No, they keep stringing out document requests in order to stall Hillary Clinton's testimony until they can time it politically.

No. State is not giving them the documents.

No, they keep stringing out document requests in order to stall Hillary Clinton's testimony until they can time it politically.

This is so bush-league of them, they aren't even trying to hide it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how the Republicans are still going on about Obama given that he has less than two years in office and cannot stand for reelection.

You would think that this would cause them to focus on HRC given that she will more than likely be the nominee. I really think that it has a lot to do with the fact that Obama whooped them so badly in 2012, they just cannot get over the magnitude of their loss especially since the Romneys believed on election day that the presidency was going to go to him. Combine this with the victory that the Republicans had in 2014 which has turned to be a non-event since the Democrats are now playing the Republican game and filibustering anything the Repubs want to pass.

That's what Benghazi is for. We aren't paying for eight separate inquiries for nothing.

Notice how Gowdy's committee is dragging its feet. They are timing the attack so that the theatrics occur in the middle of the campaign. Your tax dollars at work.

He's waiting for a non-complicit state department to cough up what they are legally supposed to cough up.

methinks you may not know the difference between "complicit" and "compliant"?

your supposition doesn't make much sense as written ...

I thought PP meant Gowdie is waiting until the entire personnel of the State Department retires or changes jobs, so there are no complicit people left there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how the Republicans are still going on about Obama given that he has less than two years in office and cannot stand for reelection.

You would think that this would cause them to focus on HRC given that she will more than likely be the nominee. I really think that it has a lot to do with the fact that Obama whooped them so badly in 2012, they just cannot get over the magnitude of their loss especially since the Romneys believed on election day that the presidency was going to go to him. Combine this with the victory that the Republicans had in 2014 which has turned to be a non-event since the Democrats are now playing the Republican game and filibustering anything the Repubs want to pass.

That's what Benghazi is for. We aren't paying for eight separate inquiries for nothing.

Notice how Gowdy's committee is dragging its feet. They are timing the attack so that the theatrics occur in the middle of the campaign. Your tax dollars at work.

He's waiting for a non-complicit state department to cough up what they are legally supposed to cough up.

methinks you may not know the difference between "complicit" and "compliant"?

your supposition doesn't make much sense as written ...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how the Republicans are still going on about Obama given that he has less than two years in office and cannot stand for reelection.

You would think that this would cause them to focus on HRC given that she will more than likely be the nominee. I really think that it has a lot to do with the fact that Obama whooped them so badly in 2012, they just cannot get over the magnitude of their loss especially since the Romneys believed on election day that the presidency was going to go to him. Combine this with the victory that the Republicans had in 2014 which has turned to be a non-event since the Democrats are now playing the Republican game and filibustering anything the Repubs want to pass.

That's what Benghazi is for. We aren't paying for eight separate inquiries for nothing.

Notice how Gowdy's committee is dragging its feet. They are timing the attack so that the theatrics occur in the middle of the campaign. Your tax dollars at work.

He's waiting for a non-complicit state department to cough up what they are legally supposed to cough up.

^^ addendum to above. This error in Obama's place of birth remained until April of 2007, two months after Obama declared his presidential run.

Again, I can see why birthers were looking for answers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are several references to "Barry" in this thread. Some seem to be to Obama (known as Barry in his youth) and others to Marion Barry, or am I confused?

They are talking about Barack Obama. They like to play with his name because it reminds us that he is not really American in their minds. They will not allow him to be black or white or Christian either. Hell, half of them won't allow him to be born in Hawaii. If he looks too American, they'll call him Barack Hussein Obama. If he's looking too "foreign", they will call him Barry to remind us that he tried to assimilate. Even though he was born here (or Kenya, take your pick).

It's an interesting thing. A book promotion pamphlet at Harvard misidentified his birthplace as Kenya. The publishers say it was a simple mistake. OK, that's fine, but one can't call the birthers crazy when stuff like this is about:

"This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me--an agency assistant at the time," Goderich wrote in an emailed statement to Yahoo News. "There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more."

Errors like that are not terribly common. Me? I think there was some lying about getting into Harvard, i.e. he applied as a foreign national, and that's why the records are clamped so tight. Could also be his grades were pretty poor. I would think unless someone had something to hide, releasing records would allow a matter to be cleared up quickly. That's what McCain did regarding his place of birth.

Rudy was not popular before 9/11. He was in fact one of the least popular mayors in the city's history.

