Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...

“ADL and Numbnuts”

Level 1

Since: Oct 13

Sittin in a tree

#49470 May 13, 2014
Another Damn Liberal wrote:
Allow me to reiterate myself. It's now 9:35 pm and no tea partier has said Benghazi yet. Do we have to do everything for you lazy bums?
From my 1:15 post:
What's wrong with you tea partiers? It's after 1:00 pm and no one has said Benghazi yet.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/12/1298 ...
If Republicans really want to investigate what went wrong in Benghazi, they need to look in a mirror
" Even after Congress approved the U.S. military joining a NATO mission in May 2011 whose efforts contributed to Gadhafi’s fall and death, neither the House nor the Senate ever held a hearing about Libya and what the NATO-led effort had left behind. After four decades of living under Gadhafi, all with no real security force or order, Libya struggled to maintain security, its economy failed to recover and the weak government in Tripoli was powerless to fend off extremists who took control of the restive country.
Republicans were front and center in the failure to explore what was happening in Libya. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee and a harsh critic of the Obama administration over its handling of the Benghazi attacks, met with Stevens during a July 2012 visit to Libya, just two months before Stevens’ death. A month earlier, unknown attackers in Benghazi had attempted to assassinate the British ambassador to Libya.
In response to the attempted assassination, Britain closed its consulate. McCain didn't mention it. McCain didn't mention that security was imploding. McCain did issue a press release lauding the great strides Libya was making toward democracy. This was as accurate as his infamous 2007 lauding of the security in Iraq, as that country was spiraling into hell.
The intelligence community “produced hundreds of analytic reports in the months preceding the Sept. 11-12, 2012, attacks, providing strategic warning that militias and terrorist and affiliated groups had the capability and intent to strike U.S. and Western facilities and personnel in Libya,” according to a report by the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that was released in January.
And yet, in the year and a half between the U.S. intervention in Libya and the attack at Benghazi, despite those hundreds of warnings, McCain and his pet poodle Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) issued exactly two combined press releases pertaining to Libya.
It gets better.
The chairman of the new House select committee has a mixed record on Libya. Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., voted for the resolution that allowed for U.S. intervention. But weeks later, he supported one intended to prevent the U.S. from providing the kind of military presence that some argue was needed to prevent Libya’s post-Gadhafi decline into chaos. That resolution read in part:“The President has failed to provide Congress with a compelling rationale based upon U.S. national security interests for current US military activities regarding Libya.”
Let's reiterate: the chairman of the witch hunt investigative committee voted for U.S. intervention in Libya, then voted against the robust military presence that might have protected the Benghazi diplomatic mission.
As for the rest of the committee:
The six GOP lawmakers announced Friday are Reps. Susan Brooks of Indiana, Jim Jordan of Ohio, Mike Pompeo of Kansas, Martha Roby of Alabama, Peter Roskam of Illinois and Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia.
And together with Gowdy, on the June 3, 2011 resolution offered by House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), which read:
Declaring that the President shall not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of units and members of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Libya, and for other purposes
Among those supporting the resolution were Reps. Brooks, Jordan, Pompeo, Roby, Roskam, and Westmoreland.
If the Republicans want to investigate Benghazi, they need to look in a mirror."
Allow me to reiterate myself … you are a dumb bastard.
George

Alkol, WV

#49471 May 13, 2014
Illegally collecting the emails of tens of millions of Americans in violation of the 4th amendment.
Well Duh

Ashburn, VA

#49472 May 13, 2014
Another dam liberal.......they stopped talking climate. You are like Obama and can not read or adapt.
Well Duh

Ashburn, VA

#49473 May 13, 2014
George.....why do you think that I always agreed that GWB was a idiot president too?
George

Alkol, WV

#49474 May 13, 2014
Wow, it is quite clear they all knew what they were doing was illegal and a federal felony and just did it anyway. They declared themselves above the law and did as they pleased. True enemies of liberty.
George

Alkol, WV

#49475 May 13, 2014
Gonzolez is a traitor. What a spineless coward.
George

Alkol, WV

#49476 May 13, 2014
Comey does the right thing and quits rather than ignore the Constitution he swore to uphold. Hooray!

