That looks like Jim Jordan, R-Ohio. Don’t know the district, though.
Do you have a problem with an ordinary YouTube URL? I prefer the ordinary URL since YouTube offers suggestions. For example, with one click we learn that Rand Paul does not think that Hillary’s murder of four Americans in Benghazi was intentional, though she should have been fired for it. This makes Paul a moderate (and top candidate for the 2016 Presidential nomination) since several of the other YouTube suggestions seem rather clear that the murders were instigated deliberately by top American officials, apparently including Michele Obama herself. (Is it coincidence that none of the dead were Black?)
Benghazi was, of course, the 2nd largest tragedy so far of the 21st century. What ranks 3rd?
September 11th, after Benghazi and the IRS scandal.
Ridiculous. What about Fast and Furious? What about “You didn’t build that”? What about “You can keep your doctor”?
And what about FEMA stockpiling guillotines?
(post shortened)
Hahahaha. “It’s time to move on.” What a hoot. Does that mean it’s acceptable to ask a question once, but if you don’t receive an answer or the answer is obviously horseshit, you can not ask the question again?
The non-transparent Whitehouse doesn’t fully answer the questions asked about Benghazi attacks and the Whitehouse’s response to the attacks and the apparent cover up. And you believe that’s OK. What more could the taxpayers expect from their non-transparent Whitehouse? The public doesn’t need to know what happened. What difference does it make, right?
It’s time to move on because there is nothing there. The only thing left to be dug up is political squabbling points - things the republicans can point to and say “look, they weren’t perfectly honest snowflakes”. It’s a gigantic waste of time. Seriously, what crime or cover-up do you think this investigation has a chance of uncovering?
Which ones?
What makes you think so?
“It’s time to move on because there is nothing there.”
OR
Fully answer the questions that have been asked instead of supply redacted files and telling everyone to move on.
I prefer that the Whitehouse and State Dept answer all of the questions about the attacks at Benghazi and about the alleged cover up. What difference can it make?
Which ones? Why every question asked by the newly formed investigative committee, of course.
The fact that the WH has dragged this out as long as it has plus the massive amount of redacting done to the files previously released.
We’ve had investigations *ad nauseam *to answer all substantive questions except the most important one – “How do we prevent such attacks in the future?”
The cry “…all of the questions…” has become exactly like birtherism. It doesn’t matter what questions are answered, there are always additional ones to be asked. It has become as silly – and as transparently asinine – as “Trace the lineage of Napoleon Bonaparte’s favorite horse through six generations, and explain how it influenced the outcome of the French and Indian War”.
You’re complaining about lack of answers to questions that haven’t been asked yet? 
Are you aware of all the other committees that have asked questions, and what they were?
That’s not who’s doing the dragging out, friend.
Which you suspect cover, well, what exactly?
[quote=“doorhinge, post:426, topic:687535”]
Does that mean it’s acceptable to ask a question once, but if you don’t receive an answer or the answer is obviously horseshit, you can not ask the question again?
If you have a reason for wanting an answer besides “I’m curious,” then yes, it is acceptable to keep asking.
You haven’t been able to give such a reason, though, despite multiple opportunities in this very thread. You haven’t been able to suggest anything the man might say in response to that question that would in any way change the outcome of Benghazi or of the investigation. “Just because I want to know and he won’t tell me” <> non-transparency.
Has the Whitehouse taken credit for the arrest or killing of any of the Benghazi planners or attackers? Not that I’m aware of but your sources might have a different answer.
[quote=“slash2k, post:433, topic:687535”]
You’re confusing my personal questions (what was Obama doing and where was he during the attacks) with the questions that have been repeatedly asked about the lack of cooperation by the Whitehouse, the story line fed to spokes-puppet Susan Rice, the need to redact files, the forcing of information releases to be made by court order, etc.
Hopefully, all questions will be answered by the investigative committee, including my personal questions.
Whether the Democrat party choses to participate or not.
Unlike some people, I can’t read redacted files because they’re, well…, redacted. Now, hopefully, we’ll be able to see what the Whitehouse and State Dept were hiding from public view.
“Birtherism”? “Napoleon’s horse”? Hahahaha.
You seem to be satisfied with the answers given and the heavily redacted files that really don’t explain anything because they were redacted.
Facts are neither Democrat or Republican. Hopefully, the investigative committee will uncover all of the facts of what happened during the attacks, the immediate public explanations, and the explanations of the explanations.
It’s White House, for God’s sake, not Whitehouse. Take this conversation to as sophomoric a level as you want, but can we at least use proper English around here?
Maybe he really is annoyed at the junior Senator from Rhode Island.
It’s also Democratic party, not Democrat party.