Republicans' sham committee exposed.
By Thom Hartmann A...
Hillary Clinton testified for over 8 hours Thursday in front the House Select Committee on Benghazi. But, did we actually learn anything new about the events of September 11, 2012?
You need to know this...Early on in Thursday's Benghazi Select Committee hearings, Chairman Trey Gowdy got super defensive with California Congressman Adam Schiff.
The hearings were not - he insisted - a prosecution of Hillary Clinton. They were a serious investigation into a serious matter involving the deaths of 4 Americans.
But, if Gowdy actually meant what he said about Thursday's hearings being an investigation and not a prosecution, he and his fellow Republicans had a hard time showing it.
We heard a lot at those hearings. We heard about Hillary Clinton's emails with her friend Sidney Blumenthal. We heard that she might have tried to spin the invasion of Libya for political gain.
We also heard - once again - a deep dive into whether or not the Obama administration lied when it said the attacks in Benghazi were the result of a protest - not terrorism.
But, if you've been paying attention to the Benghazi "scandal" from the beginning, you probably didn't hear anything new at Thursday's hearing. And that's the point.
What we saw this week wasn't about getting to the bottom of a controversy seven previous committees have looked at, it was about smearing Hillary Clinton - the Democratic front runner for president. Gowdy said it wasn't about that, but anyone who was watching could see the clear truth.
Republicans have spend more than $4.5 million dollars of taxpayer money pretending to investigate Benghazi. Thankfully, the public is now aware of their sham of a committee, and can vote accordingly next November.
Comments
#2
The Obama Admin and HRC DID lie about the Benghazi attack. They lied through their teeth. They knew, and it has been proven over and over again, that the attack was not the result of some obscure video, that no one saw. They knew from the beginning that it was a terrorist attack. However, with just a couple of months before the election, and democrats running around claiming Bin Laden was dead and GM was alive, and Obama shouting that Al Qaeda was finished, the Obama Admin and democrats all over found themselves backed into a corner with their statements.
How pathetic that you still believe Hillary's spin, in spite of everything that is known. Too bad you are not honest enough to come out and admit it.
#3
It would be interesting if JEBush's rejection by the billionaires inspired him to make a comeback as an anti-Citizens United candidate to pull the Republican Party toward reason on that issue.
#4
OMG, kilo! That changes ... nothing. The question is how to balance security and freedom of action for our diplomats. The Republicans should not have refused security funding, and some training and procedures might also have helped. The reason for the attack is pretty much immaterial.
The point of Congressional hearings is supposed to be to figure out how the law needs to be changed to make the next time go better. The Republicans have completely lost sight of their function.
#5
Quote Thom Hartmann Administrator:....But, if you've been paying attention to the Benghazi "scandal" from the beginning, you probably didn't hear anything new at Thursday's hearing. ...That, of course, is not factually correct for many of us. I haven't watched the hearings but I learned that Madam Secretary emailed her daughter that the Ambassador Stevens was killed in an "al Qaeda- like" attack. I learned that she told the Egyptian foreign minister that "We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack--not a protest." and " The notes also indicate that she acknowledged that Ansar al-Sharia reportedly claimed responsibility for the attacks: "Your [sic] not kidding. Based on the information we saw today we believe the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al Qaeda." [Democratic Staff Report, Results Of Interviews Conducted By The House Select Committee On Benghazi,October 2015]".
I learned that there were more than 600 requests for additional security that Clinton claims not to have seen. I find that incredible.
#6
Not everything should rise to the level of the Secretary. She's not the person ordering deployment of security personnel; that needs to be handled by experts in that field. And considering the security staff is normally Marines, they wouldn't technically be under the command of the State Department.
#7
Thom,
We have learned a lot we have learned in the comments section here alone that the GOP will not see things as they truly are. They will read Dredge and watch Fox and send out there numerous trolls to spread the propaganda around. Thus the majority of GOP will still vote for their members. You cannot exspect resonable actions from a party that thrives upon irrational fears to insight their voters.
I wonder how long it will take before the rest of American voters realize that the GOP party and their voting members will not change for they cannot for they are too afraid to even try to think about the facts.
By the way the world knows how bad the GOP are in this country are for they now say "TEXAS" instead of saying CRAZY. Yet the GOP will continue .
#8
God help you!
Given in the kindest way
America is a rabid cultural influence
Of which it should look at it self in shame
#9
Not quite right Thom.
We did learn that Hillary told her daughter, the president of Egypt and one other person something completely different than what she and Obama told the Americanpeople. I can think of a rational excuse for telling the American people something different at the time that could now be told. Unfortunately I didn't hear it.
She's not telling the truth and everybody knows it although everybody won't admit it. I certainly agree with her much more than any republican (except Trump on immigration) and I know that lying is part of the job description for politicians but she won't get my vote. I'm so disgusted with all of them that this will probably be the first election since my first when I voted for McGovern that I stay home.
Over 330 million people in the country and this is the crap were left with. Pathetic.
#10
What difference does it make?
#11
And exactly WHY wasn't George W. Bush put through this after 9/11? The people want to know the reason why he ignored 6 CIA warnings that Bin Laden was determined to strike in the USA using hijacked airliners as missiles. The people want to know why he let NORAD stand down after receiving the bullitins. The people want to know why he ordered the Bin Laden family to be flown out of the US the following day. I wouldn't mind spending a fortune to answer those blaring questions.
#12
Hillary once said in to an interviewer when confronted with her lies about
being under fire in Bosnia,
"Grow Up".
When dealing with a person like that, every thing said is suspect.
