It’s a personal question that I have. Therefore, it’s important to me. Is it important to the Benghazi investigation? That would depend on what Obama was actually doing. Since Obama doesn’t want to volunteer that information, maybe the committee investigation will discover the answer.
Why do you object to questions being asked?
Oh dear god, no one objects to some deranged person in the internet “just asking questions.” It’s the ceaseless drumbeat of the unglued right “asking questions” for purely political purposes and then asking repeatedly, “where’s the outrage” because everyone with half a brain can see what they’re doing and doesn’t give a flying fuck, that’s what we’re objecting to.
Have you found it difficult to find work since getting out of rehab?
Did you ever worry about getting spotted when you were disposing of your victims?
What did you spend the money you stole on?
Just asking questions, bro. :rolleyes:
If you don’t “give a flying fuck”, then why are you objecting to questions being asked? :smack:
HAHAHAHA. Interesting twist. Are you threadshitting or just trying to move this Great Debate thread off-topic?
So Republicans want to call it a bipartisan investigation (what was it that Boehner said, “Should not, cannot, will not, might not, Hottentot, buckshot, who knows why not, be a bipartisan investigation?”) just as long as there is a partisan makeup of the committee?
You can’t have it both ways, by stacking the deck with Republicans and then claiming it is going to be a totally bipartisan investigation. Plus, let’s get real – this committee’s membership isn’t known for their serious and sober positions on global affairs. Mr. Westmoreland’s reputation isn’t as much his knowledge of world affairs, but for calling Obama “uppity.” Mr. Pompeo’s contributions to the war on terrorism consist of telling Muslim-Americans who are insufficiently loud in denouncing terrorism may be complicit in terrorism themselves. Mr. Roskam is apparently under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for taking a trip that was improperly financed by the Taiwanese government.
When Congress investigated Iran-Contra, at least respectable statesmen led that investigation – Medal of Honor winner Daniel Inouye, independent thinker Warren Rudman, later-Nobel Peace Prize nominee George Mitchell, and hell – even Dick Cheney back then was a respected defense expert. But this Benghazi panel? Half the Republican panel probably shouldn’t even hold elected office.
we don’t “give a flying fuck” about whether Obama was in the pool room or the situation room, or whether he called it an attack by “armed extremists” or “terrorists,” or whether he waited 25 minutes or 25 hours to do something you think he should have done in five minutes. We are troubled that the consulate was attacked, and that peopled died. We hope that this time, at least, lessons can be learned by those who are providing security, that might reduce the risk of another attack. We know, however, the risk cannot be eliminated, and that the POTUS is not always at fault when bad things happen in the world.
If the right wing wants to “just ask questions,” than they should ask honest questions that go to the issues that matter. They should refrain from exploiting four dead Americans for purely political motives. It’s shameful, and beneath contempt.
I’m saying your question is nothing but an attempt at insinuation for partisan purpose.
Hardly threadshitting.
That is a really despicable thing to write, especially since the context of HRC’s remarks has been made clear in this thread. Why anyone would waste his time on further debate with you is beyond me.
This aspect of the debate has been dormant for a couple pages, but to revisit the controversy over what reason we had initially to believe this was spontaneous vs preplanned (I’m looking at you Debaser)… This is from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on Benghazi (page 35):
Based on the above, Susan Rice’s statements appear unassailably consistent with the intelligence available at the time.
Under what circumstances would it be important to the Benghazi investigation? What possible answers to what Obama was actually doing would make a difference?
If the guy says, “Hey, I was playing catch with Bo and Sunny while my staff monitored the situation and gave me updates,” would that be okay or damning? In general, what answers could he give that you would regard as okay or damning? What possible answers could he give that would in any way change what happened and why it happened?
I don’t object to the question being asked. I object to anybody spending tax dollars and national resources trying to get an answer to personal questions of mere curiosity, and nothing you’ve said thus far has moved your question out of this category.
A competent Benghazi investigation would be about what when wrong and how to prevent a repeat. How does satisfying curiosity fit into that? It doesn’t.
doorhinge, I know that there are people who believe NASA and the Gov’t faked the moon landings. I’m sure those people have plenty of questions. Should we open a congressional investigation to answer those questions?
Don’t give FOX news more ideas.
For one thing, because these nonsensical hearings divert the House’s time and attention from countless things more important and urgent.
Like what? Overturning Obamacare so millions of people lose their newfound health insurance? That’s an election winner if I ever saw one.
If the WH cooperated in the first place it would have been over with a long time ago.
It’s hilarious that you actually believe this.
I’m not sure Magiver is wrong though. Among die hard partisans this will remain a rallying cry for years to come. But more broadly the issue was basically in remission until the Rhodes email turned up.
Or sad.