Trey Gowdy with questions for the media

[TheBlueVue 177]

and for all those here who think the Benghazi special investigation is all political and no substance. Clearly, he would like to know the answers to these questions and I understand, only too well,why those on the left don't want to hear them. This cant end soon enough nor can it end well for this administration.

[AURaptor 1,137]

"Dude... "

[AUFAN78 4,207]

Itch and homey, you've both called this entire process a fiasco, purely political, a witch hunt, etc. You and your posse also stated ad nauseum "what more can we learn?" Are either of you man enough to step up and answer the questions posed by Rep. Trey Gowdy? I am fairly certain I know the answer to the final question, but I will at least provide you the opportunity to prove me wrong.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Itch and homey, you've both called this entire process a fiasco, purely political, a witch hunt, etc. You and your posse also stated ad nauseum "what more can we learn?" Are either of you man enough to step up and answer the questions posed by Rep. Trey Gowdy? I am fairly certain I know the answer to the final question, but I will at least provide you the opportunity to prove me wrong.

I have never called the "process" a "fiasco". I have never asked the question, "what more can we learn". I am not a member of a "posse".

What I have said, and continue to say is this: The alleged coverup is typical political CYA. The narrative was built on the President's re-election campaign and nothing more. The matter has been investigated. The agenda now, has nothing to do with correcting the coordination problems that allowed this tragedy to happen. The agenda seems to be political finger pointing.

The White House narrative was based in politics. The congressional hearings are based in politics. NO ONE appears to be interested in how to prevent this sort of tragedy from happening again. What does seem to be apparent is that both sides consider elections to be the most important factor. This tragedy is being used to guile voters.

I actually thought the three questions Mr. Gowdy posed this morning were fair and, if he sticks to those points, I think he will be doing the GOP and the country a great service.

Personally, I would like a fourth question answered. Why does the United States of American employ a private security firm to guard an embassy outpost, particularly in an area where all other western nations have temporarily removed their diplomatic personnel?

[TheBlueVue 177]

" The alleged coverup is typical political CYA."

While covering up mistakes may be typical, issuing a false narrative, to diminish calloused ineptitude, that is known to be false, by those issuing it, during the stretch run of a Presidential election makes this more than just typical "political CYA"

"The agenda now, has nothing to do with correcting the coordination problems that allowed this tragedy to happen. The agenda seems to be political finger pointing."

This is your opinion, which, you are certainly entitled to, but it is not supported by facts. Simply put, I want to know, as I am sure most Americans who aren't full time excuse makers for this administration do, why was the Commander in Chief AND the Sec of State so unavailable and exactly what were they doing that took them so completely out of our response to this attack. I think THAT is the agenda. Those are the 2 people who are entrusted with the responsibility of handling issues like this and they did absolutely nothing.

"NO ONE appears to be interested in how to prevent this sort of tragedy from happening again."

Terrorism is hard to prevent and I seriously doubt ANY politician can do a dam thing to prevent it except kill all the terrorists and this administration definitely does not favor that. Short of that I dont think there is a way to stop terrorism that can be uncovered in this kind of investigation.

Rather than asking about the private security firm, I would rather know why Ambassador Stevens was there period. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but I do not believe he would have been asking for security upgrades if he was safe there. he was ignored on multiple occasions and hung out to dry, paid the ultimate sacrifice and people are whining about investigating it. This is a major issue that needs to be revealed in its entirety and Trey Gowdy will do a great job of that for the American people.

[homersapien 12,682]

Itch and homey, you've both called this entire process a fiasco, purely political, a witch hunt, etc. You and your posse also stated ad nauseum "what more can we learn?" Are either of you man enough to step up and answer the questions posed by Rep. Trey Gowdy? I am fairly certain I know the answer to the final question, but I will at least provide you the opportunity to prove me wrong.

I have never called the "process" a "fiasco". I have never asked the question, "what more can we learn". I am not a member of a "posse".

What I have said, and continue to say is this: The alleged coverup is typical political CYA. The narrative was built on the President's re-election campaign and nothing more. The matter has been investigated. The agenda now, has nothing to do with correcting the coordination problems that allowed this tragedy to happen. The agenda seems to be political finger pointing.

