Jump to content

Issa Subpoenas Kerry To Testify On Benghazi


Recommended Posts

I WANT INDICTMENTS! I WANT TRIALS.....THEN imprisonment! Issa Subpoenas Kerry To Testify On Benghazi

 

Matthew Boyle

Breitbart

May 2, 2014

 

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa is issuing a subpoena for Secretary of State John Kerry to testify before the committee May 21 about Benghazi, Issa announced Friday.

The move comes in the wake of new, “smoking gun” emails that show top White House officials working to craft a narrative that the attack was the result of a YouTube video and “not a broader failure of policy.”

Republicans have expressed outrage that the documents were not provided earlier under subpoenas for them, but instead came out via a Freedom Of Information Request lawsuit by the conservative non-profit group Judicial Watch.

On Thursday, House Speaker John Boehner called on Kerry to testify before the House to explain why the documents weren’t provided earlier.

Read more

 

kerry.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok let have the news when it happens . Its been two years. Tell ms when the find out obamas not american while your at it.

 

Trying to run out the clock.....

 

Wife: Who is that woman you ar screwing in our bed?

 

Husband: What woman?

 

Wife: That one in the bed with your cock in her mouth?

 

Husband: What bed?

 

Wife: Right here (points at bed)

 

Husband: What diference does it make if she has my cock in her mouth?

 

Woman: You have the nerve to bang a woman in our house!

 

Husband: You're crazy I haven't banged a woman in our house in the last two minutes!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol maybe if it comes to something. But ill laugh my ass off if we waste all this time and nothing comes of it.

That is what they said about Watergate....but you have a point...they should have done this a year ago

 

“It’s to me the equivalent of what was discovered with the Nixon tapes,” Krauthammer said Thursday. “The point is that Republicans have done a terrible job in building the case. Even today I have to say, the questioning was disjointed, it was not organized. If they had appointed a special committee [a] long time ago the way it was done in Watergate, you would have had answers on this and the country wouldn’ be tired.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I WANT INDICTMENTS! I WANT TRIALS.....THEN imprisonment!

 

You will get NOTHING and then look even more stupid than you do now.

 

Issa is grasping at straws. He has accomplished nothing in 2 years. Nothing.

Yet you frauds don't hold him accountable. You can't. It goes against the wingnut credo of ...

Never under any circumstance speak ill of any republican!

 

The more you syncopants try to keep Benghazi in the news to cover up your pathetic record steamrolling the minimum wage bill...the worse you look.

 

C'mon.. All together now. In unison. Yell it like you mean it:

BENGHAZI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will get NOTHING and then look even more stupid than you do now.

 

Issa is grasping at straws. He has accomplished nothing in 2 years. Nothing.

Yet you frauds don't hold him accountable. You can't. It goes against the wingnut credo of ...

Never under any circumstance speak ill of any republican!

 

The more you syncopants try to keep Benghazi in the news to cover up your pathetic record steamrolling the minimum wage bill...the worse you look.

 

C'mon.. All together now. In unison. Yell it like you mean it:

BENGHAZI.

 

 

Show me how the minimum wage increase wil create jobs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One fact written in stone.

Conservatives couldn't care less about 4 Americans that died. Not a whit.

If they did, they would have called out for investigations somewhere along the line when there were 13... Yes 13 Benghazi's during the Bush reign of error.

 

This BENGHAZI hysteria is totally manufactured political theater. Nothing less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One fact written in stone.

Conservatives couldn't care less about 4 Americans that died. Not a whit.

If they did, they would have called out for investigations somewhere along the line when there were 13... Yes 13 Benghazi's during the Bush reign of error.

 

This BENGHAZI hysteria is totally manufactured political theater. Nothing less.

 

 

Seems like the facts are the phone rang at 3am and hillary and barry didn't answer...... When they did they said it was the fault of Netflix

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Show me how the minimum wage increase wil create jobs?

I see you're carrying the rancid water for your boys. Not surprised.

This is about helping those who HAVE jobs.

Most people on min wage are adults and they are below the poverty level.

 

40 years ago an adult working min wage could keep above the poverty level raising 3 kids.

20 years ago they could make ends meet with two kids.

Now an adult with one child working minimum wage is below the poverty level. You and your pathetic party wants to keep them that way.

