Trey Gowdy — a former federal prosecutor — questions the media on Benghazi

Some clear and obvious questions posed.

Unanswered by the media.

But mostly: do they actually care?  Or is it: they couldn’t care less?

“And you (journalists, the media) were supposed to provide oversight.  That’s why you have special liberties and that’s why you have special protections.”

As a former federal prosecutor, the selection of Mr Gowdy as Chairman was an excellent appointment.  He is already asking the right questions.



House votes to establish select committee on Benghazi

Benghazi Christopher StevensFrom

The House voted Thursday to establish a select committee on Benghazi, formally launching a comprehensive and contentious investigation aimed at answering lingering questions about what happened before, during and after the terror attack that killed four Americans.

The House voted 232-186 to approve the panel. The vote breakdown was 225 Republicans and 7 Democrats in favor, with 186 Democrats voting against the measure. The Democrats were all moderate to conservative party members who face tough re-election campaigns.

The vote was never in doubt, as majority Republicans largely were united in support of the committee ever since House Speaker John Boehner called for it last week. Unclear is whether Democrats will boycott the investigation itself.

Of course, the vote was primarily partisan because the Demorats simply want to avoid the issue of four American deaths.  It’s terribly inconvenient, you see, both for Mr Obama and for Hillary Clinton.

Immediately after the vote, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., issued a statement accusing Republicans of “unending eagerness to exploit” the four American deaths in Benghazi, adding, “our nation deserves better than yet another deeply partisan and political review.”

As, simultaneously, the Demorats seek to bury the issue because it places the administration in a very poor light.  The bottom line is this: the more the Demorats and the Obama Administration stonewalls, the more the truth needs to be unearthed.

And oh, Trey Gowdy will head the committee.  An excellent choice.



Benghazi: an interesting look back to 2012 with liberal Patrick Caddell

Patrick Caddell is no slobbering Conservative.  Yet he had this to say about the national American Media Maggots and their “coverage” of Benghazi back in 2012:

This man became strident with his insistence that the AMM have “become a fundamental threat to American democracy and the enemies of the American people.  These people have no honor.”

“This president didn’t care enough to stay in the White House and, quote, ‘find out what was going on the next day.’  I am so personally nauseated by this.”

I couldn’t agree more, Mr Caddell.  I couldn’t agree more.



Military intelligence official: ‘We should have tried’ to help Americans during Benghazi attack

Hillary Clinton at senate hearingFrom

A top military intelligence official at the time of the Benghazi attacks testified Thursday that U.S. personnel “should have tried” to help Americans under fire on Sept. 11, 2012, in an unprecedented public statement from a leading military officer. 

Retired Brig. Gen. Robert Lovell, who at the time of the attacks was the deputy intelligence director at U.S. Africa Command, questioned the merits of the ongoing debate over whether U.S. military forces could have responded in time. Leading Pentagon and other military officials previously have argued that additional U.S. assets were not deployed to assist Americans under attack that night because they weren’t close enough. 

“The point is we should have tried,” Lovell told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, in his opening statement. “As another saying goes — always move to the sound of the guns.” 

But — again — more pointedly:

He later said the military “could have made a response of some sort.” Lovell, who was stationed in Germany during the attack, made clear repeatedly that the military was waiting for clearance from the State Department to intervene in Benghazi. 

Note: “waiting for clearance from the State Department to intervene in Benghazi.”

And who controlled the State Department then?  Correct: Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Lovell also sharply countered claims that the intelligence community and military initially thought this was a protest over an anti-Islam video gone awry. He said U.S. officials knew this was a “hostile action” from the outset, even though they didn’t know how long the attack would last. 

“This was no demonstration gone terribly awry,” Lovell said. “The facts led to the conclusion of a terrorist attack.” 

“No demonstration gone awry.”  Precisely the opposite of the talking points demanded of Susan Rice for the Sunday news shows directly following 9-11-12.

Just as I wrote here.

Two years.  We’re just now hearing these things.  Things that many people already sensed inherently.  And still an ignorant dupe sits in federal prison.


Benghazi Christopher Stevensbenghazi-obama