Posts
Now that John Boehner (R-OH) has finally caved to GOP pressure and decided to have a House Select Committee investigate what really happened at Benghazi on September 11, 2012, the press is finally asking questions to Jay "Con" Carney. Of course, Carney is answering those questions the way he does (when Fox News asks them) by avoiding an answer or lying through an arrogant smirk.
It appears the Democrats are afraid to defend Obama et al, and some have even suggested boycotting the committee, like they often boycott things such as the truth.
To boycott the committee would be "terribly arrogant" and "wrong," said Rep. Peter King (R-NY).
But Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) thinks boycotting the committee would be a way to remove all credibility and discredit the investigation, thereby relegating it to a witch hunt. He believes a committee investigation would be a "colossal waste of time," just like he might have thought sending help to the four Americans fighting for their lives would have also been a colossal waste of time.
It seems perplexing that even Democrats, for however unpatriotic, uncaring and uninformed they are, seem totally uninterested in getting to the truth about Benghazi. You would think that they would have at least some doubts about the video, and why no help was sent to the compound when it was under attack.
But let's face it, the truth is hardly more than an afterthought with liberals.
Some of the questions the committee should get answered are:
1. Where did Susan Rice get the idea to blame the video? Was she told directly or was it merely the e-mail from Ben Rhodes?
2. Several days later Hillary Clinton blamed the video, and later still told the families of the dead that the person who made the video will be punished. From whom did she get the talking point of the video?
3. What is the timeline for Obama from the moment the attack started to the next day?
4. Where did Ben Rhodes get the talking points?
5. Why was the "smoking gun" e-mail redacted the first time it was produced but not so when it was demanded via court order? What were they trying to hide?
6. Why did President Obama say it was clear that the attack on Ukrainian forces was obviously not spontaneous, based on the weaponry and militia-like precision used by the militants, but it wasn't obvious that the Benghazi attack, which also used sophisticated weaponry and militia-like precision, was not spontaneous?
7. If the attack had occurred during a presidential visit to the Benghazi compound, what efforts would have been made by the military to save Obama's life? Why was it different for the 4 men who died there?
There are more questions that need to be asked; these are but a few that come to mind. If you have questions of your own that you'd like to express, please feel free to comment.
Tweet
It appears the Democrats are afraid to defend Obama et al, and some have even suggested boycotting the committee, like they often boycott things such as the truth.
To boycott the committee would be "terribly arrogant" and "wrong," said Rep. Peter King (R-NY).
But Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) thinks boycotting the committee would be a way to remove all credibility and discredit the investigation, thereby relegating it to a witch hunt. He believes a committee investigation would be a "colossal waste of time," just like he might have thought sending help to the four Americans fighting for their lives would have also been a colossal waste of time.
It seems perplexing that even Democrats, for however unpatriotic, uncaring and uninformed they are, seem totally uninterested in getting to the truth about Benghazi. You would think that they would have at least some doubts about the video, and why no help was sent to the compound when it was under attack.
But let's face it, the truth is hardly more than an afterthought with liberals.
Some of the questions the committee should get answered are:
1. Where did Susan Rice get the idea to blame the video? Was she told directly or was it merely the e-mail from Ben Rhodes?
2. Several days later Hillary Clinton blamed the video, and later still told the families of the dead that the person who made the video will be punished. From whom did she get the talking point of the video?
3. What is the timeline for Obama from the moment the attack started to the next day?
4. Where did Ben Rhodes get the talking points?
5. Why was the "smoking gun" e-mail redacted the first time it was produced but not so when it was demanded via court order? What were they trying to hide?
6. Why did President Obama say it was clear that the attack on Ukrainian forces was obviously not spontaneous, based on the weaponry and militia-like precision used by the militants, but it wasn't obvious that the Benghazi attack, which also used sophisticated weaponry and militia-like precision, was not spontaneous?
7. If the attack had occurred during a presidential visit to the Benghazi compound, what efforts would have been made by the military to save Obama's life? Why was it different for the 4 men who died there?
There are more questions that need to be asked; these are but a few that come to mind. If you have questions of your own that you'd like to express, please feel free to comment.
In my latest novel, a New York reporter is
taken hostage by terrorists. If POTUS refuses to release 3 Gitmo jihadists, the
reporter will die in 24 hours—they will behead him and show it on the Internet.
There is only one way out but the clock is ticking . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment