You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
LTC(R) Allen West: Could there be a Pub cover-up of Benghazi ?
2014-01-08
[Breitbart] Former Rep. Allen West (R-FL), a leader in the conservative movement and retired Lt. Colonel of the United States Army,
and man who can tell the difference between motion and progress
told Breitbart News that he thinks House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) might be trying to help the Obama administration cover up the Benghazi scandal.
What say Brennan, Panetta, Valjar, and Rice about Benghazi? Anyone talking to them? If not, why not ?
"There is widespread support for a select committee to get to the bottom of disturbing questions surrounding the attack, as H.Res. 36 has 178 cosponsors," West said in an email to Breitbart News. "Yet Speaker of the House John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor refuse to bring it to the House floor for a vote. You have to wonder, is there something they know that they prefer not come to light?"
Ridiculous I tell you. Absolutely ridiculous. Who can doubt the US State Department's Accountability and Review Board's findings? Just for the sake of argument however, what is Boehner's reason for not unleashing the hounds...... ?
No, it's not sinister, and the good Colonel West is mistaken. Let me explain.

Back when Richard Nixon was first getting into trouble with Watergate, a group of young Democrats in the House wanted to put forward an impeachment bill. But the old bulls, including Speaker Carl Albert and Tip O'Neill, stopped them cold. They understood that it was too early -- time was needed to develop exactly what had happened, and also to let the American people see just what Nixon had done. If an impeachment bill had been filed in early 1973, for example, most of the Democrats would have had to vote 'no' or else face problems at home. Once one voted 'no' once, how could you have another vote?

The issue needed to ripen.

Benghazi is in the same situation. It's taking longer to ripen because Obama has been doing much more, and much more effectively, to stop the House investigation. The media is on his side in a way they were against Nixon in '73. But putting together a "Select Committee" now is like voting for an impeachment: do it too early and the vote will go against you, and then you're stuck with everyone and the MSM saying that "it's all political." And in a sense, they'd be right.

This needs to ripen more. We need more facts and more investigation. Keep the politics away from it a while longer and get more facts into the open. Then and only then have a Select Committee or (if the Pubs do win the Senate) a Joint Select Committee with full subpoena and immunity powers.
Posted by:Besoeker

#8  The problem isn't ripening, it's breaking thru the Big Media shell that is shielding the public from any coverage of this story, and the severe lack of investigative journalism dedicated to this issue. Plenty of ink for another Obamacare website story, nothing for this.
Posted by: OldSpook   2014-01-08 23:03  

#7  Obama's administration is very adept at manipulating the media cycle, even more so with a sympathetic MSM. "Ripening" would not help this situation as this story has been ripening for a while now and, sadly, Benghazi is not a Giant Killer for the average voter. It seems more logical that the inept house leadership does not want to pile on or give O's admin a chance to muddle the disaster that is AHA. I would expect that if AHA damages Democrat positioning adequatly in 2014, then look for movement to Benghazi, but that is doubtful, any attempt to seriously hang this treasonous and despicable abdication of office and duty on O or Hillary falls flat with a complicit media.
Posted by: jefe101   2014-01-08 19:25  

#6   I don't believe we should discount his analysis because of those aspirations.

I agree, though I don't he's fully thought everything through. I'm not sure that it's wise to bring a vote for a select committee nine months prior to election season, essentially handing ammo to the WH. It may be more advisable to wait until one has a majority (and perhaps replace the Speaker in process.) Or, if one loses, then scorched-earth would be the way to go.
Posted by: Pappy   2014-01-08 12:29  

#5  West definitely has political aspirations, but I don't believe we should discount his analysis because of those aspirations. I definitely agree with your assessment regarding the timing of the Gates book.

Ralph Peters just remarked on Fox that "Gates is obviously conflicted" with his role under the Champ, and that none of the administration's attitudes [as revealed by Gates] toward the military, or the AFG conflict should come as any surprise.
Posted by: Besoeker   2014-01-08 10:44  

#4  "Yet Speaker of the House John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor refuse to bring it to the House floor for a vote. You have to wonder, is there something they know that they prefer not come to light?"

I'm going to be a lot less diplomatic about it and say the good colonel either has his tin-foil beret on a bit too tight or (more charitably) he's decided that his political star needed a bit of burnishing.

You cannot keep politics out of it.

No, you can't. Which is why I question West's motives. As for Mr. Gates, perhaps his book is the first crack in the dam. Then again, given D.C., perhaps all it is, is a crack. My question is, where the hell were Mr. Gates' public statements of misgivings three or four years ago?
Posted by: Pappy   2014-01-08 10:28  

#3  Beginning to look that way Glenmore, but since it's our blood and treasure, I believe we have a right to know the truth.
Posted by: Besoeker   2014-01-08 10:28  

#2  It is possible that the full and true story is such that ALL those who know it, regardless of party, agree it needs to stay covered up.
Posted by: Glenmore   2014-01-08 10:12  

#1  Keep the politics away from it a while longer and get more facts into the open.

I respectfully disagree [but I do hope you are correct]. You cannot keep politics out of it. Gates outing yesterday, of Hildebeast's admission of 'election politics' being her justification for her stance regarding the "Afghan surge" being the most recent example.

"Politics, the crooked timber of our communal lives, dominates everything because, in the end, everything - high and low and, most especially, high - lives or dies by politics." Charles Krauthammer, Things That Matter, 2-4, (Crown Forum 2012).

A good 'single malt' requires proper aging to fully "ripen." Bad news, not so much.
Posted by: Besoeker   2014-01-08 04:34  

00:00