Morning Reads for Friday October 23, 2015

Here:
Friendship Baptist breaks ground.
– Take that, NY.
– Brunswick gets a lot of clams.

There:
– Transcript of yesterday’s Benghazi hearing.
– Polls are for strippers and … what just happened? Now they all will go on a book tour.
Boom.

Random Everywhere:
– Warm this.
This is not the bad guy you’re looking for.
– And if you’re the only one left on the planet who hasn’t seen it,

here.it.is.

26 comments

  1. saltycracker says:

    The “Buy American” “Cut the Military” movements don’t seem to be going well in coastal Georgia, Savannah, Brunswick, Kings Bay…..

    • Ellynn says:

      The number of exports out of Savannah is almost equal to the imports… Brunswick ships cars out of there too… The Buy American and sell to the world movement is going just fine. As to the military, based on the number of Virgnia class subs under construction and already ordered, Kingsbay is not going anywhere any time soon.

  2. benevolus says:

    Stars seem to be aligning for Hillary. I don’t think they wounded her at all yesterday and she may even have helped herself a little. The one thing no one would ever expect to feel for her is sympathy and I think Gowdy gave it to her.

      • HueyMahl says:

        I wouldn’t call Gowdy an amoral sociopath. A dumbass partisan maybe, but calling him a sociopath is a little extreme.

        • Noway says:

          Is it partisan to point out she emailed Chelsea that it was a terror attack and said the same thing later to the Egyptian Prez? The info that she emailed her family had not been known prior to yesterday. They were less than two months out from the election and felt they needed to lie there a**es off to win. Simple as that.

          • Andrew C. Pope says:

            So is that the “scandal” it took millions of dollars to uncover? I thought the controversy was that Ambassador Stevens didn’t have the Secretary of State’s personal email or home address. Or was it the failure to respond to requests for more security? Or was it that Blumenthal had close access to Sec. Clinton? I swear, it seemed like each member of the committee had their own narrative and own thoughts as to what Sec. Clinton did wrong. Bad move by Rep. Gowdy for not getting his team on the same page. If you’re gonna orchestrate a political hit job, make sure you’re all aiming at the same target.

            • Baker says:

              “So is that the “scandal” it took millions of dollars to uncover? I thought the controversy was that Ambassador Stevens didn’t have the Secretary of State’s personal email or home address. Or was it the failure to respond to requests for more security? Or was it that Blumenthal had close access to Sec. Clinton?”

              I mean, I get what you are saying and how chaotic yesterday was but…it was all of those. There was a failure, often explicitly with her behind it, at every single turn. Every rock you lift up had a scandal under it.

              • Andrew C. Pope says:

                I’m so grateful that the party who manufactured intelligence of weapons of mass destruction in order to attain Congressional and UN approval for military intervention in Iraq is out there getting “Answers” for the American people.

                I agree that there is a level of shadiness to the Obama Administration’s response to the Benghazi attacks, but the GOP has been so hamfisted in its approach that they’ve lost any hope of convincing the general public that something untoward went on. People on my Facebook feed last night were comparing Gowdy and the rest of the Republicans on the committee to 9/11 truthers. When that happens, you’ve lost folks.

                • gcp says:

                  What the heck is a “level of shadiness”?

                  Also why did Hilly vote for military intervention in Iraq while several other democrats voted against it? Was she just dumber than the others?

                • Noway says:

                  Congrats, Drew, your girl sailed through unscathed, as she will to your party’s nomination. Although she was proven a bald faced liar, something that has become common for her. (Bill Safire…”Congenital Liar…) The attack was not about some hack-video. It was, to paraphrase her to Chelsea and the Egyptian, the work of an al-quaeda type group. The video narrative was nothing but an effort to hide the fact the this was a 9-11 Anniversary Attack (oh, yeah…), that occurred precariously close to what was a somewhat close presidential race at the time. No way in hell could Obama be portrayed as weak on terror, especially since it was on his watch the Osama was iced. Be happy, Drew. Be happy that she slipped the proverbial mouse trap again. Aren’t you giddy with girlish giggling?

                  • Andrew C. Pope says:

                    To paraphrase Hillary at an earlier Benghazi hearing: what does it matter? Seriously? The Administration presented a false narrative to the American public in order to help the President’s re-election effort? You expect me to believe a Republican administration wouldn’t do the same thing? Or that they haven’t done this type of thing before?

                    Even if the Benghazi committee could successfully make that showing (for the record, I think the emails you mention show Clinton disagreeing with the White House’s assessment, not some coordinated plot to protect Obama’s electability), what does it matter? The Benghazi committee isn’t focused on improving safety at embassies and it hasn’t focused on what changes were put in place after the attack. So far it’s been an exercise in partisan hackery.

                • Baker says:

                  Sadly I think that is all solely because many in the media focus only on optics. Trey Gowdy for some insane reason gets his hair cut like a supervillain from Gotham http://cdn.wegotthiscovered.com/wp-content/uploads/penguin-face.jpg and Hillary did a good job of keeping a bored, apathetic position rather than getting worked up and really agitated.

                  I don’t think many in the media and these Facebook friends you speak of really listened to much of any of what they all were saying.

                  Some did though: http://www.wsj.com/articles/she-knew-all-along-1445556778

  3. saltycracker says:

    Saw a news article involving racial, gender and sexual preference insensitive Halloween candies and fruit. Too inane to even link. But some authorities took it seriously.

  4. saltycracker says:

    The established GOP isn’t embracing Marco, yet, and that leaves the door open for maybe the candidate America needs, Ben Carson. These are the two candidates to listen to carefully and decide.

    • Baker says:

      There’s no “recall” option for president. I don’t think it could possibly happen but I don’t think he’s really capable of being president. Not that he’s not smart enough but just so unprepared for everything that comes with the job. I think sometime in early February after a Carson inauguration, the country would collectively be like “oh man…what have we done?” But there’s no taking it back.

      • saltycracker says:

        Then you must be behind Marco which is good by me…..there are no other good choices, even Trump would be preferable to Hillary.

        • Baker says:

          “Then you must be behind Marco which is good by me”

          I really wish people were paying attention to the gentleman from New Jersey (400 vetoes of Democrats sounds like a conservative to me) but Marco is my #2.

          And as for this: “even Trump would be preferable to Hillary.”

          If it comes to that, I will likely pass on voting for the top of the ticket… I will not vote for a congenital liar or a reality tv creation blowhard.

Comments are closed.