(12-15-2017 04:46 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote: (12-15-2017 04:06 PM)shere khan Wrote: (12-15-2017 03:41 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote: (12-15-2017 02:43 PM)Kronke Wrote: Calling his shot like a boss.
His star is going to burn out like all the others that use his kind of political strategy.
Wrong. Gowdy is the real deal.
He was masterful in his interrogation of Hillary Clinton.
I still don't understand that. It seems that the whole republican approach was to nail Hillary by direct confrontation. That's not how you pierce the veil of bureaucracies, once they've circled the wagons. And they had the wagons well circled on this one.
The problem was not whether a stand-down order was given or not. Had I been on-scene commander, I can guarantee you that a stand-down order would have been given, and I would have been giving it. It was an untenable situation from the get-go.
The question is how that situation was allowed to develop in the first place. WTF are we doing sending an ambassador to an unprotected facility in the heart of unfriendly territory with only a light bodyguard, and no troops standing by to intervene in a hurry if needed? WTF was anybody thinking? I've heard two conspiracy type explanations--one, that they were doing some kind of arms deal, and two, that this was some kind of orchestrated charade where we let him get captured to serve as political fodder against republicans for cutting the embassy security budget (which was not a factor here) and the deal is that they're supposed to release him unharmed, but when we started fighting back, that screwed the deal. Those both sound terrible, but it's hard to come up with an alternative explanation.
What you do is force state department to come up with a memo or something to make somebody the scapegoat, like Lois Lerner. What the bureaucracy does is tell someone, "You take the hit, and we'll protect you." They slap him/her on the wrist and make like it's over. Then you blow that cover by indicting the scapegoat. Then, to defend him/herself, the scapegoat suddenly produces this chain of evidence leading to the top. That's how you go after the Enrons of the world, and that's how you go after this one--and now it's looking like maybe the FBI too. Gowdy knows that, better than almost else in the world. So why didn't he do it?
I think Gowdy was under orders from party leaders who were so blinded by their visceral hatred of all things Clinton that they did not allow him to pursue anything but a witch hunt. He looked to me like he wasn't really into it, that he was reading a script instead of going where he wanted to go. And questioning Hillary wasn't really in order until state department nominated the scapegoat and you made him/her squeal.
/
Gowdy: “Surprised If Andrew McCabe Is Still An Employee Of The FBI Next Week"