The White House narrative was based in politics. The congressional hearings are based in politics. NO ONE appears to be interested in how to prevent this sort of tragedy from happening again. What does seem to be apparent is that both sides consider elections to be the most important factor. This tragedy is being used to guile voters.

I actually thought the three questions Mr. Gowdy posed this morning were fair and, if he sticks to those points, I think he will be doing the GOP and the country a great service.

Personally, I would like a fourth question answered. Why does the United States of American employ a private security firm to guard an embassy outpost, particularly in an area where all other western nations have temporarily removed their diplomatic personnel?

And I would like a fifth question:

Why did YOU Republicans vote to cut the funding allocated to the State Department for embassy security as soon as you won the majority in 2010?

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected."

http://www.washingto...b2a7_story.html

[TheBlueVue 177]

Itch and homey, you've both called this entire process a fiasco, purely political, a witch hunt, etc. You and your posse also stated ad nauseum "what more can we learn?" Are either of you man enough to step up and answer the questions posed by Rep. Trey Gowdy? I am fairly certain I know the answer to the final question, but I will at least provide you the opportunity to prove me wrong.

I have never called the "process" a "fiasco". I have never asked the question, "what more can we learn". I am not a member of a "posse".

What I have said, and continue to say is this: The alleged coverup is typical political CYA. The narrative was built on the President's re-election campaign and nothing more. The matter has been investigated. The agenda now, has nothing to do with correcting the coordination problems that allowed this tragedy to happen. The agenda seems to be political finger pointing.

The White House narrative was based in politics. The congressional hearings are based in politics. NO ONE appears to be interested in how to prevent this sort of tragedy from happening again. What does seem to be apparent is that both sides consider elections to be the most important factor. This tragedy is being used to guile voters.

I actually thought the three questions Mr. Gowdy posed this morning were fair and, if he sticks to those points, I think he will be doing the GOP and the country a great service.

Personally, I would like a fourth question answered. Why does the United States of American employ a private security firm to guard an embassy outpost, particularly in an area where all other western nations have temporarily removed their diplomatic personnel?

And I would like a fifth question:

Why did YOU Republicans vote to cut the funding allocated to the State Department for embassy security as soon as you won the majority in 2010?

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected."

http://www.washingto...b2a7_story.html

I dont have a link but the funding question has already been addressed and the response was the U.S. lack security and/or response had NOTHING to do with inadequate funding. I saw that question asked during one of the hearings but I cant remember who asked it.

Here's a separate link..lack of funding just more democrat spin. Some people call them lies but Im being kind.

http://www.thedailyb...-suggested.html

[homersapien 12,682]

While covering up mistakes may be typical, issuing a false narrative, to diminish calloused ineptitude, that is known to be false, by those issuing it, during the stretch run of a Presidential election makes this more than just typical "political CYA"

The State Department was reporting what the CIA told them.

[homersapien 12,682]

This is your opinion, which, you are certainly entitled to, but it is not supported by facts. Simply put, I want to know, as I am sure most Americans who aren't full time excuse makers for this administration do, why was the Commander in Chief AND the Sec of State so unavailable and exactly what were they doing that took them so completely out of our response to this attack. I think THAT is the agenda. Those are the 2 people who are entrusted with the responsibility of handling issues like this and they did absolutely nothing.

No wonder the GOP cut the embassy security budget. You expect the people in charge to be prescient.

[homersapien 12,682]

.....people are whining about investigating it. This is a major issue that needs to be revealed in its entirety and Trey Gowdy will do a great job of that for the American people.

There have been four (4) bipartisan investigations already.

[homersapien 12,682]

Itch and homey, you've both called this entire process a fiasco, purely political, a witch hunt, etc. You and your posse also stated ad nauseum "what more can we learn?" Are either of you man enough to step up and answer the questions posed by Rep. Trey Gowdy? I am fairly certain I know the answer to the final question, but I will at least provide you the opportunity to prove me wrong.

I have never called the "process" a "fiasco". I have never asked the question, "what more can we learn". I am not a member of a "posse".

