Gowdy: Benghazi committee wants answers on State decisions about security, mission

posted at 2:01 pm on May 7, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) appeared on Morning Joe today to discuss the aims and the scope of the newly minted House Select Committee on Benghazi, which he will chair. Democrats already have accused Gowdy and Republicans of using the investigation into the deaths of four Americans, including the first US ambassador killed in the line of duty in over 30 years, as a platform to attack Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton all the way through the 2016 election cycle. Gowdy told the MJ panel that the White House will end up dictating the pace of the probe:

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said the special committee he’ll lead on Benghazi could continue into the 2016 campaign, when Hillary Clinton might be running for the White House.

Asked about that possibility Wednesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Gowdy said the length of his work would depend on the administration’s level of cooperation.

“It would be shame on us if we intentionally dragged this out for political expediency,” said Gowdy, the special committee’s chairman. “On the other hand, if an administration is slow-walking document production I can’t end a trial simply because the defense won’t cooperate.”

The story could have been over already, for that matter, had the Obama administration not hidden documents from Congress until now. Based on their track record, no one knows how many other documents they may be hiding, or redacting into oblivion either. That’s why Gowdy wants to close out the other Congressional investigations and start from scratch, collect all of the evidence and re-do the depositions, in order to conduct a comprehensive investigation with plenary power. That can go short and easy, or it can go long and hard, but that choice ultimately rests with the White House.

Gowdy made it clear during the interview that the scope of this committee won’t be limited to just the post-attack politicization of the event. He wants answers on the denials for security at the facility, and the reasons why the US stayed in Benghazi while every other Western agency pulled out as terrorist escalated. In my column for The Week, I urge Republicans to take that broader focus, which is where true accountability will be found:

Last week, retired Air Force General Robert Lovell testified before Congress that the U.S. military should have responded immediately to the attack. As the commander of intelligence services for AFRICOM at the time of the attack, Lovell testified that no one seriously thought that it was anything other than a deliberate, planned offensive on the diplomatic post left vulnerable despite ever-increasing warnings about terrorist activity in and around Benghazi, especially with al Qaeda affiliates. The testimony raises the question — again — as to why the U.S. military was not prepared to respond to a terrorist attack in the AFRICOM area of responsibility on the anniversary of 9/11, especially in an area known to have rapidly escalating enemy activity.

That question becomes more acute as the situation in Libya continues to deteriorate. The Daily Beast‘s national security correspondent Eli Lake reports that the region has now been flooded with radical Islamist terrorists from around the world, eager to operate within the failed state of Libya the NATO intervention created. One counter-terrorism contractor calls it “Scumbag Woodstock,” while another intelligence official calls eastern Libya “a jihadist melting pot.” The situation presents a threat to the region and to the U.S. far beyond what existed three years ago, before Obama intervened on behalf of the rebels.

The select committee should focus on that larger context of Benghazi, the editorial board of The Washington Post urged this week, asking Republicans to eschew the cover-up for the “actual failings in Libya” from Obama and his administration.

“The Obama administration and its NATO allies bear responsibility for this mess because, having intervened to help rebels overthrow Gadhafi, they then swiftly exited without making a serious effort to help Libyans establish security and build a new political order,” they wrote. “Congress might usefully probe why the administration allowed a country in which it initiated military operations to slide into chaos.”

Indeed. While the White House continues its ridiculous spin and accusations, Gowdy and Boehner have an opportunity to present accountability on a much broader and deeper level — the very accountability the Obama administration tried to avoid with its initial talking points.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Pelosi and Reid, who never gave the Rs equal numbers, payback is such a biatch.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2014 at 2:05 PM

Why was Stevens in Benghazi (a known AQ stronghold) with light-to-no security on the most dangerous day of the year for Americans in the ME, September 11th? Why wasn’t he holed up safely at the main embassy in Tripoli?

I still haven’t seen any answer, let alone a credible one.

Missy on May 7, 2014 at 2:08 PM

When do they start tearing this guy’s family life apart. When the go to his house and vandalize the property. when do they go to business partners and threaten them.

This is the reaction I expect from this administration.

Oil Can on May 7, 2014 at 2:09 PM

Get’em Trey

Scottie on May 7, 2014 at 2:09 PM

The libs can write off the video and talking points lies by saying “everyone does it”, but they can’t dodge the bullet on failing to provide security to begin with and the failure to send in rescue teams as soon as learning of the attacks.

That’s going to be their Achilles heel in 2014, and in 2016 (if Hillary’s their candidate then).

TXUS on May 7, 2014 at 2:10 PM

Mr. Gowdy, it’s so much deeper.

1. Why was Amb. Stevens in Benghazi, on that day, when the MO was to have him in the bunker in Tripoli?

2. Why was he in Benghazi, officially? Arms shipments to Syria, via Turkey help.

3. Why was he in Benghazi, and whom did he bed, after the Turkish envoy left? This is very significant. He was there to get paid back, by the Libyans, for helping them down Qaddafi.

