We have had no other than Bob Woodward threatened over peanuts... Lanny Davis too... and we have a situation where it is in the dying days of an election, we have a terror attack on 911, we have changing stories about that attack.
Hicks testimony and that of others, and the fact they are paying politics with the 4th witness points to lies, deceit and a coverup.
When I was a Commi-Lib (but had an open mind), and was learning about the greatest good for the greatest number, a huge turnoff was discovering how deceitful the Demokrats are. How they are dishonest to the core... now... back then there were a couple stand up D's like Sam Nunn... but on the whole they are dishonest, misguided and dangerous to our Liberty.
If I didn't know better, I say tererun is Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Couldn't find the truth if it was her anus and she was standing on a mirror trying to find it with both hands.
I AM DEPLORABLE.
NEVER CRIMINAL HILLARY (S-NY)
Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de Tocqueville
He is neither the best nor the worst Foreign Service Officer I have worked with and yet he has been effectively demoted while those who perform worse than him continue up the chain? The reasons are obvious.
I found his comment that never had a State department lawyer wanted to be present at a congressional fact finding meeting before. I didn't know how many times Mr.Hicks brief any Congressmen after a Consulate attack that caused the death of an Ambassador, can't have been too many. Seems very appropriate a State Counsel would be present at these meetings and Mr. Hicks should have welcomed that. I don't think too many folks truely thought Chaffetz was there in a non partisan capacity.
I don't attack Mr.Hicks for his grief or guilt, nor his failure to react when the tipsters phoned in to tell him where Ambassador Stevens had been taken. I've seen Senior NCOs suffer terribly when troops or close friends are lost and these men KNEW there would be deaths.
When it comes to the mis-statements made after the Benghazi attack I'd say the umbrage is staged partisan politics. As best as I can remember the beginning of a long and bloody reign of terror in Iraq that was the newly placed al-Queera in Iraq being described by Rumsfeld and Cheney as just a 'few dead enders' and the last gasp of a few 'die hards'. I seem to recall a few more than 4 Americans were killed in that affair.
What I do see is a very partisan attack designed to smear Hillary Clinton as the GOP sees her as a real threat in the 2016 Presidential Elections. However I don't see this being more than a blip on the news cycle. I reckon the vast majority of citizens see this as GOP grandstanding and attempting to profit politically from a tragic death. As another poster pointed out there has been a baker's dozen of similar attacks during the BushII administration.
The only thing tangible that has come out of this is that it should now be obvious to even the staunchest supporters of this administration that they lied about who was responsible. This in itself isn't going to bring down the regime, no one is going to jail, and I doubt anyone from the administration will even acknowledge it but at least it should now be obvious that, for whatever reason, this administration did NOT want to call it terrorism and had to be backed into a corner to do so.
Personally, I believe it was all related to election year politics. Is there any other reason they would so blatantly lie that makes sense?
2016: NONE OF THE ABOVE