Trey Gowdy questions the press about their ineptness

[InTheLight]

Here are the questions from the video.

1. Do you know why Mr. Stevens was in Benghazi?

2. Do you know why the U.S. was the last country to leave the area?
3. Do you know why the requested additional security was denied?

4. Do you know why no (military) assets were deployed? [He answers--because there wasn't enough time.]

5. Do you know if Obama called any allies for help?

6. Why was Susan Rice on the Sunday morning talk shows? Why not Hillary? [He answers- -because Hillary doesn't like to do the Sunday morning shows.]

7. What is the origin of the explanation that the attack was a spontaneous act in reaction to a video?

So please tell me why these questions are so damming and that it is astounding that the MSM didn't cover this guy's press conference? There isn't anything new here, nothing newsworthy.

#7 has been answered--intelligence services supplied the White House with this assessment. Obviously, this is being spoon fed to the press by the WH, but really, if it didn't come from intelligence services then it was fabricated by the WH, and good luck finding someone to admit that to a reporter.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/world/text-describing-an-attack.html

#5 is an irrelevant question. If every other country has already bugged out of the area, and the decision was made that the U.S. could not respond in a timely manner (an assertion I reject, BTW) whom should Obama have called?

#3 is likely classified. In any event, four state department workers lost their jobs over it.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/12/2...ficials-resign-following-benghazi-report.html

#2. Is irrelevant, or could be answered "because the U.S. doesn't cut and run."

#1. Has been answered. Stevens wanted to be there. He was doing his job.
http://abcnews.go.com/news/t/blogEntry?id=19498468&ref=https://www.google.com

 

[Revmitchell]

So please tell me why these questions are so damming and that it is astounding that the MSM didn't cover this guy's press conference? There isn't anything new here, nothing newsworthy.

#7 has been answered--intelligence services supplied the White House with this assessment. Obviously, this is being spoon fed to the press by the WH, but really, if it didn't come from intelligence services then it was fabricated by the WH, and good luck finding someone to admit that to a reporter.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/world/text-describing-an-attack.html

This is false. Intelligence did not supply it. In fact the immediate response was that is was Al Quaida not the video.

#5 is an irrelevant question. If every other country has already bugged out of the area, and the decision was made that the U.S. could not respond in a timely manner (an assertion I reject, BTW) whom should Obama have called?

Irrelevant to who? By the way responding in a timely manner is questionable as well. Since when do we make discsions about helping Americans under fire and dying based on "a timely m anner".

#3 is likely classified. In any event, four state department workers lost their jobs over it.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/12/2...ficials-resign-following-benghazi-report.html

No they did not, they were moved to another position elsewhere. Most likely to avoid having them answer any questions. This is serious enough Clinton should have been fired.

#2. Is irrelevant, or could be answered "because the U.S. doesn't cut and run."

Irrelevant to who? What we did do is leave our people their unprotected. This is another question that does need to be answered and has not.

#1. Has been answered. Stevens wanted to be there. He was doing his job.
http://abcnews.go.com/news/t/blogEntry?id=19498468&ref=https://www.google.com

What was his job? What was his mission? What was his goals specifically?


Everyone else pulled out, there had been a number of attacks on that compound already. AS we see these questions have not been answered in any meaningful way. The American people want to know why Stevens was needlessly dragged through the streets and on camera.


You my friend are defending a lousy and losing argument.

 

[Crabtownboy]

This is false. Intelligence did not supply it. In fact the immediate response was that is was Al Quaida not the video.



Irrelevant to who? By the way responding in a timely manner is questionable as well. Since when do we make discsions about helping Americans under fire and dying based on "a timely m anner".




No they did not, they were moved to another position elsewhere. Most likely to avoid having them answer any questions. This is serious enough Clinton should have been fired.



Irrelevant to who? What we did do is leave our people their unprotected. This is another question that does need to be answered and has not.




What was his job? What was his mission? What was his goals specifically?


Everyone else pulled out, there had been a number of attacks on that compound already. AS we see these questions have not been answered in any meaningful way. The American people want to know why Stevens was needlessly dragged through the streets and on camera.


You my friend are defending a lousy and losing argument.

Looks as if you want all confidential, secret and top secret information made available to Fox news for safe keeping.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

6. Why was Susan Rice on the Sunday morning talk shows? Why not Hillary? [He answers- -because Hillary doesn't like to do the Sunday morning shows.]

That's her answer, to which Gowdy said, "If that's true, it is the only form of media coverage she doesn't like." In other words, she lied, and so did Rice.

The reason Rice was on the Sunday morning shows was because she was expendable, the administration knew their lies wouldn't stand up past the election, which was all they were concerned about. The Ignoble Traitor had spent six months campaigning on "Al-Qaeda's destroyed/decimated/on the run" (pick the soundbite of the day) and "Bin Laden's dead." Admitting al-Qaeda killed our ambassador would have proven them liars and traitors.

