JUSTIN BIEBER Knew The CIA Was In Benghazi

[workpublic]

Who did know about it? Who set it up? Who was running it, and what was the CIA doing there?

that's highly(above feinestein) classified.

and, no one does anything about crimes committed in the WH(no matter who's living there).

[billisonboard]

Jan 29, 2014 2:17:06 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 29, 2014 1:10:49 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Obviously, after hearing testimony including closed door sessions, not the conclusions that a member of the House who has not heard all the testimony wishes them to draw. I guess if the committee doesn't draw the conclusions you want, create new committees until you find one that will do it for you.

If I was a congressman and I didn't trust the original committee as far as I could throw them, that's exactly what I'd do.

Standing committees and then subcommittees are formed and Congress members assigned. Specific narrow areas of responsibility are assigned each. This allows for the gaining of detailed knowledge and the development of expertise. (Representative Wolf's area of expertise is Appropriations.) "Select Committees" are only appropriate when there is no committee with the expertise to deal with something. Or if the goal is to put on a big show. There is a committee in this case.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 29, 2014 11:05:16 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jan 29, 2014 2:17:06 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

If I was a congressman and I didn't trust the original committee as far as I could throw them, that's exactly what I'd do.

Standing committees and then subcommittees are formed and Congress members assigned. Specific narrow areas of responsibility are assigned each. This allows for the gaining of detailed knowledge and the development of expertise. (Representative Wolf's area of expertise is Appropriations.) "Select Committees" are only appropriate when there is no committee with the expertise to deal with something. Or if the goal is to put on a big show. There is a committee in this case.

Be that as it may, it seems to me that this issue could use one more committee.

I for one am curious about what the CIA was doing outside the knowledge of the CIA brass. Especially since the terrorist were supposedly "allied" with US interests, and the White House story changed every second day.

[billisonboard]

Jan 29, 2014 12:06:08 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

...
I for one am curious about what the CIA was doing outside the knowledge of the CIA brass. Especially since the terrorist were supposedly "allied" with US interests, and the White House story changed every second day.

What are you basing the idea that the operation was not known to the CIA "brass" (I don't think that the CIA has brass)? Who is "the terrorist" to whom you refer?

I concede that the White House did not conduct itself properly in the days following the attack.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 29, 2014 12:49:16 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jan 29, 2014 12:06:08 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

...
I for one am curious about what the CIA was doing outside the knowledge of the CIA brass. Especially since the terrorist were supposedly "allied" with US interests, and the White House story changed every second day.

What are you basing the idea that the operation was not known to the CIA "brass" (I don't think that the CIA has brass)? Who is "the terrorist" to whom you refer?

I concede that the White House did not conduct itself properly in the days following the attack.

"Terrorists". I missed the 's'. And more specifically, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, who perpetrated the attack.

As for "CIA brass", I was referring to Sen. Feinstein, AFRICOM, and AFRICOM commanders. The latter two are technically the DoD brass (i.e. all US defense operations on the African continent are run through them).

[billisonboard]

Jan 29, 2014 13:02:36 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

...

As for "CIA brass", I was referring to Sen. Feinstein, AFRICOM, and AFRICOM commanders. The latter two are technically the DoD brass (i.e. all US defense operations on the African continent are run through them).

So none of the people who you indicated did not know about the CIA operation are CIA officials. The CIA does tend to be a little secretive in their operations which is why they haven't disclosed the full activities of the Benghazi operation in a public forum.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 29, 2014 14:01:43 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jan 29, 2014 13:02:36 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

...

As for "CIA brass", I was referring to Sen. Feinstein, AFRICOM, and AFRICOM commanders. The latter two are technically the DoD brass (i.e. all US defense operations on the African continent are run through them).

So none of the people who you indicated did not know about the CIA operation are CIA officials. The CIA does tend to be a little secretive in their operations which is why they haven't disclosed the full activities of the Benghazi operation in a public forum.

So the new inquiry will get the names of the CIA officials involved and the result will either be: aha, the White House was involved, or oop, the White House wasn't involved.

I don't think Rep. Wolf and his army of cosponsors are stupid, and I don't think they're (entirely) motivated by animus towards the Obama administration. I'd wager they have a pretty good idea of what came out of the first house committee, and the behind-the-scenes news was "we got stonewalled here; our subpoena was quashed there; we weren't privy to classified info here; and we have no clue who was responsible for what".

The Republican co-chair of the senate inquiry clearly articulates the same problems of obstruction and a lack of ability to compel testimony and evidence. So Rep. Wolf says 'screw the house select committee, we want a committee with the authority to plow through this obstruction; we want to know who was responsible for what'.

Maybe he's just a vindictive, ambitious little man and he knows perfectly well that nothing more will come out of a second inquiry, but I for one suspect that the earlier inquiries were stonewalled due to lack of authority, he knows it, and he wants to go back with a bigger stick.

[billisonboard]

Jan 29, 2014 16:13:50 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

.... So Rep. Wolf says 'screw the house select committee, we want a committee with the authority to plow through this obstruction; we want to know who was responsible for what'.
...

(just a note so we are using the same terminology, it should be 'screw the house standing committee, we want a select committee ...")

Would a select committee have any more authority than a standing committee? It would still be a group of Representatives.

[billisonboard]

Not seeing where it would have any special authority:
www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hres36/text

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 29, 2014 18:50:14 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jan 29, 2014 16:13:50 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

.... So Rep. Wolf says 'screw the house select committee, we want a committee with the authority to plow through this obstruction; we want to know who was responsible for what'.
...

...

Would a select committee have any more authority than a standing committee? It would still be a group of Representatives.

That's the impression I got from Rep. Wolf's press release and the EIR article. Most of his rhetoric is about putting together a committee with real power to compel testimony, work across multiple agencies, dig up classified evidence, etc.

Maybe it will be another running joke like congress' attempts to audit the Fed, but if Wolf's motives are sincere, it's worth a shot. And for that matter, I don't think congress should stop trying to audit the Fed, futile as the attempts may be.