Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) Says Democrats May Not Participate in Benghazi Committee, “Colossal Waste of Time” … Rep. Peter King (R-NY) Blasts Boycott of Probe as “Terribly Arrogant” and “Wrong”
Why don’t Democrats want to get to the truth?
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) said on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace that he would recommend congressional Democrats not participate in the recently announced Select Committee on Benghazi. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) responded that by doing so would be “terribly arrogant” and “wrong.” King went on to say that, “If Democrats boycott this committee, refuse to take part, the American people are going to conclude, and I think quite rightly, that they feel they have something to hide.” On Friday, House Speaker John Boehner said the House would vote on a select committee to investigate the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) will lead a Select Committee investigation on White House Benghazi scandal.
“I think it is a colossal waste of time … I don’t think it makes sense really for Democrats to participate. It’s just a tremendous red herring, and a waste of taxpayer resources … I don’t think it makes sense for us to give this Select Committee any more credibility than it deserves.”
Imagine that, Democrats think it is a waste of time to get to the truth. As stated by Protein Wisdom, “Democrats make it clear: Obama’s political reputation more important than American lives.” I would also add, protecting Hillary Clinton’s bacon.
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said doing so would be “terribly arrogant” and “wrong.”
The call for a boycott was made earlier by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., during an interview on “Fox News Sunday.” He was responding to House Speaker John Boehner’s announcement Friday that the House would vote on a select committee to investigate Benghazi.
The congressman said Democrats should not give the select committee more “credibility” by joining, dismissing new evidence that Republicans have called a “smoking gun” showing the White House politicized the tragedy.
“I think it’s a colossal waste of time,” said Schiff, also a member of the intelligence panel. “I don’t think it makes sense, really, for Democrats to participate.”
King, speaking afterward with Fox News, said this would be a “mistake” for Democrats as it would show they “cannot defend the administration.”
“If Democrats boycott this committee, refuse to take part, the American people are going to conclude, and I think quite rightly, that they feel they have something to hide,” King said.
Brit Hume & Former California Democratic Rep. Jane Harman Get into Heated Debate Over Benghazi on FOX News Sunday
Democrats cannot explain away the fabricated and intentionally misleading Benghazi talking points without going into hysterics.
Fox News contributor Brit Hume and former Congresswoman Jane Harman (D – CA) went at it on Fox News Sunday after Harmon delivered an arrogant and dismissive lecture on the Benghazi talking. points. Hume pressed Harman to name a single person in the administration who credibly believed that the Benghazi attack was connected to an anti-Islam video. And predictably, she could not do so. Host Chris Wallace interjected and said, “Ben Rhodes talks about the video five times in this memo, five times.” Harmon would finish by saying, “my view on this, having been around at the time, was that this was not deliberately misleading. It turned out to be wrong, but it was not deliberate.” Wrong, it was deliberate.
“You’re right, there wasn’t a conspiracy in the United States to mount the Benghazi attack,” Hume said. “That’s not the question.”
“The question was whether in the aftermath of the attack, when the administration sent its U.N. ambassador out to explain it to everybody, and she did so falsely, that there wasn’t a conspiracy to create the false talking points that she used,” the Fox News senior political analyst continued. “I’m not talking about the CIA talking points, I’m talking about the talking points used on that program that day, which were monumentally misleading, that since have been shown to be false, and based on no intelligence of any consequence that we know of.”
Harman continued, however, to insist that the administration did not deliberately craft misleading talking points.
“My view on this, having been around at the time, was that this was not deliberately misleading,” the former Democratic congresswoman replied. “It turned out to be wrong, but it was not deliberate.”
Former NSA Spox Tommy Vieto Admits … DUDE, Barack Obama Never Made it to Situation Room During Benghazi Terror Attack!
So as our US Consulate was being attacked by terrorists in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012 where four Americans were killed, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, we finally learn from former NSA spokesperson Tommy Vieto that President Barack Obama never made it to the Situation Room. Obama was in the White House but never made it to the Situation Room as events were taking place in Benghazi and Islamist terrorists stormed the US Embassy in Cairo. UNREAL.
