10 Reasons Why Republicans Keep Investigating The Benghazi Attack

House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa, who is heading the congressional investigation, is showing the official letter from the Publisher Clearing House sweepstakes as a proof that he may have already won his case.

House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa, who is heading the congressional investigation against the administration, is demonstrating the official letter from the Publisher Clearing House sweepstakes as a proof that he may have already won.

Since September 11, 2012 attack on American consulate in Benghazi in which four Americans have died, the Republican party had made it their number one priority to investigate the attack in Libya and the suspected conspiracy cover-up by the Obama administration. Although, while preoccupied with Benghazi, the Republican still manage find the time to hold occasional votes to repeal Obamacare.  The investigation seemed to have found the second wind when several whistle-blowers from the State Department agreed to testify last week, but even these new witnesses haven’t added any new incriminating evidence against the Obama administration.  Essentially, their testimony sounded less like whistle-blowing and more like “pfffft”.  Still, the Benghazi investigation shows no signs of slowing down, and here are 10 reasons why it’s still going on.

1)  The Republicans hope that somewhere among the Benghazi e-mails, there is an e-mail from the president where Barack Obama is claiming to be an expert on Africa and attached his Kenyan birth certificate as proof.

2)  Since the investigators have found no actual evidence of a conspiracy, to them it looks as a clear sign of a successful cover-up.

3)  The ringleader of the investigation, Congressman Darrell Issa spent too much time in court as a defendant, and always dreamed of prosecuting somebody else.

4)  By trying to implicate Hillary Clinton and State department in the scandal, the Republicans are hoping to hurt Hillary Clinton’s chances in 2016 presidential election, and Chelsea Clinton’s chances in 2040.

5)  The Republicans are trying to ensure that this outrage* will never happen again. (* – Democratic presidency)

6)  The investigators have revealed locations of CIA bases during the investigation, so their real plan is to expose as many of covert overseas CIA’s facilities if possible, cripple CIA’s operations abroad, enable more terrorist acts against the Americans, and then blame it all on Obama.

7)  They are trying to prove that Republicans are merely looking for the truth, unlike those sleazy gun control advocates who would politicize the deaths of Americans for their own political gain.  And the Republicans won’t stop until they find the truth they like.

9)  Doing something else may end up creating jobs and help the Democrats.

10)  The Republican Party is attempting to prevent Barack Obama’s re-election in 2012. (Remember, the polls showing him as the winner of the election are still skewed and always will be).

Since the whole Benghazi affair is one giant cover up involving everyone in the Obama administration and anyone who ever voted for Democrats, I will do my part by covering up the reason number 8.

Advertisements

About List of X

An Ostensibly Funny Commentary* of the Recent News and Events. (* warning! may not actually be funny or a commentary. Also, since I am not quite sure what "ostensibly" means, it might not be "ostensibly" either.) Blogging at listofx.com
This entry was posted in Humor, List of 10, Satire and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

64 Responses to 10 Reasons Why Republicans Keep Investigating The Benghazi Attack

  1. rossmurray1 says:

    I see what you did there. Very clever piece.

    Like

  2. Carrie Rubin says:

    I suspect your #4 is actually spot on.

    Like

  3. mhasegawa says:

    Love #2

    Like

  4. Hey, it worked with Clinton. They didn’t stop digging until they found something incredibly lame to pin on him. Yay, we caught you lying about getting a bj from an intern. Nevermind what you’ve done for the country otherwise (like balance the budget), let’s impeach you cause “lie about stupid stunt that is frankly only the business of a man and his wife” is much worse than “Lie about why we need to go to war and kill thousands of our people.”

    Like

    • List of X says:

      I am not as kind to Clinton as are you. I didn’t see anything illegal about the Lewinsky bj itself – it is private matter between Bill and Hillary. But if Clinton committed perjury to cover up the affair, that’s definitely a solid reason for impeachment, nevermind whatever other good things he did for the country. Nixon had done some good things too (like ending the US involvement in Vietnam and Clean Water Act), but that didn’t stop his impeachment.

      Like

      • But he was totally set up for it – I mean, Republicans tapped phones for crying out loud. I’m not saying he’s innocent by any means, but to impeach him for a lie about nothing while Republicans constantly lie under oath about stuff far worse? Weapons of mass destruction? I mean – I just don’t – ugh. Nevermind.

        Like

        • List of X says:

          Whoever set him up should have been criminally tried as well. Whoever lied under oath over worse stuff should be kicked out of their DC offices too. I have a simple mind like that.
          But Alice, let’s imagine for a moment that Republicans had impeached Bill Clinton in early 1999. Then Al Gore would have been president for the remainder of Clinton’s term, presiding over two of the best years of economic growth and prosperity in recent history, while more Democrats would have been enraged over Clinton’s treatment by the Republicans. Don’t you think that would have convinced a few more thousands of Floridians vote for Al Gore instead of George Bush in 2000, and turned the 2000 election in Al Gore’s favor?

          Like

      • Bill Hayes says:

        But Clinton didn’t committ perjury – he lied. He was not in a court when he lied, which is the only place you can committ perjury. If lying whilst in office is impeachable, then most Presidents should probably have been impeached

        Like

        • List of X says:

          Lying in the office is not impeachable, true, though sometimes I wish it was – but then we’d have to vote for another president by the time a president-elect finishes his inauguration speech.
          As far as I understand, Bill Clinton lied under oath (that he did not have sex with Lewinski), and that constitutes perjury. It doesn’t have to happen in a court only, and doesn’t really matter what the lie was about. I don’t know if Senate or House are supposed to consider evidence beyond reasonable doubt, like a real court, but it was about trying to get rid of Clinton, and not about justice anyway.

