspiracy drum hard, aren't you?
 
It's almost like Issa really doesn't want Pickering to testify at all, and is more than happy to contradict his own claims just as long as the end result is no public testimony from Pickering.


Issa did. Didn't you see it? "[T]he day before the hearing, if the White House said, ‘We’d like to have him,’ there’s a procedure."

Well Issa asked him to come in March, right? Right. Pickering wasn't to eager to come in March. But he was DELIGHTED to come on a day that three whistle blowers were already scheduled to testify.

"Oh NOW I'm ready, Mr. DeMille Issa"
"Sorry, toots, we got a full day here already set up, how's about next week?"
White House whispers in Pickerings ear.
Pickering flounces off stage, takes up the fainting couch "I was ready for my PERFORMANCE....."

cut to scene in Pickerings dressing room, flowers delivered and Pickering is reading the card which says: "Baby You were a smash! Thanks for all the help, doll. XX B.O"

Reviews afterwards? "It Stinks."
 
This makes your indignation over what we said about Maxwell's poetry even more hypocritical and amusing.
 
Last edited:
Well Issa asked him to come in March, right? Right. Pickering wasn't to eager to come in March. But he was DELIGHTED to come on a day that three whistle blowers were already scheduled to testify.

Whistleblowers? What exactly were they blowing the whistle on?

"Oh NOW I'm ready, Mr. DeMille Issa"
"Sorry, toots, we got a full day here already set up, how's about next week?"
White House whispers in Pickerings ear.
Pickering flounces off stage, takes up the fainting couch "I was ready for my PERFORMANCE....."
Your fantasy conversation reveals the value of your allegations. It's all fantasy.

Again, have you abandoned your previous claim that the Obama administration overtly lied to deflect responsibility for the deaths? That's a very serious allegation. If true, it would be shocking, outrageous and indeed would be the crime of treason.

And is the scandal now simply your questioning the willingness to cooperate of Ambassador Pickering?
 
Wait a tick. The White House? Who said anything about the freaking White House? The White House put you up to this stupid stunt Pickering?

You earlier alleged that the White House overtly lied to deflect responsibility for the deaths at Benghazi. Now you want to make the scandal something that doesn't involve the White House in any way at all?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom