Wayward, I've re-read our thread on the old board more than once. You should take a trip back down memory lane, cause what you said was never true, at least for what we've been discussing for months.
The issue that is being played up, is the call/no call they made on the rescue, which was always just a judgment call. There's never been any good reason for it to be as unclear as it is. Can you tell me what President Obama was doing at the time with confidence?
The real issue has always been the corrupt cover-up. The needless lies and frame job. It's just a lie to even try to claim at this point that it was a 'failure to say soon enough that a tape wasn't the cause.' It was an intentional and deliberate lie from the start to even sell the tape theory. Like I said, go back and refresh yourself on your own positions on that thread if nothing else.
The subject at hand (the one I made the comment on, to which you are responding) is the Benghazi Congressional Committee.
While you state the issue is the call/no call they made on the rescue, I do not find that to be an issue with the committee anymore. I do not recall any recent questions on available resources, nor accusations that they were held back. From what I understand, those questions have been asked and answered during the numerous hearings, and are now no longer an issue.
The only issue that I recall the committee has still been investigating (before the e-mails came up) was the announcement of that the tapes were the cause of the attack. But while your opinion is that it was an intentional and deliberate lie from the start, my opinion is that it was, at worst, a convenient excuse that the Administration adopted because it was the initial cause that the CIA came up with for the attack, one that was later revised and corrected by all involved. There is documentation for my opinion. And, ultimately, it had no effect on the actual actions of the Administration or by anyone else that I know of.
While you have the right to your opinion that there was some "corrupt cover-up," it is only an opinion, and hardly fact. And, in my opinion, it is a completely bogus one. But the fact that the Benghazi Committee has not uncovered any facts to show that military forces were not properly deployed, which was the serious charge about the event, means to me that they were not serious about uncovering serious allegations from the start, and were far more interested in political scandal, i.e. "blowing smoke."
You may believe certain things about the Benghazi attack. But we are talking about what the Committee believes. And, AFAIK, they no longer believe that aid was not deployed in a timely manner. And the issue about the tapes still comes down to "why didn't the Administration admit the cause wasn't the tapes sooner." So the only thing I see is a political fishing expedition. And so, any "conclusions" they come to without substantial evidence is just political smear. Which I am sure is why they are waiting until just before the election to release their "conclusions."
