Democrats are running scared because they fear the Select Committee will get into areas that have been out of bounds since the first oversight committee looked into the Benghazi attack. Pelosis backpedaling on participating is only the tip of a shaky iceberg. She must have decided she can do more damage from within than she can by carping in press conferences from the outside.
John Kerry is crapping in his jeans at the thought of testifying before Rep. Gowdys committee after he testifies before Chairman Issas Oversight Committee. Kerry is so frightened he is trying to lay down rules for the House as though he is still a big shot in the Senate:
Kerry is not the big fish in the Benghazi pond. Hillary Clinton is the big mouth bass that might get hooked if the unasked questions are finally asked. With that possibility in mind I want to go back to former Senator Clintons testimony among friends at a Senate hearing. Clintons infamous little fit of pique is always misinterpreted:
Clintons outburst was surrounded by easy to answer questions from Senate Democrats, and cautious questions from Senate Republicans. After all, she is a member of the club.
"What difference, at this point, does it make?"
In that single sentence to Senator Johnsons injudicious persistence she went off script and introduced the politics driving Americas Middle East policy not the attack or the coverup. In other words she was telling Johnson forget the overall policy: What difference, at this point, does it make?" Put it this way, every Democrat would like nothing better than to have Rep. Gowdys Select Committee stick to the attack and the coverup. Theyve already weathered those storms; so they all know that nothing new will be uncovered in those two lines of inquiry. Getting to the why of it is what they fear the most.
Lets review the Benghazi attack and the coverup in uncomplicated terms.
Muslims attacked because they know they are fighting a war. To paraphrase Clinton What difference does it make at this point why they showed up with mortars?
The coverup is an insult to the publics intelligence. I doubt if you can find ten people in this country who do not know about the coverups connection to the 2012 presidential election. Lying so Taqiyya the Liar would win the election has been accepted as the whole truth based on the lies Suzy Five Shows told, when, in fact, no one can make a solid case for Taqiyya losing the election had they all told the truth instead of blaming the attack on a homemade video. There has to be more to it than one of the dumbest lies ever told in a city built on dumb lies.
Incidentally, nothing is more frustrating than watching the epiphanies talking heads experience whenever they refer to Benghazi and the 2012 election. Uncovering the foreign policy why beyond the 2012 election story should be an integral part of every investigation.
Finally, one why leads to another. Learning who gave the military the order to stand down while the attack was in progress begs the first WHY? Apologists and excuse-makers cannot say that the order to send help would have hurt Taqiyyas reelection chances. That leaves foreign policy considerations as the only possible reason for the coverup. Any kind of an explanation about a failed foreign policy in the Middle East will bring down a deluge of whys.
John Kerry is crapping in his jeans at the thought of testifying before Rep. Gowdys committee after he testifies before Chairman Issas Oversight Committee. Kerry is so frightened he is trying to lay down rules for the House as though he is still a big shot in the Senate:
Kerry is not the big fish in the Benghazi pond. Hillary Clinton is the big mouth bass that might get hooked if the unasked questions are finally asked. With that possibility in mind I want to go back to former Senator Clintons testimony among friends at a Senate hearing. Clintons infamous little fit of pique is always misinterpreted:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4wVnOu-aFlQ]Hillary Clinton, Ron Johnson Heated Exchange At Benghazi Hearing - YouTube[/ame]
Clintons outburst was surrounded by easy to answer questions from Senate Democrats, and cautious questions from Senate Republicans. After all, she is a member of the club.
"What difference, at this point, does it make?"
In that single sentence to Senator Johnsons injudicious persistence she went off script and introduced the politics driving Americas Middle East policy not the attack or the coverup. In other words she was telling Johnson forget the overall policy: What difference, at this point, does it make?" Put it this way, every Democrat would like nothing better than to have Rep. Gowdys Select Committee stick to the attack and the coverup. Theyve already weathered those storms; so they all know that nothing new will be uncovered in those two lines of inquiry. Getting to the why of it is what they fear the most.
Lets review the Benghazi attack and the coverup in uncomplicated terms.
Muslims attacked because they know they are fighting a war. To paraphrase Clinton What difference does it make at this point why they showed up with mortars?
The coverup is an insult to the publics intelligence. I doubt if you can find ten people in this country who do not know about the coverups connection to the 2012 presidential election. Lying so Taqiyya the Liar would win the election has been accepted as the whole truth based on the lies Suzy Five Shows told, when, in fact, no one can make a solid case for Taqiyya losing the election had they all told the truth instead of blaming the attack on a homemade video. There has to be more to it than one of the dumbest lies ever told in a city built on dumb lies.
Incidentally, nothing is more frustrating than watching the epiphanies talking heads experience whenever they refer to Benghazi and the 2012 election. Uncovering the foreign policy why beyond the 2012 election story should be an integral part of every investigation.
Finally, one why leads to another. Learning who gave the military the order to stand down while the attack was in progress begs the first WHY? Apologists and excuse-makers cannot say that the order to send help would have hurt Taqiyyas reelection chances. That leaves foreign policy considerations as the only possible reason for the coverup. Any kind of an explanation about a failed foreign policy in the Middle East will bring down a deluge of whys.