“Save light, save coal.”

Since: Sep 09

Clarksburg, WV

#49477 May 13, 2014
Apparently it's entirely up to me to say Benghazi today. I hope you all appreciate this.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/05/09/226967/...
It may be hard to believe now, but there was a time _ 16 months ago to be exact _ when Congress showed very little interest in Libya.

On Thursday, the House of Representatives voted along party lines, 232-186, to convene a select committee to investigate the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador, Christopher Stevens. Republicans said creation of the panel was necessary for Congress to carry out its oversight role into how the attack happened and whether the Obama administration purposely obscured facts afterward.

But the new Benghazi probe is unlikely to tackle another topic that some argue is just as critical to understanding what went wrong in Libya _ Congress’ own failure to call attention to the deteriorating security situation in that country in the months after the NATO-assisted toppling of its longtime leader, Moammar Gadhafi.

Even though the U.S. military's role was critical to the NATO bombing campaign that contributed to Gadhafi’s fall and death, neither the House nor the Senate ever held a hearing about Libya and what the NATO-led effort had left behind. After four decades of living under Gadhafi, all with no real security force or order, Libya struggled to maintain security, its economy failed to recover and the weak government in Tripoli was powerless to fend off extremists who took control of the restive country.

Republicans were front and center in the failure to explore what was happening in Libya. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee and a harsh critic of the Obama administration over its handling of the Benghazi attacks, met with Stevens during a July 2012 visit to Libya, just two months before Stevens’ death. A month earlier, unknown attackers in Benghazi had attempted to assassinate the British ambassador to Libya.

Yet McCain made no mention publicly of the deteriorating security situation _ the British had closed their consulate in Benghazi in response to the attack _ and instead issued a news release that effusively praised the progress Libya was making toward democracy.

Asked this week about his visit with Stevens, McCain said that the ambassador had discussed the security situation with him. Pressed for details, McCain said he could not remember the specifics of the conversation. Asked whether he brought any security concerns to the attention of his fellow members of Congress or officials at the State Department when he returned from Libya, McCain said he could not recall. A review of Senate records found nothing to indicate that he had.

McCain acknowledged he didn’t probe.“I didn’t ask him questions,” he said.“It was part of the conversation. He said he relayed that information back to the State Department.”

McCain is not alone. Prior to the Benghazi attack, Congress showed little interest in developments in Libya after the collapse of the Gadhafi government, even though the civil war there was fueled in no small part by the Obama administration's decision to back NATO’s air campaign. The ramifications of that effort have had a far greater effect than many imagined when bombing began in Libya in March 2011.

Russia, which had joined the United States in supporting a U.N. resolution authorizing the use of force to protect civilians in Libya, later accused the West of exceeding the authority the U.N. had granted it when it helped topple Gadhafi. Moscow now cites the experience as one reason it has refused to be more cooperative on halting the violence in Syria.
George

Alkol, WV

#49478 May 13, 2014
They are saying GWB didnt know the extent and when he found out he canceled authorization and told Comey to come back.

“Save light, save coal.”

Since: Sep 09

Clarksburg, WV

#49479 May 13, 2014
part 2
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/05/09/226967/...
The looting of the Gadhafi government’s weapons stores is believed by many to have fueled the rise of al Qaida in northern Africa, where al Qaida-inspired terrorists nearly seized the country of Mali before French forces drove them back into the desert early last year. Libyan weapons are said to have helped the growth of al Qaida-linked groups in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula. Benghazi’s airport now routinely receives passengers that officials there believe are bound for terrorist training camps set up in the countryside of eastern Libya.

Yet none of those developments have been the subject of congressional hearings in the more than two and a half years since Gadhafi fell.

