BREAKING: “Select Committee” Benghazi Investigation is On

#506
#506
hohenfelsvol said:
I don't believe it is. She's a great polictician.
Click to expand...


After 8 committees and 13 hearings of the GOP asking the same exact questions over and over, getting answers, but claiming they didn't so as to justify getting on Fox for the hundredth time and pretending there is anything new to learn, I'd say all but the hard core at this point have Benghazi fatigue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#507
#507
lawgator1 said:
After 8 committees and 13 hearings of the GOP asking the same exact questions over and over, getting answers, but claiming they didn't so as to justify getting on Fox for the hundredth time and pretending there is anything new to learn, I'd say all but the hard core at this point have Benghazi fatigue.
Click to expand...

I just want one question answered...

Do you think all the information has come out? And if so, why did the Administration suddenly classify additional documentation when it was requested under FOIA by the media?

Technically that's two questions, so don't be a hostile witness here.
 
#508
#508
Grand Vol said:
I just want one question answered...

Do you think all the information has come out? And if so, why did the Administration suddenly classify additional documentation when it was requested under FOIA by the media?

Technically that's two questions, so don't be a hostile witness here.
Click to expand...


"All the information" about what?

About security in advance? Yes

About military response at the time? Yes

About initial public statements and changes as facts learned? Yes

About what each person was doing there and purpose of the facility? No, but we never will because it's an intelligence operation. Hearings won't change that, and in fact that's not the point. The point is to rehash the questions above, and to merely insinuate nefarious motives or actions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#509
#509
lawgator1 said:
"All the information" about what?

About security in advance? Yes

About military response at the time? Yes

About initial public statements and changes as facts learned? Yes

About what each person was doing there and purpose of the facility? No, but we never will because it's an intelligence operation. Hearings won't change that, and in fact that's not the point. The point is to rehash the questions above, and to merely insinuate nefarious motives or actions.
Click to expand...

What do u mean facts learned? It's pretty clear they tried to blame it on a video for nefarious motives but as you have said numerous times before that people don't care as they are so partisan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#510
#510
lawgator1 said:
"All the information" about what?
Click to expand...

Hmm, like email traffic that was suddenly classified for the sake of "national security" when it was not deemed so in the immediate aftermath. And the Administration was content to let it sit there until someone discovered its existence and suddenly it became a matter of national security. Doesn't this strike you as odd in the least?

lawgator1 said:
About security in advance? Yes
Click to expand...

No, I don't think that question has been sufficiently answered because it's been avoided. Why send in an ambassador into a known hostile area with such a small force on the day of the anniversary of America's most deadly terrorist attack?

I would even accept someone taking responsibility and saying "we screwed up and didn't adequately secure the ambassador and consulate."

lawgator1 said:
About military response at the time? Yes
Click to expand...

No. This question hasn't been answered either. I'll leave the tin foil theories out about Petraus for the moment, but why was General Ham suddenly relieved in the immediate aftermath of the attack?

During the Battle of Mogadishu, the military did everything in their power to save the Delta Force members and Rangers on the ground during that fight. They flew support, dropped in additional supplies and even flew a medivac flight of critically wounded. And organized a large scale rescue effort while the battle was still going on. So don't give me this nonsense and the answer that "we weren't sure of the situation on the ground." It's utter and complete BS. You don't leave people behind especially when you have forces less than two hours away prepped and ready to go.

lawgator1 said:
About initial public statements and changes as facts learned? Yes
Click to expand...

Lulz

Only AFTER the media stopped buying the "official" story. And the facts were known within 24 hours of the attack. Yet they still kept to the party line before someone figured out nobody was buying it anymore.

lawgator1 said:
About what each person was doing there and purpose of the facility? No, but we never will because it's an intelligence operation. Hearings won't change that, and in fact that's not the point. The point is to rehash the questions above, and to merely insinuate nefarious motives or actions.
Click to expand...

Your answers are so predictable and asinine I probably should just can my answers in advance and cut and paste them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top