So why wasn’t Obama in the Situation Room? Could it be because what was going on did not fit his narrative that al-Qaeda was on the run, or was he and this political spin doctors already at work making up faux talking points?
From Fox News Special Report:
Tommy Vietor: I was in the Situation Room that night. Ok. And we didn’t know where the ambassador was. Definitively.
Bret Baier: Was the president in the Situation Room?
Baier: Where was the president.
Vietor: In the White House.
Baier: He wasn’t in the Situation Room.
Vietor: Uhh. At what point in the evening. He was constantly… It’s well known that when the attack was first briefed to him it was in the Oval Office. And he was updated constantly…
Baier: So then when Hillary Clinton talks to him by phone at 10 PM, he’s where?
Vietor: I don’t know. I don’t have a tracking device on him in the residence.
Baier: But you were in the Situation Room and he wasn’t there.
Democrat House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi … Why aren’t we talking about something else?”
BECAUSE THE FAMILIES OF THE FOUR DEAD AMERICANS DESERVE ANSWERS …
Democrat House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi thinks the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, is a “diversion” and “subterfuge.” “SICK. Nancy Pelosi told reporters Thursday when asked about a new cache of recently released emails. “Why aren’t we talking about something else? Or as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would say, “What difference does it make”. I am guessing the parents, families, loved ones and friends of those murdered in Benghazi, Libya do not think it is “subterfuge.”
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi wanted to talk about immigration and the minimum wage at her weekly press conference on Thursday morning — not what she called the newest Republican attack line on the State Department’s response to the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
Asked by reporters more than once about revelations that the White House withheld certain documents from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee after the panel subpoenaed all relevant emails on the matter, the California Democrat threw up her hands.
“Diversion, subterfuge. Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. Why aren’t we talking about something else?” Pelosi asked.
“If you all want to sit around and talk about Benghazi, you can sit around and talk about Benghazi,” she said in her closing remarks. “The fact is that’s a subterfuge and they don’t want to talk about jobs, growth, immigration reform, voting rights, you name it.”
ABC’s Jon Karl Hammers WH Spokesman Jay Carney On Revisionist Benghazi Talking Points, Susan Rice Interviews & Smoking Gun Email Linked to Obama White House
Baghdad Bob Jay Carney grilled by ABC’s Jon Karl over new explosive emails linking the Obama White House over Benghazi untruthful talking points. Watch Jay twist, turn and spin … What does the Obama administration do when caught in a lie … Lie some more.
In the wake of Judicial Watch gaining a “smoking” email via FOIA lawsuit, the Obama administration is trying to explain away the obvious … they put politics over the death of four Americans, including a US Ambassador, in an attempt to distract from the truth during an election. ABC’s Jon Karl was relentless with WH spin-man Carney and just grilling him on the faux Benghazi talking points. Karl asked Carney why the Rhodes email is only now being made public? Carney actually said that the document (email) was not about Benghazi. Will the MSM finally do their job and go after the Obama administration?
Yup, not a smidgin of coverup in Benghazi whatsoever. What is being overlooked though, as Carney and Karl argue over whether the talking point email had to specifically do with Benghazi, which it did, Hugh Hewitt makes an important point in that every one of the Rhodes email goals, Not “The Truth” Every One Of Four Goals Urges A Lie.
More from Powerline on the absolutely ridiculous answer given by Jay Carney to the White House reporters regarding the email and that it was not about Benghazi.
Carney’s answer is ridiculous. Of course the email bears more broadly on conditions across the Middle East, but it relates most specifically to Benghazi. Why was Susan Rice appearing on every Sunday morning talk show? Because four Americans were killed in Benghazi. Why was the administration’s top political team gathering to prepare her for those appearances? Because four Americans were killed in Benghazi. Why does the email begin with the stated goal of conveying that the Obama administration is doing everything it can to protect its people abroad? Because four Americans were killed in Benghazi. Why is the group talking about “bringing people who harm Americans to justice”? The only place where Americans were harmed was Benghazi. Obviously, the email relates to Benghazi. And equally obviously, its reference to “underscor[ing] that these protests are rooted in an internet video, and not a broader failure of policy” was intended to deflect blame for the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi.
