The Rhodes email didn’t tell us anything new. It shouldn’t have sparked any more furor, but due to political considerations, it did.
Obama promised transparency in the election. Which isn’t really much of a promise since he’s legally obligated under FOIA. If Congress can’t hold themselves or other politicians to these standards than we’ve become a 3rd world country.
But feel free to explain why you think the President and his staff are immune from review.
Oh I’m far from a huge fan of the President, and I wish he had handled lots of stuff differently. But the Republicans in Congress are way, way worse, and there’s nothing the President could do, besides resign, that would prevent Issa and co. from going to every possible effort to discredit him and Hillary. So I’m under no illusion that full cooperation would change anything.
In this particular instance, I think he’s done fine. In most cases, including this one, cooperating with the Republicans in Congress is bad for America and bad for Americans.
The original redacted version that was unreadable or the court-ordered, un-redacted version?
Neither, from my recollection of looking at the new pages.
That can’t be true! The Republicans and Fox News say it says that Obama personally flew to Libya on a drone and killed Ambassador Stevens single-handedly!!1!
It is no coincidence that the Benghazi drum is getting louder as good news about obamacare pile up.
Jayjay, this is exactly as far as you can go. You should know better than to make a direct negative comment at another poster like this.
The Whitehouse and State Dept chose not to fully answer many of the questions asked by the voters and their elected representatives (ie. limited transparency). Now there will be a Congressional Select Committee to investigate the attack, the cover up, and the cover up of the cover up. The most pressing, current, question is whether or not the Democrats will chose to participate on the Select Committee. The subpoenas issued by the Select Committee will have the same force of law regardless of Democrat participation.
You could read the original redacted page?
Write your U.S. Congressman or either of your U.S. Senators.
It appears that we have different standards. I think it’s despicable that none of the attackers/planners have been arrested or killed.
(post shortened)
That seems a bit confusing. You don’t object to questions but you do object to some questions. I have no idea if the Select Committee will ask Obama what he was doing during the attacks or where he was. I would still like to know.
Even if we presume that the US military had assets available and close to Benghazi, what the Fox News fan (and apparently the GOP if they were being honest) seem to forget is that sending in military forces to another country without their express permission constitutes an act of war. Had the Obama Administration done this and then had those troops come under fire , with accompanying casualties while still failing to protect the ambassador, we would now being hearing GOP clamoring for why the President involved this nation in yet another war.
American ambassadors have been killed by hostile forces before. While it’s tragic, it’s really not unexpected or without historical precedent. That it happened on the anniversary of 9/11 is more bad luck and bad timing than it was anything else. What a Congressional hearing will do about is not exactly clear.
I looked at what was visible, and from what I recall, there was no new information.
How do you know that none of the attackers/planners have been arrested or killed?
No, you misunderstand. I have no objection to your asking the question.
Now, you have asked it, and for whatever reason he hasn’t answered. It’s time to move on.
I object to spending time and effort in a congressional investigation to CONTINUE asking a question just to satisfy your curiosity (since you have given us no reason to suppose the answer is in any way significant or meaningful).
(And since under the separation of powers doctrine, the Select Committee has no power to subpoena Obama, yes we do have a pretty good idea that he will not be asked directly. All this is is rhetoric.
In fact, it’s an awful lot like the birther rhetoric. “This would all be settled if he’d just show us his birth certificate.” “This would all be settled if he’d just show us his long-form birth certificate.” “This would all be settled if he’d just show us the vault original birth certificate” (or his college transcripts, or passport, or whatever the birthers want now–I saw somebody complaining because his kindergarten records have not been released). Whatever he does or says or releases, the goalposts move a little bit further out.
To belabor the point:
what if he was reading the newspapers while the attacks were happening? shagging the first lady? playing poker with his best buds? studying Joel Silver? studying classified CIA reports? writing a letter to Putin or Maliki or Karzai or the king of Norway? prepping for a debate? teaching the dog to fetch his slippers? watching Breaking Bad? watching the stupid video? watching footage from Cairo?
What does it matter? How would any of these activities have changed what happened in Benghazi? What would you have wanted him to be doing?
This wasn’t 9/11 or the Cuban Missile Crisis, or even Katrina. Given the apparent lack of military options, there were no decisions Obama needed to make and no orders to give beyond “do what you can and keep me informed.” While Benghazi is a tragic event, it’s not exactly the first tragic event of this (or any other) presidency. It’s not even the first time a diplomatic facility was attacked on Obama’s watch. Should the president be expected to watch and wait and sit in the situation room anytime American personnel are in danger anywhere? (Given the current world situation, when would he ever have a chance to leave the SitRoom?)
What is the role of a president, any president, in such circumstances? How would you answer that question, doorhinge?
This is my favorite point of hypocrisy in this whole affair.
Republicans in congress two years out from Benghazi: “Have the perpetrators of Benghazi been arrested or killed? No? Shameful.”
… as opposed to …
The Republican president six months after the original 9-11 regarding bin Laden (you know, the perpetrator)): “He’s just a person who’s been marginalized. … I don’t know where he is. I really just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you.”
And just to add a cherry on top, when the subsequent Democratic administration actually kills the guy ten years later … “eh, so what, it’s not like he killed him personally; any president would have authorized the operation.”
This is a perfectly valid point—as far as the first attack. The first one happened at about 8:30, but there was another attack about 6 hours later, which resulted in 2 of the 4 deaths. That’s one thing that people would like an answer to. The U.S. policy is usually to never leave a man behind. So, it appears that someone might have given an order to stand down. Either that, or no one was mobilized to head to the area drink the first attack. Again, we have a right to know those answers. I’d say everyone serving in the military or who has a loved one serving in the military does.
Here’s a timeline about the attacks.
The other “action” that needs explaining regards Susan Rice and the talking points she delivered on 9/12. It is crystal clear that for some reason the White House was putting forth the incorrect narrative that the video caused a spontaneous demonstration that caused the death of 4 Americans. Anyone who does not believe that the administration was doing that for days is simply not paying attention.