The intelligence community “produced hundreds of analytic reports in the months preceding the Sept. 11-12, 2012, attacks, providing strategic warning that militias and terrorist and affiliated groups had the capability and intent to strike U.S. and Western facilities and personnel in Libya,” according to a report by the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that was released in January.

Yet the most outspoken proponents of U.S. intervention in Libya in 2011 were largely silent after the end of the NATO mission, even though some had called for no-fly zones, regime change and a heavy U.S. ground footprint in the post-Gadhafi period. For example, of all press releases issued between the 2011 intervention and the 2012 Benghazi attacks by McCain and his Republican ally, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, only two pertained to Libya.

The chairman of the new House select committee has a mixed record on Libya. Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., voted against a resolution that would have cut off funds for the U.S. air war. But he also supported one intended to keep the U.S. from providing the kind of military presence that some argue was needed to prevent Libya’s post-Gadhafi decline into chaos. That resolution read in part:“The President has failed to provide Congress with a compelling rationale based upon U.S. national security interests for current US military activities regarding Libya.”

Amid complaints that the Republican-inspired House investigation is aimed primarily at derailing the presidential aspirations of Hillary Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time of the Benghazi attack, members of Congress from both political parties offer various explanations for why they showed so little interest in Libya before the attack and so much interest now: They were consumed with other world problems, the administration did not give them the documents needed to conduct oversight, the job belonged to the Armed Services or Foreign Relations committees.

“I think there is plenty of blame to go around in terms of Congress disengaging and supporting the light footprint (in Libya after Gadhafi’s fall), but there is only one commander in chief,” Republican Graham said.

Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., a former member of the House Armed Services Committee who voted Thursday against appointing the select committee, and who also voted against authorizing the U.S. intervention in Libya in 2011, said that some member of Congress did ask questions about what was taking place in Libya in the months after Gadhafi fell, but that the issues were not pursued as aggressively as they should have been.

“There should always be more oversight by Congress, but most importantly there should have been funding” for security at U.S. diplomatic posts, Larson said. The committee was “looking at this, but not under the microscope and not under the political microscope.”

But in Thursday’s debate over whether to appoint the select committee, Congress’ oversight responsibilities and the broader ramifications of the U.S. involvement in toppling Gadhafi didn’t come up at all.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/05/09/226967/...
George

Alkol, WV

#49480 May 13, 2014
Hayden then goes to FISA and somehow got the illegal shti started back up. The get some traitorous judge to sign off and fired it right back up, "bigger then ever".
George

Alkol, WV

#49481 May 13, 2014
GWB lied and said they werent doing it when he knew they were to get re-elected. What a shocker.
George

Alkol, WV

#49482 May 13, 2014
Thomas Tamm does the right thing and reports it to the NYTimes.

Since: Sep 13

Moatsville, WV

#49483 May 13, 2014
Well Duh wrote:
Spacey......go take a flying [email protected] in a rolling doughnut. I am a independent and I could careless what party you are from. You think America first jackweed. Neither side is doing that and I do not care to hear your side of the spin. The proof is in the reality and it sucks. Only a butt slurping jackweed would think that this group, republicans or democrats, are doing a good job. So shut the hell up and go back to eating cheetos naked in your bean bag chair down in your mom's basement.
Sounds like I hit a nerve. Regardless, you're about as "Independent" as Richard Simmons is heterosexual.

We've had this conversation before -- independent voters do not exist as studies and polls show roughly 75 percent always vote straight ticket. There is a large portion of the American population who call themselves "Independent" but they always support right-wing policies and admit to voting exclusively conservative.
----------
Taken from "The Myth of the Independent Voter."

"The general consensus is that of the 30% to 40% or so of Americans who call themselves independents, no more than ten percent are independent voters in any meaningful sense of the term. And “pure independents” are also less likely to vote than partisans.

This is important for a whole lot of reasons. For one thing, the idea that “independents” are a third force in politics positioned in some moderate, bipartisan space equidistant from the two parties is entirely wrong.