The Smoking Email: Benghazi Email Documents Point to White House on Misleading Talking Points … White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes
THE SMOKING BENGHAZI-GATE EMAIL … THEY ARE WHO WE THOUGHT THEY WERE … OBAMA PLAYING POLITICS WITH AMERICANS DYING.
Yup, not a smidgen of deceit, corruption and cover up …
As reported at the Washington Free Beacon, previously unreleased internal Obama administration emails show that there was a coordinated effort made in the days following the Benghazi consulate terror attacks that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, to portray the incident as “rooted in [an] Internet video, and not [in] a broader failure or policy.” The documents were gained by Judicial Watch, as result of a June 21, 2013, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the Department of State. The documents show explicitly that emails sent by senior White House adviser Ben Rhodes to other top administration officials reveal an effort to insulate President Barack Obama from the attacks that killed four Americans. WH adviser Rhodes also sent this email to top White House officials like David Plouffe and Jay Carney just a day before National Security Adviser Susan Rice made her infamous Sunday news show appearances to discuss the attack. Rice would then go on all five Sunday talk shows and lie to America and blame a video regarding what happened in Benghazi to protect Obama politically.
AMERICANS DIED AND OBAMA LIED … How much more proof do you need America to show that the Obama administration purposely and willfully orchestrated the Benghazi attack lies in order to distract the American public from Obama’s foreign policy failures ahead of an election? Usually the cover up is worse than the crime, but in this case four Americans died.
Judicial Watch announced today that on April 18, 2014, it obtained 41 new Benghazi-related State Department documents. They include a newly declassified email showing then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes and other Obama administration public relations officials attempting to orchestrate a campaign to “reinforce” President Obama and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.” Other documents show that State Department officials initially described the incident as an “attack” and a possible kidnap attempt.
The Rhodes email was sent on sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, at 8:09 p.m. with the subject line: “RE: PREP CALL with Susan, Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” The documents show that the “prep” was for Amb. Rice’s Sunday news show appearances to discuss the Benghazi attack.
The document lists as a “Goal”: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in and Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.”
Rhodes returns to the “Internet video” scenario later in the email, the first point in a section labeled “Top-lines”:
[W]e’ve made our views on this video crystal clear. The United States government had nothing to do with it. We reject its message and its contents. We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence. And we are working to make sure that people around the globe hear that message.
More from The National Review Online:
He wrote that the president and administration “find [the video] disgusting and reprehensible,” but said that “there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this move with violence.”
Additionally, Rhodes recommended Rice herald President Obama ahead of the upcoming elections.
“I think that people have come to trust that President Obama provides leadership that is steady and statesmanlike,” Rhodes wrote. “There are always going to be challenges that emerge around the world, and time and again, he has shown that we can meet them.”
“Benghazi Emails Show White House Effort to Protect Obama — Staff attempted to insulate president’s policies from criticism ahead of election.” It’s everything that we knew!It’s everything we suspected about Benghazi. And remember, we still don’t know where Obama was for five to seven hours. The president of the United States was off the grid. At five o’clock, in the middle of the attack, the last he says to Hillary and Panetta or whoever it was (paraphrasing), “You guys handle it, take care of it,” and he’s gone. So goes the story.
And now we’ve got these e-mails saying that the White House staff redid the talking points. They massaged everything in order to protect Obama, plausible deniability, to make it appear, running of the election, Obama had no clue what was going on. It was not his policy, this or that. He was not involved. Whatever it took, the White House did. That’s the latest from this release from Benghazi. And, yeah, it’s too late for 2012, but it’s not too late for November this year, folks.
