Featured Trey Gowdy questions the press about their ineptness

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

 

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

 

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.

 

You have a link stating this?

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

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

You have a link stating this?

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?

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

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

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.

 

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.

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

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

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.

 

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.

 

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