4. Why did obama, without the congress, with McCain/Rubio/Ms. Lindsey’s blessings, down Qaddafi? For one reason alone – the thugs, who’d given up nukes and wasn’t with the terrorists, wanted to get rid of the US dollar for oil trades, along with a few other lands in the region.

5. Hillary, and her Utopian pipedreams for Libya, which is now in terrorist hands.

6. Depose Petraeus, who lied, being blackmailed about his daliances.

7. Depose Paneta.

8. Depose Hillary.

9. Depopse obama.

10. Hire an exceptionally good prosecutor as your chief of staff. Too bad that the excellent McCarthy is ethical enough to decline. But good on him, for being ethical. He’s already exposed the thugs in DC and continues to write the best articles.

11. Ignore the media.

12. Don’t give in to Pelosi/Reid. The thugs were/are never fair. Let them know what it means to lose elections. Treat them as they treat you, not better or worse.

Good luck good Sir!

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2014 at 2:12 PM

Dude, who cuts your hair?

davidk on May 7, 2014 at 2:13 PM

One more thing – where was the CiC throughout the Benghazi activites?

One more – what orders did he give?

Depose Love too.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2014 at 2:14 PM

Dude, who cuts your hair?

davidk on May 7, 2014 at 2:13 PM

Focus on substance.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2014 at 2:15 PM

Trey Gowdy may you prove to be Barack Obama and his Democrat co-conspirators in crime’s worst nightmare come true.

oscarwilde on May 7, 2014 at 2:16 PM

Is someone going to get prosecuted or arrested after this probe?
How about we start focusing on issues that Americans actually care about?
They polls say don’t they care about Benghazi.
All these ‘investigations’ are driven by fear of a potential Clinton presidency.
No one will get arrested or prosecuted. A complete waste of tax payers money.

Focus on stuff that matters. Like deporting the illegals.

weedisgood on May 7, 2014 at 2:16 PM

I find it curious that in some testimony, military officials were waiting for the State Department to give the approval or at least make a request.

So am I to understand the SOS can now order military action? Or did the urgent call come into the WH but they were told “hey guys, you know the protocol. Check with Hillary first”

WisRich on May 7, 2014 at 2:16 PM

Dude, who cuts your hair?

davidk on May 7, 2014 at 2:13 PM

that’s the 80′s Bryan Adams look….wait a minute, no it isn’t,

O.K., I don’t know what he’s doing…maybe it’s an SC thing?

ToddPA on May 7, 2014 at 2:16 PM

Hopefully Trey and the gang can get to the truth, it would be so refreshing!

MollyAnn on May 7, 2014 at 2:17 PM

Leave no stone unturned.

portlandon on May 7, 2014 at 2:18 PM

Best quote yet from Gowdy.

RE: Pelosi puking and moaning about the EQUAL number of
people on the Committee.

“Nancy has trouble with Math”

ToddPA on May 7, 2014 at 2:18 PM

Good Luck Trey – go get the truth.

gophergirl on May 7, 2014 at 2:19 PM

“Congress might usefully probe why the administration allowed a country in which it initiated military operations to slide into chaos.”

Why doesn’t WaPo just send a couple of “reporters” over to the White House and ask King Barack? Aren’t they pals? Hasn’t WaPo been carrying King Barack’s water since Day One?

GarandFan on May 7, 2014 at 2:19 PM

He did great against mika and Chuck
They were goading him that this was purely political and why not have equal representation

Elections have consequences

Go get ‘em
:)

cmsinaz on May 7, 2014 at 2:21 PM

When do they start tearing this guy’s family life apart. When the go to his house and vandalize the property. when do they go to business partners and threaten them.

This is the reaction I expect from this administration.

Oil Can on May 7, 2014 at 2:09 PM

They can try, but you counter that by being even more aggressive than they are in prosecuting these lying, murderous bastards. It takes courage to stand up to evil. Stand up and be accounted for. To hell with the torpedoes; full steam ahead.

Bob Davis on May 7, 2014 at 2:21 PM

Why was he in Benghazi, and whom did he bed, after the Turkish envoy left?
Schadenfreude on May 7, 2014 at 2:12 PM

Um…what?

Focus on substance.
Schadenfreude on May 7, 2014 at 2:15 PM

Ha!

verbaluce on May 7, 2014 at 2:24 PM

Oil can….he’s already receiving threatening emails (via politico)

cmsinaz on May 7, 2014 at 2:24 PM

Good substance, but really – what’s with the gawd-awful hair?

Augustinian on May 7, 2014 at 2:25 PM

All these ‘investigations’ are driven by fear of a potential Clinton presidency.
No one will get arrested or prosecuted. A complete waste of tax payers money.

