Such curiosity and speculation is entirely unacceptable, so of course I do not. However, were I such a heinous person, my first suspect would be that Trey Gowdy character. I hasten to point out that if such speculation were valid, it would not alter my estimation of his character or value in any measurable way. It would only be surprising that his tighty righty pickle-up-the-butt Republican constituents did not notice.
Republicans tend to have well-paid cynics to assist in the packaging of candidates. Didn’t anybody suggest it might be advisable to “butch it up” a little? Didn’t matter, I guess, he won anyway.
It is widely known and understood that a casual indifference to the sexuality of others is the mark of man with gargantuan sexual capacity. Of course, I don’t have to tell you that…
Let’s just be clear here - there were hearings. At least four committees that I can name off the top of my head had hearings, investigations, and wrote reports about Benghazi, and that’s in addition to the independent investigation that happened right after the deaths. The obviousness of having another Benghazi investigation is that it was clearly about Hillary Clinton, not the actual events at hand, because those have been studied to death and all the investigating committees came to the same conclusion: there was no stand-down order, but State Department facilities should be better protected in the future.
Anyways, back to the real issue. I watched Chaffetz on Fox News Sunday. I was totally, completely unimpressed. Chris Wallace asked him if he’d support whoever wins the vote of the Republican caucus, and it was like amateur hour listening to Chaffetz try to give non-answers and total spin. This guy makes Ben Carson look like the seasoned political operative with a slick messaging machine.
Hey, conservatives, if you want to elect Chaffetz, go for it. Might as well double-down and nominate Jindal for president, too. Just so you can cover all the “inexperienced poor communicators who maybe shouldn’t have the offices that the currently have but want a promotion anyway” on the board.
A point that deserves a quibble. A minor issue, perhaps, but that’s the trouble with quibbles.
An embassy is many things, but one of them is a statement of trust, that your embassy is located in a nation that is stable and sane enough to be trusted with the lives of your ambassadorial staff. Often, this is a polite fiction, but our State Department people are well aware that they are sometimes at risk. Like a soldier, they accept that risk in service to their country, but unlike a soldier, they can’t shoot back.
If you have to keep an armored division on hand to protect your embassy, you should not ask good people to serve there. We do, and they will, but we will not insult our hosts with such demands. Our ambassadors and their staff are aware of the risks, and are armed with nothing more than decency and civilization.
The guards at an embassy are largely ceremonial, as is fitting. If you require military protection at an embassy, you don’t have an embassy, you have an outpost.
The reports didn’t recommend making embassies into fortresses. The recommendations of the panels generally criticized over-reliance on host nation security support and increasing funding for replacing posts that have been planned for replacement for security reasons. Those seem like pretty common sense suggestions that don’t involve sending the 3rd ID to protect all the embassies in Africa or something.
If they think Obama is the devil, then Daniel Webster would be the logical guy to have it out with him.
This is scary shit. You’ve got just enough guys who think there were sent to Washington to burn the place down and they’re not going to support anyone who wants to actually govern.
It would be nice to see the situation reach a point where enough of the not too crazy Republicans have to vote for Pelosi as the speaker. It probably won’t happen, but I can dream :p.