Jim Jordan

I think it is a great idea, but I am not alone.

The number one recommendation--frankly, the one that many of the other 39 hinge upon--says we need to create at the Under Secretary level, an Under Secretary for Diplomatic Security.

We are going to make sure we keep focused on what we started our conversation here about, Mr. Starr, and that is the safety of our people who serve abroad.

Not exactly a title that inspires confidence, screams stability, does it, Mr. Starr?

The most fundamental question is, why were we there in the first place?

We have got more facilities probably than any other country in the world, 285, and none of them use that designation today.

What was so important about Benghazi that we didn't follow our own standards; we didn't follow the waiver process;

I do not believe so, sir, no.

No, sir, they were not met.

The number one question I get back home about Benghazi, the number one question I get, why were we there?

It shouldn't be a partisan issue, should it? Republican, Democrat, shouldn't matter?

The facts haven't changed. The evidence hasn't changed. But the way our Government characterizes Benghazi has changed a lot.

We should not move on until there is a complete understanding of why requests for additional security were denied.

I do not think we should move on until there is a complete understanding of how the security environment described by our own Government in court documents was allowed to exist.

Do you think it's responsible to not tell the millions of enrollees... that things may change dramatically?

Are you telling them there might be a change?

Mr. Gruber testified before Congress about Obamacare and didn't disclose that he was being paid by the Obama administration.

If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your Doctor.

I would say, no, these aren't mistakes, unforced errors. This is intentional deception, and it's nothing new.

And we heard in Iraq, as in Nigeria, 'Oh, what you need to do is create a more inclusive government. Violent jihadist groups are not about inclusive governments. They are about exclusive governments.'

Let me point out that one of the concerns we have had with U.S. response is the effort to downplay the intent of these groups. It is what I call the 'see no jihad, hear no jihad, say no jihad' strategy.

I think I want to quickly make the linkage here. The groups that terrorize people of other faiths in that country will ultimately want to set their sights on bigger targets, and that is why we see what is going on now, is that groups like…

The reason we keep bring Mr. Koskinen back is because when he tells us something, we later learn it is not accurate.

This is why we should have hearing after hearing to find out exactly what happened.

People were systematically targeted for their political beliefs. That is what took place here.