While congressmen who don't work half as hard or long make $175 an hour.

 

You pieces of sh-it always show your disdain for the working men and women of this country.

 

 

Seems like the facts are the phone rang at 3am and hillary and barry didn't answer...... When they did they said it was the fault of Netflix

Your facts. Which means , they're not.

The prez admitted mistakes were made and they would be corrected. None since.

When dozens of ambassadors died under Bush how many times did any of you call for investigations?

I CANT HEAR U!!!

Hypocrite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see you're carrying the rancid water for your boys. Not surprised.

This is about helping those who HAVE jobs.

Most people on min wage are adults and they are below the poverty level.

 

40 years ago an adult working min wage could keep above the poverty level raising 3 kids.

20 years ago they could make ends meet with two kids.

Now an adult with one child working minimum wage is below the poverty level. You and your pathetic party wants to keep them that way.

While congressmen who don't work half as hard or long make $175 an hour.

 

You pieces of sh-it always show your disdain for the working men and women of this country.

Your facts. Which means , they're not.

The prez admitted mistakes were made and they would be corrected. None since.

When dozens of ambassadors died under Bush how many times did any of you call for investigations?

I CANT HEAR U!!!

Hypocrite.

40 years ago:

 

The 1974-1975 Recession in the U.S.

Policy makers in 1974 perceived inflation as a major problem. The Federal Reserve pursued a tighter monetary policy which produced higher interest rates which reduced the level of investment purchases. Investment projects extend over a period of time so the higher interest rates produced a decline over an extended period of time as past investment committments were completed and new investment projects were not undertaken.

The decline in investment purchases produced a decline in production (GNP) and a highter unemployment rate. This was the intention of the tighter monetary policy because the decline in production and the higher unemployment were supposed to discourage price increases.

The recession did not have the intended effect on inflation and there was worry that the unemployment rate would go above ten percent and that people would start talking about depression rather than recession.

both the Ford Administration and Congress wanted to pursue anti-recession policy; i.e., to do something to stimulate the economy. Alan Greenspan who was head of the Council of Economic Advisors for President Gerald Ford prepared an economic stimulus plan. The plan involved some tax cuts for households and businesses but it also involved some tax increases to discourage the importation of foreign petroleum. When the Greenspan plan was examined in detail it was found to involve not net tax cut for households.

Congress rebeled against the Greenspan plan and made their own tax cut proposal. Congress' tax rebate was to have its impact on tax day, April 15, 1975. Some critics argued that temporary tax cuts would have no stimulus effect on the economy. William Simon, who was Secretary of the Treasury at the time, had a more specific argument against the tax cut. Secretary Simon, who before coming to Washington had been a bond trader on Wall Street, said that the tax cut would increase government borrowing and thus would reduce the funds available for business to borrow. He coined the termcrowding out at that time. The increase Federal borrowing would, according to Simon, crowd out private investment borrowing. Therefore, according to Simon, whatever stimulus that might come from increased consumer incomes would be offset by reduced investment purchases. It was an interesting and plausible conjecture but it is not borne out by the statistics for the economy.

Below are the National Income Account statistics for the period.

 

National Income Accounts

$1972 Billions Quarter Gross

National

Product Consumption Investment Government

Purchases Net Exports 1973III 1236 770 206 251 9 1973IV 1241 763 213 254 12 1974I 1229 760 196 254 19 1974II 1217 763 184 255 15 1974III 1210 767 173 255 15 1974IV 1187 749 167 254 17 1975I 1157 752 130 255 22 1975II 1168 764 124 255 25 1975III 1202 772 148 259 24 1975IV 1217 778 154 261 24

The GNP figures tell the story of the decline in production. GNP reached a low in the first quarter of 1975. When the tax cut came there was an increase and the economy started to grow again. The graph of the quarterly GNP figures gives the best picture of the period.

 

 

The sagging decline in GNP was less ominous than the accelerating decline in investment. But the decline ended in the second quarter of 1975. Thereafter investment increased as the tax cut gave promise to increasing demand and the need for more capacity. Investment was not crowded out by the tax cut, instead it was enticed in.

