“Whether or not they could have gotten there in time, I don’t think there is any issue with respect to that. They couldn’t,” Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., told Fox News.

So naturally...they're still spending time and money trying to interview more military personnel about the lack of a response.

Benghazi committee renews focus on military's response

Monday mornings. Yep, just what should influence you on previous Saturday nights.

Like with Watergate.......It's the Coverup afterwards that is still the on going issue with Benghazi today. The mass tale about it being a video that was responsible B.S. that was the talking point was absolutely Not True.

Putting in effort to save American lives. Who needs it?

Well, there's the coverup and then the is the mere fact that they couldn't get there in time in the first place that is terrible. If precautions had been made, there would have been no need to "get there" in the first place.

Quote:“Chairman Gowdy has finally admitted what we have all known for years: the central Republican allegation that the military was told to withhold assets that could have saved lives in Benghazi for political reasons is wrong,” Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the top Democrat on the committee, said in a statement.

But that's not what Gowdy admitted. He admitted that it wouldn't have helped. That does not change the basic allegation that the military was instructed to withhold assets based upon the political calculus.

Could it have helped? No.

Was the military told not to try? Stay tuned.

Big difference.

Hillary emailed Bill and Chelsea that it was a terrorist attack and then later told the relatives it was about a youtube video.
She even said that she would get the people responsible for the video, as if making a youtube video is a crime.
How about getting the terrorists?

Indy Tom. Lmao.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

(05-18-2016 11:34 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  Indy Tom. Lmao.

(05-18-2016 11:20 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

Quote:“Chairman Gowdy has finally admitted what we have all known for years: the central Republican allegation that the military was told to withhold assets that could have saved lives in Benghazi for political reasons is wrong,” Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the top Democrat on the committee, said in a statement.

But that's not what Gowdy admitted. He admitted that it wouldn't have helped. That does not change the basic allegation that the military was instructed to withhold assets based upon the political calculus.

Could it have helped? No.

Was the military told not to try? Stay tuned.

Big difference.

That is not the spin that Rep. Gowdy first came out and said. It was that we could of saved American lives and that we did not do everything that could of been done.

So if the military could not of prevented or saved those lives, why put further men and woman in harms way? Or if we should not of been there in the first place why are you going to compound it more? I agree these things need to be looked at, but Rep Gowdy, has been playing politics and not looking for the real answers, only ones that help him and the TGOP.

(05-18-2016 11:20 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

Quote:“Chairman Gowdy has finally admitted what we have all known for years: the central Republican allegation that the military was told to withhold assets that could have saved lives in Benghazi for political reasons is wrong,” Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the top Democrat on the committee, said in a statement.

But that's not what Gowdy admitted. He admitted that it wouldn't have helped. That does not change the basic allegation that the military was instructed to withhold assets based upon the political calculus.

Was the military told not to try? Stay tuned.

FWIW- We have had 7 previous investigations and we're into the third year for this one. Not one actual bit of evidence has been uncovered so far to suggest that the military was told to withhold assets or not to try (I assume you mean by the Obama administration).

(05-18-2016 11:18 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Putting in effort to save American lives. Who needs it?

Expound please.

And recall, there was a CIA rescue team a short distance away. But that brings up a key question: Is it always safe to send in reinforcements to an area where you don't know what you're getting into? That team was told to wait by their direct command for that very reason IIRC.

In addition, that team lost two of their members in the attack. But they also did rescue the rest of the Americans at the compound and got them to safety.

So don't say that lives were not saved in this attack as they clearly were.

There will never be a full-proof blue-print for responding to an ongoing terrorist attack...attempts to adhere to one will mostly always fail.

That's your future Attorney General. Enjoy.

(05-18-2016 12:03 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 11:20 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

Quote:“Chairman Gowdy has finally admitted what we have all known for years: the central Republican allegation that the military was told to withhold assets that could have saved lives in Benghazi for political reasons is wrong,” Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the top Democrat on the committee, said in a statement.

But that's not what Gowdy admitted. He admitted that it wouldn't have helped. That does not change the basic allegation that the military was instructed to withhold assets based upon the political calculus.

Was the military told not to try? Stay tuned.

