Trey Gowdy destroys his own hearing: The Benghazi committee chairman goes completely off the rails. What are your thoughts on this article?

2015-10-23T13:37:04-04:00

I had the live testimony playing in the background while I was at work yesterday and to be sure this proved to be a passionate if not deliberative testimony. Both sides played their usual roles, with Republicans attempting to pin the attacks and tragic death on Ambassador Stevens and the Democrats throwing softballs but also decrying the partisan nature of this investigation. Chairman Gowdy's questions were the most interesting in my opinion. He is an experienced prosecutor and I expected him to ask non-partisan questions with truth as the ultimate goal. It wasn't the case. When he was called out by other committee members on the partisanship being displayed he let his emotions get the better of him and at one point responded testily then adjoined before anyone could retort. THIS article is exactly what I thought of the 11+ hour testimony.

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/22/trey_gowdy_destroys_his_own_hearing_the_benghazi_committee_chairman_goes_completely_off_the_rails/

Trey Gowdy destroys his own hearing: The Benghazi committee chairman goes completely off the...

The "serious investigation" into Benghazi turned into a loud, stupid argument over one of Hillary Clinton's friends

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Oct 23 at 2015 1:40 PM

2015-10-23T13:40:25-04:00

The lives of 4 brave men are nothing to these politicians on both sides!

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Oct 23 at 2015 1:44 PM

2015-10-23T13:44:41-04:00

CPT Ahmed Faried - The article you posted is very biased towards the liberal "protect Hillary at all costs" agenda. I also watched the entire hearing and saw bias on both sides, however, the blatant support of the Democrat members towards Hillary, instead of being interested in finding the facts, was very disturbing. To me, the hearing just validated what everybody already knew... Hillary was lying then and she is lying now, and the Democrats simply don't care about it and will do anything to protect her, to include perpetuating the lies.

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made Oct 23 at 2015 1:50 PM

2015-10-23T13:50:39-04:00

@Capt Jeff Schwager I appreciate the drive by.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Oct 23 at 2015 1:54 PM

2015-10-23T13:54:55-04:00

I would not use Salon as a responsible news source in general CPT Ahmed Faried.
However, while biased in favor Hillary Rodham Clinton, the article at least mentions Hillary's email discussions with Sidney Blumenthal whom she exchanged emails with before, during and after the attack on the compound in Benghazi where Ambassador Chris Stevens and the three other Americans were killed.
Many of us realize that the serious investigations into what happened at Benghazi are taking place behind "closed doors" and won't see the light of day until they are thoroughly redacted.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Oct 23 at 2015 2:00 PM

2015-10-23T14:00:25-04:00

Sir, I've read other articles on other sites and most have said the same thing that it proved that this was a political based witch hunt with HRM in the middle. It would also appear from the sites I've been to that the McCarthy was only telling the truth, and for someone who's looking "carefully" through emails, didn't get this one. I wanted to read Fox's and Briehart's version so I didn't just get a one sided view, but this makes the third site I've visited today on this, and they all seem to say overall this committees a joke and a waste of taxpayers money. But it's not over till HRM sings.
One thing that bugs the hell out of me and it's not limited to a political side is the importance of a title to show life is worth something. Four people; four AMERICANS died there that day. But it's often written as The Ambassador, a SEAL, and two other "random" dudes died. This bothers me as much as when the MG died in the Stan. He is a service member. Has some more rank on his collar, but he bleeds red just as PVT Schumketelli did when he was killed. I think and believe that the use of titles is only to inflame those who would find fault in anything, even made better if you don't like the current administration. All of those lives meant something to someone, somewhere, and the use of a title to make it seem more "important" is ignorant, immature, and self gratifying. Hence why I won't support BLM or #copslivesmatter when I believe #alllivesmatter equally.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Oct 23 at 2015 2:09 PM

2015-10-23T14:09:56-04:00

CPT Ahmed Faried & COL Jean (John) F. B. - Gentlemen; Here's another view of what happened.

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/22/9600096/clinton-benghazi-hearing

I think that there's enough consistency of opinion to the effect that Ms. Clinton did a better job on the committee than the committee did on her.

Conservative pundits were not impressed with the GOP's disastrous Benghazi hearing

Hillary mopped the floor with House backbenchers.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Oct 23 at 2015 3:29 PM

2015-10-23T15:29:23-04:00

Perfect example of two blind men describing an elephant, one from the tail and the other from the trunk. It all depends on what political stripe you are to see the positives and negatives in this Committee Hearing.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Oct 23 at 2015 3:37 PM

2015-10-23T15:37:20-04:00

One thing that stands out is Hillary's acceptance of responsibility. What happens with those of us in the military that did something wrong and accepted responsibility? Why yes, the accountability. Who has actually accepted the accountability for these actions? Try telling the CO that when one of your troops screwed up badly, that you didn't know, so no accountability. She or any body else has been even mildly reprimanded for this fiasco, except the families and friends of the four murdered by the "Video Tape" protests. (Yes, that was sarcasm.)

Response by SSG Michael Scott made Oct 23 at 2015 5:41 PM

2015-10-23T17:41:57-04:00

I totally disagree. 4 people died and Hillary lied.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Oct 23 at 2015 6:41 PM

2015-10-23T18:41:46-04:00

I couldn't help comparing yesterday's Benghazi Hearing to the Watergate Hearings. Although the members of the Watergate Committee weren't particularly adept at their job, they tended to perform their duties with very little partisanship. The Benghazi Hearings are being conducted by a very astute prosecutor while the Democratic members of the committee do everything in their power to trip up the proceedings. It was sad to watch them acting as the jesters in Hillary's court.

Sadly, the fools are still cavorting, now in the press attempting to cover Hillary's very ample and vulnerable posterior. Yes, as COL Jean (John) F. B. observed, the story cited is very biased. It's the journalistic equivalent of the Wizard of Oz shouting at Dorothy and her friends to ignore the small man behind the curtain.

Those who were expecting (hoping for) a guilty verdict at the end of Hillary's "testimony" or fearing that result and now breathing a sigh of relief, keep in mind that this isn't a trial. It's a fact finding mission, more like an Article 32 investigation. It is an attempt to discover if a crime was committed and is there sufficient evidence to warrant a trial. Thus far, the answer is yes, very definitely yes. It is painfully obvious to all but Hillary's supporters, that she committed several crimes, a few felonies, and may be indicted. However, we have to be patient as the process plays itself out...

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 24 at 2015 5:16 PM

2015-10-24T17:16:07-04:00

OK from someone who watched about 7 of the 11 hours, that article has more spin than a nuclear powered top. She beat her chest and bragged that she knew all about every political move that happened in Lybia, but didn't know that there were 60 requests for added security? Senator Gowdy was only hammering home the fact that someone outside of government channels was feeding her sensitive information, but the man she appointed "Probably didn't even have my personal E-mail address" (direct quote from Hillary Clinton). If she would have had and used her government e-mail, The ambassador could have LOOKED IT UP ON GLOBAL! He could have E-mailed her DIRECTLY and gone above the supposed security analysts that denied him the security he needed. That was where this "partisan" line of questioning was pointing out.

Just remember the main stream media literally hates those of us in uniform. They hate what we are and what we do. You have to take everything that they spew out and call news with a heaping handful of scepticism.