If you have "no place to go," come here!

Patrick Murphy enabled the Benghazi witch hunt

DCblogger's picture

Alan Grayson smacks Patrick Murphy over Benghazi

"Patrick Murphy voted to give the Tea Party Republicans who run the House of Representatives the power to subpoena Hillary Clinton's records, hold hearings and conduct a political witch hunt that will last through the presidential election," Grayson said in a statement. "I would like to know if Patrick Murphy is happy with what he has done, or if he now regrets that vote."

It is a good question.

No votes yet


metamars's picture
Submitted by metamars on

The "investigatory cover up" is quite the art form in Washington, D.C. (See Iran Contra hearings; Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA).

Grayson may be correct that Benghazi "investigation" is mostly for political gain. However, that doesn't preclude the possibility (I'd say likelihood) that Clinton is a war criminal, who lied under oath, about the Benghazi shenanigans.

The 'trick' is to limit the investigation, so that it never really hits the mark. Or, as Judge Napolitano has put it:

What if the tragedy at Benghazi was unwelcome but not unforeseen? What if the conspirators knew of the risks to innocent lives attendant upon breaking the law by giving arms to madmen? What if members of Congress who were kept in the dark about the arms-to-terrorists scheme were outraged over Benghazi? What if leaders of the House of Representatives, some of whom were conspirators, formed a committee to investigate how the murder of Stevens came about?

What if some members of that committee already know that Stevens and the others were murdered with U.S. weapons illegally given to U.S. enemies secretly by U.S. government officials? What if the stated purpose of the committee — to seek the truth about Benghazi — is not the true purpose? What if the real purpose of that committee is to suppress the truth so that the president and Mrs. Clinton and the other conspirators do not get indicted? What if the truth is the last thing the conspirators want to see come out?


The Republicans, I believe, have been more rabidly anti-Assad than the Democrats. They're also somewhat more in the pocket of the Israeli government than the Democrats. Certainly, if the Republican leadership in the House are co-conspirators (which I'll interpret as "informed about the illegal arms transers"), they have little motivation to potentially out themselves, do you?

Even if they didn't have either fore-knowledge, or knowledge after the fact, about what really happened in Benghazi, so you seriously think they want to endanger their war-mongering allies who were involved?

Yes, they have motivation to damage Clinton. No, they (largely) have no motivation to damage their obsessive war mongering and imperialism.

BTW, what is your opinion as to whether Clinton approved of weapons to terrorist fighting in Syria? Before you answer, you may want to look at recent reports about US helping create ISIS as a "willful" act:

Do you accept that we helped facilitate the rise of ISIS? If so, do you believe that Clinton was likely in the loop for that decision, or not?

V. Arnold's picture
Submitted by V. Arnold on

So, just what is it that keeps "people" driving the system? The corrupt, criminal, fixed, fascist, system?
This blog is in serious denial of the present state of politics as an operating system in the U.S.
Just where is the credibility?
Progressive is in fact regression here; I think progressive now means middle of the road; because that's all I see here.
Radical is the only reasonable prerogative...
Radical should be the new normal; anything else is regressive...
America is rapidly going down; sunk by faux reasonableness...
There are two choices; right wingnuts and radical left; which is missing and impotent...
What's left (no pun intended) is fascist, inverted totalitarianism...
Good luck with that...