FLASHBACK TO FEB 24, 2014 Interview on Meet the Press … Susan Rice Says She Has No Regrets Over Initial Benghazi Interviews, ‘Patently False’ That I Misled American People.
Imagine being on a job interview and asked about your accomplishments to be considered for the job and you got nothing …
Thus was the case for Hillary Clinton when Thomas Friedman asked her what do you see as your biggest accomplishment on the job as stated by Salon political writer Steve Kornacki to the MSNBC Hardball audience. Hoe is it possible that even Hillary Clinton herself was “flummoxed” when asked about her accomplishments?
“So Joan, you know, this isn’t just a case of State Department spokesperson being caught off guard one day. This is something that sounds like Hillary herself has not fully come up with a way to articulate. Republicans clearly think this is something they can hit her with in 2016.”
Hmm, how’s it going in Syria, Libya, North Korea, Iran or Russia? Maybe Hillary should have said the Russian reset button, the powder keg that now is the Middle East or Benghazi … but I guess what difference does it make.
Hillary Clinton “Flummoxed” When Questioned About Accomplishments
State Department spokeswoman can’t name Hillary Clinton’s diplomatic achievements … and neither can Hillary Clinton!
State Department Press Secretary Jen Psaki was flummoxed, too, when asked about a 2010 State Department Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) that summarized then-Secretary Clinton’s goals and accomplishments.
‘Can you, off the top of your head, identify one tangible achievement that … resulted from the last QDDR?’ asked an Associated Press reporter during the daily briefing.
‘I am certain that those who were here at the time, who worked hard on that effort, could point out one,’ Psaki replied through a forced smile.
‘I’m sure there are a range of things that were put into place that I’m not even aware of,’ she offered moments later.
‘I won’t hold my breath,’ the reporter shot back
Barack Obama, the Liar in Chief … There is a reason he is called the
Lion Lying King.
According to a recent Fox News Poll, 6 in 10 American voters believe that President Barack Obama lies to the country on important issues most or some of the time. Just 6 in 10? Of course for many of us we can put one and one together and understand that Obama has been lying for years. However, what is most interesting from this poll is the number of Obama/Democrat key constituents that thinks he lies “most of the time” includes 13% of Democrats, 12% of blacks, 16% of liberals, 31% of unmarried women and 34% of those under age 30. OUCH!!!
Full poll results can be read HERE.
About six in ten American voters think Barack Obama lies to the country on important matters some or most of the time, according to a Fox News poll released Wednesday.
Thirty-seven percent think Obama lies “most of the time,” while another 24 percent say he lies “some of the time.” Twenty percent of voters say “only now and then” and 15 percent “never.”
President Obama has been accused by political opponents and media fact-checkers alike of telling falsehoods. Frequently cited: His repeated claim that under Obamacare “If you like your plan, you can keep it” and his insistence that “the day after Benghazi happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”
Of course Obama’s biggest lie that will affect nearly every individual in the United States was his shameful lies regarding Obamacare and that, “If you like your plan, you can keep it” In fact it garnered him the Politfact 2013 Lie of the Year. However, the lies have been so plentiful that it is almost impossible to list them. But with so many scandals during his presidency like Fast & Furious, Benghazi-gate and ITS-gate to name a few, are we really to believe that Barack Obama had no knowledge what was really going on? If his answer is he knew nothing, that would be a lie.
It would appear that Republican South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson was on to something when he yelled out, “you lie,” during Obama’s 2010 State of the Union Address.
AG Eric Holder Plays the Race Card at Sharpton’s National Action Network Conference About How Congress Treated Him
What a shock, Attorney General plays the victim and the race card …
While speaking to the Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network at its annual convention in New York on Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder complained about how he was “treated” by a House committee the day before, namely Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), played the race card, calling it evidence of “ugly and divisive” civil rights challenges facing him and President Barack Obama. Holder stated that his and Barack Obama’s treatment by Congress has been unprecedented to his Al Sharpton crowd. Hmm, what ever could he be implying? Really Holder, call the “wahmbulance”. Holder may want to do some Google searches on how past GOP presidents were treated, he may learn something. But, liberals are always the victim and in Holder’s case, throw a little racism on the fire to continue the divide and conquer strategy as the Obama administrations fails America.
