Posted on 05/20/2013 4:37:11 AM PDT by don-o
The Benghazi terrorist attack has stormed back onto the front pages, and as the attention grows, so do calls from House Republicans who want their party leaders to name a special investigative committee to take control of the inquiry.
More than 150 House Republicans have signed on to a resolution that would create a “select committee” to focus on inquiries by the public and Congress about the Sept. 11 attack in Libya that left four Americans dead.
SPECIAL COVERAGE: Benghazi Attack Under Microscope
Forty members of Congress in the past three weeks have joined the push for a single committee.
House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, has resisted — largely, analysts say, because the long-term political risks of a high-profile probe could outweigh any short-term benefit.
“This issue is not a sure-fire winner politically for the Republicans unless there is some bombshell that can be surfaced through a hearing in a select committee that has not already been surfaced by the multiple hearings that have been held so far,” said Christopher A. Preble, who has monitored the Benghazi scandal from his office at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I am convinced a lot of blackmail is being used to coerce conservatives in DC including Justice Roberts.
This is the problem with the GOP in a nutshell - they wouldn’t mind doing something to embarrass Obama or to make his poll numbers go down, but they lack the intelligence AND the balls to try to remove him - which is, of course, the only thing that matters.
Look at the Nixon affair. He had just been reelected with 61% of the popular vote and 520 electoral votes. If there was ever a President to be afraid of attacking, it was Nixon in 1973.
But the Democrats were methodical, they were highly organized and disciplined, they chose excellent faces (Ervin and Rodino), they never wavered, and they built their case brick by brick to fit a narrative so that, not only would Nixon’s landslide voters vanish but the country would turn around and elect the most radical leftist Congress since 1936.
Who among the Republicans can you imagine capable of pulling something like that off?
And it’s worse than that. If you shoot at the king, you’d better kill him, because there are no second chances in regicide. The diffuse, disorganized, leaderless GOP “investigations” will not only not succeed, they will lend credibility to the RAT narrative that it’s all partisan.
In my opinion, the GOP better find their nads ASAP!
This was a PLANNED MURDER OF AMERICANS BY THIS ADMINISTRATION. THAT is treason.
Fast and Furious was international terrorism by this administration resulting in the murders of at LEAST two American federal employees and over three hundred Mexican civilians. These are crimes, not foreign policy.
F&F would not be part of legal proceeding concerning Benghazi.
From your description, F&F would be violation of Mexican and perhaps international law. Think anyone in the US gov’t will extradite each other to Mexico or turn themselves over to the Hague?
I was thinking more along the lines of boiling in oil, La Brea Tar Pits, abandoned strip mines, African bees, lightning strikes.....
Like, acts of G-d, you know?
Last I heard he was going to talk, but is looking for work.
Oh, forgot, he’s also weighing the pros and cons of the ROE at this point in time. If O doesn’t have a weapon in his hand, let him go.
One would think. And yet, we get Cato's Mr Preble tut-tutting that Benghazi, in all of its complexity, is "fairly insignificant". So much for Cato being one of the watchdogs against an over-reaching government.
“Screw ‘risks and benefits’. It’s the right thing to do. Look for the truth and let the chips fall where they may.”
No worries, we’ve got your backs/sarc
“The Constitution assigns foreign policy... to the President”
You’re going to have to show me that.
The Constitution does not mention the term “foreign policy”. For original intent, see Madison, Federalist No. 45.
The historical pattern is pretty clear. Congress can cut off money if they can’t reach agreement with the President on any area of jurisdiction. On foreign policy, it’s pretty much tough luck, although Congress has tried unsuccessfully to regulate foreign policy.
The first question to be answered is: What law passed by Congress was violated in the Benghazi incident?
And the there’s:
“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States...”
“He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors...”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.