Panicked Democrats screeching in damage-control mode,without even reading Beng report

[Little-Acorn]

Saw a press conference on TV just now where the Benghazi committee is releasing its report. Apparently the Democrats on the committee refused to even participate in writing the report, so that they could later accuse the Republicans of "bias" without fouling their own nest.

Some CNN reporter kept asking if the fact that they didn't say much about Hillary, means they "haven't got the goods" on her, which in turn means she did nothing wrong.

Gowdy asked her if she's read the report, and she said she hadn't. He suggested that she do so, and pointed out that since she's going to write her article anyway, it might benefit her readers if she'd read it before telling everyone what it did and didn't say.

He kept emphasizing that the House had never asked him to "find the goods" on anybody, but just to find out what happened, who said what to whom, who went where, establish a timeline, etc., and the report contained those things in extreme detail with references and quotations. He kept saying he wanted everyone to read the report, and then draw their own conclusions.

That's the worst thing that could happen to Democrats, of course. Bringing out the truth about what they did and didn't do, always looks bad for them.

I haven't read the report myself (when was it released?), but I will. I am curious about a number of things, both about what happened in the weeks and months before the attack, and what happened during the attack. Finding out that politicians lied about it afterward, isn't particularly important to me. If the Democrats HADN'T lied and tried hard to totally politicize the attack, that would be news. I doubt they made any such news.

[Kathianne]

Saw a press conference on TV just now where the Benghazi committee is releasing its report. Apparently the Democrats on the committee refused to even participate in writing the report, so that they could later accuse the Republicans of "bias" without fouling their own nest.

Some CNN reporter kept asking if the fact that they didn't say much about Hillary, means they "haven't got the goods" on her, which in turn means she did nothing wrong.

Gowdy asked her if she's read the report, and she said she hadn't. He suggested that she do so, and pointed out that since she's going to write her article anyway, it might benefit her readers if she'd read it before telling everyone what it did and didn't say.

He kept emphasizing that the House had never asked him to "find the goods" on anybody, but just to find out what happened, who said what to whom, who went where, establish a timeline, etc., and the report contained those things in extreme detail with references and quotations. He kept saying he wanted everyone to read the report, and then draw their own conclusions.

That's the worst thing that could happen to Democrats, of course. Bringing out the truth about what they did and didn't do, always looks bad for them.

I haven't read the report myself (when was it released?), but I will. I am curious about a number of things, both about what happened in the weeks and months before the attack, and what happened during the attack. Finding out that politicians lied about it afterward, isn't particularly important to me. If the Democrats HADN'T lied and tried hard to totally politicize the attack, that would be news. I doubt they made any such news.

The Democrats released their own editorialized report a couple days ago:

http://democrats-benghazi.house.gov/...ew-transcripts

I believe this is the text of the official report that Gowdy released today, scroll down a bit:

http://benghazi.house.gov/NewInfo

[Little-Acorn]

I believe this is the text of the official report that Gowdy released today, scroll down a bit:

http://benghazi.house.gov/NewInfo

Yes, it is.

A few excerpts from the front pages:

The following facts are among the many new revelations in Part I:
•Despite President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s clear orders to deploy military assets, nothing was sent to Benghazi, and nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed almost 8 hours after the attacks began. [pg. 141]
•With Ambassador Stevens missing, the White House convened a roughly two-hour meeting at 7:30 PM, which resulted in action items focused on a YouTube video, and others containing the phrases “[i]f any deployment is made,” and “Libya must agree to any deployment,” and “[w]ill not deploy until order comes to go to either Tripoli or Benghazi.” [pg. 115]
•The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff typically would have participated in the White House meeting, but did not attend because he went home to host a dinner party for foreign dignitaries. [pg. 107]
•A Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) sat on a plane in Rota, Spain, for three hours, and changed in and out of their uniforms four times. [pg. 154]
•None of the relevant military forces met their required deployment timelines. [pg. 150]
•The Libyan forces that evacuated Americans from the CIA Annex to the Benghazi airport was not affiliated with any of the militias the CIA or State Department had developed a relationship with during the prior 18 months. Instead, it was comprised of former Qadhafi loyalists who the U.S. had helped remove from power during the Libyan revolution. [pg. 144]

Rep. Mike Pompeo (KS-04) released the following statement regarding these findings:

“We expect our government to make every effort to save the lives of Americans who serve in harm’s way. That did not happen in Benghazi. Politics were put ahead of the lives of Americans, and while the administration had made excuses and blamed the challenges posed by time and distance, the truth is that they did not try.”