What I have said, and continue to say is this: The alleged coverup is typical political CYA. The narrative was built on the President's re-election campaign and nothing more. The matter has been investigated. The agenda now, has nothing to do with correcting the coordination problems that allowed this tragedy to happen. The agenda seems to be political finger pointing.

The White House narrative was based in politics. The congressional hearings are based in politics. NO ONE appears to be interested in how to prevent this sort of tragedy from happening again. What does seem to be apparent is that both sides consider elections to be the most important factor. This tragedy is being used to guile voters.

I actually thought the three questions Mr. Gowdy posed this morning were fair and, if he sticks to those points, I think he will be doing the GOP and the country a great service.

Personally, I would like a fourth question answered. Why does the United States of American employ a private security firm to guard an embassy outpost, particularly in an area where all other western nations have temporarily removed their diplomatic personnel?

And I would like a fifth question:

Why did YOU Republicans vote to cut the funding allocated to the State Department for embassy security as soon as you won the majority in 2010?

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected."

http://www.washingto...b2a7_story.html

I dont have a link but the funding question has already been addressed and the response was the U.S. lack security and/or response had NOTHING to do with inadequate funding.

" This is your opinion, which, you are certainly entitled to, but it is not supported by facts."

[Tigermike 4,084]

.....people are whining about investigating it. This is a major issue that needs to be revealed in its entirety and Trey Gowdy will do a great job of that for the American people.

There have been four (4) bipartisan investigations already.

Four bipartisan investigations on Benghazi? What were their findings?

[cptau 169]

.....people are whining about investigating it. This is a major issue that needs to be revealed in its entirety and Trey Gowdy will do a great job of that for the American people.

There have been four (4) bipartisan investigations already.

Four bipartisan investigations on Benghazi? What were their findings?

the indirect finding, this should have been under a special committee investigation over year ago.

[AUFAN78 4,207]

Itch and homey, you've both called this entire process a fiasco, purely political, a witch hunt, etc. You and your posse also stated ad nauseum "what more can we learn?" Are either of you man enough to step up and answer the questions posed by Rep. Trey Gowdy? I am fairly certain I know the answer to the final question, but I will at least provide you the opportunity to prove me wrong.

I have never called the "process" a "fiasco". I have never asked the question, "what more can we learn". I am not a member of a "posse".

What I have said, and continue to say is this: The alleged coverup is typical political CYA. The narrative was built on the President's re-election campaign and nothing more. The matter has been investigated. The agenda now, has nothing to do with correcting the coordination problems that allowed this tragedy to happen. The agenda seems to be political finger pointing.

The White House narrative was based in politics. The congressional hearings are based in politics. NO ONE appears to be interested in how to prevent this sort of tragedy from happening again. What does seem to be apparent is that both sides consider elections to be the most important factor. This tragedy is being used to guile voters.

I actually thought the three questions Mr. Gowdy posed this morning were fair and, if he sticks to those points, I think he will be doing the GOP and the country a great service.

Personally, I would like a fourth question answered. Why does the United States of American employ a private security firm to guard an embassy outpost, particularly in an area where all other western nations have temporarily removed their diplomatic personnel?

While one could argue the tragedy has been investigated, I don't think Mr. Gowdy's questions have been answered. I too hope he uses his three questions as a basis for the hearings, but if answers lead to more findings, I believe we owe the families answers to that information as well.

Let me mention that my passion for the subject stems from being an American soldier. I am a registered independent that leans to the right, but politics have no place in this discussion. Answers and facts do.

And while we may disagree, I respect your opinion. Even if it conflicts with a soldiers creed.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Its a continuing source of amazement that the resident lefties maintain that further investigation into Benghazi isn't warranted because of previous efforts. The problem with that logic is it doesn't acknowledge the State Depts persistent stonewalling and push back preventing any findings that would address the prevailing questions.. Clearly, they haven't released all relevant documents and e-mail that is not redacted to the point of being useless. Their intense resistance to letting this information out begs the question....Why, if not to hide something?

