I think Cruz definitely does. I like Gowdy so far too.
Gowdy takes MSM to the woodshed
- Thread starter LDB
- Start date
Imagine that - political grandstanding during an election year!
However, the same things were said about the Senate Watergate Committee, and we see what final results were that came from their effort. As a matter of fact, Gowdy does have the juice if he handles the process right and keeps the Democrats from turning the proceedings into a circus to cover up the facts. There are more high tech resources available today than the Nixon White House tapes, and there are answers in there somewhere to be answered by somebody like Alexander Butterfield.I don't know what your point of reference is besides offering up the liberal point of view; however, I have real world experience in this. I was in the Med in 1980 on an aircraft carrier as the fire marshal and even during those years we had 2 fighters fully armed and ready to launch on the cats with pilots in place. When something like this happens you launch all assets available then recall them as the situation pans out. Apparently they did not launch anything. Does Sept. 11th ring a bell? You would think they'd had a clue! It seems as though no one was prepared, DOD or State. As a min. they could have launched planes from Italy and been there in less than an hour and gone supersonic over the area, anyone that's heard this would at least disrupt them. It also appears as though they were primarily interested in damage control for PR! Final question, are you a driver currently? In the past? By driver I mean in the business of expediting. It seems to me that you are on the soapbox but rarely in other forums. Of course Gowdy is a politician DUH! I believe he'll get to the bottom of this. Confession in my younger days I voted for LBJ, Carter,against Reagan twice as governor. Someone said" If you're not a liberal when your young you have no heart and when your older if you're not a conservative you don't have a brain". I am a conservative and I don't trust liberal or country club GOP. I respect old party Democrats i.e. Kirsten Powers, Pat Caudell, Doug Schoen.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Random thought ?
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
My point of reference is to have lived to have made it past the half-century mark.
And you're confused about what sort of point of view I'm offering up.
Well hey ... that alone - without any other relevant (current-at-the time) intel or expertise whatsoever - clearly makes you fully competent to evaluate the recommendations and actions of people at the highest levels of the military.
This will come as a real shocker I'm sure - but your military experience - or at least what I know of it (without actually knowing you) doesn't particularly impress me at all - at least in terms of this particular issue.
I've known a whole variety of people that have served - both in war and peace - including my step-father who served in WWII in the Ardennes. They range from intelligent, thoughtful people to yahoo cowboys to - at least in one instance - a psychopath (and possible war criminal) who probably should have been locked up in the loony bin.
False - CIA personnel commandeered a jet in Tripoli and in sent in a team to reinforce the security assets already on the ground and mount a rescue operation.
You do realize that one of the - if not the primary - reason(s) the CIA was there appears to be to try and secure the 10,000 to 15,000 MANPADS that were floating around loose in Libya.
From February 2012, 7 months before the attack on Benghazi:
U.S. Still Hunting for Missing Libyan MANPADS | Defense News | defensenews.com
I can only imagine the criticism and outrage that would have occurred on the part of Republicans had a couple of fighters been sent ... and then been shot down with further loss of American lives.
The first question and charge that would be leveled would be:
"Why did you do that ... send more American lives into harm's way, when they likely would be functionally incapable of providing any effective support ?"
You mean the attack that occurred back in 2001 ... the one that Bush had warning of, but essentially dismissed and ignored ... and utterly failed to prevent ?
Yeah, no kiddin' ...
That's clearly not the case ... since there were multiple responses mounted in fairly short order.
One could possibly say however that security was inadequate when considered against the potential threat. One could also that we were not prepared for every possible contingency. But then that assumes that the US is capable of securing all areas where it operates to the point of no risk whatsoever.
Like I said before: the idea that the power and glory of the US is omnipresent and omnipotent is a very dangerous delusion - one that should not be indulged in.
You - like a lot of people - seem to think that the attacks (yes - attacks - plural - since there were essentially two) were a single continuous event ... or that the attackers were all just hanging around out in the open, having a midnight picnic.
Furthermore, you seem to think that violating the airspace of a sovereign nation is just no big deal ... probably because you think we're "exceptional" ...
I certainly wouldn't argue that after the event, damage control became a large concern ...
Stands to reason ... considering the fact that Congress is populated - at least to some degree - with scum that are all-too willing to exploit the deaths of Americans for crass political gain.
Really irrelevant to what we're discussing here.
So ?
I think he will provide a lot of entertainment.
Well, thank you for your confession ... you have my condolences for your obviously misspent youth.
