Rep Trey Gpwdy articulates unanswered questions

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

I guess the good thing is that when we reviews all the documents and testimony gathered over the previous 7 investigations he'll find answers to his questions.

The point of the investigation is ,to get "ALL" the documents, and testimony from the 6 that were on the ground that nobody has heard from.
A lot of drip, drip, drip, and stonewalling going on. Sixty one percent of the American People want the answers Gowdy outlined which is the purpose to get the at the unanswered questions.
Like I said a simple truth telling address to the American People by
the President and Hillary would clear it up in no time. If there is nothing to hide what's the problem ?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by justplugit

If there is nothing to hide what's the problem ?

We all already know the answer to that one...

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

We all already know the answer to that one...

Don't you think that after so many (7 or 8) investigations, tens of thousands of documents, dozens of testimonies and participation by non-partisan and high ranking 40 year veterans of our military...that someone would think due diligence has been done?

Back in the day it would have long since been.

Wake up.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Don't you think that after so many (7 or 8) investigations, tens of thousands of documents, dozens of testimonies and participation by non-partisan and high ranking 40 year veterans of our military...that someone would think due diligence has been done?

Back in the day it would have long since been.

Wake up.

-spence

So where was the President during the time these brave men were fighting for their life's and begging for help ?
I missed that testimony
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

So where was the President during the time these brave men were fighting for their life's and begging for help ?
I missed that testimony
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm not sure it's vital for me to know whether he was at Pebble Beach or Augusta, because he has the ability to implement decisions from anywhere, at least from any golf course or Jay-Z concert.

I'm supposed to believe that Susan Rice went on the Sunday morning talk shows, because the SecState doesn't like Sunday morning talk shows? I don't give a frog's fat ass what she likes, her ambassador was murdered after his requests for extra security were denied, so it's her responsibility. If she was sending hate mail to Monica Lewinski, she could take a morning off and do the talk show circuit.

Watch how fast she suddenly decides she likes those shows when she's running for President and they promise a friendly interview.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Don't you think that after so many (7 or 8) investigations, tens of thousands of documents, dozens of testimonies and participation by non-partisan and high ranking 40 year veterans of our military...that someone would think due diligence has been done?

Back in the day it would have long since been.

Wake up.

-spence

Spence, let's let it play out, and see if anything new is uncovered.

You sound a little nervous about the hearings. I wonder why that is.

Spence, were special forces soldiers told to get to Benghazi ASAP? When was that order given.

And I'm sorry, as I have said (and as Gowdy said) when the administration justifies not sending in special forces because "they couldn't have gotten there in time", when obviously they had no way of knowing how long the attack would last, that alone tells me that either there is a cover up, or someone is too stupid to have the job they are in.

The House, led by the GOP, is getting this hearing. Spence, someone you absolutely adore once said "elections have consequences". Well, here you go.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, let's let it play out, and see if anything new is uncovered.

I don't think the Select Committee has any greater subpoena power than the Issa Committees have.

Spence, were special forces soldiers told to get to Benghazi ASAP? When was that order given.

And I'm sorry, as I have said (and as Gowdy said) when the administration justifies not sending in special forces because "they couldn't have gotten there in time", when obviously they had no way of knowing how long the attack would last, that alone tells me that either there is a cover up, or someone is too stupid to have the job they are in.

This has been beaten to death. What I find amazing is that when dozens of top officials all come to the same conclusion there's still a conspiracy...one that would require the collusion of hundreds of people.

I'll say it again, the primary goal of the GOP is to use Benghazi to raise campaign cash and drag it into the mid-term election.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't think the Select Committee has any greater subpoena power than the Issa Committees have.


This has been beaten to death. What I find amazing is that when dozens of top officials all come to the same conclusion there's still a conspiracy...one that would require the collusion of hundreds of people.

I'll say it again, the primary goal of the GOP is to use Benghazi to raise campaign cash and drag it into the mid-term election.

-spence

"This has been beaten to death"

All due respect, you keep saying that, but not once have you provided specifics. I'm not suggesting that nothing was done, I just don't know exactly what was done. And I'm also telling you that you are 100% incorrect when you suggest it takes hours for a quick response team to get in the air. These guys are, in effect, "on call". Maybe not quite as simple as putting on a fire helmet and hopping in a fire truck. But the time it takes to get them airborne is measured in minutes, not hours. You can plan while you are in the air. You can decide not to engage. But you have to have someone there, as soon as physically possible, so you at least have the option of engaging. Did that happen?

"dozens of top officials all come to the same conclusion "

Is that what happened? How about the high-ranking guy who said we could, and should, have done more? I posted that, you said soimething to the effect that he changed his mind.

Trey Gowdy said in his statement (watch the video), that he doesn't have access to witnesses. Is he lying? If so, and I'm serious, let's impeach Gowdy. Do you have evidence he's lying?

