Hillary Clinton Driving Democrats’ Benghazi Committee Strategy

[Purveyor]

Is it better for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton if Democrats boycott or participate in the new House investigation of the Benghazi attacks?

That question is central to Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s decision whether to appoint Democratic members to the House select committee.

Several Democrats have urged Pelosi not to participate in the committee, saying it is unwise to lend an air of legitimacy to an investigation they have derided as a political witch hunt. But others, particularly those close to Clinton, believe that having Democrats on the panel is the only way to ensure both sides of the story will be told.

On Wednesday Pelosi announced the appointments of five Democratic members to explore the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which killed four Americans:

Elijah E. Cummings (D-MD), Ranking Member, Committee on Oversight & Government Reform
Adam Smith (D-WA), Ranking Member, Armed Services Committee
Adam B. Schiff (D-CA), Committee on Appropriations (Subcommittee on State & Foreign Operations), Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Linda T. Sanchez (D-CA), Committee on Ways and Means (Subcommittee on Oversight)
Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Armed Services Committee, Committee on Oversight & Government Reform

more...

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/05/hillary-clinton-driving-democrats-benghazi-committee-strategy/

[GeorgeGist]

1. So Hillary's calling plays?

Manipulative ... if true.

[okaawhatever]

2. Did you read the article or did you just want to post something negative about Hillary? The story

clearly indicates that Dems are divided on the topic of the Benghazi hearings and that "others, particularly those close to Clinton, believe that having Democrats on the panel is the only way to ensure both sides of the story will be told."
So those Dems close to Hillary (although the story doesn't say this is a quote) feel like the both sides of the story should be told.
Speaking of manipulative.....

[woo me with science]

3. Anything to avoid talking about the corporate rape of this country.

It makes sense that it would be wiser for her to engage in an argument in which Republicans are disgracing themselves with idiotic shiny objects and manufactured outrages, than address the *real* issues that expose her own consistent siding with corporate interests.

[upaloopa]

4. Here is the thing. The committee exists.

Hilliary will be called to testify. The Repubs want to hurt her chances for winning the 2016 election. So it is good to be prepared rather than ignore the issue like you would have her do. Hillary is very intelligent and capable of seeing priorities clearly and is able to walk and chew him too. That is why she could become President and people with a narrowly focused point of view never could.

[mylye2222]

5. Yes, you are right.

And I really wonder why she already hadn't be YET called to testify? She was the SoS at the time!

[DURHAM D]

6. She has already testified.

[SomethingFishy]

7. Here's what I would do at this point in time:

I would start investigations into 9/11/01 and into the war in Iraq. Cheney says Hillary should be investigated because of Benghazi. Fine. Cheney, Bush, Rove, Gonzalez, Wolfowitz, Powell, Rice... they should all be looking at subpoenas, and they should all be scared to death that they will be going to prison for what they did.

The time has come for the Democrats to stop IGNORING THE CRIMES OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

We let people get away with murder, with war crimes, with torture, with constitutional violations, we ignored the deaths and wounding of thousands of US kids and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's and what did it get us? BIRTH CERTIFICATE! BENGHAZI! MUSLIM! SHARIA LAW! IRS!

[mylye2222]

8. Yes. Especially the lies to invade Iraq.

This is the REAL SCANDAL thats desperetly needs to be exposed.