Lost in the Weeds--Benghazi

Quote: rxwine

A somewhat different explanation

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20362941

Unfortunately no transcript of the hearing is being released,

So, believe what you will.

The intelligence reason given:

I call BS on that whole line of thought--you can call something a terrorist act (exactly what it was) without stating which groups you think were involved. Most of these groups WANT to to be responsible for killing infidels...it isn't like they exactly hide that fact.

Someone decided to cover up what actually happened.

I'm also still interested in the answer to the questions about protection of our personnel.

Ask yourself this--if this had happened under President Bush, would you feel the same way about it? I would!!

Quote: RonC

I call BS on that whole line of thought--you can call something a terrorist act (exactly what it was) without stating which groups you think were involved. Most of these groups WANT to to be responsible for killing infidels.

Sure they do -- when they have safely gone into hiding and tracks are cold. Going along with the public anger stuff makes sense if you want to try to gain some advantage hoping they'll be more careless.

Quote:

Ask yourself this--if this had happened under President Bush, would you feel the same way about it? I would!!

I haven't seen much of anything that doesn't also have alternative explanations. Once you rule out altenative explanations, then maybe you've got something.

Even the Bush adminstration said, (paraphrase) we know we can't stop all attacks, we just don't know which one will get through

Quote: rxwine

Even the Bush administration said, (paraphrase) we know we can't stop all attacks, we just don't know which one will get through

I don't expect President Obama to stop every attack; I didn't expect that of President Bush, either. To do so, you have to be "right" every time...the terrorists just have to be "right" once. I do HOPE they stop every attack!!

There are a lot of questions remaining about this attack and we need to get answers to them.

1. Was the CIA doing something there that President Obama promised to stop. It is every President's right to change positions on things but he also needs to "man up" and tell us a bit about why he changed positions. That means, if it was a secret prison, he should have let us know in general (no specifics) over the past 48 months that his position had evolved. Heck, some people might even like him more for doing so.

2. Did we provide the requested protection for our people? This has yet to be answered; there need to be hearings about it.

3. Why was it so important to lie about the video rather than just say we don't know who might have done it until we were ready to say more? I understand that you think they might have used the video thing to give them time to track down the right group. Fine. If I give you that, I would also say they knew who it was shortly after the attack and should have brought the truth forward as soon as they did. Saying you hid something temporarily is better than trying to keep it hidden as the truth trickles out.

4, Timing. Again, you make a valid point. Maybe it needed to wait a few days. The timing behind all of this stinks to high heaven. They knew about General Petraus for months; it comes out conveniently a few days after the election. They knew the truth earlier yet didn't come clean when they knew who the attackers were. CBS and 60 Minutes had the story (regarding the type of attack it was) but only released it in hours before the election--not enough time to run the full course of examination by the voters.

President Bush was raked over the coals for saying a war was over when it wasn't. President Obama ran on the fact that Bin Laden was dead and Al Qaeda was on the run. Bin Laden is dead but Al Qaeda is, and will continue to be, out there tying to commit acts of terrorism against us and others. Saying it isn't so does not make it that way. We must never ignore that fact and we need to continue to press the attack on them at all times.

Memo to conservatives: it's not working. Benghazi is a political dud. Yes, 4 Americans died. Yes, the security was completely inadequate. Yes, the White House lied afterwards. Repeatedly. When 4 lives are lost, it's a tragedy. When politicians lie about tragedies, it's a scandal.

But surely Obama must have bigger scandals in his closet, right?

Get your priorities straight, conservatives! Over 1,600 American troops have died in Afghanistan since Obama became president. And for what? Nothing has been accomplished in Afghanistan. It's every bit as corrupt, backwards, & disfunctional today as it was the day Obama took office. Obama's Afghanistan policy is a catastrophic failure, to the tune of 1,600 dead Americans. (Small trivial detail: Afghanistan was a failure for Bush, Churchill, and the Soviets, but I digress.) The allegation is that Obama knew that an escalation in Afghanistan would be pointless & ineffective, but he went along with Petraeus' plan for political reasons: he wanted to look tough, and he didn't want a U.S. withdrawal from this failed state on his watch. He had a re-election to win, after all.

So which is a bigger political scandal: 4 dead Americans or 1,600 dead Americans?

If I was in President Obama's shoes, I'd want Fox News to be covering Benghazi nonstop, and I'd want Fox News to completely ignore Afghanistan. Thankfully for Obama, Fox is sticking to the script.

Quote: reno

Memo to conservatives: it's not working. Benghazi is a political dud. Yes, 4 Americans died. Yes, the security was completely inadequate. Yes, the White House lied afterwards. Repeatedly. When 4 lives are lost, it's a tragedy. When politicians lie about tragedies, it's a scandal.

Iran-Contra wasn't a scandal people cared about either, that didn't stop the Democrats from pursuing it right up until the 1992 election.

Quote:

If I was in President Obama's shoes, I'd want Fox News to be covering Benghazi nonstop, and I'd want Fox News to completely ignore Afghanistan. Thankfully for Obama, Fox is sticking to the script.

It isn't about Obama, it is about being able to correctly state "when the 3:00 AM call came in, Hillary said 'blame it on a YouTube Video' and went back to sleep while our people died."

Quote: AZDuffman

Iran-Contra wasn't a scandal people cared about either, that didn't stop the Democrats from pursuing it right up until the 1992 election.

Exactly. Just because it didn't work for Dukakis in '88, doesn't mean it won't work for Republicans in 2016.

Quote: AZDuffman

Iran-Contra wasn't a scandal people cared about either, that didn't stop the Democrats from pursuing it right up until the 1992 election.

It isn't about Obama, it is about being able to correctly state "when the 3:00 AM call came in, Hillary said 'blame it on a YouTube Video' and went back to sleep while our people died."

Yeah, not about attacking Obama, it's about damaging the Democratic front runner for election.

Quote: reno

Exactly. Just because it didn't work for Dukakis in '88, doesn't mean it won't work for Republicans in 2016.

I think you confused your elections. I stated 1992, when indictments were handed down days before the election. And in that case it did make some difference, how much may be debatable.

People died, Hillary lied! Has a nice ring!

Quote: AZDuffman

People died, Hillary lied! Has a nice ring!

Exactly. This is all about making Hillary look bad,
keeping her on the defensive. Obama is gone,
who cares about him. This is the the only thing
Hillary accomplished in her political career and
it's massive.

delete