General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTrey Gowdy’s embarrassing start
Posted with permission.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trey-gowdys-embarrassing-start#break
Trey Gowdys embarrassing start
05/08/14 09:14 AM
By Steve Benen
On Tuesday, the House Republican leadership formally announced its chosen Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) to lead the latest in a series of Benghazi committee investigations. On Wednesday, Gowdy made a telling slip.
A trial? And the Obama administration is the defense? So much for that serious investigation House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) promised; his new chairman intends to play prosecutor, proving the administrations guilt to the jury in this case, the public.
It was no small admission. Publicly, GOP leaders insist their election-year charade is actually a credible search for the facts, wherever they may lead. Theyre going into this process, not on a partisan witch hunt, but as responsible public officials. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) assured reporters this week that this is going to be a serious investigation.
Except Gowdy accidentally told the truth on national television hes already convinced, before the process even starts, that the White House is guilty of wrongdoing, and the far-right congressman believes its his job to prosecute administration officials.
In other words, Gowdy effectively admitted that everything his own party is saying about the select committee is wrong.
Making matters considerably worse, the South Carolina Republican has not only prejudged the matter he hasnt started investigating yet, he also seems badly confused about the basics of the Benghazi story itself.
Igor Bobic explained that Gowdy said this week he has three main questions: (1) Why was security lacking during the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in the U.S.? (2) Why werent military units moving to support consulate personnel? (3) Why were references to terrorist and attacks edited out of the Obama administrations talking points?
This is genuinely bizarre. Over the course of the last 20 months, the attacks in Benghazi have been thoroughly investigated, repeatedly, by a variety of entities. And as Bobic added, if Gowdy paid even casual attention to current events, hed realize the answers to his questions are already readily available.
Gowdy has promised to bring a no-nonsense, prosecutors zeal to finding the answers and in examining the Obama administrations handling of the attack. He has insisted hes not interested in rehashing previous investigations by Congress or in whether the appropriate questions were asked in the past.
But the questions hes asking now were asked in the past. And answered, too.
The congressman likely disagrees with those answers. But in his recent interviews, he hasnt acknowledged that they exist.
If the congressman found himself struggling to keep up with the details shortly after the attack itself, itd be easier to understand. But its been nearly two years Gowdy has had plenty of time to get up to speed, especially if, as he claims, hes taking these questions seriously.
Making matters slightly worse, Gowdy added on msnbc yesterday morning, in reference to developments in the region in the fall of 2012, Well, how many people were harmed in the Middle East in that time period? The second goal or third goal of Ben Rhodes memo was to bring countries to justice for harming our citizens. What other country could they be talking about? I mean what else was being discussed after September 11, 2012 other than Benghazi?
As Brian Beutler explained, Gowdy doesnt seem to understand the basics of the matter hes investigating: {I}ts frightening how likely it is that the chairman of the Benghazi committee isnt intentionally misleading here, but has actually written the non-Benghazi events of September 11, 2012 and the days thereafter out of existence in his mind.
Michael Morell, the former acting deputy director of the CIA, told Jake Tapper yesterday that Gowdy also has a number of his facts wrong.
What a polite way of putting it.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)Cha
(297,935 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)The Democrats and liberals hate it, but this is going to get the conservatives to the polls. That is the only reason they are doing this. We must counteract this and get our folks to the polls too. Conservative voters wanted this and the GOP is complying.
malaise
(269,257 posts)I hope Dems boycott this madness.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)I just can't imagine that the GOP is really happy about this. The Republican party is split in two and one side of that party wants this badly and the other probably thinks it is as stupid as the liberals.
pscot
(21,024 posts)11 Bravo
(23,928 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)It is like the 2012 election. The right manufactures facts that aren't true then believes their own bullshit and acts on it.
It is cognizant dissidence as an art form.
johnnyreb
(915 posts)These are the representatives assigned us by South Carolina Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Koch, Honeywell, and various Planetary Waste Welcoming Commissions.
UTUSN
(70,779 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)karynnj
(59,508 posts)The first two deal with security issues --- and that is what the HRC investigation that Pickering led dealt with (among other things.) The third point is the talking points. This really is not of the same importance.
Here, the question is not even the description of what happened - no one tried to question that there was an attack and the ambassador and two others died. What the Republicans have been arguing about goes to what the MOTIVATION of the attackers was. It also (conveniently) ignores the FIRST person to conflate anger because of the movie and Benghazi -- Mitt Romney.
