Quote:For those who have all of their news spoon fed to them by the alphabet networks, or other mainstream media resources, that's probably true.  Sadly, a large portion of the country is completely oblivious to anything beyond what they're told by this conglomerate, so they'll be good little mind-numbed drones and believe it when they're told it's all just politics.

 

In reality, I'm continually amazed at how some libs who I thought actually had some level of common sense want to bypass this issue completely.  Not because of the political implications, but because it exposes a level of corruption and misdeeds that nobody in the mainstream media would dare touch on because the taint impacts not only Clinton, but their beloved manufactured messiah, Obama. 

 

The actual purpose of the investigations, rightly or not, is to get to the bottom of what was going on in Benghazi that cost us an ambassador and 3 other American lives.  Why was the ambassador allowed to operate in Benghazi with little security, and what was he doing? 

 

The answer to that question would be devastating to Clinton's political ambitions, and it would taint the already floundering legacy of her boss.  They were running guns.  Dealing weapons that they confiscated in Libya to ISIS and al Qaeda operatives in Syria who were rent-a-warriors fighting the Assad regime.  We were financing and arming the very people who we are also killing in Iran and losing ground to in Iraq. 

 

All of this was happening while our president was running for reelection on the mantra that GM was still alive, and bin Laden was dead.  Al Qaeda was on the run, and he was the great warrior who had ended two wars.  The reality didn't support that manufactured heroism, but nobody in the media was going to challenge anything he said.  So, they're certainly not going to press the issue now as they do their best to prop up a horrible candidate in Clinton. 

 

Sadly, the media will accomplish exactly what they intend to do, and we'll be strapped with another incompetent political shrew in Clinton for 4 years because at the end of the day, holding the office is far more important than finding the truth.

First off, the media did not invent Kevin McCarthy's quote. Certain alphabet networks had been speculating for months now that it was just a political ploy, and I didn't give them much credence until McCarthy came out and bragged about how his political ploy had hurt Hillary in the polls. That's the point at which I stopped caring.

 

I'm not a particular fan of Obama, and certainly not a fan of Clinton. That said, and be honest, if Benghazi had happened under Condoleeza Rice's watch with the exact same circumstances, right down to this exact House of Representatives and Rice being the front-runner in a Presidential campaign, would this committee even exist? Or would Benghazi simply have been brushed under the table as an unfortunate, unforeseeable disaster? Now spin that the other way: if Rice were Secretary of State and it happened under a particularly divisive Democrat-controlled House of Representatives, would this same committee exist, and would the "damage her campaign" motivations still be a factor?

 

My answer would be this: if the administration and control of the House belonged to the same party, regardless of party, this would have stopped being an issue long ago. There would have been a few cursory investigations that found no wrongdoing, the military might have unretired Petraus just so they could pin it on him and fire him again, and it wouldn't even be talked about in the current campaign cycle. Likewise, we're seeing what happens when a party that's, frankly, desperate to figure out how to beat Hillary Clinton in the general election if she makes it that far, will do to further their goal. Kind of like what we'd see if the Democrats were desperate to take Condi Rice down a peg in her hypothetical bid for the top office.

 

That's not to condone what we were doing in Benghazi, but it's also disingenuous to suggest that the Bush administration hadn't been doing exactly the same thing elsewhere in the world, or the Clinton administration, or the first Bush, or especially Reagan (Iran Contra, anyone?). The US created Al Qaeda by arming and abandoning the Mujahideen, much like we created ISIS, and so on. We excel at creating our own enemies, but very rarely is a big deal made of it. Blame the mainstream media, blame partisan politics, whatever. I won't disagree all that strongly because I think that the tendency of the US to arm and provide the ideological ammunition for those who wish it harm is a long-standing problem that needs to be addressed, and the way we do business needs to change. I just can't take an inquest seriously in the slightest when it's walked like a witch hunt and quacked like a witch hunt for years now, and then a man in the opposing party who just happens to be running for Speaker of the House brags about it being a successful witch hunt. I don't need the mainstream media to spoon feed that to me; I can just look at McCarthy's exact words online:

 

"And let me give you one example. Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's un-trustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened had we not fought and made that happen."

 

I don't know about your take, but to me that sounds like a man who could not care less about the lives lost in Benghazi. He's just happier than a pig in [BLEEP] that his political ploy did exactly as he intended it to from the start. That's why I'm sick of hearing about Benghazi, and why nothing that committee finds will ever hold credibility for me.

 

And there's still no way on God's green earth (or in hell, for that matter) that I'm voting for Hillary Clinton.

---