FWIW- We have had 7 previous investigations

No, there's been 7 previous dog and pony shows that did nothing

Quote:and we're into the third year for this one.

because oabam and clinton are stonewalling

Quote:Not one actual bit of evidence has been uncovered so far to suggest that the military was told to withhold assets or not to try (I assume you mean by the Obama administration).

That evidence would be provided by the direct testimony of those who actually know. And the obama administration is not allowing them to testify. Strange isnt it? People actually involved in the decisions and command & control of benghazi, and they arent being allowed to testify. Hell, the obama administration wont even say who they are.

But nothing to see here. (As long as you are a mindless, spineless, we dont care if our government sh*ts on us type of libturd mindset.)

And those 7 previous investigations, they were so well investigated that they didnt even realize that the emails to and from the state department didnt even exist because Hillary had them on her own server and never turned them over.

(05-18-2016 12:36 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  That's your future Attorney General. Enjoy.

Whoop de freaking do. The AG has next to nothing to do with the daily lives of Americans.

I couldn't care less who holds that office.

Besides, we've watch bad hair for over 2 years now with the Benghazi committee. Not much to show at all.

(05-18-2016 01:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 12:36 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  That's your future Attorney General. Enjoy.

Whoop de freaking do. The AG has next to nothing to do with the daily lives of Americans.

I couldn't care less who holds that office.

Besides, we've watch bad hair for over 2 years now with the Benghazi committee. Not much to show at all.

Well, except for those thousands of classified emails that Hillary illegally sent. But let's not mention those.

(05-18-2016 11:58 AM)Greenroom Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 11:20 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

Quote:“Chairman Gowdy has finally admitted what we have all known for years: the central Republican allegation that the military was told to withhold assets that could have saved lives in Benghazi for political reasons is wrong,” Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the top Democrat on the committee, said in a statement.

But that's not what Gowdy admitted. He admitted that it wouldn't have helped. That does not change the basic allegation that the military was instructed to withhold assets based upon the political calculus.

Could it have helped? No.

Was the military told not to try? Stay tuned.

Big difference.

That is not the spin that Rep. Gowdy first came out and said. It was that we could of saved American lives and that we did not do everything that could of been done.

So if the military could not of prevented or saved those lives, why put further men and woman in harms way? Or if we should not of been there in the first place why are you going to compound it more? I agree these things need to be looked at, but Rep Gowdy, has been playing politics and not looking for the real answers, only ones that help him and the TGOP.

At the time, apparently no one knew that it couldn't have saved their lives. That's what Gowdy now concedes. That does not change the question as to why no one tried. It's also been shown that Susan Rice lied to the public in the aftermath, about the cause being a Youtube film. The Obama administration spokesperson was trying to cover up the mess prior to the elections. That is a political motive and the administration was playing politics.

(05-18-2016 01:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The AG has next to nothing to do with the daily lives of Americans.

The AG is the chief law enforcement officer and the chief lawayer of the United States of America.

Yeah. Nothing.

(05-18-2016 01:28 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 01:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The AG has next to nothing to do with the daily lives of Americans.

The AG is the chief law enforcement officer and the chief lawayer of the United States of America.

Yeah. Nothing.

Yes, but that's not what I meant. My point was that they do little that effects me on a day-to-day basis. So having Gowdy be the AG will likely not harm me in any way shape of form.

(05-18-2016 12:03 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 11:20 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

Quote:“Chairman Gowdy has finally admitted what we have all known for years: the central Republican allegation that the military was told to withhold assets that could have saved lives in Benghazi for political reasons is wrong,” Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the top Democrat on the committee, said in a statement.

But that's not what Gowdy admitted. He admitted that it wouldn't have helped. That does not change the basic allegation that the military was instructed to withhold assets based upon the political calculus.

Was the military told not to try? Stay tuned.

FWIW- We have had 7 previous investigations and we're into the third year for this one. Not one actual bit of evidence has been uncovered so far to suggest that the military was told to withhold assets or not to try (I assume you mean by the Obama administration).

It's pretty clear that Susan Rice lied about the cause of the attack. That implies that the WH was playing politics due to the upcoming election. We're they lying because they withheld authority to help? That's the real question.