Do we know who, exactly, denied Stevens' request for extra security? And why? And what happened to that person? Were they fired, or given a promotion?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"This has been beaten to death"

All due respect, you keep saying that, but not once have you provided specifics. I'm not suggesting that nothing was done, I just don't know exactly what was done. And I'm also telling you that you are 100% incorrect when you suggest it takes hours for a quick response team to get in the air. These guys are, in effect, "on call". Maybe not quite as simple as putting on a fire helmet and hopping in a fire truck. But the time it takes to get them airborne is measured in minutes, not hours. You can plan while you are in the air. You can decide not to engage. But you have to have someone there, as soon as physically possible, so you at least have the option of engaging. Did that happen?

My understanding is that the FAST teams in Spain have to equip for the mission, that does take time. The special ops in Croatia can't just fly straight there. Both have to move to staging locations.

Also, I can't believe you'd just blindly fly in guns blazing. Without proper support the risk would be too high.

Ultimately though, I'll trust the opinion of our Military over a bunch of internet conspirators any day of the week.

Is that what happened? How about the high-ranking guy who said we could, and should, have done more? I posted that, you said soimething to the effect that he changed his mind.

I think he spoke a bit too freely up front, then when asked specifically he walked backwards. There's a big difference between "we could have done more" and "I wish we could have done more."

Trey Gowdy said in his statement (watch the video), that he doesn't have access to witnesses. Is he lying? If so, and I'm serious, let's impeach Gowdy. Do you have evidence he's lying?

All I know is that the men on the ground were interview by Congress behind closed doors. The CIA doesn't have to reveal everything they were doing in Benghazi to the open public, but if there's a Constitutional issue you can bet the House wouldn't let it slide.

Nothing happened.

Do we know who, exactly, denied Stevens' request for extra security? And why? And what happened to that person? Were they fired, or given a promotion?

The Mullen investigation looked at this specifically and found the problems mostly systemic in nature. There were several people identified as key parts of the problem who were moved out of that role, I don't believe they were fired, but with systemic issues it can be difficult to assign blame to one person.

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

testimony from the 6 that were on the ground that nobody has heard from.

They already testified in October to a House Intelligence Commitee.

Oh, is this news?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

They already testified in October to a House Intelligence Commitee.

Oh, is this news?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, this is news to me, I haven't been able to find anything on the 6
sent to Germany having been interviewed.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Yes, this is news to me, I haven't been able to find anything on the 6
sent to Germany having been interviewed.

The survivors who were CIA agents testified behind closed doors.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ersi/?page=all

The others were interviewed by the FBI just after the attack. They're prohibited from speaking publicly by their non-disclosure agreements. CBS reported in 2013 these transcripts were turned over to Congress and they were interviewed again during the State investigation.

They'd also likely be protected as whistle blowers if they were revealing criminal wrong-doing.

There's plenty of reporting on this stuff.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

There's plenty of reporting on this stuff.

-spence

Good one ! Been reported to death YOU might say
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Good one ! Been reported to death YOU might say
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are you mocking the casualties?

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Are you mocking the casualties?

-spence

Nice spin . Are you calling yourself a casualty now?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

There's plenty of reporting on this stuff.

-spence

Yes, but not all. Let's get it ALL on the table and come to a final conclusion.
That should satisfy both sides and bring closure for the families.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Yes, but not all. Let's get it ALL on the table and come to a final conclusion.
That should satisfy both sides and bring closure for the families.

And if it doesn't reach a different conclusion from Mullen et al., the problem is, this issue will STILL be raised as a political item right up to 2016,

[buckman]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

And if it doesn't reach a different conclusion from Mullen et al., the problem is, this issue will STILL be raised as a political item right up to 2016,

And it should be . Obama made it political by blaming the video for political purposes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Yes, but not all. Let's get it ALL on the table and come to a final conclusion.
That should satisfy both sides and bring closure for the families.

You'll never have everything, it's not possible. These investigations usually reach a point that satisfies the most important elements.

Do security issues persist at other US missions? Have internal escalation issues been addressed?

This is the most important stuff and something you don't hear from the GOP…because that's not their real concern…gotchya politics at it's best and at taxpayer expense.

That's why this issue is now driven by conspiracies desperate for evidence...

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

You'll never have everything, it's not possible. These investigations usually reach a point that satisfies the most important elements.



-spence

It would be possible to have all the info if the people involved were honest, had integrity and were truly doing their job in serving the people. If there was nothing untoward, wouldn't The Commander in Chief want to address the American people and follow up on his promise of "justice would be done"?

Check out Gowdy's questions in the first post and tell me we should be satisfied with the info we have been given so far. Latest polls show 61% aren't satisfied.