Focus on stuff that matters. Like deporting the illegals.

weedisgood on May 7, 2014 at 2:16 PM

We’re not entitled to know the true facts of an attack on our consulate? Why would you say that?

butch on May 7, 2014 at 2:26 PM

They need to get a hold of copies of all military orders issued in relation to the attack, if Obama ordered the military to respond with anything they could there would be orders issued to the military to reflect that, the military doesn’t move without orders. There could be orders to go in, but there also may be orders to stand down or no orders at all.

Sven on May 7, 2014 at 2:26 PM

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2014 at 2:12 PM

Good list. I’d add:

13. Depose Ambassador Thomas Pickering

14. Depose Admiral Michael Mullen

15. Depose Catherine Bertini

16. Depose Richard Shinnick

17. Depose Hugh Turner.

The first four were selected by Secretary Hillary!, the fifth, Turner, by the “intelligence community, to comprise the Accountability Review Board, which produced the execrable whitewash report that failed to list any documentary evidence for its conclusions; apparently failed to interview anyone at the highest echelons of the State Department; and pinned the whole Benghazi debacle on a couple of dysfunctional lower level bureaus. It’s well known that they never interviewed key witnesses to the fiasco.

Gowdy should find out why.

de rigueur on May 7, 2014 at 2:27 PM

verbaluce on May 7, 2014 at 2:24 PM

As usual, you are not bright. It’s incredibly significant what happened there, of which I told you the day after. That played a big role at how he risked his life, with his gov’t fully aware.

Wake up already…if you care about the lost lives. If not, go back to your D-latrine.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2014 at 2:28 PM

de rigueur on May 7, 2014 at 2:27 PM

Excellent, and more too…but Gowdy can’t just focus on the topic of the thread.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2014 at 2:29 PM

Sic em, Gowdy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bq0H1p2zejg

BuckeyeSam on May 7, 2014 at 2:30 PM

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) appeared on Morning Joe today

Why ?
Did you really have to dignify the Hussein’s hacks, Rep Gowdy ?

burrata on May 7, 2014 at 2:30 PM

verbaluce on May 7, 2014 at 2:24 PM

You are obviously totally clueless to the industry of spying. Think about this one, hard.

Plus, when you try to be cute you come across even dumber than usual.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2014 at 2:31 PM

This is playing out just like an episode of Columbo. We already know the guilty players and the results of their work. It’s now up to Inspector Gowdy to investigate and bring the perps to justice!

Deano1952 on May 7, 2014 at 2:33 PM

verbaluce on May 7, 2014 at 2:24 PM

As usual, you are not bright. It’s incredibly significant what happened there, of which I told you the day after. That played a big role at how he risked his life, with his gov’t fully aware.

Wake up already…if you care about the lost lives. If not, go back to your D-latrine.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2014 at 2:28 PM

I’m wide awake and I have sincere (not political) concern for the lost lives. I also have the utmost respect for Stevens, Smith, Doherty, & Woods. I don’t in any way question or denigrate the motivations for their heroic service.
I think you should be a little be more thoughtful in throwing around bizarre insinuations that do just that.

And you should be more concerned as whether Gowdy is dumb & classless enough to take your advice on questions to ask and conspiracy theories to raise. Or maybe you don’t need to be concerned.

verbaluce on May 7, 2014 at 2:41 PM

weedisgood on May 7, 2014 at 2:16 PM

You’re wrong about the polling. The recent Rasmussen on Benghazi finds that 72% of Americans want the truth to come out about Benghazi, and a plurality want the investigation to go forward.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/poll-72-want-the-truth-about-benghazi/article/2548064

TarheelBen on May 7, 2014 at 2:42 PM

What the heck was that quote Mika read from Clyburn,

“I’m not bring a noose to my hanging”

What the heck is that in reference too? What does Clyburn know?

D-fusit on May 7, 2014 at 2:43 PM

What the heck was that quote Mika read from Clyburn,

“I’m not bring a noose to my hanging”

What the heck is that in reference too? What does Clyburn know?

D-fusit on May 7, 2014 at 2:43 PM

Clyburn knows that Gowdy is white …..so RACISM ….

burrata on May 7, 2014 at 2:46 PM

Trey-take one deliberative step at a time. I do not care one bit how long it takes. These thugs deserve no mercy as they have screwed up this country to a fare thee well. As our great leader was fond of saying-”Elections have consequences”. Drag the bag lady up too and this time pin her butt to the wall. I am so sick and tired of the Clintons. Go away, get lost. You have done nothing but enrich your self and the dirtbag husband of yours. Go get em Trey.

mrcasella on May 7, 2014 at 2:47 PM

He wants answers on the denials for security at the facility, and the reasons why the US stayed in Benghazi while every other Western agency pulled out as terrorist escalated.

Funneling weapons to Al Qaeda would be slightly frowned upon by the American people. There I just saved everyone a lot of time and money.