Who knew this? Karl Rove, for one, a factor that played heavily into the way the Bush Administration played politics :

In late 2000, even as the result of the presidential election was still being contested in court, George W. Bush’s chief pollster Matt Dowd was writing a memo for Rove that would reach a surprising conclusion. Based on a detailed examination of poll data from the previous two decades, Dowd’s memo argued that the percentage of swing voters had shrunk to a tiny fraction of the electorate. Most self-described “independent” voters “are independent in name only,” Dowd told me in an interview describing his memo.“Seventy-five percent of independents vote straight ticket” for one party or the other. Once such independents are reclassified as Democrats or Republicans, a key trend emerges: Between 1980 and 2000, the percentage of true swing voters fell from a very substantial 24 percent of the electorate to just 6 percent. In other words, the center was literally disappearing. Which meant that, instead of having every incentive to govern as “a uniter, not a divider,” Bush now had every reason to govern via polarization."
----------
Well Duh, you are a right-wing extremist nutjob who is simply "in the closet" when it comes to your political affiliation.

I personally detest so-called "Independent voters" because they always know the least about politics and policy while bitching the most about government and liberals.

Even with the continued movement of the Democratic Party to the far right of Reagan, there are still so many profound differences between the two parties that one would have to be an idiot to not gravitate to one or the other based on his/her personal ideology.

BTW -- you not only have A LOT of misdirected anger, you also should go back to 9th grade English so that you can relearn the content standard related to propaganda techniques. You, as do most conservatives, use these techniques which are always used in place of fact and substance (which is why students are taught to recognize them). You are overly fond of the technique referred to as "Name Calling," in which you attach a negative label to a person or a thing when you are trying to avoid supporting your own opinion with facts.

I don't think you are smart enough to know you are doing this, but I thought you should be aware of this fact.
George

Alkol, WV

#49484 May 13, 2014
If people want to continually bring up Bush and how bad he was they should be talking about this. The most traitorous unconstitutional thing a president has ever done I think. Decreed himself above the law and ran with "The Progam". The program was the illegal spying on Americans. Emails, phone calls, whatever, all without a warrant. Bush decreed a warrant was no longer needed.

“Save light, save coal.”

Since: Sep 09

Clarksburg, WV

#49485 May 13, 2014
Well Duh wrote:
Another dam liberal.......they stopped talking climate. You are like Obama and can not read or adapt.
I didn't stop talking climate. Thank you for kind of paying attention. Are you the moderator for tonight's discussion? I didn't see that or the agenda posted any where.
We just had a hell of a lightning storm in the Clarksburg area, like I haven't seen for many years. Almost continuous flashes in the south for half an hour before it got here. Light stuff blowing around the yard. Hail when it got here. There, weather, not climate. Happy now? Or do I still have to make some derogatory remarks about people who can't think very well when it comes to politics or science?
George

Alkol, WV

#49486 May 13, 2014
Frontline comes trhough again. You righties sure you want rid of PBS? This is the best and most informative show I have seen in a very long time. It will win awards, that is certain.
George

Alkol, WV

#49487 May 13, 2014
I find it very interesting many people knew about it and knew it was illegal and did nothing or very little, it took a high school drop out nobody to have the balls to stand up and do what was right and expose this criminal behavior.
George

Alkol, WV

#49488 May 13, 2014
GWb should be arrested and prosecuted for authorizing "The Program". He is a criminal.
George

Alkol, WV

#49489 May 13, 2014
So should General Hayden. Arrested and prosecuted. A criminal.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Huntington Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Blacks in Rocco's downtown 20 min Nancy Johnson 2
Trailer parked in front of Marcum Terrace nuisance 37 min Huntington Idiots 16
hpd slow response times 2 hr big b 14
underground tunnels (Feb '12) 4 hr HerdProfessor 32
Marshall Does not need a Baseball Stadium 4 hr Mr_Awesome 4
Murder 4 hr fostergrant 17
bad heroin? 5 hr nice bag 6
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Huntington Mortgages