I am no fan of McCain and I would not put it past him to do this for his own political clout. That being said, I would much prefer one Select Committee with subpeona power be established to look into this. But given the mushy moderate stance of most of the Republican Senators, I would prefer to see it come from the House. There are emails that House committee members have seen that prove that the administration changed the talking points from acknowledging a "terrorist attack" to coming up with the fictional spark being ignited by the video. However, though they were allowed to see them, they have not been allowed to release them though they are not classified. Why? If they are lying, publishing them will show they are lying. But if what the Committee members say is true - that in and of itself explains why the WH will not allow them to be released. Which all goes back to the question - WHY the fiction? Why the continued attempt to cover it up?<quoted text>
McCain calls for appointment of a Senate Joint Select Committee. Of course he would head it. McCain's call for a Watergate-style select committee is also rooted in the premise that the Obama administration is guilty of covering up the details of what really happened in Benghazi -- an idea that was floated by then-Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and has yet to be supported by any evidence.
McCain faces term limit on Senate Armed Services Committee. He was the ranking member, and extremely powerful post. The only ranking Republican spot available to him will be on the Indian Affairs Committee. Unless, that is, the Senate creates a brand-new select committee.
I see motive and opportunity here. How about you?
"Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010"
"For the past two years, House Republicans have continued to deprioritize the security forces protecting State Department personnel around the world. In fiscal year 2011, lawmakers shaved $128 million off of the administration's request for embassy security funding. House Republicans drained off even more funds in fiscal year 2012 -- cutting back on the department's request by $331 million."
What was your point in posting those statements regarding budget cuts?
Charlene Lamb, whose position in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security puts her in the know as to whether or not cuts had any impact on the consulate's security said they HAD NO IMPACT. End of that attempt to shift blame.