SirGawain on May 7, 2014 at 2:48 PM

9. Depopse obama.

Whatever this accomplishes, I’m all for it.

somewhatconcerned on May 7, 2014 at 2:49 PM

What the heck was that quote Mika read from Clyburn,

“I’m not bring a noose to my hanging”

What the heck is that in reference too? What does Clyburn know?

D-fusit on May 7, 2014 at 2:43 PM

He’s obsessed with skin color and The Man. All he knows. I’ll bet it fills his dreams at night. He hasn’t progressed.

butch on May 7, 2014 at 2:49 PM

verbaluce on May 7, 2014 at 2:24 PM

You are obviously totally clueless to the industry of spying. Think about this one, hard.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2014 at 2:31 PM

Well you’re likely much more well read on Tom Clancy than I am.

verbaluce on May 7, 2014 at 2:52 PM

And you should be more concerned as whether Gowdy is dumb & classless enough to take your advice on questions to ask and conspiracy theories to raise.

verbaluce on May 7, 2014 at 2:41 PM

Your solicitous regard for Trey Gowdy duly noted:

Trey Gowdy is the perfect Sideshow Bob to bring you the next circus act. He’s the mad clown – he’ll grimace, he’ll rage, he’ll pontificate, he’ll tear up…he will put on a good show.
He will continue to look into the eyes of the bereaved he’ll exploit and tell them ‘we will get to the Obama…I mean, bottom of this’.

verbaluce on May 6, 2014 at 10:38 AM

de rigueur on May 7, 2014 at 2:52 PM

de rigueur on May 7, 2014 at 2:52 PM

My full quote:
And you should be more concerned as whether Gowdy is dumb & classless enough to take your advice on questions to ask and conspiracy theories to raise. Or maybe you don’t need to be concerned.

verbaluce on May 7, 2014 at 2:54 PM

“I’m not bringing a noose to my hanging”

Oops

D-fusit on May 7, 2014 at 2:55 PM

Is someone going to get prosecuted or arrested after this probe?
How about we start focusing on issues that Americans actually care about?
They polls say don’t they care about Benghazi.
All these ‘investigations’ are driven by fear of a potential Clinton presidency.
No one will get arrested or prosecuted. A complete waste of tax payers money.

Focus on stuff that matters. Like deporting the illegals.

weedisgood on May 7, 2014 at 2:16 PM

I’m not sure where you’re getting your facts, but I read a poll yesterday that showed 67% of Americans wanted the investigation to continue. Maybe some of us want to know why four Americans were abandoned to die and some of us don’t want Obama and Clinton to get away with lying to family members about why they died and why they didn’t get the protection they deserved.

That stuff does matter to everyone but Obama/Clinton apologists.

cajunpatriot on May 7, 2014 at 2:55 PM

9. Depopse obama.

Whatever this accomplishes, I’m all for it.

somewhatconcerned on May 7, 2014 at 2:49 PM

I believe it would remove his popses.

verbaluce on May 7, 2014 at 2:56 PM

Well you’re likely much more well read on Tom Clancy than I am.

verbaluce on May 7, 2014 at 2:52 PM

That too, but that’s just secondary.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2014 at 2:56 PM

You’re wrong about the polling. The recent Rasmussen on Benghazi finds that 72% of Americans want the truth to come out about Benghazi, and a plurality want the investigation to go forward.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/poll-72-want-the-truth-about-benghazi/article/2548064

TarheelBen on May 7, 2014 at 2:42 PM

Poll: Benghazi is no Achilles heel for Clinton

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/03/04/poll-benghazi-is-no-achilles-heel-for-clinton/

weedisgood on May 7, 2014 at 2:57 PM

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2014 at 2:12 PM

de rigueur on May 7, 2014 at 2:27 PM

Add to the list General Ham. And find the lower ranking officer who was actually in charge of the handful of Marines in place. I really want to know what he has to say.

novaculus on May 7, 2014 at 2:57 PM

That quote by Clyburn in the Morning Joe is utterly loathsome.

Throat Wobbler Mangrove on May 7, 2014 at 2:58 PM

verbaluce on May 7, 2014 at 2:41 PM

I told you all that on day one, after Benghazi. None has changed. Now, wake up already.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2014 at 2:58 PM

novaculus on May 7, 2014 at 2:57 PM

Indeed

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2014 at 2:59 PM

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

Proverbs, 26:4

novaculus on May 7, 2014 at 3:00 PM

What the heck was that quote Mika read from Clyburn,

“I’m not bring a noose to my hanging”

What the heck is that in reference too? What does Clyburn know?

D-fusit on May 7, 2014 at 2:43 PM

When I saw that quote I was like “WTF”?

“My hanging”? What kind of mindset is that?

Oh, and I like the fact the Morning Joe crowd just left that quote to kinda just hang out there right before they go to Gowdy. No denouncement, no claims of being over the top, not even asking Gowdy to respond.