 

 

This increased investment occured despite the increased deficit of the Federal Government and borrowing it entailed. Below shows the Federal deficit quarter by quarter and the sharp occasioned by the tax cut.

 

 

While the increased deficit did not prevent a recovery of investment purchases the increased deficit did, in fact, increase interest rates, as shown below. The discouragement of higher interest rates was more than offset by the effect of the prospect of recovery and economic growth. It is notable that the prime interest rate was falling during the recession and investment was also falling. But in the immediate aftermath of the tax cut the prime interest rate did rise.

 

 

Although a recession is defined in terms of real output the real story of a recession is told in terms of the unemployment rate.

 

 

The unemployment rate rose during the recession and it began to come down in the recovery but much more slowly than it rose. This is because during the lost years of economic growth during the recession the labor force grew. Also productivity increased. In order for growth in real output to bring down the unemployment rate the rate of economic growth must be greater than the sum of the growth rate os the labor force and the rate of growth of productivity.

Another way to look at the impact of the recession, tax cut and recovery is in terms of what happened to consumers disposable income. This shown below. Disposable income was declining along with GNP as part of the effect of the recession but the tax brought a significant jump. In fact, the tax cut brought the level of disposable income up to what it was before the recession began. In those terms it was an instant recovery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the conundrums of 1994 was the US dollar. It would be logical to think that, with a sharp rise in US growth, in rates & yields that the US dollar would have rallied. But it didn’t. It fell.

20130615_19949.jpg


I agree that people should keep more of their money. But at what point do we tackle the debt.

 

Stop growth in government spending....IE baseline budgets

Grow the economy which increases revenues (taxes)

Expand our energy production to capitalize on our VAST energy reserves.....

Eliminate or grossly restructure government agencies that do not help growth but penalize it.

 

Just to get started......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the conundrums of 1994 was the US dollar. It would be logical to think that, with a sharp rise in US growth, in rates & yields that the US dollar would have rallied. But it didn’t. It fell.

20130615_19949.jpg

 

Stop growth in government spending....IE baseline budgets

Grow the economy which increases revenues (taxes)

Expand our energy production to capitalize on our VAST energy reserves.....

Eliminate or grossly restructure government agencies that do not help growth but penalize it.

 

Just to get started......

 

 

"The Fed was raising rats in 1994." Any profit in that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not much of a fan of Rivera, but he destroyed Fox News on Benghazi:

 

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/05...-on-fox/199138

 

Fox host Geraldo Rivera demolished his network's latest Benghazi hoax, even as his colleagues worked to prop up their distortions of Ret. Air Force Brigadier General Robert Lovell's testimony on the administration's response to the attack.

 

On May 1, Lovell, who served as deputy intelligence director at the U.S. Africa Command in Germany (AFRICOM) during the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, testified that "we should have tried" to rescue the victims of the attack, yet later clarified that he did not mean to suggest that the government had the capability to send additional help that it failed to utilize. Fox News was quick to highlight the first portion of Lovell's testimony as "incredibly damning" evidence of the administration's negligence, yet failed to cover the full context of Lovell's remarks. Mainstream media similarly misrepresented the testimony.

 

Fox continued to push the myth that the administration had refused to send military assistance to Benghazi on the March 2 edition of Fox & Friends, claiming that Lovell "made it very clear we didn't even try to rescue those guys" and arguing: "Logic tells you that you would think that there would be some type of mission to get people out" -- arguments that were dismantled later in the show when Rivera described the realities of military coordination. Rivera called his Fox News colleagues' claims a "myth," pointing out that "we have never, as far as I know, never mounted a rescue operation in the time parameters we had here, at all" and "it would never have been mounted, that mission was a suicide mission, it could not have happened" (emphasis added):

 

RIVERA:
Admiral Mike Mullen, appointed by President Bush, says there was no military asset available. I have investigated this from the Air Force assets in Aviano to the special forces in Tripoli and in Italy and in other places. Whatever was available in our fleet resources, AFRICOM, there was no forces that could have intervened. There was no gunship available as the myth suggested. There was no 'stand down order' given by concentrating on the -- and the military is not the SWAT team. They're not the fire department
.

 

CO-HOST STEVE DOOCY: Geraldo, they could have buzzed them with a drone.