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/rudy-approval-rating-reaches-new-poll-article-1.876513

Mayor Giuliani's approval rating fell to a new low yesterday, and an overwhelming majority of registered voters in New York City say he has botched race relations and education, a survey found. The Quinnipiac College survey showed the mayor's popularity has fallen since the March 16 shooting of unarmed Patrick Dorismond in an NYPD drug operation gone awry. In a stinging rebuke, only 16% of New Yorkers approve of Giuliani's handling of the shooting. The survey of 816 registered city voters found a scant 37% of New Yorkers approve of Giuliani's performance as mayor, with 57% giving him a thumbs-down.

Anonymous wrote:
Rudy's problem is that the American he loves doesn't exist anymore - actually it never really did. Now he hates the diverse, culturally progressive America that dominatees public culture. He's actually the one who hates America.


You seem unaware that he was a wildly popular and successful mayor of New York City.

NYC has never reflected "America" as a whole; NYC is a culture unto itself, and Rudy thrived as its leader by showing compassion towards all of the city's wildly diverse communities.

Sorry, but your attempt to paint Rudy as a typical republican does not jive with reality

You need to back and read up on the truth. A year before 9/11 Rudy was one of the least popular mayors in nyc history with a 36% approval rating. He rose with 9/11 that lifted all politicians. A large majority wanted to see him go. I don't mean this to sound as ugly as it does but The best thing that ever happened to Rudy was 9/11.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woopeedeedoo, someone dared to express less than adoration about Barry! Release the hounds

Barbara Walters clarified that "we all thought he was the messiah . . ." when referring to Obama a few years back.

Given the vitriol towards Rudy simply for expressing his opinion, it's obvios many liberals still consider Obama to be their messiah.

I am a two-time Obama voter (and originally a Hillary supporter) who never thought he was the messiah.

I used to respect Guiliani and the job he did as mayor in New York, where I lived formerly. It's kind of sad that Rudy has moved from a well-regarded, centrist leader to someone on the fringes who questions Obama's patriotism. Maybe Gulianai thinks that this is what it takes to get media attention these days, but it's really disappointing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woopeedeedoo, someone dared to express less than adoration about Barry! Release the hounds

Barbara Walters clarified that "we all thought he was the messiah . . ." when referring to Obama a few years back.

Given the vitriol towards Rudy simply for expressing his opinion, it's obvios many liberals still consider Obama to be their messiah.

I voted for Obama both times and never thought of him as a messiah of any sort. I think Giuliani is a jerk and a bigot and as someone said the America he knew began to change decades ago and people like him and Pat Buchanan can't get used to it. Much of it has to do with the "browning" of America. At least Buchanan was honest about it and said that he did not like to see the whites becoming a less significant portion of the population. He still wanted the Christian America that he knew as a child.

Anonymous wrote:Rudy's problem is that the American he loves doesn't exist anymore - actually it never really did. Now he hates the diverse, culturally progressive America that dominatees public culture. He's actually the one who hates America.

You seem unaware that he was a wildly popular and successful mayor of New York City.

NYC has never reflected "America" as a whole; NYC is a culture unto itself, and Rudy thrived as its leader by showing compassion towards all of the city's wildly diverse communities.

Sorry, but your attempt to paint Rudy as a typical republican does not jive with reality.

Anonymous wrote:Woopeedeedoo, someone dared to express less than adoration about Barry! Release the hounds

Barbara Walters clarified that "we all thought he was the messiah . . ." when referring to Obama a few years back.

Given the vitriol towards Rudy simply for expressing his opinion, it's obvios many liberals still consider Obama to be their messiah.

Rudy's problem is that the American he loves doesn't exist anymore - actually it never really did. Now he hates the diverse, culturally progressive America that dominatees public culture. He's actually the one who hates America.

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how the Republicans are still going on about Obama given that he has less than two years in office and cannot stand for reelection.

You would think that this would cause them to focus on HRC given that she will more than likely be the nominee. I really think that it has a lot to do with the fact that Obama whooped them so badly in 2012, they just cannot get over the magnitude of their loss especially since the Romneys believed on election day that the presidency was going to go to him. Combine this with the victory that the Republicans had in 2014 which has turned to be a non-event since the Democrats are now playing the Republican game and filibustering anything the Repubs want to pass.

That's what Benghazi is for. We aren't paying for eight separate inquiries for nothing.

Notice how Gowdy's committee is dragging its feet. They are timing the attack so that the theatrics occur in the middle of the campaign. Your tax dollars at work.