Nope, just Noose…Hanging…Gowdy.

This is just a warmup to the kind of rhetoric we’re going to get from the Dem’s on this committee.

WisRich on May 7, 2014 at 3:02 PM

I wonder how Gowdy et al will identify and locate those CIA survivors that have been hidden, given new IDs, etc.

butch on May 7, 2014 at 3:02 PM

Schad, I think verby meant to say;

Well you’re likely much more well read on Tom Clancy than I am.

verbaluce on May 7, 2014 at 2:52 PM

Which we all know would be correct.

D-fusit on May 7, 2014 at 3:03 PM

weedisgood on May 7, 2014 at 2:57 PM

That poll means nothing in regard to this Benghazi investigation. It’s about Hillary and it shows that people don’t think Benghazi is the worse thing in her career. It has nothing to do with whether people want the truth about Benghazi.

TarheelBen on May 7, 2014 at 3:04 PM

Poll: Benghazi is no Achilles heel for Clinton

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/03/04/poll-benghazi-is-no-achilles-heel-for-clinton/

weedisgood on May 7, 2014 at 2:57 PM

Yup, she assassinated 4 white men .
That is the cherry on top of her lifetime achievements as a
Saudi funded stone cold beeyach who aided and abetted the crimes of the sexual pervert she married and the lives she destroyed to cover up their crimes .

burrata on May 7, 2014 at 3:06 PM

WisRich on May 7, 2014 at 3:02 PM

Maybe it’s just me but, I read that to mean that Clyburn knows that if the facts of this ENTIRE fiasco do come out, it’ll bring down Barky and all the D’s who have empowered him and that includes himself (Clyburn)

D-fusit on May 7, 2014 at 3:06 PM

Poll: Benghazi is no Achilles heel for Clinton

weedisgood on May 7, 2014 at 2:57 PM

It isn’t. She has lots of blood on her hands and heels.

Plus, she is a heel/cant.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2014 at 3:07 PM

D-fusit on May 7, 2014 at 3:03 PM

Verbie is ok, most of the time. At least verbie is sometimes a good sport.

On what you said, verbie would never admit…but thank you.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2014 at 3:08 PM

Is someone going to get prosecuted or arrested after this probe?
How about we start focusing on issues that Americans actually care about?
They polls say don’t they care about Benghazi.
All these ‘investigations’ are driven by fear of a potential Clinton presidency.
No one will get arrested or prosecuted. A complete waste of tax payers money.

Focus on stuff that matters. Like deporting the illegals.

weedisgood on May 7, 2014 at 2:16 PM

I know, dude! Like, they need to totally get busy legalizing weed *everywhere*, man – *that’s* the important stuff!

Midas on May 7, 2014 at 3:10 PM

D-fusit on May 7, 2014 at 3:06 PM

Not just you – the congress and obama know exactly what happened.

Cantor knew exactly what happened in Benghazi, from day one, and he let Romney flail in the wind. I’ll never forgive him for that.

Boner and Issa knew all along. obama made a mistake by assuming that the congress didn’t know and Benghazi, the Gowdy situation is a direct result of his contempt for congress and the constitution. They are more nervous than ever before. The entire re-elect is on display, but so many criminal acts too. It is criminal to obstruct congress.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2014 at 3:13 PM

What the heck was that quote Mika read from Clyburn,

“I’m not bring a noose to my hanging”

What the heck is that in reference too? What does Clyburn know?

D-fusit on May 7, 2014 at 2:43 PM

I suspect there’s nothing more to it than a colorful way of claiming that the committee will be nothing but a illegitimate political lynching.

I don’t think it overtly means he knows there’s dirt that will be uncovered, though he certainly might.

Midas on May 7, 2014 at 3:13 PM

obama will campaign on “if you make the Senate a R majority they’ll impeach me”….and the populace will go “Really?”

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2014 at 3:14 PM

9. Depopse obama.

Whatever this accomplishes, I’m all for it.

somewhatconcerned on May 7, 2014 at 2:49 PM

I believe it would remove his popses.

verbaluce on May 7, 2014 at 2:56 PM

Credit where credit’s due. I chuckled.

Midas on May 7, 2014 at 3:15 PM

de rigueur on May 7, 2014 at 2:52 PM

My full quote:
And you should be more concerned as whether Gowdy is dumb & classless enough to take your advice on questions to ask and conspiracy theories to raise. Or maybe you don’t need to be concerned.

verbaluce on May 7, 2014 at 2:54 PM

Which actually reinforces your quote that followed. Therefore superfluous to have added it as you felt necessary to do. You imagine you’re the only poster capable of irony?

de rigueur on May 7, 2014 at 3:16 PM

Poll: Benghazi is no Achilles heel for Clinton

Not yet.