 

HASSELBECK: Doesn't it go back to the first paints that they should have paid attention --

 

RIVERA: I don't know. All I know is that when you, for instance, look at how we rescue the guy from the Mirsk, Alabama or how we go into the camps in Somalia,
these are precisely planned, daylight operations largely. They involve three days of intense comprehensive plans -- we have never, as far as I know, never mounted a rescue operation in the time parameters we had here, at all.

[...]

 

RIVERA: Listen, I have been with so many fallen and wounded GIs from Afghanistan 12 times, Iraq 12 times, Somalia, I have a lot of African experience.
If the jets Aviano had scrambled, they would have had to jettison their tanks at night, going over to a situation that they could have easily been taken down by a handheld RPG. To what end? We didn't have a target. It could would have been mounted, that mission was a suicide mission, it could not have happened.

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has already debunked claims that further assistance could have been sent from U.S. military bases and even criticized this "cartoonish impression of the military," which has ignored the need for "planning and preparation before we send people in harm's way."

Lovell, too, was very clear about the limits of military's capability to respond. From his May 1 remarks:

REP. JERRY CONNOLLY (D-VA): I want to read to you the conclusion of the chairman of the [Armed Services] Committee, the Republican chairman Buck McKeon, who conducted formal briefings and oversaw that report. He said, quote, "I'm pretty well satisfied that given where the troops were, how quickly the thing all happened, and how quickly it dissipated we probably couldn't have done much more than we did." Do you take issue with the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee? In that conclusion?

 

LOVELL: His conclusion that he couldn't have done much more than they did with the capability and the way they executed it?

 

CONNOLLY: Given the timeframe.

 

LOVELL: That's a fact.

 

CONNOLLY: OK.

 

LOVELL: The way it is right now. The way he stated it.

 

CONNOLLY:
All right, because I'm sure you can appreciate, general, there might be some who, for various and sundry reasons would like to distort your testimony and suggest that you're testifying that we could have, should have done a lot more than we did because we had capabilities we simply didn't utilize. That is not your testimony?

 

LOVELL: That is not my testimony.

 

CONNOLLY: I thank you very much

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cut and paste black dog can't address any of my points. I accept your white flag of surrender. Which makes you a surrender monkey!

( term used by the neocon warmongering cons when level headed Americans wanted out of IRAQ. )

 

You think minimum wage is designed to be a career wage that will support a family of 3 or 4?

 

Going to college and getting a degree in eastern european sewer art might be a degree but it will not put food on the table.

 

Maybe, if we hadn't mandated that all liberal feel good add on to cars, poor folks could afford one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One fact written in stone.

Conservatives couldn't care less about 4 Americans that died. Not a whit.

If they did, they would have called out for investigations somewhere along the line when there were 13... Yes 13 Benghazi's during the Bush reign of error.

 

This BENGHAZI hysteria is totally manufactured political theater. Nothing less.

 

 

You're such a stupid idoit uneducated moron. This insn't just about an embassy attack you retard. You and the left are the ones who could give a rats ass about four Americans being murdered. Its more important to you to protect your leftist president and your failing progressive movement than any concern for justice or truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

"The Fed was raising rats in 1994." Any profit in that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not much of a fan of Rivera, but he destroyed Fox News on Benghazi:

 

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/05...-on-fox/199138

 

Fox host Geraldo Rivera demolished his network's latest Benghazi hoax, even as his colleagues worked to prop up their distortions of Ret. Air Force Brigadier General Robert Lovell's testimony on the administration's response to the attack.

 

On May 1, Lovell, who served as deputy intelligence director at the U.S. Africa Command in Germany (AFRICOM) during the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, testified that "we should have tried" to rescue the victims of the attack, yet later clarified that he did not mean to suggest that the government had the capability to send additional help that it failed to utilize. Fox News was quick to highlight the first portion of Lovell's testimony as "incredibly damning" evidence of the administration's negligence, yet failed to cover the full context of Lovell's remarks. Mainstream media similarly misrepresented the testimony.

