It’s obvious that doorhinge is a fan of a big nanny-state government with unlimited spending.
(bold added)
Not in this thread.
As far as this thread is concerned, it’s obvious that many people are not satisfied with the answers that have been given (regarding all things Benghazi) by government agencies and expect those government agencies to fork over readable documents without having to force them to do so thru the courts, subpoena, FOIA.
It’s also must be obvious that the demands that questions not be asked is having no effect on those asking questions.
No one is spending taxpayer money to see that my personal questions will be answered.
Many people have speculated as to what Obama was doing during the attacks. (Some of that speculation has been quite bizarre.) I have not. I would simply like to know what Obama was actually doing and where he was doing it.
Your judgment and perceptions *are *reflected in this thread, however. And they are relevant to anything you say about it - bear in mind that there is a strong, reasonably-based presumption that this latest round of hearings is a partisan witch-hunt. Your view of what is a partisan witch-hunt, what is a partisan whitewash, and what is a neutral investigation necessarily underlies what you say. That’s true for all of us, btw.
What are “they” (IOW “you”) not satisfied with about them? Is it something other than that they lack sufficient red-meat sound bites to carry your party into the campaign season, or what?
You, for instance, have already told us that your top “unanswered question” is what Obama was doing at that moment. You’ve been asked why you think that matters, but decline to respond. So how about an answer? Is it the need to be able to crow “Obama slept while our brave men were being murdered” or something to that effect? Or something else? Tell us.
There are no such demands. There are, however, demands that questions be responsible and driven by a genuine desire to find out what can be done, and why it wasn’t, in this and all the other recent comparable incidents at other US diplomatic facilities (which you puzzlingly show no interest in) amounting to almost a hundred murders.
You call it a partisan witch-hunt. I call it an investigation into what happened during and after Benghazi attacks/murders. The bottom-line is that there IS going to be an investigation so it appears that the partisan witch-hunt claim has fallen flat. You reject the calls for answers, unredacted documents, and more information. I look forward to hearing the answers.
If this were a court trial and you were the judge, then the case would be closed. It ain’t and you ain’t.
That doesn’t follow.
https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/whitehouse/8341829398/
Not to answer for doorhinge, but I’d wager that the questions regarding the President’s location stem from previously alleged claims of indifference and stand down orders in response to Benghazi. I believe many of them are made with feigned ignorance of the timeline of the separate and brief nature of the attacks with the intention to claim that engaging in any activity other than Benghazi confirms their beliefs about his crisis management abilities.
Of course this narrative is weakened by testimony of his whereabouts that confirm his original instructions to his secretary of defense, his continued monitoring of the situation, the photograph of him in the Oval Office on the night in question surrounded by his National Security team, and his phone call with Netanyahu. On the whole I’d consider that an inordinate amount of information regarding the President’s activities and certainly more than has been granted any previous President in a similar situation.
Sure it does. Why an investigation full of partisans, engaged in by a group known for partisan investigations, and tasked with creating them completely negates any perceptions of partisanship. If you need any further proof, just ask their boss.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/05/26/gop-hopes-renewed-probes-into-benghazi-irs-will-fire-up-conservatives-and-not/
You misunderstand me. Or possibly I used the wrong English idiom. I’m saying : “an investigation will take place” has zero logical lead to or link with “therefore it is not a partisan witch hunt”. The McCarthy/HUAC investigations took place. They were absolutely partisan witch hunts. Ergo, QED, etc.
Hell, official investigations into witchery took place. I’m about 85% convinced those were witch hunts.
Sarcasm.
Colour me wooshed.
ETA: I’d actually misread your post. I’m an idiot. I’m hereby calling for the heavy handed redaction of the last 3 posts.
I’m asking *you *to consider the evidence and context and reach your own conclusion. Can you make that effort?
The fact that yet another investigation (if that’s the right word for it, the chairman refers to it as a prosecution) is going to happen in no way makes it nonpartisan. But I think you know that.
I merely point out that all the answers that have any significance have already been provided. :rolleyes: There are many other facts I’ve pointed out to you that are just not all that important compared with that one, so let’s focus on just that, shall we?
Tell Chairman Gowdy that. He seems to need a reminder.
I have considered the evidence and the context and have reached my own conclusion. The bipartisan Congressional committee should continue the investigation and all involved government agencies should cooperate fully and provide readable documents.
You and I are neither judge or jury. (Well maybe we do qualify as a jury.) However, Chairman Gowdy and the other members of the committee are authorized to act as judges.
Considering this is a non-partisan investigation of a purely non-partisan response to a non-partisan incident, at what point do you think they’ll issue their statement praising Obama’s policies? After all, he’s reduced embassy deaths by over 90% compared to the previous administration. Surely that’s going to be the result of the “non-partisan investigation”, right? And surely they’re going to include those previous administration incidents in their quest to “simply ask questions about how best to improve security and discover what went wrong?”
Or is the fact that he’s a black Democrat once again going to mean that he’s by definition guilty of some heinous crime? Because there’s really no middle to exclude any more. The idea that the standards are the same for both sides has long since become ludicrous. There’s simply nothing at all that Obama can do that the right would consider acceptable–he’s even tried implementing their own policies and been demonized for it–so most of us have stopped listening. Keep yelling “Benghazi” for as long as you like. No amount of inquisition is going to change either side’s mind any more.
No, they aren’t. It’s an investigation, I thought, not a trial. Is it a trial? When did it become a trial?
If its a trial, shouldn’t there be some actual charges then? What charge is being tried here? Who is the defendant? (Hint: its not a trial, the guy in charge of the investigation just thinks it is)
Let him whip himself into a bit more of a frenzy, man. I wanna hear how this is just a formality before President Obama is executed for treason.
And doorhinge; he thinks it’s a trial as well.
Presidenting While Black?
Or maybe Being The Democrats’ Likeliest Choice For President, with the aggravating factor of Being A Woman.
State Department Clinton. 
Don’t you mean Ol’ Hillary’s State Department? I think that may be the official name now.