So . . . doesn't this read like some questions re: "accountability for policies and decisons in Libya and Benghazi" have been answered?
Do you think that those are answers that the families of the individuals murdered in Libya should accept? That their husband/child/father was killed because of a lack of "proactive leadership"? And supposing that Stevens' 15 some odd requests for additional security were innocently lost in the shuffle, which could very well be the case, wouldn't you, at the very least, feel entitled to know whether or not appropriate discipline had been levied against the individuals whose responsibility it was to monitor said shuffling? And this is me forgiving that the ARB report denoted a failure of 'senior' management, making it abundantly fair to infer that what we're dealing with here was far from a clerical miscue.
By the way, Clinton's answer to that very question during the hearings was to note that she had left her position by that point in time followed by a supposition that Kerry had taken care of it.
It surprises me that somebody who still wants to chase down 'objective truths' about Abu Ghraib is apparently readily willing to punt a pursuit of the exact same truths in a circumstance that, frankly, dictates it to a much more important degree.
That is not an allegation. That is a committee brief. I'm asking what malfeasance is being alleged, particularly on the part of HRC. Surely you aren't going to fall back on "this is just an investigation," not while this has been bandied about as a massive, worse-than-watergate scandal.
I think what you are asking for here is a bit of a honeypot; I've provided you with a clear description of what the committee was tasked with and, at your behest, extrapolated as to what allegations might have arisen as a result of the manner the investigation has progressed.
I'm not the one conclusively saying that there is more to discover -- my position on this entire debacle from the very beginning has revolved around the belief that it's a product of limp-wristed foreign policy and shambolic administration management.
Argh, Hawk, this is where we're crossing wires. I'm asking for specificity and you're giving me broad strokes. You're asking for the executive branch to give up its inner workings to the legislative, and that's always going to be a hard sell, even without presidential politics on top of it. It's a fool's errand, and the fools' exit strategy is going to be to say that "they didn't give up all the documents," to justify all the silliness and keep hope alive that there's a white whale still swimming out there somewhere.
I don't think our wires are crossed at all. We're both looking for more specificity, whereas you seem to willing to cut your nose off to spite the face to prevent those specifics from reaching the public.
I agree that there should be investigation and a presentation of facts, something like the 9/11 commission. The House R's have made this a Hillary-hunt from day one. I agree that if there are pertinent documents, she ought to give them up. I've always thought that it's more likely that anything she's withheld has been withheld because it is potentially embarrassing to Hillary-the-Candidate, and the House R's have given no reason for us to believe otherwise.
I don't disagree, but isn't that also just reality? How are we ever going to create a vacuum whereby partisanship is completely excluded? The hard truth here is that Clinton chose to conduct the affairs of state using a private e-mail server. She opened that door, not the Republicans.
