Democrats Plan Political Sideshow Defense in #Benghazi Hearings as Unanswered Questions Persist

Democrats will do their best to see that the American people do NOT get to the truth!

House Democrats had held out the idea that they might boycott the House Special Committee to investigate the Benghazi attack. They insisted that in order to participate they should have equal representation on the Committee, something that Democrats have never offered Republicans when they controlled the House. On Wednesday, they folded and announced five members to join the Committee. Nearly all have played an active part in attempting to dismiss the scandal and block information damaging to the Obama Administration from being revealed. Over and over again, as they did on Wednesday, the Democrats selected for the Committee insisted that all the questions about Benghazi have been answered. Have they?

A week earlier, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who is to chair the Committee met with the press and asked whether THEY knew the answers to the following questions:

REP. GOWDY:
I’m not telling you how to do your job, but I’m going to ask you some questions, and if you can’t answer these questions, then I’ll leave you to draw whatever conclusions you want to draw about whether the media has provided sufficient oversight:

• Can you tell me why [Ambassador] Chris Stevens was in Benghazi that he was killed? Do you know? Does it bother you whether or not you know why Chris Stevens was in Benghazi? 

• Do you know why we were the last flag flying in Benghazi, after the British had left and the Red Cross had been bombed? 

• Do you know why requests for additional security were denied? Do you know why an ambassador asking for more security, days and weeks before he was murdered and those requests went unheeded? Do you know the answer to why those requests went unheeded?

• Do you know why no assets were deployed during the siege? And I’ve heard the explanation, which defies logic, frankly, that we could not have gotten there in time. But you know they didn’t know when it was going to end, so how can you possibly cite that as an excuse?

• Do you know whether the president called any of our allies and said, can you help, we have men under attack? Can you answer that? 

• Do any of you know why Susan Rice was picked [to go on five Sunday talk shows after the attacks]? The Secretary of State [Hillary Clinton] did not go. She says she doesn’t like Sunday talk shows. That’s the only media venue she does not like, if that’s true. Why was Susan Rice on the five Sunday talk shows? 

• Do you know the origin of this mythology, that it was spawned as a spontaneous reaction to a video? Do you know where that started?

• Do you know where we got from no evidence on that, to that being the official position of the administration?

In conclusion, Congress is supposed to provide oversight, the voters are supposed to provide oversight, and you were supposed to provide oversight. That’s why you have special liberties and that’s why you have special protections. 

I’m not surprised that the President of the United States called this a phony scandal. I’m not surprised that Secretary Clinton would ask what difference does it make. I’m not even surprised that Jay Carney said it happened a long time ago. I’m just surprised at how many people bought it. 

Democrats on the Special Committee will do their best to see that answers to questions above are not forthcoming or that they are buried in a hearing that takes on a circus atmosphere where Democrats skilled in noise making do their best to shield Obama  and Hillary Clinton from any blame!

UPDATE: White House contacts You Tube during the attack. Odd that the White House repeatedly claimed that the phony You Tube story came from CIA intelligence. Also, Democrats persist in saying all relevant documents had been released and that there were no unanswered questions. That's contradicted by this news!