Rep. Martha Roby (AL-02) released the following statement regarding these findings:

“Our committee’s insistence on additional information about the military’s response to the Benghazi attacks was met with strong opposition from the Defense Department, and now we know why.

[Elessar]

I believe I will trust the release by the full Select Commission far more than the Democrats
water-down version.

Plain and simple....Obama and Clinton fucked up and were trying to hide and deny it all.

[Kathianne]

I believe I will trust the release by the full Select Commission far more than the Democrats
water-down version.

Plain and simple....Obama and Clinton fucked up and were trying to hide and deny it all.

That is the one I'll read first, it's 800 pages.

From what I can tell, the Dem version is all about politics, not Benghazi.

[Gunny]

That is the one I'll read first, it's 800 pages.

From what I can tell, the Dem version is all about politics, not Benghazi.

Beat me, burn me, shoot me, make me write bad checks ... I ain't reading 800 pages of NOTHING.

[Kathianne]

Once again, the Democrats leave me speechless and in the position of WTF? Trump? Benghazi?

http://benghazi.house.gov/news/press...mocrats-report

Statement on Democrats' So-Called 'Report'

June 27, 2016

Press Release
Washington, D.C. – Select Committee on Benghazi Press Secretary Matt Wolking released the following statement regarding Committee Democrats' so-called "report":

“Benghazi Committee Democrats’ obsession with the former Secretary of State is on full display. For over two years they refused to participate in the Majority’s serious, fact-centered investigation. The dishonest Democrats on this committee falsely claimed everything had been ‘asked and answered.’ They said the committee had found ‘absolutely nothing new.’ If that’s changed, they should come clean and admit it. If not, everyone can ignore their rehashed, partisan talking points defending their endorsed candidate for president.

“As Chairman Gowdy has said, this is not about one person. This investigation is about the four brave Americans we lost in Libya: Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty. That is how the Majority has conducted its thorough investigation, and we look forward to revealing the new information we have uncovered to the families and the American people.”

A quick Ctrl+F search of the Democrats’ 339-page “report” reveals these telling facts:

339 – Total pages

334 – Number of times “Clinton” appears

200 – Number of times “Republicans” appears

85 – Number of times “Stevens” appears

55 – Number of times “Blumenthal” appears

36 – Number of times “Smith” appears

23 – Number of times “Trump” appears - ?????

15 – Number of times “Doherty” appears

12 – Number of times “Brock” appears

8 – Number of times “Correct the Record” appears

6 – Number of times “Woods” appears

[Black Diamond]

Surprised Trump's name wasn't used more often. Everything is his fault.

[Black Diamond]

Beat me, burn me, shoot me, make me write bad checks ... I ain't reading 800 pages of NOTHING.

If Obama had written it, you could be sure "Let me be clear" would have been used at least 800 times.

[Kathianne]

Beat me, burn me, shoot me, make me write bad checks ... I ain't reading 800 pages of NOTHING.

800 pages from gov doc is not bad, many pages are blank or just titles.

[Black Diamond]

800 pages from gov doc is not bad, many pages are blank or just titles.

Probably true. How many pages was ACA?

[Kathianne]

Probably true. How many pages was ACA?

If memory serves, nearly 2000. That wasn't a report though, but a 'plan' if you will. Nearly impossible to read, I tried. Not only was it bad legal writing, it read much like a Trump speech, in that contradictions were found within sentences not just paragraphs or pages. Very difficult to follow, then there were references back to page numbers that were no longer 'true' due to changes within minutes of writing.

Reports are different and easy to follow.

[Gunny]

800 pages from gov doc is not bad, many pages are blank or just titles.

I used to have to read the damned things. I'm aware. There usually is also any cognitive content.