Good question. Here's the answer:
The media shares HRC's attitude about Benghazi: WHO CARES?
Watergate was supposedly only a "second-rate burglary," that well into Woodward and Bernstein's investigation had less than five other reporters in DC working on the story UNTIL they began to follow the money. In the case of Benghazi, it's FOLLOW THE EMAILS - providing they can get them. The Dems' stonewalling on this investigation puts even the Nixon administration's foot-dragging in the rear-view mirror.
The media is supposed to have an adversarial relationship with the government, not a cozy one as they have whenever the Democrats are in the White House or controlling Congress.
I for one am glad to see the GOP staunchly pursuing this investigation - despite the Democrat and mainstream media opposition to it. Their frequent (and IMHO foolish) votes to repeal ObamaCare have been purely symbolic, but the more the rocks are turned over re: Benghazi, the more politics-driven response by the Obama administration is revealed. Four people died and their most memorable response is: Who Cares Why?
The rest of the country cares why. It is obvious from what we've seen so far that the November 2012 presidential election was the priority - NOT the defense of our citizens serving our nation in a foreign land.
So just as with IRS-gate, the GOP should continue to DIG. The Dems' arrogance of power must not go unchallenged.
I agree with you Chief, I wasn't even aware that the British and Red Cross had already left and trying to compare this situation to the 12 attacks under GWB is like comparing apples to oranges. Trey Gowdy points out the differences in this video, however kool aid drinkers will still make up an excuse for Obama and Hillary.
Republicans LOVE to investigate Democratic Presidents: See Kenneth Starr. They usually like to employ Sex investigations but they have learned from past mistakes and have changed their modis operandi. As long as they can do it, they will do so. Not because it HAS to be done but because they CAN do it.
Thanks for your response Jimmy. I want to know what you feel personally about the questions that Trey Gowdy want answered and do you feel like they are legitimate?
It's kind of funny that when democrats get backed into a corner they immediately begin to spew a litany of accusations to try and deflect from the transgression at hand. Admittedly I will concede that this is a universal tactic however; there should still be accountability for the actual issue. "Who Cares" should be uppermost in our minds as this was the same person that had an ad suggesting that she should be the one to get the call in the time of a crisis. It is factually proven that this is not the case. This coupled with no tangible achievements or stellar performance can be compared to her stint as Sec. Of State. HRC bid for the white house is about one thing; Power, a personal agenda to achieve the coveted office. Granted the GOP has yet to put forth a viable candidate but we should be ever vigilant that we don't make the same mistake again and vote based on demographic as opposed to a proven track record. Benghazi needs to be looked at as this only the first layer of the onion. I venture to say as we peel it back many more mis-steps and lackluster performance will become visible for all to see.
@Funk. real quickly, I've got Savannah dr.'s appts for me and my wife today. I will address your question later.
Have a good one.
Nixon was forced to resign over a break-in by some of his supporters but 4 men can die in Libya and the investigations are called a witch hunt. We were treated to days of the hearing on TV and because it was finally learned that Nixon lied about the cover-up he would have been impeached and rightfully so. Then we had Clinton lying to the American people about having sex with a White House intern but nothing happened. Obama telling the public that if you liked your doctor you could keep your doctor turned out to be a lie. Was one of these lies more acceptable than the others? Even Republicans called for Nixon to resign but Democrats stood up for Clinton and now they are doing the same for Obama. No President should ever lie to the American people. We already know Rice lied about the cause of the attack and who knows who else may have lied. H. Clinton telling the families that same lie when the bodies were returned home and then during a Congressional hearing making the remark: "At this point what difference does it make"? I suspect it makes a difference to those families whose loved ones died. Anyone who doesn't want to find out the actual truth of the whole ugly mess demeans the death of those good men.
@Funk. ANY loss of life in service to our country is a sad occurrence. In Benghazi 4 Americans were killed, perhaps under questionable actions or inactions. In my mind W. sent 4,282 Americans to their demise for false unjustifiable 'facts' regarding non-existent weapons of mass destruction. That action also resulted not only in 4 thousand plus unjustified deaths of Americans but 100 thousand plus death for Iraqi civilians. And now Al Qaida has gained a foothold in that tormented country. I ask you Funk: Which is the greater sin of the two POTUS' in question? Where were the tough questions Mr. Gowdy is now asking
following W.'s tragic folly???
Sure, let Mr. Gowdy ask his questions. But a terrible mis-carriage of justice has already occurred regarding W. and his role in sending Americans to fight and die for invalid reasons while enjoying impunity for his reckless decisions.
