Once again, ask the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic headquarters in Benghazi will go under investigation by a special committee created by House Republicans. Another hearing was provoked by emails that recently surfaced, patient emails that further confuse the issue of White House cover-up attempts.
This time, click according to Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), who is the chairman on the new committee, every document and witness that has anything to do with the attack will be called upon.
“We won’t be soft during this investigation,” said a source that is helping the committee find their seating arrangement. “During the last few Benghazi hearings we missed some people and some documents. These emails that have surfaced prove that we didn’t have everything.”
Gowdy said he is committed to a committee that commits to commandeering a conclusion to the controversy.
“Gowdy is great with alliterations,” said a member of his staff. “I think that’s why they made him chairman. I really don’t know why else they did.”
Democrats are sighing at one more committee that has the agenda of proving the White House obstructed the truth when explaining the attack.
“It’s a political move,” said Rolly Standard, a Democratic blogger, “to make people want to vote Republican in the midterms.”
“That’s not so,” said Gowdy, who just read the previous quote as I was writing this story. “The other investigations offered evidence fragmented in nature.”
Fragmented-in-nature evidence has long been a problem with House and Senate investigations.
Historian Leslie Bastford III said, “From the first investigation coming out of the House, which I believe was in 1798 but I think was in 1787 and I am in conflict with what I believe and what I think but still I know that fragmented-in-nature evidence is what ruined the investigation. That, and poor attendance by House members.”
Gowdy insists that the investigation is not a political ploy.
Republican strategist Ike “Bald Eagle” Surplus agreed. “Political ploys don’t involve places with weird spelling, like Benghazi. I originally thought, as most of the House Republicans thought, that it was two words, like Ben Casey, the name of that old TV doctor character whose boss was the guy with the crazy hair. Or Ben Stein or Ben Johnson.”
“There is no doubt in any of the minds in our party,” said a spokesman for the Republican National Party, “that the White House is guilty. But we are going to give them a fair hearing using all of the information.”
Hillary Clinton could not be reached for comment but a committee secretary said that her involvement in reporting the attack is essential.
“We don’t care if she was in the room the night they watched Bin Laden being killed,” said the secretary. “That was that and this is this and it is what it is, so there.”
Blogger Standard responded in a blog, writing: “This is not what this is, this is something other than what this is. Let’s look at what the Republicans want this to be, which is, and that which is that was that but this is not what this is, no matter who says it is.”
It is difficult to tell if the newly discovered emails will result in any of the answers that the committee wants to find, but it is difficult to find scandals that stick easily and prove the White House is responsible for anything but poor management in certain areas.
“It’s the way Republicans are,” said a Democrat spokesperson. “They are what they are and that is what that is.”
Former Presidential candidate Rick Santorum was asked if the Benghazi controversy would have any affect on his support of a bill to ban abortion and use religious laws to govern the country if he becomes the next President. Santorum just smiled.
Check out more from Frank Cotolo on his official website http://www.148.ca/frank
Frank’s books are for sale via http://www.148.ca/frank/pvc.html