A recent poll showed 72% of Americans want this investigation to move forward and it will. I dont blame the WH or the State dept not wanting that to happen. I wouldn't either if i were them.

[TheBlueVue 177]

While covering up mistakes may be typical, issuing a false narrative, to diminish calloused ineptitude, that is known to be false, by those issuing it, during the stretch run of a Presidential election makes this more than just typical "political CYA"

The State Department was reporting what the CIA told them.

The Daily Beast is not a right wing publication, in fact, it is the left what Drudge is to the right, and they have reported that is patently false. How would the CIA know about the budget considerations? The Dept of State spokesperson knew... Click the link http://www.thedailyb...-suggested.html

"In testimony Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, was asked, “Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there? Lamb responded, “No, sir.”

[Tigermike 4,084]

Itch and homey, you've both called this entire process a fiasco, purely political, a witch hunt, etc. You and your posse also stated ad nauseum "what more can we learn?" Are either of you man enough to step up and answer the questions posed by Rep. Trey Gowdy? I am fairly certain I know the answer to the final question, but I will at least provide you the opportunity to prove me wrong.

I have never called the "process" a "fiasco". I have never asked the question, "what more can we learn". I am not a member of a "posse".

What I have said, and continue to say is this: The alleged coverup is typical political CYA. The narrative was built on the President's re-election campaign and nothing more. The matter has been investigated. The agenda now, has nothing to do with correcting the coordination problems that allowed this tragedy to happen. The agenda seems to be political finger pointing.

The White House narrative was based in politics. The congressional hearings are based in politics. NO ONE appears to be interested in how to prevent this sort of tragedy from happening again. What does seem to be apparent is that both sides consider elections to be the most important factor. This tragedy is being used to guile voters.

I actually thought the three questions Mr. Gowdy posed this morning were fair and, if he sticks to those points, I think he will be doing the GOP and the country a great service.

Personally, I would like a fourth question answered. Why does the United States of American employ a private security firm to guard an embassy outpost, particularly in an area where all other western nations have temporarily removed their diplomatic personnel?

They are using private security firms in more places than you would imagine. Many military bases are now guarded by private security. Mostly because of troop deployment. They just don't have enough personnel to man guard post.

[homersapien 12,682]

While covering up mistakes may be typical, issuing a false narrative, to diminish calloused ineptitude, that is known to be false, by those issuing it, during the stretch run of a Presidential election makes this more than just typical "political CYA"

The State Department was reporting what the CIA told them.

The Daily Beast is not a right wing publication, in fact, it is the left what Drudge is to the right, and they have reported that is patently false. How would the CIA know about the budget considerations? The Dept of State spokesperson knew... Click the link http://www.thedailyb...-suggested.html

"In testimony Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, was asked, “Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there? Lamb responded, “No, sir.”

My point was about the CIA analysis referencing the infamous video.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"My point was about the CIA analysis referencing the infamous video."

Are you stating that the video narrative was cooked up by the CIA? I heard testimony from Michael Murrell that all the CIA input was from their analysts, none of which, were on the ground in Libya. Tommy Veitor said on Bret Baier that the video story was taken from newspaper reports. This is why the investigation needs to continue, if for no other reason than, to bring clarity to what really happened.

[homersapien 12,682]

.....people are whining about investigating it. This is a major issue that needs to be revealed in its entirety and Trey Gowdy will do a great job of that for the American people.

There have been four (4) bipartisan investigations already.

Four bipartisan investigations on Benghazi? What were their findings?

Look for yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_investigation_into_the_2012_Benghazi_attack

And here are the ones I have bookmarked, many of which are actually partisan:

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/senate-intelligence-committee-report-on-benghazi-attack/748/

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=E5190F13-2D77-4242-8D7F-A7C05D7DEF5B

http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/sites/republicans.foreignaffairs.house.gov/files/HFAC%20Majority%20Staff%20Report%20on%20Benghazi.pdf

http://www.gop.gov/resources/library/documents/benghazi/ogr-benghazi-majority-staff-report.pdf

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Libya-Progress-Report-Final-1.pdf

http://www.gop.gov/solution_content/benghazi/

Hopefully that will make my point, if not precisely document the claim.