This issue is not going away. The latest is that the Dems have (IMHO wisely) agreed to "fully participate" in the House Benghazi hearings after considering the political consequences of a total boycott:
They know this issue continues to gain traction with the American people as the extent to which November 2012 election considerations dictated the Obama administration's response to the crisis is revealed. It is unlikely that all of the facts will come out over the next six months, so look for a Select Committee Investigation On Benghazi if the GOP wins the Senate in November. See:
(Another positive by-product of firing Harry Reid.)
Jimmy thanks for your comments again sir! Remember when I accused you of hating GWB. And you said you didn't and that you don't like him or his politics or something like that. If I have misquoted you please correct me. However I do feel like you hate him based on your last statement. GWB was very careful to make sure that when he went to war that he crossed his T's and dotted his I's. First he went to congress to get approval to go to war and there was over 90/100 yeas in the senate and over 300/435 yeas in the house. Hillary Clinton and host of prominent Democrats voted to go to war. Bill Clinton even agreed that there were WMD's and Bush ALS relied on 12 Intelligence agencies that supported the same that there were WMD. Iraq was an optional war but it wasn't a lie and it wasn't unjustifiable. On March 20th 2003, I was involved in the initial invasion as Force Protection NCOIC for Chalie Company 125th Signal Battalion. I have a lot of emotion within me in this war than you can even imagine. I understand that a person in charge is justified in what he or she does as long as the go by the rule of law. GWB did this. Where do you think Syria received the WMD that they now possess from? We all know that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid didn't care for GWB either so if he had actual done what you are still falsely accusing him of, don't you think that Nancy and Harry would have assembled a special committee in each chamber of congress when they were in charge in 2007-2008 before Obama became President in 2009?
So Jimmy you can't compare apples to oranges. In GWB case he followed the rule of law as was given authority to do so Lives were lost but that's what happens in war
And in Obama's case the British and Red Cross had left, the ambassador asked for more security which was denied , so why was he still there sir?this was a slam dunk case for Obama or Hillary to save them so much easier than preventing over 4000 deaths in a legitimate war by rule of law, period.
Here is the post Bush vs Obama who lied. It definitely not GWB!
I have much respect for you and all veterans Funk and what you have done for our country. I do not HATE W. but I harbor an intense dislike for him and his actions taken while under his watch. Have you seen the movie "W" starring Josh Brolin as W? Not that a movie is the foundation for an argument but it shows a different perspective of Boy George rather than a hypnotic devotion to a defective Commander and Chief who had the tremendous power of the bully pulpit to NOT go to war. He and his minions pushed for his ill-conceived wars. Defend him if you must but I do not share your view.
I am not sure if all the mothers, fathers, spouses et.al. feel the same as you do about the loss of their sons and daughters as a result of Bush's wartime policy. And I am not sure how they all feel about those veterans coming home minus arms and legs, in some cases their genitals blown off, their brains damaged, PTSD and the numerous ongoing tragedy of suicides they have endured.
Let Gowdy ask his questions. I just wish Boy George was subject to the same scrutiny regarding what, when, and how he came to know what he allowed to take place during his terms of office.
I respect you too ,Jimmy now we cocking. Why didn't you and fellow Democrats push Pelosi and Reid to do a special investigation into what Bush did when they were in charge of congress during Bush last 2 years in 2007-2008. I feel very confident that they didn't do it because there was nothing illegal there. However even you have now acknowledged some doubt about Benghazi. They could have been saved if Obama or Hillary had led like they supposed to have done beforehand.
I have given you the information that I have no problem with Gowdy asking his questions regarding BHO and his administration. Not being an elected public official my only recourse during the Bush wars was what I do here and in writing letters to the editor and my elected representatives which I did. I am a little fish in the National scheme of things Funk. I can only now whimsically regret that more pressure was not put upon Boy George at the time.
As for Benghazi we will have Democrats in the room when the questions arise. Will the evidence or lack thereof surface? I do not know. Will impeachable offenses develop? I personally doubt it. High crimes and misdemeanors will be absent in my view.
As far as "even me now having acknowledged some doubt regarding Benghazi" I believe there should be healthy "doubt" regarding governance at all levels. I just don't like a partisan driven lynch mob. At the moment I am not entirely sure this is a'healthy' inquiry. Gowdy's tone sounds partisanly shrill. With Dems in the room we might see a fair shake about this issue. Time will tell.
BTW Jimmy I agree with your fair analysis, this is the type of dialogue that I try to I inspire some influence to do amongst us all. We should unite on what is wrong or right regardless or party affiliation. This could possibly prove that Hillary wasn't ready for the 3 am call and be a political point during the 2016 Presidential debates. We will see and thank God Nancy Pelosi came to her senses and designated the 5 Democrats to cover Hillary in case the Republicans try to throw her under the bus.
PN WRU in regards to the facts about Bush and Cheney? It's so easy to be caught up in the political ideology isn't it?
PN: Please don't respond to my comments. Remember I am the one you basically called a liar the last time I responded to one of your blogs.