BacaDog on May 7, 2014 at 3:16 PM

Asked about that possibility Wednesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Gowdy said the length of his work would depend on the administration’s level of cooperation.

Administration’s level of cooperation ? Which means what ?
That Gowdy will end up sitting there twiddling his thumbs ?

burrata on May 7, 2014 at 3:20 PM

If anyone else is having trouble making the MSDNC video run, try it here.

novaculus on May 7, 2014 at 3:23 PM

Most transparent admin Evah!

KMC1 on May 7, 2014 at 3:23 PM

You imagine you’re the only poster capable of irony?

de rigueur on May 7, 2014 at 3:16 PM

Feel free to help make me one of many capable of offering some substance in my remarks.

verbaluce on May 7, 2014 at 3:25 PM

For the D-rats, from one of yours.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2014 at 3:27 PM

Feel free to help make me one of many capable of offering some substance in my remarks.

verbaluce on May 7, 2014 at 3:25 PM

Would you care to parse that? Forget irony, start with grammar and syntax.

de rigueur on May 7, 2014 at 3:33 PM

Mika is such a dummy.

When he said “I might be dumb, but I’m fair”, I chuckled.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2014 at 3:36 PM

Poll: Benghazi is no Achilles heel for Clinton

Yes, but I hear you can throw water on her.

Oil Can on May 7, 2014 at 3:40 PM

Feel free to help make me one of many capable of offering some substance in my remarks.

verbaluce on May 7, 2014 at 3:25 PM

Would you care to parse that? Forget irony, start with grammar and syntax.

de rigueur on May 7, 2014 at 3:33 PM

No.
Read it slower.
And forgive what that which how now just doesn’t meet your higher standards for blog comments.
(And forgive my responding in-kind. But, well…)

verbaluce on May 7, 2014 at 3:43 PM

The desperation is palpable.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2014 at 3:45 PM

No.
Read it slower.

verbaluce on May 7, 2014 at 3:43 PM

Sorry. It’s retarded enough already.

de rigueur on May 7, 2014 at 3:48 PM

No.
Read it slower.

verbaluce on May 7, 2014 at 3:43 PM

Sorry. It’s retarded enough already.

de rigueur on May 7, 2014 at 3:48 PM

Man, you are cranky.
You could be just a tad better humored.
(And use any word you want, but consider expanding your vocabulary enough to allow you the option of being more thoughtful when you wish to call someone/something ‘stupid’.)

verbaluce on May 7, 2014 at 3:56 PM

9. Depopse obama.

Whatever this accomplishes, I’m all for it.

somewhatconcerned on May 7, 2014 at 2:49 PM

Laugh O’ The Day™!

Dime IV on May 7, 2014 at 4:04 PM

(And use any word you want, but consider expanding your vocabulary enough to allow you the option of being more thoughtful when you wish to call someone/something ‘stupid’.)

verbaluce on May 7, 2014 at 3:56 PM

Careful there. No one called anyone stupid. I used “retarded” in it’s original, not street slangy, sense:

re•tard [ri-tahrd]
verb (used with object)
1.
to make slow; delay the development or progress of (an action, process, etc.); hinder or impede.
verb (used without object)
2.
to be delayed.
noun
3.
a slowing down, diminution, or hindrance, as in a machine.to make slow; delay the development or progress of (an action, process, etc.); hinder or impede.

verb (used without object)
2.
to be delayed.
noun
3.
a slowing down, diminution, or hindrance, as in a machine.

Your garbled sentence– Feel free to help make me one of many capable of offering some substance in my remarks.– or for that matter the one in the post following– And forgive what that which how now just doesn’t meet your higher standards for blog comments.– would be impossible to read any more slowly, as you advised, because they’re limping along too much already.

I’m afraid you’re the one who needs to work on vocabulary. And grammar. And syntax. And cleaning up your ad hominems.

de rigueur on May 7, 2014 at 4:08 PM

There are four independent but interlocking issues:

1) Why was security so bad before the attack, even though everyone knew the situation was very dicey?

2) Why was no help given to the embassy that night?

3) How did the coverup proceed, and who knowingly went on camera and lied?

3 B) Who decided to throw a man in jail, and then claim that he was the cause of the attack?

4) How in-the-tank were the national media, who must have know the truth all along and willingly played lapdog to the White House?

HakerA on May 7, 2014 at 4:15 PM

HakerA on May 7, 2014 at 4:15 PM

I’d add one more:

3C) How long had “who” known about this man, and his video, and had them so conveniently at hand when needed to deflect attention from the real causes of the attack?

