From the OP:
The paper reported that the probe was commissioned by Christie, who selected a legal team from the firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. The story notes the firm “has close ties” to the Christie administration.
The lawyer leading the review, Randy M. Mastro, dismissed any speculation of sugarcoating and said the review will lay out a timeline of events as well as communications leading up to the closures.
Christie’s review, announced in January, included 70 interviews — among them, Christie, his lieutenant governor and senior staff— and cost nearly $1 million in legal fees that will fall upon taxpayers. The review did not include interviews with key former staffers Bridget Anne Kelly or Bill Stepien, whose emails linked the administration to the scandal and ultimately led to their departures from the governor’s administration. Along with Kelly and Stepien, David Wildstein, an ex-Port Authority official appointed by Christie, also declined to be interviewed.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers
It was the President and his administration that went forward with both ridiculous and untrue memes of spontaneous demonstration and Internet video. This continued weeks after the attack, all the way up to, and beyond, Obama's UN speech.
The CIA's original talking points called it a terrorist attack, and the administration saw it fit to alter those talking points for political reasons: the election.
Are we now to believe that sacrificing the truth for political reasons is acceptable?
That expecting honesty from the President and his administration is beyond a reasonable expectation? (Obama's track record of lying already shows that it is)
Surely this is a new low that politics and elected officials have sunk to, and it's only happening because we allow it to happen without any repercussions or consequences. Is this really the path forward into the future that we want to follow? More of the same?
Will this continue to be your position should a Republican hold the office of President? Somehow I don't believe that you would be.
In politics guilty or innocent are not the issue. Simply attaching a name to a dirty deed convinces a percentage of people to one or the other. It is a very old effective trick.
Think if Trump get elected how much resistance he will face with in all phases of our country from people to military to politicians. He must not win.
So far their conclusions are:
The unclassified ARB report begins with a quote from George Santayana’s 1905 book, Reason in Common Sense: “Those that cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Notwithstanding this promising start, the gaps in the ARB review and final report identified by the Committee signal that the State Department may very well be doomed to repeat its past mistakes.
In response to a question about Benghazi at a May 13, 2013 press conference, the President pledged to the American people to “find out what happened.”
To this day, more than one year after the attacks, not a single person at the State Department has actually been fired or formally held accountable for the at tacks in Benghazi. More importantly, those most accountable for the attacks in Benghazi the terrorists who attacked U.S. facilities and claimed the lives of four Americans have not been brought to justice.
The gaps in the ARB’s work are particularly troubling because the Obama Administration has repeatedly touted the ARB report as the final word on failures by the State Department that contributed to the inadequate security posture in Benghazi. The limitations inherent in the ARB’s mandate and the weaknesses in the ARB’s methodology show that a more thorough investigation is necessary. The Committee will continue to examine the events before, during and after the September 11, 2012 attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities to properly assign accountability and to make findings that will inform legislative remedies.