Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Nancy Pelosi Says Something Truthful About Benghazi

Nancy Pelosi Says Something Truthful About Benghazi

Former house speaker Nancy Pelosi has announced that Democrats will not participate in the new select committee on Benghazi.

The Washington Examiner reported…

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has rejected the terms of a GOP-created select committee on Benghazi, but Republicans are moving ahead without them.

A top aide to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, told the Washington Examiner that the Benghazi Select Committee met today for the first time and plans to move ahead with its investigation, despite the missing Democrats.

“We made a fair offer,” Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said. “We hope they appoint Democrats. At this point, it’s time to get to work.”

Pelosi, D-Calif., rejected the panel’s terms in letter to Boehner that was in response to GOP proposal about the select panel would operate.

When she made her announcement to the press yesterday, Pelosi inadvertently said something true about Benghazi.

Via the Washington Free Beacon, emphasis is mine…

Pelosi Brushes Off Benghazi

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) ignorantly and falsely declared that Benghazi is an issue of the past by condemning the GOP’s decision to enact a Select Committee in an effort to bring justice to those whose relatives were killed in the violent terrorist attack two years ago.

Speaking at a news conference Friday, Pelosi told reporters “Either people have gotten tired of Benghazi or they never knew about it in the first place.”

Ms. Pelosi may not realize it but she’s absolutely right about that last part.

When the attack in Benghazi happened in 2012, the media circled their wagons around Obama and made sure that the only thing people knew about Benghazi was that it was a non-story.

In fact, many Americans are probably hearing about Benghazi for the first time which explains quite a few things.

Watch Pelosi’s grand declaration below.

Featured image via YouTube.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Really, there are three phases to Benghazi that we need to see illuminated:

1. Pre-attack…
We need to know who, what, where, how, and why.
Why, for instance, did the many warnings/requests go without response (or were, indeed, met with reduced security)? Who called those shots?

2. During attack
We need to know who, what, where, how, and why.
According to one piece I read last week, Obama was in the private residence most of the evening. He took a call, according to phone logs, around 10:00 from Hill-larry, shortly after which she made the first reference a “protest over a video”, which was apparently her creation.

3. Post-attack

Really, there are three phases to Benghazi that we need to see illuminated:

1. Pre-attack…
We need to know who, what, where, how, and why.
Why, for instance, did the many warnings/requests go without response (or were, indeed, met with reduced security)? Who called those shots?
Among the lies we’ve been told was the one about there being too little money for security, which is just flucking insulting.

2. During attack
We need to know who, what, where, how, and why.
According to one piece I read last week, Obama was in the private residence most of the evening. He took a call, according to phone logs, around 10:00 from Hill-larry, shortly after which she made the first reference a “protest over a video”, which was apparently her creation.
What did Baracula do, and say and to whom, and what did he know?

3. Post-attack
We need to know who, what, where, how, and why.
The lies here are legion and durable. They were told to us for weeks. Who spawned them? Why? What were they? How were they permitted?

I think I know most of the answers, but I’d like to know-know, and I’d like the American people to know. Most of all, I’d like the families of the dead and wounded to know.

    ConradCA in reply to Ragspierre. | May 10, 2014 at 3:04 pm

    Your pretty much correct, but more specifically:

    1) Pre-attack

    We need to know who rejected the Ambassador’s pleas for security improvements and failed to forward these requests the SoS as required by protocol.

    They are guilty of murder by depraved indifference.

    2) During the Attack

    We need to find out who issued the stand down orders in violation of Tyrant Obama the Liar’s orders to do everything possible to save those under attack at the consulate.

    These people are guilty of treason.

    3) After the Attack

    We need to identify the source of the lie that it was a demonstration about a video when the CIA, Defense Dept., and State Dept. all reported that it was an attack by terrorists.

      nomadic100 in reply to ConradCA. | May 10, 2014 at 3:24 pm

      Also in the “pre-attack” category is the question as to what the ambassador and all those CIA people were doing in Benghazi in the first place.

It’s amusing that the Democrats keep saying there have been an escalating number of “investigations” already. I suppose a successful stone-walling maneuver is considered an “investigation” for them.

There have been plenty of partisan hack jobs from both sides over the years but this isn’t one of them. Pelosi’s current action puts her entire party in the position of looking like they are covering for a corrupt president. If the committee uncovers anything significant, this will blow up in Pelosi’s face badly.

If Pelosi were rational, she would understand that and, instead of trying to delegitimize the investigation, she would have her people participate to the fullest. Then when the inevitable revelations of dereliction and cover up come out, she could claim the moral high ground, saying the good of the country was more important than partisanship.

I guess she’s not rational. Not that there’s any surprise in that.

    Ragspierre in reply to irv. | May 10, 2014 at 6:58 pm

    Where is the Democrats’ Howard Baker? Where is the courageous member of President Obama’s party willing to stand up and ask, “What did the president know, and when did he know it?”
    Indeed, the big unanswered question is, What did the president know about what looks more and more like a coverup or fabrication of the cause of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi? The bloody attack, orchestrated by a known terrorist group, left four Americans dead, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.
    In the aftermath, many Republicans asked, and continue to ask, what the president knew. But the question cannot step from behind the shadows of political partisanship until a Democrat also asks. Then, it might force the news media to demand that the White House provide some answers.
    That is precisely what happened in 1973 when Tennessee Republican Sen. Howard Baker, a minority member of the Senate Watergate Committee, famously asked what President Nixon knew and when did he know it about the botched 1972 break-in of the Democratic National Committee offices in Washington.
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/05/08/obama-benghazi-libya-howard-baker-terrorist-watergate-column/8809559/

    I doubt very, very much you’ll find a “Deemocrat Baker” among the crop of Collectivist toadies in the Congress.

    There have been some trolls here this last week. Care to name anyone with that kind of integrity and sand?

MouseTheLuckyDog | May 10, 2014 at 4:16 pm

Good they won’t be able to hinder the investigation.

Henry Hawkins | May 10, 2014 at 7:45 pm

I think… hope… that what we are seeing is the opening of a chasm between Congressional and Executive branch Democrats, that is, I hope this means Pelosi, et al, have just served notice to Obama and Clinton, telling them that, “If you’re gonna pull crap as bad as Benghazi was, and then totally screw up the cover-up, you clowns are on your own. We will not participate and force five of our members to eat shit daily so close to the midterms.”

If this chasm idea is true, it means that Pelosi knows exactly what Gowdy has and it ain’t good for Obama and Clinton.

With Democrats, it’s always about the party. . . and never about the country. That’s from the scum at the top to the muck at the bottom.

BannedbytheGuardian | May 11, 2014 at 1:02 am

Jubilation for the people of Homs . Against the weapons suspected to have been funnelled through this Benghazi Cia dump & ‘consulate’ the Syrian army has defeated the jihads in Homs & citizens have come home after 3 years away.

Not much left ( thank you Eu/Us / House of Saud ) but they ‘ve made it back . Children & yougsters in prams who were born away are there strolling through the streets .

Ok I am the only one celebrating here on Li & any conservative site but Hip Hip Hooray .

F*ck you McCain et al.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend