Rep. Gohmert on Benghazi: “People Were Being Slaughtered and We Did Nothing About It”


PolitiChick Ann-Marie Murrell talks to Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert about the lack of response from his investigation into Muslim Brotherhood ties in the White House, and about Benghazi and the lack of details coming out of the White House.  Hillary said, “What difference does it make?”  Does it? From the West Coast David Horowitz Freedom Center event:

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • AdinaK

    Yes, the valiant efforts of Rep Gohmert, Bachmann and a paltry few others, re Benghazigate and the infiltration/penetration of the Muslim Brotherhood Mafia –

    Even Panetta dropped a bombshell before leaving office –

    As to the Brotherhood Mafia & his efforts –

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel

  • guest

    Not true. We likely knowingly gave them to the muslims. The other consulates already pulled out for anyone who tries we didn't know. Cost Clinton her career as she went under the bus taking the blame for another.

    Anyone know 23 of the 35 that took bin laden are dead now?
    Guess who made that happen. Likely that was another "special deal" to appease these pedophiles.

  • rlqretired

    Rep. Gohmert sits on the Judiciary Committee and has been one of our best spokesmen against Obama and his unconstitutional endeavors. It will be interesting to see if Louie complies our historic Rule of Law by truthfully filling out the Urgent Demand for Verification as Attorney Taitz subpoena requires, or will he choose to be complicit in the cover-up of Obama’s forged instruments of eligibility, along with the corrupt Eric Holder, by refusing to do so.

    Any Republican Congressman that receives one of these subpoenas is given an excellent opportunity to defend what is left of our Rule of Law by simply telling the truth and if Speaker Boehner asks or tells them not to respond they should tell him to go straight to Hell and go public with that information. We need to get rid of that treasonous coward anyway. He will not fight and Obama is killing us.

  • Robert Klein Engler

    smoke and fire at Benghazi

    The Incident at Benghazi has become a Medusa's head for many of our politicians. If they look directly at what happened at Benghazi they will turn to stone.

    Why have so many in government from the president on down to the secretary of state and pentagon generals lied or have not been totally forthcoming about what happened at Benghazi? At this point, everyone knows a video was not to blame for the death of ambassador Stevens.

    Two possible answers are before us. On the one hand, by keeping the American people from the truth about Benghazi our politicians are covering for their own mistakes. On the other hand, they may know the truth about Benghazi will cause a social upheaval that would not be good for the country. In short, they may be self-serving or patriotic. It's hard to see our politicians as both.

    The only way you protect yourself from your first lie is by telling a second lie. That's what we learn by reading the conflicting stories coming out of the Senate hearing on Benghazi. One says the president was not in his office. Another says he was. Back and forth the stories go. None of this testimony was given under oath, so there is no reason to take any answer as the truth.

    If you had a government career that hung in the balance because of what happened at Benghazi, then you'd probably not be forthcoming, either. Just stall until the storm blows over, and then get on with the fundamental transformation of America.

    But what if the truth about Benghazi is so startling that it would rip a tear in the social fabric that politics as usual could not repair? What if the truth about Benghazi tore the mask off the illusion of presidential power? Would you disguise the truth for the sake of the nation's stability?

    Some politicians may hope to prevent the truth about Benghazi from coming out, not so much because they want to keep their power but because they want to keep a minimum of social order. That may be their motive for stalling and subverting the truth about the Incident at Benghazi.

    The false stories about the Incident at Benghazi may be the noble lie Plato warned us about. The public cannot see the president or the secretary of state or a general for what they really are. The truth about Benghazi will not set us free. Instead, the truth will set us at one another's throats.

    If this is where we've come in our politics, if we've come to a point where only a lie will save us, then aren't we already beyond saving? Forget Benghazi. Let's get back to work shipping illegal arms to the Syrian rebels. What difference does it make?

    If Chris Stevens were alive today, what would he say about the Incident at Benghazi? Maybe he would avoid the truth, too, because he wants to become the ambassador to Iran. He has a career to consider, his "cursus honorum," not just his UC Berkeley idealism. Maybe he would slough off his betrayal as just part of his job.

    But then again, maybe ambassador Stevens would see that the lies so far told about the Incident at Benghazi are in fact a smoke screen. There may have been at the core of Stevens' idealism the uniquely American trait of being honest in the face of corrupt power.

    We hope that Stevens would have realized that the smoke of lies at Benghazi hides a real fire in Washington. We'd better find that fire and put it out or the whole house will burn down, not just the oval office.

    And if we don't put out the fire, then what? Are we to stand before the smoldering ruins of our home, staring at a few charred boards covered with charcoal blisters and say, "See, I told you we'd fundamentally transform the way we live."

    It wasn't that nice of a house to begin with. What difference does it make? Let's go back to building with straw instead of brick. Straw is more natural, more honest. It's the Benghazi way. Some say Medusa sleeps, if she sleeps at all, on a bed of straw.

    • SAM000

      you are right on something;
      finally, someone starts thinking, yes you are right, The American crew in the ambassador team have found something that they were never expecting.
      Ambassador Stevens was charged to find the traces of 20,000 anti aircraft special guided missiles that USA had furnished to Qaddafi en exchange of Libyan nuclear stock.
      these 20,000 special missiles were made specially to shoot down Israeli jets, Qaddafi wanted a materialized guarantee against possible Israeli airstrike.
      Ambassador Stevens found that those missiles were fallen in the hands of the Iranian Qods Forces, this news could put fire on Middle East and could destabilized Middle east.
      equipping Israel's enemy by USA has the unexpected consequences.

  • Asher

    This is the change in our government, they don't care about life, this is what happens with dictatorships. Look at Assad, Morsi, Chavez, Kim Jung Ill, Bashir, and the Castros. We can't even rescue our own in Benghazi..this is not going to be forgotten!

  • joe

    OH yeah, we could have sent in a C-130 gunship and leveled some residential neighborhoods in the middle of Benghazi. No doubt the Lybian government would have had no problem authorizing that. And even if there was something a C-130 could have done to help in the last attack, there had been no fighting around the CIA Annex for 4 hours at the point that the last two CIA people were killed in a ten minute mortar attack. It was perfectly reasonable for anyone making the decisions of what to do then to think the fighting was over.

    • zsqpwxxeh

      Wrong, Joe.

      Fighter aircraft were stationed in Italy, less than an hour's flying time away. We knew the size and scope of the attack almost immediately, and were monitoring it on realtime video from circling drone aircraft. Only an utter incompetent or a cowardly weasel would fail to order up air support as quickly as possible to save American lives. Obama, of course, is a unique case in the history of U.S. presidents: he is both incompetent and a coward.

  • jerry

    The very least any competent person would do would be to send any available help… so if in the 90 min it took to get there at least the arival time for help would be immediate for any decision that would have been determined necessry at that time. No nothing was sent… what are they covering up? We've not stupid!