Yes but they are dead, aren’t they???
They are. And it was a tragedy. And everyone, including Clinton and Obama, has said so.
Incidentally there’s a fundraiser for Christopher Stevens’ foundation this weekend. It’s one of those “pay a lot to play golf for charity” things so probably isn’t of much interest to the board as a whole, but there you go.
You do. By breathlessly anticipating yet another.
And it’s about time you told us how much more. You’ve already stipulated that, to you, “Benghazi” means more than Benghazi, and have not denied that, to you, it means the entirety of Sec. Clinton’s tenure of office. So, what do you define as “Benghazi”, and the proper scope of further investigation? Is it the entire history of the universe, or something less? If you’re going to deny that a word means what it seems to mean, you need to explain what it *does *mean. But so far you haven’t offered anything other than the definition of a partisan fishing trip. And even Bricker says so too.
So you’re not concerned with being taken seriously after all. Gotcha. 
Whose charter is Benghazi.
Robert163, yes, they’re dead, and those deaths were a tragedy. Just as the thirteen attacks on US embassies, with sixty deaths, during the previous administration were. How many investigations did those get, and, in your view, why the difference? :dubious:
Well, now, just a second! Have we seen their long-form death certificates?
Ok, commonality. I’m fine with that. Either way, Congressional Committee’s provide their own justification for their investigations. There’s not a thing I can do about their creation.
I am in favor of investigations into the workings of government, and the actions of government officials. And that includes Ol’ Hillary.
Your reason for the Congressional investigations seems to serve your purpose. I assume you do not believe all-things-Benghazi should be investigated and Ol’ Hillary should not be questioned. Congressional Committees disagree with you. I’ll wait for the final report.
Once again: Are you also in favor of partisan fishing trips?
Just what do you mean by “all things Benghazi”? What does the term include? Is there anything it does not include?
The last seven weren’t final, to you. Why will this one be?
Once again, Congressional Committees hold investigations.
You can call them partisan fishing trips. Either way, I’m in favor of investigations into the actions of government officials.
The Congressional Committees decide what questions they will ask. What happened during the months leading up to the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi? What happened on the day four Americans were murdered in Benghazi? What happened during the months after four Americans were murdered in Benghazi? If it’s related to the murder of four Americans, and the State Dept’s actions before and after the four murders, then it should be included.
None of the last seven were final because there was another investigation. This isn’t rocket surgery. Ol’ Hillary will be questioned and there’s nothing you can do about that. Ol’ Hillary doesn’t have to answer any of the Congressional investigators questions. There is nothing you can do about that, either.
So you acknowledge that this is, in fact, a partisan fishing trip, or at least you cannot articulate why this isn’t one. Good. You also acknowledge that you’re in favor of partisan fishing trips, but is there a limit on them?
If only you could tell what questions they do not yet have answers to, answers which could reasonably be expected to be in Clinton’s e-mails. If only …
But thanks also for acknowledging that “Benghazi” means Benghazi.
Just let that one sink in for a minute …
Sure, but it negates your rationale for the need for this one.
Sure, but that negates your rationale that this is specifically about Benghazi.
I don’t know why you assume that because I’ve said the exact opposite. What I don’t believe is that the investigations should be open-ended in scope and time.
And presumably if you don’t like what it says, you’ll want a **ninth **investigation.
You can call it anything you wish. I’m not stopping you. I call it a Congressional investigation. You don’t have to accept that but it doesn’t change my position.
I still do not have access to the questions that the Congressional investigators will ask. I have previously listed several questions I would like answered.
All-things-Benghazi is of interest to the Congressional investigators. Apparently, that includes the actions of former Sec. of State, Ol’ Hillary Clinton.
I don’t believe it negates my position. ymmv.
Then you do believe all-things-Benghazi should be investigated and Ol’ Hillary should be questioned. Good for you.
They can convene a dozen more investigations, if they so chose. Ol’ Hillary doesn’t have to answer any of their questions, even if she’s under oath. However, there may be repercussions from the voters, if not from Congress.
You don’t deny it’s a partisan fishing trip, then.
None that you have been able to imagine are about Benghazi. Is it that the questions themselves are a secret for some reason, or that you lack sufficient imagination about what they are, or that there fucking aren’t any “unanswered questions” of significance about Benghazi?
It’s your own choice of terminology. Do you know what you mean by it or don’t you?
Do you believe that in the time before, during or after the events in Bengazi the Sec of State communicated via email to her associates in regards to anything having to do with the embassy in Bengazi?
What happened during the months leading up to the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, what happened on the day four Americans were murdered in Benghazi, and what happened during the months after four Americans were murdered in Benghazi, plus, anything related to the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, and the State Dept’s actions before and after the four murders in Benghazi, should be included in an All-Things-Benghazi investigations.
Yes. I also believe she talked to her associates via telephone, and in person. She may even have passed them a note in class.
I think those questions have been answered. I also think you just don’t like the fact the answers aren’t that interesting.
And the previous seven investigations into *all *those topics somehow missed something crucial, something that would have led to different conclusions, is that it? They didn’t seem to think they were missing any information they needed. Were they all just stupid?
And thank you once again for *still *proceeding.
Shorter doorhinge: She’s been around forEVER! We have to come up with something new to hang around her neck or we’re gonna LOSE this one! See if you can go hook up the battery to the 4 Benghazi corpses and make them jump around some more.
More shorter doorhinge: “OK, yes, it’s just another partisan fishing trip, but I’m not gonna admit it to *you *people!”
Apparently the deaths were not all that tragic after all. :rolleyes: