Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The average Congressional hearing costs $125,000 a day... a price tag that should be reimbursed by the Republican Party, since this is pure politics and not about actually doing the business of the people. But that's not the whole costs. The whole costs have to account for the failure of Congress to spend that time on actually governing. It is time not spent on jobs, not spent on fixing the sequester, not spent on legislating.
An ongoing Congressional investigation across five House Committees concerning the events surrounding the September 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya has made several determinations to date, including:
Reductions of security levels prior to the attacks in Benghazi were approved at the highest levels of the State Department, up to and including Secretary Clinton. This fact contradicts her testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on January 23, 2013.
In the days following the attacks, White House and senior State Department officials altered accurate talking points drafted by the Intelligence Community in order to protect the State Department.
Contrary to Administration rhetoric, the talking points were not edited to protect classified information. Concern for classified information is never mentioned in email traffic among senior Administration officials.
How old are you? Do you seriously not know what "investigation" means?
Obama didn't lie about a bad Video for 2 weeks after the West TX explosion.
This is not about people dieing.. it's about our President and his staff lying to us to save his reelection.
Did you honestly believe him after the assault ?
He didn't "lie" for two weeks. There was supposition in the days immediately following, and if people are honest, they would take it for what it was - supposition.
Even Ms Rice's statements were bracketed by "what we know at present" and were in no way definitive.
Of course, I am not a binary thinker so, I understand that "what we know at present" indicates a certain fluidity and is not an absolute statement of fact.
As we've seen over and over and over again in the recent past, every time something tragic occurs, for whatever reason, people seem to believe that the whys and wherefores have to be immediately evident when of course they are not.
Unfortunately this need to know, no, this claimed "right" to know produces the sort of idiocy we've seen after this event, after Boston, after Newton and so on. If the "truth" is not evident within the first 24 hours than what comes after simply cannot be the truth in some people's tiny brains.
The president labeled the events a terror attack the day after the tragedy. That is what it was.
If that is a lie in your mind, then so be it. I think that says more about you than it does about the truth of the situation.
Let's be realistic here. This is how politics are played these days. Even if a president is guilty, he isn't really guilty, because he's above the law
EXP: Clinton "did not have sex with that woman", lied (three times) on national television and to congress, tried to cover it up, was impeached, and finished out his term as a moderate. Completely unscathed.
Obama will sincerely imply that he thought the attack on Benghazi was the result of spreading protests of a video that was posted on Youtube months prior. Whoever is handy at any given moment will be thrown under the bus. Obamatrons will follow there guy right over the cliff
And even if the Prez is unequivocally implicated in a cover up (ala Watergate), they'll rub there lamps, twitch their noses, click their heels, and deflect, until:
"There's nothing to see here, these aren't the criminals you're looking for"
and all the problems will be magically erased from history.
So you believe two men were supposed to defend Stephens against Al-Quaeda? That is even worse. Talk about weakness. But you are wrong, they were told to stand down.
How and when did Doherty arrive in Benghazi? He arrived as part of a response team to the attack on the consulate. So clearly those who say that nothing was done are clearly mistaken or misinformed.
They will just sweep it under the rug, only report what the admin says and be done with it. The whistleblowers will have accidents and never be heard from again most likely.
Which one will be found to have a drug habit?
Which will be found to have been denied a promotion, sometime in his career? Oops, instant "disgruntled employee seeking revenge". No support or proof needed.
He didn't "lie" for two weeks. There was supposition in the days immediately following, and if people are honest, they would take it for what it was - supposition.
Even Ms Rice's statements were bracketed by "what we know at present" and were in no way definitive.
Of course, I am not a binary thinker so, I understand that "what we know at present" indicates a certain fluidity and is not an absolute statement of fact.
As we've seen over and over and over again in the recent past, every time something tragic occurs, for whatever reason, people seem to believe that the whys and wherefores have to be immediately evident when of course they are not.
Unfortunately this need to know, no, this claimed "right" to know produces the sort of idiocy we've seen after this event, after Boston, after Newton and so on. If the "truth" is not evident within the first 24 hours than what comes after simply cannot be the truth in some people's tiny brains.
The president labeled the events a terror attack the day after the tragedy. That is what it was.
If that is a lie in your mind, then so be it. I think that says more about you than it does about the truth of the situation.
I guess no one thought that this really isn't about Obama. It's about Hillary. She may very well be a 2016 candidate and this is an effort to discredit and shame her. Fact is, no matter what the outcome - nothing is going to happen to Obama or Hillary. In 2016 Obama will support Hillary and tell his followers to get out and vote for her so that she can continue to do his "good" work.
She's a strong contender and from what I can see the Rs don't have much to offer and whoever they have, Hilllary will chew them up and spit them out, and she will do the same with those in the D party who want a shot at president, including JoeBlow.
The exception would be Christie, but he's just too honest for the R party so they wouldn't support him. Besides, they know that they wouldn't be able to dictate to him.
Whatever. Benghazi is over. You're not gonna get anymore mileage out of that story.
Benghazi has just begun. It is Obama that is over.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
