(06-26-2015 11:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 11:29 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 11:24 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 11:16 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 11:12 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  How many millions have we spent now to find out that some bad guys killed our good guys and that we could have protected them a little better?

Not enough !

What do you think you're going to find? An e-mail form Clinton saying not to protect them...or to make sure they die...or sending their itinerary to the killers...or personally telling them specifically that she's not going to give them more protection?

This has to be one of the dumbest exercises of partisan hackery that I've ever seen from congress.

Has there been any event in history as small as this that congress has spent so much time 'investigating'? And does anyone find it odd that they've somehow managed to keep this in the Republican smear machine until the next election that just so happens to involve Hillary?

The duration of the investigation lays more at the feet of HRC, the State Department and Obama Administration than at the Committee's, as HRC, the SD and the OA, could've have expedited the process by being more forthcoming and speedier with the requested documentation but they have obfuscated and dodged at every turn.

There's some validity to that, but the problem is that the request for information are naturally very broad. There are loads of emails and documents which all must be gone through to protect our assets and to protect national security and personal information.

But my God, this is what, the 7th or 8th one of these. How many more do we need? Seems to me like they are just looking until they find something they can use politically...instead of just finding the obvious fault that we need to protect our assets abroad better and just making sure that gets addressed.

HRC didn't kill these four. There was no military solution to save them after the attack was known. The bad guys killed them. It does happen.

I would guess that the Committee believes based on what they have learn thus far that HRC does carry culpability for what happened.

Moving forward, the SD can only learn to avoid what happened at Benghazi by understanding fully what happened and why it happened so a clear picture has to be painted and the same mistakes avoided in the future.

And as a side result from this investigation,
we know for certain that HRC did not turn over all of her work related emails because at least 15 emails that Blumenthal submitted that were to HRC, were not included in those emails that she submitted. How many other emails from her personal server did she decide on her own that she did not want revealed?

(06-26-2015 11:36 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  This whole circus is a fishing execution to hurt Hillary in 16.

They are hoping to get he on a technicality like lying under oath. Then the event no longer matters. That's what they did to her husband. It will have a similar effect I predict.

(06-26-2015 11:59 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 11:36 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  This whole circus is a fishing execution to hurt Hillary in 16.

They are hoping to get he on a technicality like lying under oath. Then the event no longer matters. That's what they did to her husband. It will have a similar effect I predict.

If she doesn't lie under oath then they can't get her, know?
Lying under oath is a crime.

(06-26-2015 12:00 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 11:59 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 11:36 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  This whole circus is a fishing execution to hurt Hillary in 16.

They are hoping to get he on a technicality like lying under oath. Then the event no longer matters. That's what they did to her husband. It will have a similar effect I predict.

If she doesn't lie under oath then they can't get her, know?
Lying under oath is a crime.

If you're constantly under oath, it's increasingly possible that it happens even by accident. That's why period regularly plead the 5th.

(06-26-2015 12:06 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 12:00 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 11:59 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 11:36 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  This whole circus is a fishing execution to hurt Hillary in 16.

They are hoping to get he on a technicality like lying under oath. Then the event no longer matters. That's what they did to her husband. It will have a similar effect I predict.

If she doesn't lie under oath then they can't get her, know?
Lying under oath is a crime.

If you're constantly under oath, it's increasingly possible that it happens even by accident. That's why period regularly plead the 5th.

You do not understand the reason for pleading the 5th.
You plead to not self-incriminate with your testimony not because you have repeatedly been questioned under oath.

Even if that were the case, I'm pretty certain that HRC has been questioned once under oath by the Benghazi committee. She has agreed to appear a second time but has yet to do so. If appearing twice is too taxing for her such that she might lie accidently, she should reconsider running for president.

(06-26-2015 11:12 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  How many millions have we spent now to find out that some bad guys killed our good guys and that we could have protected them a little better?

Ironic that a big government leftist is now worrying about being fiscally responsible.

I have no problem with the money that has been and will be spent because the House is doing it's Constitutionally mandated job.

(06-26-2015 12:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 11:12 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  How many millions have we spent now to find out that some bad guys killed our good guys and that we could have protected them a little better?