[homersapien 12,682]

"My point was about the CIA analysis referencing the infamous video."

Are you stating that the video narrative was cooked up by the CIA? I heard testimony from Michael Murrell that all the CIA input was from their analysts, none of which, were on the ground in Libya. Tommy Veitor said on Bret Baier that the video story was taken from newspaper reports. This is why the investigation needs to continue, if for no other reason than, to bring clarity to what really happened.

No, I am saying more or less what you said above.

[autigeremt 7,460]

Keep up the good work, Trey!

[Tigermike 4,084]

.....people are whining about investigating it. This is a major issue that needs to be revealed in its entirety and Trey Gowdy will do a great job of that for the American people.

There have been four (4) bipartisan investigations already.

Four bipartisan investigations on Benghazi? What were their findings?

Look for yourself:

http://en.wikipedia....Benghazi_attack

And here are the ones I have bookmarked, many of which are actually partisan:

http://apps.washingt...azi-attack/748/

http://armedservices...7F-A7C05D7DEF5B

http://foreignaffair...on Benghazi.pdf

http://www.gop.gov/r...taff-report.pdf

http://oversight.hou...ort-Final-1.pdf

http://www.gop.gov/s...ntent/benghazi/

Hopefully that will make my point, if not precisely document the claim.

Actually no it doesn't make your point. Unless your point is to deceive.

From your links:

A Majority Staff Report

Senate Intelligence Committee report on Benghazi attack

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Releases Report on DOD Response to Benghazi

Benghazi Attacks : Investigative Update Interim Report on the Accountability Review Board

INTERIM PROGRESS REPORT for the Members of t he House Republican Conference on the Events Surrounding the September 11, 2012 Terrorists Attacks in Benghazi, Libya

Oversight Investigation of Benghazi

Your statement was "There have been four (4) bipartisan investigations already." Which would lead readers to conclude there had been FOUR separate investigations. Your links don't back up your statement.

If there had in fact been "four (4) bipartisan investigations already." the findings would have been made public and would have been publicized loudly. They haven't. If there had been "four (4) bipartisan investigations already." the White House and the dems wouldn't be working overtime to stall and bad mouth Republicans.

What is it about the truth the left is so afraid of?

[Tigermike 4,084]

“It is, to me, equivalent to what was discovered with the Nixon tapes,” said columnist Charles Krauthammer.

He was referring to an email Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes wrote two days after Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the attack on our consulate in Benghazi on 9/​11/​2012.

Senior officials should stress “these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy,” Mr. Rhodes said. His email was among 41 obtained by a conservative watchdog group and made public April 29.

This was intended to mislead to protect the president’s re-election. At the time Mr. Rhodes wrote his email, the CIA, the military’s African Command and senior Pentagon and State Department officials knew the Benghazi attack was mounted by an affiliate of al-Qaida. The Youtube video lampooning the Prophet Muhammad had nothing to do with the attack, AFRICOM’s deputy intelligence chief at the time told the House Oversight Committee May 1.

There was no mention of the video in the memo acting Assistant Secretary of State Beth Jones sent to senior officials at State on 9/​11/​2012, or in a Defense Intelligence Agency analysis written a day later.

They’d made an honest mistake based on faulty intelligence reports, administration officials said after the Youtube video story was proved false.

That was another lie. But it was embraced eagerly by most in the news media, who parroted administration talking points or ignored the story.

The paucity of coverage in the “mainstream” media prompted Mr. Krauthammer to say April 10: “The clock has run out on Benghazi. Politically speaking, the administration has won.” But fissures have formed in the media wall of Omerta since disclosure of the Rhodes email.

It wasn’t about Benghazi, said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, a lie so preposterous it drew scorn from normally supportive journalists. “As someone who has admired Jay and wants my White House to succeed, it was painful to watch that briefing and get Baghdad Bob flashbacks,” said Ron Fournier of the National Journal.

Mr. Carney’s “dissembling” is insulting, said CNN’s Jake Tapper.

Even NBC’s David Gregory — heretofore a swiller of whatever Kool-Aid the administration served — wondered if the Benghazi attack had been mischaracterized for political reasons.