Apparently, Nakoula/Sam Bacile (among a number of other aliases), who has also been partnered with a Muslim terrorist supporter, has been known to and possibly used by the Feds for decades back. As far back as the Clinton administration. When Canadian officials were holding him (Nakoula/Bacile), for some reason the Feds wanted him released. Whereupon he made a movie…

Any of these articles is an eye-opener.

de rigueur on May 7, 2014 at 4:23 PM

Gowdy has an unfortunately shaped head and I don’t think any other haircut would look any different on him.

crankyoldlady on May 7, 2014 at 5:10 PM

that’s the 80′s Bryan Adams look….wait a minute, no it isn’t,

O.K., I don’t know what he’s doing…maybe it’s an SC thing?

ToddPA on May 7, 2014 at 2:16 PM

I don’t care if his hair looks like that guy from A Flock of Seagulls, as long as he sinks his teeth into 0bama’s leg and doesn’t let go.

CurtZHP on May 7, 2014 at 5:10 PM

I believe it would remove his popses.

verbaluce on May 7, 2014 at 2:56 PM

You have a sense of humor, verbaluce. Who would have thought.

crankyoldlady on May 7, 2014 at 5:43 PM

And forgive what that which how now just doesn’t meet your higher standards for blog comments.– would be impossible to read any more slowly, as you advised, because they’re limping along too much already.

de rigueur on May 7, 2014 at 4:08 PM

I sincerely thought you’d see that I was joking – and maybe even appreciate the humor.
And no ad-hom on my part.
You’re the one angry and attacking…and generally doing so OT.
Sorry if I got your dander up.
I’ll be very serious for/with you moving forward.

verbaluce on May 7, 2014 at 5:47 PM

verbaluce on May 7, 2014 at 5:47 PM

(And use any word you want, but consider expanding your vocabulary enough to allow you the option of being more thoughtful when you wish to call someone/something ‘stupid.)

verbaluce on May 7, 2014 at 3:56 PM

Sport, from the moment you took the bait I haven’t stopped laughing.
But I appreciate your… sincerity…
We’ll let the readers decide.

de rigueur on May 7, 2014 at 6:03 PM

Although detractors continue to obfuscate the many questions and issues surrounding the events of Sept 11, 2012 by implying that the one and only question is a trivial political one of the talking points, it is interesting that the issue of the murder of four people and the attempted murder of the others who were wounded, is virtually ignored or glossed over. Somehow we are now expected to abandon our principles of justice and close the murder investigation based upon some undefined polls that purport to show Americans are bored with this matter simply because it has not been resolved according the expected timeline of those who believe Law and Order is real? I would think that normal, moral people would be outraged to the point of action if a loved one was murdered and at some point after failing to resolve the case, the police took a random poll instead, discovered no one was interested in finding the killer (s) any longer, and then made the decision, based on that casual survey, to close the case.
Mind boggling at best.

peck on May 7, 2014 at 6:28 PM

de rigueur on May 7, 2014 at 6:03 PM

Lucy’s always good for a laugh.

slickwillie2001 on May 7, 2014 at 6:55 PM

Lucy’s always good for a laugh.

slickwillie2001 on May 7, 2014 at 6:55 PM

She, like her honorable preezy, wants all of the facts about Benghazi to come out, sans emotion. There has been no obstruction nor politicization of this goal by Obama’s administration. That’s why the preezy’s been so cooperative, like he always is. To believe otherwise indicates that you are an extreme right-winger who’s playing politics. Ask Lucy and the preezy if you disagree. They’ll straighten you out with their factual reassurances.

non-nonpartisan on May 7, 2014 at 8:17 PM

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2014 at 2:12 PM
de rigueur on May 7, 2014 at 2:27 PM
Good questions, excellent list. None of these men and women should have nothing to hide about their actions on or after that fatal night. I fully expect GEN. Ham to give full, and frank accounting given what BG. Lovell just did before the committee. A message was sent to the Obama administration by the uniformed services, let’s see if they understand. And to be clear, we know what happened on 9/11/12. There are written, audio, and most important video logs,and footage covering the actions of the various players on that night. We know what happened, and how it happened. But we do not know why it happened. The select committee will hopefully tell us why. At the very least, the family’s of our honored dead deserve to know.

flackcatcher on May 7, 2014 at 8:43 PM

Please. We all know the right will milk the dog and pony show as long as they can regardless of what the whitehouse does. The whole point of the committee is to try and embarrass the president and tar the likely dem candidate for 2016 with innuendo.

It’s the slimy Issa playbook writ large.

Tlaloc on May 8, 2014 at 1:47 AM

1) Why was security so bad before the attack, even though everyone knew the situation was very dicey?

2) Why was no help given to the embassy that night?

3) How did the coverup proceed, and who knowingly went on camera and lied?

3 B) Who decided to throw a man in jail, and then claim that he was the cause of the attack?

4) How in-the-tank were the national media, who must have know the truth all along and willingly played lapdog to the White House?

1) it was a CIA black bag operation, you don’t call attention to those by building a fortress.

2) There was nothing close enough to respond in time.

3) The coverup is entirely a fabrication by the right.

