...What Darrell Issa Really Wants Out of Benghazi Hearing
I worked on the GOP lawmaker's House oversight committee. He wasn't exactly known for his zest for oversight
By Anthony Clark
(See complete story at Salon, Thursday, May 9th, 2013
How seriously should Americans take Issa’s hearing and claims?
For almost four years, I worked in close proximity to him, first on the Democratic staff of the Oversight Committee (when he was ranking member) and then as legislative director for a senior member of the committee, when he was chairman. Here’s what I learned: If Darrell Issa says something – based on the record, his statements and my personal observations of him up-close – there is a strong likelihood it will be baseless and easily disproven.
Others have covered many aspects of his story. They have written about his alleged misdeeds, before and after he entered Congress. They have ably discussed Issa’s illegal disclosure of wiretaps; his irresponsible release of sensitive unredacted State Department documents; his political misuse of official funds; his use of his public office for personal gain; his inability to be honest about his own military service record; his treatment of his private business partners; his youthful (and not-so-youthful) experimentations with borrowing other people’s cars without permission; his failed attempt to recall and succeed Gray Davis as governor of California (and his Boehner-esque acceptance of his failure); his characterization of the Sept. 11 attacks as “simply a plane crash”; and his disregard for tradition, House rules and plain decency in the selection of Democratic Minority witnesses…
…Observing him, it quickly became clear that, like all bullies, Issa is not prepared to fight. He counts on his opponents to back down. His M.O. is to make outrageous, unsubstantiated claims, follow them with a lot of bluster, and then quietly fold at the first sign of being challenged. And here’s his “tell”: The more bombastic he is, the more he hungrily seeks out the cameras, the more he promises “explosive revelations,” the less he actually has. Bullies don’t win fights; they win defaults. Push back just the tiniest bit, and it’s all over. (see full story)
Like all their other theories, it's empty. Evidence for what? What is the cover up? What is the accusation? The President himself spoke the next morning to address the nation on Benghazi. He called it acts of terror. He never said spontaneous demonstratin or video. He said what it was thought to be, no cover up, no hiding, just the truth. That is the fly in their ointment that spoils it. They try to say the 9/12 speech was about 9/11 because he mentioned it in the Benghazi 9/12 speech. He already gave a 9/11 speech the day before. So duhhh yeah he is giving another one for the h of it, duhhhhh, even though we were attacked during the night, duhhhhhh. What kind of ignorant fool would believe that story, right from faux news? So they run with it, overlookng the fly in their ointment. If they can't believe his birth, what can they believe.
Then you can go back to GWB and compare his record on terror compared to Pres Obama. That's what's eating them, Obama is so vastly superior, it's all politics.
Well at least FOX covered the Benghazi hearings for an hour and forty five minutes while the other so called news channels didn't cover it but only reported on it for a few minutes. We didn't need to believe what FOX told us; we heard straight from Thompson, Hicks, and Norquest everything they reported to Congress. All the news channels except FOX are reporting the hearings as a witch hunt when it is really a which hunt. I don't know why they need to investigate who ordered the troops to "stand down". An order like that could only come from the Commander In Chief. The phony cover up story about an offensive clip on the internet obviously was at least approved by Obama.