Explain this to me like I'm a second-grader

Why should they agree to their requests? The Republicans already admitted the sole purpose of the investigation is to get Hillary. The investigation has zero credibility.

 

Yes, we should never investigate when Americans get killed overseas when Democrats are in charge.

 

The investigation already has revealed that the administration lied right off the bat about the motive for the attack. (Hell, someone even got thrown into prison to back that lie.) They lied repeatedly and without shame. Doesn't anyone want to know why they were lying? Seriously? It's just fine with everyone from SJ Left when the administration looks you in the eye and blatantly lies to you? And you're not the least bit curious what they're hiding?

We know they lied. We still don't know why they lied.

 

How many investigations do we need?

 

Because every time you are found not guilty, it means you did nothing. John Gotti said that, the first five times they failed to convict him.

 

So if you don't like the outcome of an investigation, just do another investigation?

 

Why did they lie? I know you're happy they got away with it, but why did they lie?

 

They didn't lie. They made a mistake which they admitted several weeks afterward. A mistake which was easy to make since there were other attacks that week that were due to the video.

Contrast that with Iraq, where the GOP kept repeating the WMD lie for years after it was obvious that there weren't any. How many investigations did they hold then?

Not to mention the dozen fatal embassy attacks that occurred on their guy's watch. How many investigations? None.

Zero credibility.

 

The last investigation, run by Republicans, who wanted to find something to hang on Obama and Clinton found the following:

* Intelligence agencies were warned about an increased threat environment, but did not have specific tactical warning of an attack before it happened.

* A mixed group of individuals, including those associated with al Qaeda, (Moammar) Khadafy loyalists and other Libyan militias, participated in the attack.

* There was no 'stand-down order' given to American personnel attempting to offer assistance that evening, no illegal activity or illegal arms transfers occurring by U.S. personnel in Benghazi, and no American was left behind.

* The administration's process for developing talking points was "flawed, but the talking points reflected the conflicting intelligence assessments in the days immediately following the crisis."

What did they miss?

 

Just think if Hitlerry had gotten 241 Americans blown up in a bunker attack.

 

A "mistake?" My goodness, you are completely brainwashed.

Hillary sent an email to Chelsea the night of the attack telling her it was terrorism. Yet, five days later there was Susan Rice on all the Sunday shows saying it was spurred by a internet video.

That's a lot more than a "mistake," it's a bald-faced lie. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows that's a lie. So the question a reasonable person would ask is this: "Why did they lie? What were they hiding?"

But, as I said, that would be a reasonable person.

 

Do you have a link for that?