Ironic that a big government leftist is now worrying about being fiscally responsible.

I have no problem with the money that has been and will be spent because the House is doing it's Constitutionally mandated job.

But you don't know me...you're making an assumption.

While yes, I believe in many government programs, I'm not for waste. But I endorse spending the money necessary to find the waste and eradicate it. I don't see much, if any, effort from any Republicans (or Dems for that matter) to rid the waste. And I'm fine with reducing government spending as long as it's targeted and not laid solely at the feet of the poor. Let's start with the military...

(06-26-2015 12:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 12:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 11:12 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  How many millions have we spent now to find out that some bad guys killed our good guys and that we could have protected them a little better?

Ironic that a big government leftist is now worrying about being fiscally responsible.

I have no problem with the money that has been and will be spent because the House is doing it's Constitutionally mandated job.

But you don't know me...you're making an assumption.

While yes, I believe in many government programs, I'm not for waste. But I endorse spending the money necessary to find the waste and eradicate it. I don't see much, if any, effort from any Republicans (or Dems for that matter) to rid the waste. And I'm fine with reducing government spending as long as it's targeted and not laid solely at the feet of the poor. Let's start with the military...

No, a better place to start is with the thousands of leftist programs that are not Constitutionally mandated like the military.

(06-26-2015 12:59 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 12:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 12:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 11:12 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  How many millions have we spent now to find out that some bad guys killed our good guys and that we could have protected them a little better?

Ironic that a big government leftist is now worrying about being fiscally responsible.

I have no problem with the money that has been and will be spent because the House is doing it's Constitutionally mandated job.

But you don't know me...you're making an assumption.

While yes, I believe in many government programs, I'm not for waste. But I endorse spending the money necessary to find the waste and eradicate it. I don't see much, if any, effort from any Republicans (or Dems for that matter) to rid the waste. And I'm fine with reducing government spending as long as it's targeted and not laid solely at the feet of the poor. Let's start with the military...

No, a better place to start is with the thousands of leftist programs that are not Constitutionally mandated like the military.

Ummmm...perhaps you should go read your Constitution again.

Quote:The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years....

ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 12

(06-26-2015 11:59 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 11:36 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  This whole circus is a fishing execution to hurt Hillary in 16.

They are hoping to get he on a technicality like lying under oath. Then the event no longer matters. That's what they did to her husband. It will have a similar effect I predict.

Freudian slip?

And if she has a choice of getting busted for lying under oath or having the truth come out, she'll take lying under oath.

(06-26-2015 01:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 12:59 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 12:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 12:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 11:12 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  How many millions have we spent now to find out that some bad guys killed our good guys and that we could have protected them a little better?

Ironic that a big government leftist is now worrying about being fiscally responsible.

I have no problem with the money that has been and will be spent because the House is doing it's Constitutionally mandated job.

But you don't know me...you're making an assumption.

While yes, I believe in many government programs, I'm not for waste. But I endorse spending the money necessary to find the waste and eradicate it. I don't see much, if any, effort from any Republicans (or Dems for that matter) to rid the waste. And I'm fine with reducing government spending as long as it's targeted and not laid solely at the feet of the poor. Let's start with the military...

No, a better place to start is with the thousands of leftist programs that are not Constitutionally mandated like the military.

Ummmm...perhaps you should go read your Constitution again.

Quote:The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years....

ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 12

And last time I checked the budget process was from year to year thus it meets the requirements set forth in the Constitution. Maybe instead of destroying the Constitution you leftists would be better served studying it.

(06-26-2015 01:08 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 01:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 12:59 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 12:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 12:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Ironic that a big government leftist is now worrying about being fiscally responsible.

I have no problem with the money that has been and will be spent because the House is doing it's Constitutionally mandated job.

But you don't know me...you're making an assumption.

While yes, I believe in many government programs, I'm not for waste. But I endorse spending the money necessary to find the waste and eradicate it. I don't see much, if any, effort from any Republicans (or Dems for that matter) to rid the waste. And I'm fine with reducing government spending as long as it's targeted and not laid solely at the feet of the poor. Let's start with the military...