If Bernie does not pull off an upset, then will vote for a straight
talking Trump.
ct
#13
Quote DAnneMarc:And exactly WHY wasn't George W. Bush put through this after 9/11? The people want to know the reason why he ignored 6 CIA warnings that Bin Laden was determined to strike in the USA using hijacked airliners as missiles. The people want to know why he let NORAD stand down after receiving the bullitins. The people want to know why he ordered the Bin Laden family to be flown out of the US the following day. I wouldn't mind spending a fortune to answer those blaring questions.
The answer to those questions is well known: Bush was an active participant in the 9/11 attacks, along with most of the Republicans in DC at that time.
No need to spend millions of dollars to answer those questions; the real question is why he and others haven't been prosecuted for their participation?
#14
SO FUCKING WHAT?? To all these shitheads that think that spending 10s of millions of tax payer dollars on 8 or nine government hearings on semantics about wether it was an attack about a video or some organized attack! Who gives a fuck? But a bunch of warmongering, lying, greedy fucking right-wing hypocrites. How the fuck would this change the outcome?
Why the fuck wouldn't anyone think, that at excatly the same time when all hell was breaking loose all over the islamic world regarding this video, that it might be not be logical to assume that it was likely to have been a motivating factor for the Benghazi attack. Which, of course, it was. These shitheads seem to think that Hillary should have been a Super-Woman that jumps into a phone booth and changes into her Super-Woman costume and saves all of the personnel at the Benghazi compound.
Never mind that the morning of the 911 attacks, that on all 4 flights, some members of the group that participated in the attack were identified as on the terrorist watch-list and were taken aside but eventually allowed to board their planes, including the leader Muhammed Atta. But of course this is of no concern to these Republicans.
Perhaps the ultimate proof of how screwed up these wing-nuts are is when Congressman Westmoreland harped on and on at the hearing about Secretary Clinton not bringing in FEST (Federal Emergency Support Team). So, he was suggesting that Secretary Clinton, should have dropped everything she was doing and send in an unarmed team of specialists. For what? To be killed and add to the body count?
#15
Trump just blatantly lied about his tax plan taxing the rich.
#16
Reply to #14
Ambassador Stevens was unavailable for comment.
Advice to Stopgap...please clean up your filthy language.
#17
We have given Benghazi terrorists a huge victory. We have taken a historically small terrorist attack and turned it into a huge victory for the terrorists by making such a huge scandal out of it. What about 9/11, Beirut, Nairobi, the Cole ship and many others? Thanks to the Republicans.
#18
Reply to #4
It changes nothing except that the truth is meaningless to you. Republicans refused security funding? Straw arguement. Reminder to you....the Dept of State is part of the Executive branch. They have discretionary funds for such things.
"The reason for the attack is pretty much immaterial."
So, according to you own words, the truth is pretty much immaterial. Lovely.
#19
This story has gotten under the skin of the Trolls. Can anyone name two people in contemporary American politics that have been more thoroughly investigated than the Clintons? When will the RNC reimburse the taxpayers for their decades long witch hunt? Hillary is not perfect and is not my first choice to be President. All of the candidates should be subject to the same scrutiny if this is how we are going to conduct ourselves.
#20
Since nobody else pointed this out, I will: The rebels were funded & armed by Obama to take out Gaddafi, then they turned on our embassy. The U.S. had an attack force 1 mile away just in case of such an event, which was ordered to stand down by a mid-level CIA bureaucrat. This is the person who needs to be strung up in the middle of town square, not Hillary. Why is nobody talking about him?
#21
Sounds like another inconvenient truth.
#22
What did I think? I think the whole thing is theater and a distraction. Because I am less concerned about politics than I am about governance, I didn't bother watching it.
It appears I made the right call, and of course she held her own, I knew she would.
#23
IDC who wins in 2016, as long as it is not Bush or Clinton! As a democrat I will vote for Bernie. But I will not vote for Hilary! She thinks that I am a terrorist for being an NRA member and a gun owner.
#24
There's no reason to vote for the republicans.
Even if the President lied about benghazi, he reversed it a week later.
Given that info, he was still re-elected.
The republicans are using benghazi and other lies to assassinate the character of The President, Susan Rice, and Hillary. And it is working.
Too many people believe that The President was born in Kenya and Hillary is "untrustable".
The republicans are trying to say:
Vote for us because benghazi... Ya know...He's black...
Etc... uhhhh? What?!
#25
You can't trust Gowdy; he's part space alien.
I was wondering what's behind his pointed head and figured out that he's part Cerean. Google Ki-Adi-Mundi; I think that's his father.
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
Images of Thom
At Mondragon - both the mountain and the cooperative city - in Spain (written about in "Threshold" book)
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"In an age rife with media-inspired confusion and political cowardice, we yearn for a decent, caring, deeply human soul whose grasp of the problems confronting us provides a light by which we can make our way through the quagmire of lies, distortions, pandering, and hollow self-puffery that strips the American Dream of its promise. How lucky we are, then, to have access to the wit, wisdom, and willingness of Thom Hartmann, who shares with us here that very light, grown out of his own life experience."
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom is a national treasure. Read him, embrace him, learn from him, and follow him as we all work for social change."
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom Hartmann is a literary descendent of Ben Franklin and Tom Paine. His unflinching observations and deep passion inspire us to explore contemporary culture, politics, and economics; challenge us to face the facts of the societies we are creating; and empower us to demand a better world for our children and grandchildren."
I was also called gifted and exceptional. I understand that things can be perceived differently depending on race, but when the true intention is discovered, the perception should accommodate.
The term for the phrases used on Scandal ("well spoken", etc.) is not "damning with faint praise", it's "the racism of lowered expectations".