Attorney General Eric Holder strayed from prepared remarks to slam the way he was “treated” by a House committee the day before, calling it evidence of “ugly and divisive” civil rights challenges facing him and President Barack Obama.
“The last five years have been defined by significant strides and by lasting reforms even in the face, even in the face of unprecedented, unwarranted, ugly and divisive adversity,” Holder said. “If you don’t believe that, you look at the way — forget about me, forget about me. You look at the way the attorney general of the United States was treated yesterday by a House committee — has nothing to do with me, forget that. What attorney general has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment? What president has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?”
Holder goes off script and plays the victim during a speech he gave Wednesday to Al Sharpton’s National Action Network.
Holder vs. Gohmert, “Don’t Go There”
Attorney General Eric Holder lashed out a bit at Louis Gohmert yesterday during a contentious exchange, snapping, “You don’t want to go there, buddy.” Holder’s clearly steamed about the back-and-forth, and brought it up during a speech he gave Wednesday to Al Sharpton’s National Action Network. The Justice Department posted the transcript of Holder’s remarks as prepared for delivery, but Holder went off-script a bit to take a shot at the Republican congressman.
In the end, Eric Holder would have been fired under any other administration for the poor job that he has done. Holder has provided no justice in ‘Fast & Furious’, ‘Benghazi’ or the IRS scandal of targeting Conservative and Tea Party groups. However, when his job is to obstruct and protect Barack Obama’s bacon from impeachment and his connection to these scandals, Holder is doing a fantastic job and thus the reason why he is still employed. Maybe the reason why, as Holder says, “What attorney general has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment? What president has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?” is because we have never had such a corrupt and imperial administration?
Hillary Clinton’s Top Selling Point for 2016 Presidential Election is not Any Accomplishments, Its Being First Female President
What a resounding reason to qualify or vote for Hillary Clinton to be president in 2016 … Hmm, How did that same “being first” work out with Obama?
According to a recent Gallup poll, the “best or most positive” reason to vote for Hillary Clinton is that she would be the first female president. Huh? So after all the years of politics behind her, 18% said the best reason to vote for her is just because she would be the first woman president. Just curious America, how did that little social experiment work electing Barack Obama the first black president? Hmm? Just 9% said it would be because of Hillary’s experience and foreign policy experience [can you say Benghazi, Iran, Russia reset and Middle East burning], while just 3% said she was the most qualified and capable, and 3% said healthcare reform [how did Hillary Healthcare work out?] and 2% said because of the economy.
So all America has to look forward to is a Democrat 2016 campaign of “War on Women” as we have been through six years of anyone who dares say anything negative about Obama’s policies is a racist. Isn’t enough, enough?
However, “nothing” scored 27% as the “best or most positive” reason to vote for Hillary Clinton and another 22% had no opinion or no clue. I guess this can explain why so many DNC individuals can’t name one thing that she has done. How can some one who was first lady of Arkansas from 1983 – 1992, was the first day of the United States from 1993 – 2001 [remember a Hillary said in 1992, "I'm not sitting here, some little woman standing by my man, like Tammy Wynette." ... "Baking cookies and making tea (VIDEO)".], US Senator fro New York from 2001 – 2009, and Secretary of State from 2009 – 2013 and the greatest reason why she should be elected president is because she would be the first woman. ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!
Seriously America, one of the main reasons why Barack Obama was elected president, other than GWB fatigue, a poor RINO Republican candidate and a poor economy was that he would be the first black president. That is of course if you discount Bill ‘Bubba’ Clinton. Wake the hell up!!! I do not care what party some one is from, your reason for voting for them can’t be because they are the first of anything. No one we can’t get qualified people in the White House.