The first action of Mitt Romney - hours after the news of the deaths was to blast the Cairo embassy for putting on their web site a statement that the US government did not agree with that film. That statement written BEFORE any attacks on Benghazi was IMO a very reasonable thing for people in that embassy to do to try to tamp down anger there. Romney argued it was wrong because in the light of the murderous attacks. Unfortunately for Romney, the country contrasted this craven political action with the dignity of Obama and Clinton in sadly meeting with the families.
The Republican anger seems to stem from the fact that, in their eyes, this should have hurt Obama. In fact, Romney was so consistently bad on the issue that, if anything, it hurt him.
Now, of course, there is the addition view that if everything were known, Obama would be impeached and Hillary Clinton would never run. (Oddly, they seem not to see that if Obama were impeached, Joe Biden would become President.)
maxrandb
(15,378 posts)With Speaker Boehner as Judge Taylor, Trey Gowdy as Bob Ewell and the Obama Administration as Tom Robinson.
If only there were someone to play Scout Finch.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
I guess a better analogy may be the Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland; "Sentence First! Then Trial"
One thing is for sure, with this current batch of ass-pickles in Congress, there will be no problem finding a Mad Hatter or two.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)kairos12
(12,892 posts)nyabingi
(1,145 posts)have either been proven wrong or are just proving to be totally ineffectual at convincing an electorate it is evil, they are desperate to find something to tar Democratic candidates with before the November elections.
They've opted for the "keep it in the headlines and somehow the public will believe something is shady with the whole Benghazi thing" approach.
TeamPooka
(24,286 posts)Jeff Murdoch
(168 posts)Why is a second term back - bench guy being given this? Then I saw that he was a prosecutor, and became very clear.
Welcome to the Impeach Obama panel.
The Wizard
(12,554 posts)"Deliverance" to head the investigation you invite ridicule.
lolly
(3,248 posts)Republicans started with the premise that Obama was an evil, stupid (but very crafty!), treasonous, Socialist/Communist/Fascist Muslim out to destroy American. They internalized this from the beginning as Absolute Truth.
The last 7 years reflect their outrage and astonishment at Americans for not seeing what, to them, is soooo obvious.
So we get event after event that is supposed to finally wash the scales from our eyes.
Remember the meme that went around for a year or so about how Obama hadn't been properly "vetted" by the press. We only voted for him in 2008 because we didn't know the truth!
They were sure they had him in 2012--Romney's supreme overconfidence was, I suspect, due to his faith in the belief that Obama's perfidy and unfitness for office had surely become apparent, and Americans would flock to him now that they'd realized their mistake.
This "trial" is another in that series. They just KNOW he must have done something wrong--now they just need to shine attention on it long enough so we will wake from our slumber and see the error of our ways.
Lather, rinse, repeat. It's what happens when your beliefs are all based on gut reaction or faith. You already know the truth, you just have to keep digging and repeating your claims until the rest of the world comes around to your way of thinking.
KatyMan
(4,216 posts)I still believe that's what it all comes down to, a black man running the country.
napkinz
(17,199 posts)Blue Idaho
(5,065 posts)This whole thing is going to blow up in the Teapublican's faces...
woodsprite
(11,940 posts)napkinz
(17,199 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)Republicans have no intention of listening to Trey Gowdy.
A number of Republican candidates and conservative groups have openly used the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks in Benghazi, Libya, as a cash grab. And thats likely to continue despite a strongly worded rebuke from the new chairman of the Republican select committee assigned to investigate the response to the attacks.
Gowdy, a South Carolina Republican, commented on MSNBC Wednesday that he and fellow Republicans should not fundraise off the backs of four murdered Americans creating a new standard by which the party can be judged and opening the GOP up to charges of past, present and future hypocrisy.
Thats put the party in an awkward spot. Republicans on Capitol Hill are eager to lend the looming committee investigation into the murder of four Americans an air of sobriety, dignity and seriousness. But political strategists are eager to mobilize the GOP base and amp up grassroots fundraising by capitalizing on the bases outrage over how the Obama administration handled the attacks.
The 2012 consulate attack and accusations of a White House cover-up are catnip for grassroots donors and activists. And Benghazi and the select committee assigned to investigate it is a key part of the GOP fundraising and mobilization strategy. This week, the National Republican Congressional Committee rolled out a new fundraising campaign called Benghazi Watchdogs an effort by the aiming to raise money off Gowdys new position. Publicly available domain registration data shows that the site was registered Tuesday.
A lot, lot more of their reasons for this at the link:
http://politi.co/RsDGyW
Which has led to this:
Disgusted Democrat Slams Republicans for Running the House Like a Political Circus
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024922491
Just because we need a laugh:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024926651
KingBob
(150 posts)He and the rest are just witchburners. Facts do not interest them. Assigning blame (most likely wrongly) is the only order of business here. It seems Issa's attempts have not been sufficient.