3B) The man in question sparked riots all across the middle east, early intelligence indicated it might have been responsible for benghazi too. later intelligence showed that to be wrong. Oh and he violated his parole. But I guess you don’t care about that.

4) Yeah, how in the tank does the media have to be not to go along with your transparently baseless witchhunt?

Tlaloc on May 8, 2014 at 1:53 AM

and since plenty here seem to have forgotten here’s the house armed forces committee report on benghazi:

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=C4E16543-8F99-430C-BEBA-0045A6433426

It pretty clearly spells out that there was no stand down order and the US military forces were in no position t do anything about benghazi. Of course the house republicans are well known obama shills so we need a thorough investigation by… house republicans…

oh, yeah.

Tlaloc on May 8, 2014 at 1:59 AM

3B) The man in question sparked riots all across the middle east, early intelligence indicated it might have been responsible for benghazi too. later intelligence showed that to be wrong. Oh and he violated his parole. But I guess you don’t care about that.

Tlaloc on May 8, 2014 at 1:53 AM

The Committee would love to hear from you, because to date:

1) No one can produce the “early intelligence” that indicated that “Innocence of the Muslims” was responsible for the riots in Cairo OR in Benghazi. CIA reports don’t mention it. Hillary’s State Department does– in Cairo– BEFORE THE RIOTS EVEN STARTED. Although the Youtube upload had been brought to the attention of the Grand Mufti of Cairo 3 days before the Cairo riots, and despite his denunciation of it, the street reaction didn’t even merit mention in the Cairo press, nor– as previously stated– in the CIA reports.

Everyone knew the riots were coming to Cairo, and they also knew why: a) the obvious: anniversary of 9/11 which terrorist always delight in celebrating; and b) more importantly, to pressure the release of the Blind Sheik.

2) Later intelligence showed nothing different from early intelligence. What changed what was the way State Department and White House doctored their talking points.

3) Yes, Sam Bacile/Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (2 of several other aliases) violated his parole and went back to jail. But the more interesting question is: why did this “business associate” of a Muslim terrorist supporter who claimed to be a “coptic Christian,” who then later claimed to be uninterested in religion in at all, and who before uploading “Innocence” had “Like”-linked on Facebook an interview conducted in Arabic of a UK woman who had converted to Islam (odd “Like” for a “Christian,” no?)– the more interesting question is why was fellow released from Federal custody in the first place, only to proceed directly to the production of this “Innocence” video which he knew would land him back in prison, have his “nephew” upload it to Youtube anyway, and then go quietly back to prison for a year– where he was out of sight, couldn’t be questioned or interviewed by inconvenient committees.

4) Why, when he was being held by Canadian authorities a few years ago, did the Feds insist on his release? How is that the Feds have known about and used this man for decades, going back to the Clinton Administration; and how did he and his little video, which received no attention at all until Hillary and Obama started talking it up, come to be so conveniently at hand in time for Cairo and the debacle in Benghazi?

On second thought, spare the Committee. You don’t know enough to know what you don’t know, that the rest of us DO need to know.

de rigueur on May 8, 2014 at 11:07 AM

Tlaloc on May 8, 2014 at 1:59 AM

Odd that you should link what is clearly labeled an “Interim Report” as the definitive last word on DOD and Armed Services activity related to Benghazi, when the Report itself clearly states:

This report should be considered one component of continuing comprehensive Benghazi- related oversight underway in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Meaning, that the House and its Committees– including its Special Committees– aren’t done yet.

And, by the way, the reason the report “pretty clearly spells out that… the US military forces were in no position t do anything about benghazi” is because:

“Administration decision makers were apparently reluctant to discuss publicly the deteriorating security situation in Libya or make changes in the U.S. diplomatic presence or military force posture that might have mitigated the dangers there.”

Why was the Administration willfully ignoring the warning signs and refusing to respond to them– in a way that might have saved 4 lives in Benghazi? That wasn’t within the scope of the Armed Services Committee’s investigation to answer those questions, but that doesn’t mean answers aren’t needed, as the Committee report acknowledges.

The military personnel who did testify to the Committee were quite clear that they knew from the onset that Benghazi was under terrorist attack. Whatever refuge they tried to take in “early intelligence” (sources, please), and despite the fact that even the State Department and White House knew Benghazi had been a terrorist attack within a day of the event, why were talking points conveniently ignoring the fact given to Susan Rice to push on a 5-Sunday show front (I can’t remember when anyone has ever done anything like that for any administration’s cause), and Obama and Hillary refuse to acknowledge this publicly, and continue to push the silly video meme– for weeks after?

Really, your objections to the ongoing investigation boils down to Hillary’s own response to similar questions posed by the House committees: “Really, at this point, what difference does it make?”

None to her or her partisan defenders, obviously, but the truth always makes a difference. And will out.

de rigueur on May 8, 2014 at 11:34 AM