I believe my first vote for a Presidential candidate was cast for Ronny Raygun , followed by another vote for him in '84 and then followed by ones for H. W., Perot (twice), W (twice) ... IIRC.
As you can see, it took me quite some time to finally wake up.
Well, ironically, the original source of that (now altered and perverted) quote was a French monarchist statesman, by the name of François_Guizot. It was said in reference to whether to France should have a monarchy or a republic:
"Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head."
As you can see, the quote in it's original context advocates for something (a monarchy - a non-democratic form of government) which would be completely unacceptable to most Americans at almost any time in our history.
Further, it comes from a man who acted to ban political meetings in France and who advocated against universal suffrage (right to vote)
IOW: an undemocratic authoritarian.
Well, if that implies that you trust (so-called) "conservative" politicians, then you have my condolences for that as well.
By my own observation, many folks who comprise the "conservative" rank and file aren't terribly bright (although they are often rabidly partisan and ideological) - I like to call 'em Fox News conservatives - and are often disposed to one or more of the following:
1. They are inclined to dismiss or avoid addressing certain facts when they are confronted with them.
2. This apparently stems from their own cognitive dissonance, which apparently is often huge and probably quite overwhelming to them.
3. If repeatedly pressed on facts or substantive issues for which they have no response, they will often actively ignore the individual pressing them - usually on some questionable pretense. Pressing them will usually result in one earning their undying hatred.
4. They often engage in logically fallacious arguments.
Of course, that's not to say that the above is representative of all (so-called) "conservatives", nor to say that some (so-called) liberals don't suffer from the same or similar maladies themselves.
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
The Senate Watergate Committee was only convened after it became known that there were actual violations of criminal law - in furtherance of a partisan political agenda.Imagine that - political grandstanding during an election year!
That's far, far different from what we are apparently dealing with here - which appears to be - at best - perhaps questionable political judgements, in executing national security or foreign policies.
Of course, hindsight is always 20/20 ...
Given Rooster's inclination for mis-statements of fact, and his penchant for asking questions for which the answers are already available, I'm guessing that if he keeps it up - which is fairly likely given his predisposition to be a media ***** - he will likely get eaten alive by the national MSM.
Junior ain't playin' to only the hometown crowd this time around ...
If that occurs, 2014 has the potential to be a disappointment on the same order as the 1998 elections were:
United States House of Representatives elections, 1998 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United States Senate elections, 1998 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
One should never underestimate the ability of the Party of Stupid to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory ... especially with the wing-nuts cheering them on ...
A fact that can cut either way ... something that full-blown Obama Derangement Syndrome is likely to prevent recognition or consideration of ...
We shall see with regards to 'questionable political judgements in executing national security or foreign policies'. Trey Gowdy appears to be on the trail for answers to that. Note his very first question to reporters in the video: Can you tell me WHY Ambassador Chris Stevens was in Benzhazi the night he was killed?
Allen West: Source told me 'the ground truth' on Benghazi; operations 'shrouded in a fog of lies' - Washington Times
Last edited:
Note that there are zero reporters seen or heard in that video. It's entirely possible that Gowdy and the people you see in the video frame are the only people in that room, other than the producers of the video, the conservative advocacy group The Western Center for Journalism.
I "didn't bother" to watch the short vid because it is far too easy for video to present a superficial one sided view, and impossible to do anything more when it's short.
What it has to do with this thread is the credibility of the source. I can't make an informed judgement on the basis of many political questions, but on the issue of Planned Parenthood, I can, and the "information" presented this site is preposterously slanted, calculated to outrage rather than inform. Because both are credited to 'Western Journalism', I cannot believe one is any different [regarding actual facts] than the other - just a different subject to exploit.
Note to Big Al: RLENT was correct to declare the question of his cred as an expedite driver irrelevant, but before you assume the refusal to answer means anything else, you should know that he is in fact, a respected O/O with a well known carrier, and has been for many years.
Not that it matters, of course.
Not that it matters, of course.
Ok, I thought there were some in the room. I guess he was speaking to y'all reporters in the media universe.
Well, ironically, the original source of that (now altered and perverted) quote was a French monarchist statesman, by the name of François_Guizot. It was said in reference to whether to France should have a monarchy or a republic:
"Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head."
As you can see, the quote in it's original context advocates for something (a monarchy - a non-democratic form of government) which would be completely unacceptable to most Americans at almost any time in our history.
Further, it comes from a man who acted to ban political meetings in France and who advocated against universal suffrage (right to vote)
I'm beginning to suspect whether there really are brains [and hearts and courage] at the end of the yellow brick road, now. Buzz killer!
"Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head."
As you can see, the quote in it's original context advocates for something (a monarchy - a non-democratic form of government) which would be completely unacceptable to most Americans at almost any time in our history.
Further, it comes from a man who acted to ban political meetings in France and who advocated against universal suffrage (right to vote)
I'm beginning to suspect whether there really are brains [and hearts and courage] at the end of the yellow brick road, now. Buzz killer!
It was just Trey Gowdy and a few behind him, at a podium asking questions to the media. Wherever they may be.
The questions Gowdy asked were points of interest that have yet to be resolved, the answers to which have been covered up by the Obama administration. It really doesn't matter if he was speaking to an empty room - the questions were made to the American voters at large. Why haven't these issues been addressed directly by the Obama White House or the Clinton State Dept?? Most likely because they will be exposed as incompetent bunglers lying to the American public to further their political agenda.
If you didn't watch the video you can't discuss the subject matter with any amount of credibility. Attacking the source is a lame excuse to avoid the issues being presented, and whether or not they are factual. Anyone with a scant amount of interest in our foreign policy would want to know the answer to his first question, regardless of their political alliance.
In many cases, attacking the source is a lame excuse - but in this case, the source of one is the same as the other: Western Journalism. The article about Planned Parenthood they created was utter tripe, and that's exactly what I'd suppose their other efforts are too.
As to Benghazi, I believe that the previous 40 some [bipartisan!] investigations ought to be sufficient for any reasonable citizen to accept as credible, but conservative Republicans simply cannot accept the answers that don't agree with their views. They keep insisting we didn't understand the message, when the fact is we did, and rejected it.
An interesting (short) video hits on the first question by Gowdy and possible answers to it.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zDIzsHGZn0I
That's because the stage was set in that manner by the "reporter" at Western Journalism. As Pilgrim noted, it's unlikely that this video will get much airtime on the MSM, because none of them were there to film it in the first place. The headline of "It Took Just 3 Minutes for Trey Gowdy To Shame An Entire Room Of Journalists Into Silence" asks you to believe the entire room was filled with journalists, and not only that, but they are dead silent because he somehow shamed them into their muteness with his hard-hitting and insightful questions that he and/or Western Journalism claims have been unanswered. The little videoplay certainly convinced the OP, as well as many others that these questions have never been answered, and that they are somehow critical. The first question that people seem to be all atwitter about is, "Can you tell me WHY Ambassador Chris Stevens was in Benghazi the night he was killed?" Well, yeah, he was the ambassador to Libya and the consulate in Benghazi is where his office was.
Not according to the headline of the piece, nor the author of the piece, the esteemed "journalist" Daniel Noe. He was speaking to a room full of them.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
The Western Center for Journalism has been the source of several dubious offspring: it was founded by Joseph_Farah ... who went on to found World_Net_Daily
WCJ also once funded and employed Christopher_Ruddy ... who went on to found Newsmax ...
Both are highly partisan entities, with at least somewhat questionable journalistic ethics (IMO) ...
While I wouldn't necessarily categorize either of them as being quite as questionable as either Godfather Politics or Freedom's Outpost, they are definitely part of the RWEC (Right Wing Echo Chamber), IMO ...
Western Journalism is currently headed by Floyd_Brown apparently - who was said to be responsible for the "Willie Horton" ad which aired against Michael Dukakis ...
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
That's an assumption - which assumes that Gowdy is being honest and accurate, and is even fully informed, as to answers provided to questions already asked.
I've already provided one instance where Gowdy - at a minimum - was at least mis- or uninformed ... if not worse ...
Oh ... it certainly could matter - if he was aware that the supposed "press conference" was a piece of Kabuki theater ... and was going to be portrayed as something other than it actually was ...
Would go to his integrity, honesty, and ethics ...
You assume that they haven't ...
It certainly seems clear that whatever was going on in Benghazi was part of a covert CIA operation (probably securing MANPADS, possibly among other things) - given the preponderance of CIA personnel that were there on the ground.
So it doesn't seem all that unreasonable that it's probably classified, and there may be good reasons why the full details of whatever was going on should not be broad public knowledge.
Of course, the irony in that would be, that some who are inclined to scream and wail about transparency when it comes from some (Manning, Assange, Snowden, Greenwald) are now demanding full transparency and exposure - perhaps in furtherance of a partisan agenda - of things in which full transparency and exposure might not be in our national interest.
And that might just involve some degree of hypocrisy.