No, a better place to start is with the thousands of leftist programs that are not Constitutionally mandated like the military.

Ummmm...perhaps you should go read your Constitution again.

Quote:The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years....

ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 12

And last time I checked the budget process was from year to year thus it meets the requirements set forth in the Constitution. Maybe instead of destroying the Constitution you leftists would be better served studying it.

Study you say...lol...you do realize that clause means that the framers did not want the government to have a standing army, don't you?

Quote:In June of 1787, James Madison addressed the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on the dangers of a permanent army. “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty,” he argued. “The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.” That Madison, one of the most vocal proponents of a strong centralized government—an author of the Federalist papers and the architect of the Constitution—could evince such strongly negative feelings against a standing army highlights the substantial differences in thinking about national security in America between the 18th century and the 21st.

http://teachinghistory.org/history-conte...rian/24671

(06-26-2015 01:40 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 01:08 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 01:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 12:59 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 12:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  But you don't know me...you're making an assumption.

While yes, I believe in many government programs, I'm not for waste. But I endorse spending the money necessary to find the waste and eradicate it. I don't see much, if any, effort from any Republicans (or Dems for that matter) to rid the waste. And I'm fine with reducing government spending as long as it's targeted and not laid solely at the feet of the poor. Let's start with the military...

No, a better place to start is with the thousands of leftist programs that are not Constitutionally mandated like the military.

Ummmm...perhaps you should go read your Constitution again.

Quote:The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years....

ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 12

And last time I checked the budget process was from year to year thus it meets the requirements set forth in the Constitution. Maybe instead of destroying the Constitution you leftists would be better served studying it.

Study you say...lol...you do realize that clause means that the framers did not want the government to have a standing army, don't you?

Quote:In June of 1787, James Madison addressed the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on the dangers of a permanent army. “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty,” he argued. “The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.” That Madison, one of the most vocal proponents of a strong centralized government—an author of the Federalist papers and the architect of the Constitution—could evince such strongly negative feelings against a standing army highlights the substantial differences in thinking about national security in America between the 18th century and the 21st.

http://teachinghistory.org/history-conte...rian/24671

Yet we have had a standing army since Independence, which predates the Constitution.


Oh and BTW, after nearly losing the War of 1812 because of a weak military Madison changed his tune and became more in favor of a stronger, professional standing military.

I get all that dude...I was only pointing out that the constitution, which you pointed to, did not mandate a standing army. That's all.

(06-26-2015 02:17 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I get all that dude...I was only pointing out that the constitution, which you pointed to, did not mandate a standing army. That's all.

Never said it did. All I was pointing out is there is a Constitutional mandate for funding the military thus is shouldn't be cut before you cut out the funding of junk that isn't.

(06-26-2015 02:22 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 02:17 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I get all that dude...I was only pointing out that the constitution, which you pointed to, did not mandate a standing army. That's all.

Never said it did. All I was pointing out is there is a Constitutional mandate for funding the military thus is shouldn't be cut before you cut out the funding of junk that isn't.

Actually, you did just that. But I'll accept your clarification on what you meant.

Kaplony Wrote:No, a better place to start is with the thousands of leftist programs that are not Constitutionally mandated like the military.

(06-26-2015 12:10 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 12:06 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 12:00 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 11:59 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 11:36 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  This whole circus is a fishing execution to hurt Hillary in 16.

They are hoping to get he on a technicality like lying under oath. Then the event no longer matters. That's what they did to her husband. It will have a similar effect I predict.

If she doesn't lie under oath then they can't get her, know?
Lying under oath is a crime.

If you're constantly under oath, it's increasingly possible that it happens even by accident. That's why period regularly plead the 5th.

You do not understand the reason for pleading the 5th.
You plead to not self-incriminate with your testimony not because you have repeatedly been questioned under oath.

Even if that were the case, I'm pretty certain that HRC has been questioned once under oath by the Benghazi committee. She has agreed to appear a second time but has yet to do so. If appearing twice is too taxing for her such that she might lie accidently, she should reconsider running for president.

Right because the president never tells a lie. LMFAO