No one in the Admin has been indicted in connection with Benghazi, and AFAIK no one is accused or suspected of anything indictable; yet Trey Goudy seems to think he’s running a trial.
You know they’re supposed to hide a lot of things from public view.
doorhinge: do you believe there was a stand-down order?
Are we sure that Issa didn’t have insurance out on the building and burned it down to get the insurance money? I mean, based on his past history, it seems like something he might do. And why won’t the media ask the question?
I have some questions for you, Brainiac.
It’s not even been 2 years since the Benghazi attack. How long did it take to get Bin Laden? Eleven years? Did you complain about it when Bush blew the opportunity to corner Bin Laden in Tora Bora? And who was POTUS when Bin Laden was finally killed?
I expect no straight answers from someone such as yourself.
In a feeble attempt to pull this thread back from the state of total chaos that it seems to have devolved into, I think it’s worth distinguishing the two varieties of #Benghazi:
1. The administration’s conduct in the run-up to, during, and after the attack was scandalous.
Study questions:
Why were we still there after attempts on the British ambassador’s life etc.? Why were pleas for more security ignored? Why wasn’t an adequate military response staged once the attack was underway? Why wasn’t Obama glued to his seat in the situation room? Why hasn’t the administration brought the perpetrators to justice?
2. The administration’s portrayal of the events to the American public was scandalously misleading.
Study questions:
Why did Susan Rice tie the Benghazi attack to the Cairo protests? Why didn’t Obama call it “terrorism,” rather than (merely) strongly implying it in the words “act of terror?”
#Benghazi Type 2 has been argued ad nauseam on this thread. Further, while the surfacing of this email from Ben Rhodes does seem to suggest a lack of enthusiasm on the part of the administration in forking over binders full of documents to Congress, ipso facto evidence of a cover up it is not. The one simply doesn’t follow from the other.
Doorhinge seems to be placing the most emphasis on #Benghazi Type 1. What he and other Republicans seem unwilling to accept is that the Type 1 questions have been answered to a degree that is totally disproportionate with the significance of the event. Wrap yourself in the flag and bemoan four dead Americans all you want, this wasn’t Pearl Harbor, ok? I challenge you to explain why Benghazi deserves endless Congressional hearings (on the Type 1 questions) while prior attacks on our diplomatic facilities did not. What more do we need to know?
- Buck McKeon and his committee concluded nothing militarily could be done, and we’ve made changes to protocol accordingly.
- Hillary Clinton has essentially admitted, yeah, we fucked up and that sort of thing happens. So we should learn from our mistakes and avoid it happening in the future. How does going after the former Secretary of State advance that project?
- “No one lost their job.” What is the relevant legal statute or precedent that says when a surprise attack occurs, x number of people need to lose their job?
- It doesn’t fucking matter that Obama wasn’t in the Situation Room unless your approach to current events occurs on a 5th grade level.
- Pleas for more security were ignored for the same reason they’re ignored all the time: finite resources and lack of the benefit of hindsight.
There is no defensible reason to rehash #Benghazi Type 1 questions except for transparently partisan purposes. Most of the country realizes this. If you don’t, prepare to shout at your TV screen a lot in coming months.
Now, some have argued that #Benghazi Type 1 questions deserve more scrutiny than prior attacks “because no one lied about prior attacks.” That is another non sequitur. If indeed Obama lied about the attacks, that is a scandal in its own right. It has nothing to do with that whole host of other questions on our security position, military response, and hunt for perpetrators.
By the way, as a general point, throughout the Benghazi controversy Republicans have shifted the emphasis between and within each of these two buckets. First it’s about what Susan Rice said, then it’s about lack of military response (Stand-down-gate). First it’s about Obama, then it’s about Hillary. The lack of a consistent rank-ordering of what exactly their beef(s) is/are is testament to how weak their position has been all along. When you’re arguing with someone and their Main Point is continually changing, that’s generally a clue that they’re on weak footing.
Your assertion was that none of them had been killed or arrested. How do you know that?
If you do not know that to be a fact, please admit that and acknowledge that your previous post was completely erroneous.
If you do know it to be a fact, please provide a link so the rest of us can take a look.
Thanks.
Or that they make shit up. For example, they’re more interested in e-mails now, but for several months after the attack, the Fox drumbeat was about how we were attacked because they only respect strength, and Obama has consistently shown weakness in Libya. When actually, terrorist spokesmen have said that one of the prime motivations for the attack was Obama’s killing (by drone strike) the Libyan al Qaeda leader Abu Yahya al Libi a few months earlier.
I guess that wasn’t strong enough. I guess McCain would have snuck into al Libi’s camp with a knife between his teeth, and done it himself.
So Gowdy joins others here (Debaser, Magiver) and now you, in simply refusing to acknowledge the ample evidence at the time that the video played an important role in the attacks. I give up.
White House it is.
(As an aside, which religion are you or which God are you referring to?)
That’s what committee investigations are for. Maybe we’ll get the definitive answer soon, even if the Democrats refuse to participate in the process.
The other possibility is that the White House, State Dept, U.S. Military, or another government has the Benghazi planners/attackers under lock and key (or six feet of dirt) without notifying anyone.
Not even you believe that is a possibility.

In a feeble attempt to pull this thread back from the state of total chaos that it seems to have devolved into, I think it’s worth distinguishing the two varieties of #Benghazi:
1. The administration’s conduct in the run-up to, during, and after the attack was scandalous.
2. The administration’s portrayal of the events to the American public was scandalously misleading.
…Doorhinge seems to be placing the most emphasis on #Benghazi Type 1. What he and other Republicans seem unwilling to accept is that the Type 1 questions have been answered to a degree that is totally disproportionate with the significance of the event.
(post shortened)
Both varieties create questions that, hopefully, will be fully addressed during the upcoming investigation. Questions will be asked, subpoenas will be issued, and, hopefully, truthful answers will be forth coming.
It would have been a lot less trouble if the White House and State Dept had simply provided the answers when originally asked.

Not even you believe that is a possibility.
No, I don’t believe that’s even a remotely possible answer but Snowboader Bo seems to be desperately seeking some kind of answer.

It would have been a lot less trouble if the White House and State Dept had simply provided the answers when originally asked.
Nothing they did would have satisfied the Pubs. These theater-hearings were inevitable.

No, I don’t believe that’s even a remotely possible answer but Snowboader Bo seems to be desperately seeking some kind of answer.
No, Snowboarder Bo has simply called you out for making a statement of fact for which you have no evidence or cite. He’s not desperately seeking anything, except maybe to live in a world where facts actually matter.

Both varieties create questions that, hopefully, will be fully addressed during the upcoming investigation. Questions will be asked, subpoenas will be issued, and, hopefully, truthful answers will be forth coming.
Or Boehner could simply hire Christie’s lawyers to do (well, re-repeat) the investigation. It would take far less time and money, and their findings that nothing nefarious occurred would be unquestioningly accepted.
I believe Alan Grayson is the perfect choice/example of the Democrat party. The committee’s daily ramblings will make headlines every couple of hours. Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi… and the voters can see the Democrat party’s great champion Grayson at his best.