Featured Trey Gowdy questions the press about their ineptness

Channel surfed, web surfed -- couldn't find anyone running this video, or even teasing running this video. Hm. I'd have thought at least FNC would be touting it.

 

The reason why it's not being shown in the MSM is that it's not newsworthy. He didn't really say anything. He used the Rush Limbaugh technique of asking leading questions to get the viewer to create doubts in their minds as to what really happened. If one were to Google around for a bit I'm sure every one of those questions can be answered (or are classified.)

The one that really gets me thinking is "Do you know where this idea that the attack on the diplomatic compound was in response to a video came from?" Well, we know the answer to that and it is Hillary Clinton's State Department. It would be better to ask WHY the State Department put that false story out there.

Finally, I'm getting tired of people complaining that the press isn't investigating things as thoroughly as "they should." The press has no obligation to investigate anything. It's up to Congress, the military, and the administration to investigate Benghazi.

 

If one were to Google around for a bit I'm sure every one of those questions can be answered (or are classified.)

 

You don't seem to understand, Gowdy knows the answers!! He wants to know why the MSliberalM doesn't know the answers, nor does it seem to want to ask the questions.

That's the point.

 

I get it. The MSM knows the answers as well and has reported them, at least the ones that are unclassified. Gowdy is upset that the media isn't running a story every day, like Fox News. Apparently, he, like many conservatives, have no knowledge of the news cycle.

 

Please feel free to post a link, ITL. Love to read them. But the qualifier has to be, "It can't be anything spoon-fed them by the White House."

 

I watched the video and was unimpressed. Gowdy did not give anyone, reporter or not, any time to answer and he did not answer his own questions. Just politics and no substance.

Gee, I bet he had fun asking and then running before anyone could answer or worse yet, ask him for answers.

 

Have fun...

www.intelligence.senate.gov/benghazi2014/benghazi.pdf

 

Here's what you posted, in part (I didn't quote the whole post):

Here's what I replied:

And this is what you came up with:

ITL, that's a Senate report, not a MSM report. Didn't think you could find one.

 

One of these days the libs are gonna wake up as they feel their posteriors being bludgeoned unmercifully (cause their heads are buried so deep in the sand) by this same freedom-hating administration that they so idolize.
The shock will be, well, I can't think of an adequate adjective to describe the experience; won't be warm and fuzzy though I can guarantee.

 

Your qualifier was "must not be a report spoon fed by the White House."

I don't have time right now (or yesterday) to dig up the stories on a MSM site, but I presume that there must be some sites that reported on the SSIC report.

 

Yeah, after specifically quoting your post that referenced the MSM!!

So when you made that statement, you really didn't know for sure if it was accurate or not. Got it.

 

No, I remember reading most of this stuff as it came out as part of a normal news cycle. Some of Gowdy's questions were a bit silly, "What was ambassador Stevens doing at the diplomatic compound?" Umm....his job?

Or obvious. "Why wasn't extra security provided when asked for?" It was thought to be unnecessary by the State Department.

 

Duh! Yeah, but what was his specific reason for being in Benghazi? Have you bothered to check that out?

Which Stevens continuously and strenuously rejected as being valid. That's why he kept asking for more security. One would think the "eyes on the ground" were a better judge of what was prudent than some airhead bureaucrat, career or appointed, eight thousand miles away thought.

 

Why don't you tell us what this context is?