They knew they could stall the lapdog media and ignore Fox, The Washington Times, National Review and Weekly Standard long enough to get reelected. They did Hillary the favor of protecting her from having to lie in front of the cameras because they knew she wouldn't take the hit and destroy her 2016 chances.

That's the plain and simple truth.

 

[InTheLight]

This is false. Intelligence did not supply it. In fact the immediate response was that is was Al Quaida not the video.

You have a link stating this?

Irrelevant to who?

Everybody. If all other allied countries have left the area, whom should Obama call for help?

By the way responding in a timely manner is questionable as well. Since when do we make discsions about helping Americans under fire and dying based on "a timely m anner".

Not part of the OP so I won't answer.

No they did not, they were moved to another position elsewhere.

You have a link stating this?

Irrelevant to who? What we did do is leave our people their unprotected. This is another question that does need to be answered and has not.

The question is: Why were we the last country to leave the area?

We're the sole superpower in the world and we were the last country to leave. That question really needs to be answered? Why? Isn't it obvious?

What was his job? What was his mission? What was his goals specifically?

He said he wanted to go back there, personally. The State Department resisted but eventually allowed him to go back.

Everyone else pulled out, there had been a number of attacks on that compound already. AS we see these questions have not been answered in any meaningful way. The American people want to know why Stevens was needlessly dragged through the streets and on camera.

Because he was attacked by terrorists and they are evil. Asked and answered.

You my friend are defending a lousy and losing argument.

I'm not defending anything or any argument. These questions are simply a grandstanding opportunity for a congressman with scant seniority to attempt to get onto the news. See it for what it is, not for what you think it is.

 

[InTheLight]

That's her answer, to which Gowdy said, "If that's true, it is the only form of media coverage she doesn't like." In other words, she lied, and so did Rice.

I remember in the run-up to Hillary's appearance before the committee investigating Benghazi that Fox News was certain she was faking the flu so she wouldn't have to testify. I mean they were running this theory in their news cycle hourly for three days. Guess what? She showed up and testified.

The reason Rice was on the Sunday morning shows was because she was expendable, the administration knew their lies wouldn't stand up past the election, which was all they were concerned about. The Ignoble Traitor had spent six months campaigning on "Al-Qaeda's destroyed/decimated/on the run" (pick the soundbite of the day) and "Bin Laden's dead." Admitting al-Qaeda killed our ambassador would have proven them liars and traitors.

This is conjecture, but it is conjecture that I agree with. :smilewinkgrin:

They knew they could stall the lapdog media and ignore Fox, The Washington Times, National Review and Weekly Standard long enough to get reelected. They did Hillary the favor of protecting her from having to lie in front of the cameras because they knew she wouldn't take the hit and destroy her 2016 chances.

So what excuse does the Romney campaign have for basically ignoring this issue until it was too little, too late?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

So what excuse does the Romney campaign have for basically ignoring this issue until it was too little, too late?

Romney condemned the administration and its lack of action less than six hours after the news of the attack broke. Note the dateline on this post from The Washington Times

Mitt Romney late Tuesday condemned reported attacks on two U.S. diplomatic posts in the Middle East and said President Obama bungled the American response by trying “to sympathize” with the attackers.

“I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi,” Mr. Romney said in a statement from his campaign. “It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

Earlier in the day the U.S. embassy in Cairo was attacked and press reports said an American died in another attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya’s second-largest city.

The attacks were believed to be a response to a U.S.-produced film that the attackers believed was blasphemous to Islam.

Obviously more than one U.S. citizen died, The Times nor anyone else knew Ambassador Stevens was dead, or that more than one American died. Kindly explain, in light of this, your "too little, too late" comment

Also note that The Times is a conservative outlet. As I recall, FNC carried his statement live, though the video links for that coverage have long since been archived by the network. None of the other MSMs noted Romney's comments, other than to condemn him for "using the events of the attack" to further his campaign. Turned out his initial response was right, unlike their's or the administration's.

Hm. Big surprise.

 

[InTheLight]

Romney condemned the administration and its lack of action less than six hours after the news of the attack broke. Kindly explain, in light of this, your "too little, too late" comment

Yes, I remember his immediate statement, but then...what? He tried to bring it up in one of the debates and kind of fumbled it. He said that Obama failed to call it a terrorist attack. That's not really addressing the issue and it never really became a big issue in the campaign. He didn't really press it, he kind of gave up on it after the failed attempt during the debate.

 

[Revmitchell]

ITL you are just reaching.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

ITL you are just reaching.

Precisely why I didn't bother to answer. :thumbsup: