My guess is that Rep. Gowdy took the job because he believes that there is something there
The Benghazi hearings carry political risks and rewards for both sides:
1) The GOP has to put new facts on the table, as Charles Krauthammer indicated. The hearings will get old very fast unless there are new revelations about what happened that night; and,
2) The Democrats cannot minimize that 4 Americans, including the first US Ambassador since 1979, were killed.
Rep. Gowdy's selection confirms my suspicions that there is "something there". I don't think that he would have accepted the job unless he felt that there was something to investigate.
Under Rep. Gowdy's leadership, the committee will subpoena people who will answer under oath some of the questions still unanswered, especially about then-Ambassador Rice and the video.
As a citizen, I would like to hear answers to these questions:
-Why weren't we more prepared on another anniversary of Sept. 11? What were we doing in Benghazi anyway?
-Why didn't we try to rescue fellow citizens under fire on foreign soil for hours? Wasn't there an aircraft carrier under alert on the anniversary of September 11th?
-Why didn't the President Obama tell us what happened? He never addressed the nation and avoided the issue altogether until he was confronted.
Maybe I'm wrong but I'm betting that Rep Gowdy will get to the bottom of this and the findings won't be pretty.
P. S. You can hear my chat with Richard Baehr of American Thinker & follow me on Twitter @ scantojr.