Now that House Speaker John Boehner has formed a select committee to investigate, it’ll be harder for journalists to ignore Benghazi questions.

Here are some that require answers:

• Security at the consulate was put primarily in the hands of a militia with ties to al-Qaida. Repeated pleas from the ambassador to upgrade security were ignored. Why?

• The military should have attempted a rescue, said the AFRICOM intelligence chief mentioned above. Why didn’t it?

• President Barack Obama wasn’t in the White House situation room during the seven-hour siege, said former National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor. Where was he?

• It’s been 19 months since President Obama pledged “to hunt down whoever did it and bring them to justice,” but no arrests have been made. Western journalists have located for interviews the leader of the militia which claimed responsibility for the attack. Why can’t the FBI find him?

By appointing Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-South Carolina, a former federal prosecutor who is sharp as a tack and tough as nails, to chair the select committee, Speaker Boehner signaled he’s determined to find the answers.

Former Obama campaign guru David Plouffe dismissed the investigation as a partisan witch hunt by “a loud, delusional minority.” But in the wake of the Rhodes memo, the administration’s claim there is nothing to see here is a harder sell.

Despite the paucity of reporting, majorities in polls from last May on have supported GOP efforts to investigate Benghazi.

House Democrats may boycott the select committee to try to delegitimize it. They’d be betting no more evidence of a coverup will emerge. The administration’s strenuous efforts to conceal documents and witnesses indicate they may lose that bet.

“If they were to boycott it, and if they have another one of these Ben Rhodes memos, they’d look really stupid right before the midterm elections,” according to military historian Victor Davis Hanson.

Aside from the president, the only Democratic politician with much to lose is Hillary Clinton. But if Democrats boycott and more evidence emerges, they’ll be complicit in a failed coverup. That’s not likely to redound to their electoral benefit.

Jack Kelly is a columnist for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio.

link

[homersapien 12,682]

.....people are whining about investigating it. This is a major issue that needs to be revealed in its entirety and Trey Gowdy will do a great job of that for the American people.

There have been four (4) bipartisan investigations already.

Four bipartisan investigations on Benghazi? What were their findings?

Look for yourself:

http://en.wikipedia....Benghazi_attack

And here are the ones I have bookmarked, many of which are actually partisan:

http://apps.washingt...azi-attack/748/

http://armedservices...7F-A7C05D7DEF5B

http://foreignaffair...on Benghazi.pdf

http://www.gop.gov/r...taff-report.pdf

http://oversight.hou...ort-Final-1.pdf

http://www.gop.gov/s...ntent/benghazi/

Hopefully that will make my point, if not precisely document the claim.

Actually no it doesn't make your point. Unless your point is to deceive.

From your links:

A Majority Staff Report

Senate Intelligence Committee report on Benghazi attack

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Releases Report on DOD Response to Benghazi

Benghazi Attacks : Investigative Update Interim Report on the Accountability Review Board

INTERIM PROGRESS REPORT for the Members of t he House Republican Conference on the Events Surrounding the September 11, 2012 Terrorists Attacks in Benghazi, Libya

Oversight Investigation of Benghazi

Your statement was "There have been four (4) bipartisan investigations already." Which would lead readers to conclude there had been FOUR separate investigations. Your links don't back up your statement.

If there had in fact been "four (4) bipartisan investigations already." the findings would have been made public and would have been publicized loudly. They haven't. If there had been "four (4) bipartisan investigations already." the White House and the dems wouldn't be working overtime to stall and bad mouth Republicans.

What is it about the truth the left is so afraid of?

For this purpose I figure a "partisan" investigation is worth at least two bipartisan investigations.

So how many of those investigations would you classify as bipartisan? How close was I?

To be honest, I read that number in some article and failed to follow up with the exact list. I didn't consider it that important. Foolish of me, considering the "opposition" on this forum. So while I don't know which four the original writer referred to, I can list the following:

Senate Armed Services committee

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Congressional intelligence committees.

The House Committee on Foreign Affairs

Congressional testimony on various dates of Clinton and Leon Panetta