Skip to comments.House Holds Hearing on Benghazi Attack
Posted on 05/08/2013 1:42:43 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Eight months after four Americans died in a terrorist attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, a House committee held another hearing on Wednesday to examine whether the Obama administration mishandled the tragic events. What follows is an update on what is known about the Benghazi episode and why it has become such a political flash point:
Q. Why is the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform holding a new hearing on Benghazi?
A. Committee investigators found two State Department officials who previously had not spoken publicly and who are scathingly critical of the administrations response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack.
Q. But havent the inadequacy of security measures at Benghazi and other shortcomings already been addressed in a major report?
Q. So how great a role is partisan politics playing in the Benghazi debate?
A. A big role, it is fair to say.
Q. What about the dispute over whether President Obama and his aides refused to apply the terrorism label to the attack, which killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans?
A. Mr. Obama applied the terror label to the attack in his first public statement on the events in Benghazi, delivered in the Rose Garden at the White House at 10:43 a.m. on Sept. 12, though the reference was indirect.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Pretty much what I’d expect fom the craven NYT...
Only the New York Times could call the rape and murder of American diplomats and soldiers “partisan.” There is no cure to the Liberal mind.
Couldn’t have the golden boy getting into a messy war on the verge of an election. The war crimes to depose Momar Gaddafi were bad enough.
Yes, Virginia, America is dead.
Papering it over aren’t they?
What else could be expected.
So much for this being a watershed event... no coverage. Only conservatives in the blogosphere will be aware the hearing even happened. Without the media to whip the sheeple into a frenzy of outrage NOTHING IS GOING TO HAPPEN HERE.
Just like F and F, these poor guys that testified have stuck their necks out for nothing.... and they will soon be chopped off at the knees and be ruined.
The worse news, honest people who know things will be even more unwilling to stick their necks out.
I hate to be negative but this is a busted balloon today.
Is “Scott Shane” the pseudonym for Jay Carney.
Just like a big steaming pile of dog crap sitting on the front poarch of America. ny slimes... may it and everyone that works there burn in hell for eternity.
“is expected to testify that a far more aggressive American military response could have been mounted on the night of the attack. “
This is journalism? He seems to imply there existed some sort of military response. There was nothing. While Americans fought for their lives and died horrifically, there was nothing.
They would have been happy for *any* military response, not just a “far more aggressive” one. We are lucky they weren’t completely overrun with 30+ KIA.
Ehhh....it’s the New York Times. What else would you expect from them?
The N.Y.Slime will probably call the Arias verdict unfortunate for a woman.
NYT. Another water carrier for THE FOREIGNERS REGIME. 4 dead and you socialist frauds want to play POLITICS. Not anymore.
This is the Onion, pretending to be the NYT, right?
The NYT is that lame?
Wow. I having stopped reading the MSM it’s shocking to see how far they’ve fallen.
That’s nothing but Administration dictated clap-trap.
I guess shilling pays. Whoops! It doesn’t. The NYT is going out of business soon....
That is the truth.
I forget which Rep said “We will protect you!” I thought, Gee, if you have to try and publically reassure them...
The Good Men did nothing. Evil triumphed.
Actually, I’m surprised that the NYT can spell Benghazi.
washed n hung out to dry
A congress woman just said on the Hanity show that the military was prepared to go but was told to put down, also she said that the democrats were made to look so bad they were mad, they would not even let her use their phone.
NYT is lucky they don’t require a license to exercise their first amendment rights .... none of them could pass a background check for mental compentency!!!!
Well, the NYTimes can always be counted on to do the Devil’s dirty work as they have once again done here.
Nothing more than partisan politics that’s all.
There will be justice, in this world or the next for these evil doers.
CNN pundit just called for an outside investigation of the Cleveland Police.
Same for Benghazi or Boston Bombing? => not so much, nah!
Obama got re-elected, so “what difference does it make”. Absolutely none at all, at least not to the MSM>
Is this reporting or just regurgitating of Democrat talking points? Oh, it’s the NYSlimes, so regurgitating of Democrat talking points is what they pass off as “reporting.”
They’re usually less blatant about it, though...
When Juanita Broaddrick went on prime-time TV to tell of how she had been raped by Bill Clinton (when he was the Arkansas attorney general), the NY Times ran a story about it around page A15 which was mostly an attack on her credibility.