(post shortened)
It all depends on if the Obama White House and Hillary’s old State Dept will produce unredacted (readable) documents for the bipartisan committee and the public to view.
Nice… you’ve already decided that any failure to satisfy your curiosity cannot and will not be the fault of anyone but President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton. :roll eyes:
HAHAHA. My curiosity is simply my curiosity. Those answers may never be known. The questions that will be asked by the bipartisan committee will, hopefully, carry the addition weight of contempt of Congress charges.
You may not want questions to be asked or answers to be provided but I do.
I don’t doubt it for a second. Bitch scares me.
Oh, no, by all means- ask away.
Just… can I not have to *pay *for it? I don’t like funding unnecessary government expenditures, like politically-motivated witch-hunts.
The White House and State Dept could have released readable documents when they were first asked for them. Or the 2nd time. Or the 3rd time.
Quite strategically, too. It’s almost like me questioning your motives and implying ridiculous partisan hipocrisy on your part never happened.
Oh, wait, people can scroll up. Nevermind. Well, you gave it the old college try, anyway.
This is really starting to sound like, “everything would be answered if he’d just release his birth certificate … everything would be answered if he’d just release his long-form birth certificate … everything would be answered if he’d just release his vault-original wet-ink birth certificate …”
What set of documents could the White House and State release that would absolutely satisfy all of the questioners? A huge percentage of the questioners are still concerned with matters that have been answered by the documents and witnesses already released (the stand-down order that never was, the lack of a military response, etc), so what makes anybody think another document or crate of documents is going to make any difference at all?
(post shortened)
Redacted documents are unreadable. What questions can be answered by unreadable documents?
A crate of readable documents could make a big difference. IF they are provided. I have to question why the Obama’s White House and Hillary’s old State Dept people are trying so hard not to provide readable documents. I wonder what they are hiding. Maybe the term transparency means something else to Obama and Hillary?
doorhinge, honest question here. In broad qualitative terms, what kind of information might conceivably surface, supposing the administration turned over all the readable, unredacted documents you’d like, which would lead you to conclude that in fact there was no wrongdoing by the administration in this episode beyond what has already been demonstrated by investigations undertaken thus far?
The sort of answer I’m looking for is, for example, “Documentary proof that Obama was in fact in the Situation Room all night.” Because only by telling us what could conceivably exonerate the administration from alleged wrongdoing can you really demonstrate here the purpose to be served by further investigations and hearings.
I’m not a big fan of government secrecy, but I can imagine some national security issues in those documents.
How do I determine what actually happened if I have no access to the documents that actually describe what happened? How do you?
I can speculate, of course. That’s a good way to kill time but it won’t answer any relevant Benghazi questions. All you have to do is read this thread to see what rampant speculation, name-calling, and veiled threats have produced. The bipartisan committee will be investigating (all things?) Benghazi. I’m glad it’s going to take place. I prefer to know what happened. I lost faith in the ol’ “trust me, I’m from the government and I’m here to help you” line a long time ago.
Many people seem to be annoyed that questions are being asked and/or happy that non-answer answers have been supplied. Those opinions haven’t prevented the creation of this committee and they’re not going to stop the demand for actual, readable, factual, answers.
Don’t take this the wrong way but your post doesn’t make any sense to me. I want to know what happened. It’s that simple.
It seems that you want me to tell you what I would accept as an answer that exonerates Obama. Exonerates Obama from what? Whatever is in the unreadable documents? I don’t know what’s in them and neither do you.
That is what you should specify.
In the law, discovery aimed not at finding any specified information but just done in hopes of digging up something you can use against the other side is called a “fishing expedition.” It is bad practice and there are rules against it.
So… no. You’re going to keep asking for information until you get the conclusion you’re looking for, because the previous three results didn’t give you the answer you wanted.
Can you see a problem with this logic? 'Cause I can.
doorhinge, as the person advocating an investigation, the onus is on you to state what specific questions you’re looking to have answered and why these are important. Many questions have already been answered and totally unredacted documents are not always necessary for a question to qualify as having been adequately answered.
For example, you have still not made a persuasive case that “where was Obama and what was he doing” is of any importance other than satisfying your “curiosity” and presumably for its potential utility as a political gotcha moment against Obama.
The difference is very simple.
A) Eye would personally like to know what Obama was doing during the attacks.
B) The previous and current Congressional investigations were NOT convened to discover what Obama was doing during the attacks. They were convened to find out what happened during and after the Benghazi debacle. Because the Obama White House and Hillary’s State Dept has repeatedly refused to provide readable documents of who said what and when, the investigations will continue.
If you want to save the government or the taxpayers money, I suggest that you contact your U.S. Congressman, U.S. Senators, and the White House and demand that they demand that readable documents pertaining to all things Benghazi be released to the public.
HAHAHAHA. I’m not trying to persuade you that my questions should be your questions. They are important to me. You seem to object to the fact that I would dare to even have questions.
I can’t. It’s difficult to reach a conclusion when the Obama White House and Hillary’s State Dept repeatedly refuse to provide readable documents. You accept that lack of information as proof of what exactly? What are unreadable documents proof of? That the Obama White House and Hillary’s State Dept are above reproach or questioning?