Skip to comments.Top Republicans Split Over Value of General's Benghazi Testimony
Posted on 05/02/2014 5:23:32 AM PDT by PoloSec
Two senior House Republicans from California squared off Thursday over testimony by a retired Air Force general that the 2012 Benghazi attacks that killed four Americans was terrorism underscoring what one political observer told Newsmax was yet another rift that divides the GOP as it heads into the fall's congressional elections. -Snip- The McKeon statement has now polarized the Benghazi debate and angry Republicans led by Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, intensified their calls for an inquiry by a special joint committee.
The McKeon/Issa rift over the Libyan attacks is "endemic of the division the Republicans face on Benghazi and on virtually every other issue," political analyst and pollster Doug Schoen told Newsmax.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
The question I'd have is why didn't anyone in the military able to do something rise above their orders and try to save the Ambassador and his staff?
The talking point was that we had “No” assets anywhere nearby to respond with.
The truth was that there were assets everywhere.
Somehow this threatens the slice of power that these RINOs enjoy. Guaranteed that’s the case.
Outrage and frustration directed toward the administration are understandable and appropriate, but giving up civilian control of the military is not the answer. A military that crosses international borders without authorization would be worse than Obama.
Uhhhh....this is in Libya, where the US voted for NATO to blow the power structure to smithereens when Qaddafi had the "protests" queled. Besides which, I thought a country's military had the right to defend an ambasador and an embassy.
The underlying question is why didn't the Ambassador have a military guard, which certainly should have been the case in a dangerous country such as Libya.
Due to his position as Armed Forces Sec., he might be a bit worried that he could be somehow tied to the failures that night. It is also surprising that he would be retiring right now given he is in such a position of power.
Our birdcage liner (The Globe) hasn’t had one story about the new Benghazi e-mails but today it did mention how McKeon doesn’t have any faith in the Colonel’s testimony.
Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, is a Republican? Who woulda known?
But Rep. Buck McKeon, the California Republican who chairs the House Armed Services Committee, slammed Lovell's testimony, saying that he was too far down the chain on Sept. 11, 2012, to provide strong insight into what occurred and that his comments provided no new information.If, as many people suspect, there were covert operations being run out of Benghazi, chances are Rep. McKeon was aware of it.
Maybe I misunderstood you. I thought you were suggesting the military act against orders. That would be a road that could lead to the destruction of the Republic.
I certainly agree that:
1) the State Department was negligent in not providing protection, and
2) both the State Department and the White house were at least negligent (and possibly worse if they actively opposed military support) in not trying to move assets into Libya to protect the Ambassador as soon as it came to their attention, and
3) the White House and State Department were dishonest in their explanations (and perhaps criminally) guilty of failing to provide information to congress covering their knowledge and actions.
Linda Graham and other well-known liberals are able to use Benghazi to get positive media coverage for themselves.
They just need to bring out enough low information Republicans to win their primaries.
Many Repub voters fall for the “we need the incumbent with the name recognition” line.
Coverage of such girly Senators portraying them as “tough on the Benghazi issue” has just enough mind-twisting effect to get the Republi-sheeple to pull the lever for the globalist elite court eunuchs.
In Maine we are starting a drive for local people to inform town clerks, city clerks and vote wardens about the Constitutional restraints on who can and cannot vote in Maine.
For years towns and cities have not only allowed and encouraged out of state students going to school at Maine’s schools to vote.
We are showing them, that in Article two, section one, of the current Maine Constitution, that is not permissible, they must vote by absentee ballot in their home state, not Maine.
The way to beat liberalism at the polls is to keep it to only one vote per legal voter. But as with all such teachings, there must also be penalties and teeth in the penalties, therefore there must be someone, a local registered voter, at the polls to challenge those know to be other than legal residents.
a) there has to be an outsider in the election who is not a palace eunuch for globalism (but instead, a “wacko” with enough sense to stay quiet but always vote no, on everything)
b) citizens need to realize that they need to be the “backer” of this wacko, and support him, like an attack dog, go after the competing globalist minions in primaries and elections
c) college students need to see that BOTH repub and dem are actually evil and wicked - both establishments are the enemy of college students. college students need to learn about the connections between liberal/dem/socialism and the worlds elite financiers like the Rockefellers. When they support leftist causes - they are supporting the world’s most evil capitalists. It’s hard to get one’s mind around. But there is the evidence of history where these elite financiers created today’s “leftism/globalism” as a tool. Elite finance, for example, funded the Bolshevik revolution. Elite finance starts every war and every bloody revolution. Elite finance is NOT NOT NOT wedded to “conservatism” - elite finance hates Christianity and all things conservative. College kids need to wake up. Once they do, they will never vote for any leftist. They need to realize most politicians are corrupt - they are working for the interests of elite finance. If they don’t, they wind up losing elections because elite finance backs a challenger under their control.
Because a military guard would have seen what was going on. The gun running to Syria was supposed to be kept quiet.