          Like

  5. renxkyoko says:

    #4 Newsflash for republicans…… Hillary Clinton eats this kind of stuff for breakfast.
    ~( ^_^~) ( ~^_^ )~

    Like

  6. renxkyoko says:

    Oooops * eats * typo

    Like

  7. Elyse says:

    It also distracts from the fact that the deficit is going down — without decimating Social Security OR Medicare. What fun is that?

    Like

  8. Sherry says:

    most of them are too close to be true. well done indeed.

    Like

  9. ummmmm… I thought it was to take our minds off the fact that there were like 85 attacks on Embassies and Embassy personnel during the Bush years, and almost no investigations into them…

    Like

  10. Jueseppi B. says:

    Reblogged this on The ObamaCrat.Com™ and commented:
    Number 11…..The TeaTardedRepubliCANTS are just plain stupid.

    Like

  11. bernasvibe says:

    Guess what? My reader is working properly again(yeaaaa) ..Just popping in to mark my spot; be back when time permits tonight.

    Like

  12. mairedubhtx says:

    As usual, your logic is spot on. Well done.

    Like

  13. TAE says:

    Well said: “And the Republicans won’t stop until they find the truth they like.”

    Like

  14. EagleAye says:

    Republicans were always unhappy that the “Benghazi Scandal” was never taken seriously by anyone as a scandal. So they plan to beat that dead horse until everyone finally gives their faux scandal a little credit.

    Like

  15. bernasvibe says:

    Have I told you how much I enjoy reading your posts? Well, I do..and X marked my spot. Doesn’t get much better than that.. I love IT. Anyways my faves are from the top to the bottom : #1 . Simply said, classic! #4 fell out laughing lol, lol! Btw I’m hoping she does run in 2016; but thats another topic for another time(and I’ll be blogging it..) # 10..Naw, President Obama won hands down..Had my ear to the ground, alot, something would’ve been funkier than funkier(and corrupt) if numbers hadn’t showed he won. Did you hear something different? Just curious..

    Like

    • List of X says:

      Thank you, once again! I hope Hillary runs in 2016, but I would not be too surprised if she doesn’t – I don’t think she found her time in Washington so enjoyable.
      If you saw the reactions in conservative media after the election, there was a LOT of noise that elections were rigged in Obama’s favor. However, all presidential elections are controlled at the state levels, and most swing states were run by Republicans. So if any funny business was going on inside the voting machines, it was most likely the work of the Republicans themselves. The hacker group Anonymous supposedly found something going on and stopped it, but I don’t think there was any official investigation.

      Like

      • bernasvibe says:

        Ahhhh no I didn’t know that. Interesting indeed…I was probably so caught up in excitement after the election I paid no attention to conservative media. IF a “certain” news station was suddenly the only one that existed ; I’d stop watching the news altogether. Hate that station ! And there aren’t many things I hate. Glad I got this scoop from you. I thought I was pretty much in-the-know..See how awesome it is I found your blog? Yay!

        Like

        • List of X says:

          I don’t want to present that information as a fact: I know that Anonymous claimed to have discovered Karl Rove trying to mess with the results and blocked his program. However, they did not present any proof, and no one bothered to investigate. But you know, if the sides were turned and hackers had claimed that Obama tried to steal an election, Fox would have been going on and on about this 24/7.

          Like

          • bernasvibe says:

            Exactly! Without a shadow of a doubt..which is why you’re probably right on target. As usual! Thank the Blog Gods everytime I stop by your page that our paths crossed. Virtual high five ^

            Like

  16. Number 10 for sure!

    Like

  17. Number 8 is the true reason! We need to have hearings on why you’re covering up number 8, damn you.

    Like

  18. The Hook says:

    Very clever post – again!

    Like

  19. All of them are likely at least partially true, however I suspect the real target is the younger Ms. Clinton.

    Like

  20. MissFourEyes says:

    Any of these could easily be the truth. Very clever post, loved it!

    Like

  21. It seems to me that Republicans want to look like they are doing something “good for the country” protesting it from terrorists and things of that nature because that’s the only thing left they have to hold on to, if the republicans want to stay relevant they need to change from the inside out.

    Like

    • List of X says:

      In the Benghazi hearings, they don’t even pretend to care about protecting the country from the terrorists. If they were, they would be asking questions like “how can we learn from this to make sure this doesn’t happen again?”. But no, all they care (and ask) about is who covered up what, when, and preferably how this cover-up involves Obama and Clinton.

      Like

  22. Pingback: BENGHAZI SCANDAL AND COVER-UP – Peter L. |

  23. Rocky Terry says:

    The emergence of a number of whistleblowers who have come forward to refute the claims made by some members of President Barack Obama’s administration relating to the September 11, 2012, attack on an American consulate in Benghazi does not directly implicate the White House in a cover-up. They do, however, demolish the politically-motivated allegations by a slew of commentators on the left who denied that those reporters doggedly investigating the American response to the attack were onto something. Those left-of-center commentators who dismissed the investigation into the Benghazi attack as a right-wing delusion animated by a personal hatred of the president have never looked more vacuous.

    Like

  24. John says:

    Reblogged this on AMERICAN LIBERAL TIMES and commented:
    I found this on “List of X” and I love it because – – to my way of seeing things, it rings so very undeniably true.” (Comment by John at “American Liberal Times.” I love this article and I want to see it get the widest possible exposure.

    Like

I can see you have something to say...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s