 

Fox continued to push the myth that the administration had refused to send military assistance to Benghazi on the March 2 edition of Fox & Friends, claiming that Lovell "made it very clear we didn't even try to rescue those guys" and arguing: "Logic tells you that you would think that there would be some type of mission to get people out" -- arguments that were dismantled later in the show when Rivera described the realities of military coordination. Rivera called his Fox News colleagues' claims a "myth," pointing out that "we have never, as far as I know, never mounted a rescue operation in the time parameters we had here, at all" and "it would never have been mounted, that mission was a suicide mission, it could not have happened" (emphasis added):

 

RIVERA:
Admiral Mike Mullen, appointed by President Bush, says there was no military asset available. I have investigated this from the Air Force assets in Aviano to the special forces in Tripoli and in Italy and in other places. Whatever was available in our fleet resources, AFRICOM, there was no forces that could have intervened. There was no gunship available as the myth suggested. There was no 'stand down order' given by concentrating on the -- and the military is not the SWAT team. They're not the fire department
.

 

CO-HOST STEVE DOOCY: Geraldo, they could have buzzed them with a drone.

 

HASSELBECK: Doesn't it go back to the first paints that they should have paid attention --

 

RIVERA: I don't know. All I know is that when you, for instance, look at how we rescue the guy from the Mirsk, Alabama or how we go into the camps in Somalia,
these are precisely planned, daylight operations largely. They involve three days of intense comprehensive plans -- we have never, as far as I know, never mounted a rescue operation in the time parameters we had here, at all.

[...]

 

RIVERA: Listen, I have been with so many fallen and wounded GIs from Afghanistan 12 times, Iraq 12 times, Somalia, I have a lot of African experience.
If the jets Aviano had scrambled, they would have had to jettison their tanks at night, going over to a situation that they could have easily been taken down by a handheld RPG. To what end? We didn't have a target. It could would have been mounted, that mission was a suicide mission, it could not have happened.

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has already debunked claims that further assistance could have been sent from U.S. military bases and even criticized this "cartoonish impression of the military," which has ignored the need for "planning and preparation before we send people in harm's way."

Lovell, too, was very clear about the limits of military's capability to respond. From his May 1 remarks:

REP. JERRY CONNOLLY (D-VA): I want to read to you the conclusion of the chairman of the [Armed Services] Committee, the Republican chairman Buck McKeon, who conducted formal briefings and oversaw that report. He said, quote, "I'm pretty well satisfied that given where the troops were, how quickly the thing all happened, and how quickly it dissipated we probably couldn't have done much more than we did." Do you take issue with the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee? In that conclusion?

 

LOVELL: His conclusion that he couldn't have done much more than they did with the capability and the way they executed it?

 

CONNOLLY: Given the timeframe.

 

LOVELL: That's a fact.

 

CONNOLLY: OK.

 

LOVELL: The way it is right now. The way he stated it.

 

CONNOLLY:
All right, because I'm sure you can appreciate, general, there might be some who, for various and sundry reasons would like to distort your testimony and suggest that you're testifying that we could have, should have done a lot more than we did because we had capabilities we simply didn't utilize. That is not your testimony?

 

LOVELL: That is not my testimony.

 

CONNOLLY: I thank you very much

 

 

1994 wasn't all that hot was the point.... 40 years ago and 20 years ago were very different economic times and minimum wage did not support a family then either.

 

 

So the point of the article you cite here is that

 

Despite the increase activity in the run up to 9/11(it was the video remember) and the obvious attack on the compound on 9/11, both Barry and Hillary were god knows where and NO ATTEMPT was made to help the folks on the ground and there was not ANTICIPATION beforehand of any trouble?

 

Got it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We did not sell guns to the mexican drug lords (Executive privilage)

 

They did not target conservative groups with the IRS (I take the fifth)

 

It was a video (No you can't see my emails for two years while we run out the clock)

 

You can keep your doctor (Until the law goes into effect)

 

I will not raise taxes on anyone making under $200K a year....


Bengahzi bengahzi bengahzi
General what can we do. Nothing its to fast we cant coordinate a response that quickly. What a shame. Criminal. I dont think so.

 

 

It is not the event....IT IS THE COVERUP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok let have the news when it happens . Its been two years. Tell ms when the find out obamas not american while your at it.

 

"Dude...It's been like, two years!?" --Former Obama National Security Advisor Spokesman Tommy Vietor*

 

 

 

*Past winner, Male Valley Girl Competition 1984

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...