I asked what they possibly had to gain. We already know there wasn’t a security failure the administration needed “cover” for - the lack of embassy security was the result of Congress’ decision to cut funding.
Leaving that aside, that still doesn’t make sense. How would the administration benefit from covering up a security failure by pointing to… a different security failure?
It’s a security failure either way. There is no cover, temporary or otherwise.
The only explanation that holds any water is that “terrorism” would undermine candidate Obama’s narrative that he had won the war on terror and thus deserved re-election. The problem with that is that Obama never claimed that he had won the war on terror or that there would be no more terrorist attacks because of his fine leadership.
Embassies are not supposed to be armed encampments. By their very nature, embassies and lesser offices depend on the host country for their security, it is a statement of faith and respect towards that country. That faith is often misplaced, often deliberately. And the risks are taken by people who are fully aware of that risk, that do it for their country. Much like a soldier, except without the option of shooting back.
The attack is less an indictment of poor security than a clear instance of super-macho tough guy terrorists who are somewhat less willing to die for Allah than they pretend. Hard asses attack hard targets and armed soldiers. Wussies attack diplomats.
So are we agreed then that adaher is wrong once again, and this time Terr is wrong with him?
Just as a thought exercise, let’s assume that all of Terr’s and adaher’s stated beliefs about the Benghazi attack were true.
Then what?
I gotta listen to that little voice of mine when it tells me not to click on adaher posts… -_-
Then any Republican candidate for the next Presidential election wins by default.
Ted Cruz couldn’t win if* 60 Minutes* had a handwritten note from Hilary to AlQ saying “Kill 'em all!”.
Hmmm… seems a bit optimistic to me. How high is the public level of interest in Benghazi and how high is it likely to be in November 2016?
In their minds, dude, in their minds.
I mean, some people apparently thought Michelle Bachmann was a viable candidate. For a while, at least.
Given this, it was a terrible move by Obama and Clinton to cut funding to the State Department. We have specific threats and they decide to cut that budget and hamper their ability of the State Department to provide additional security?
I’m disgusted.
Another stupid “gotcha” try. I believe the topic was lies after the attack. I know it’s uncomfortable for you and other lefty posters here so you try to switch it.
When I said adaher should try being wrong less often, I didn’t mean that he should let someone else be wrong for him.
Yes, how dishonest of them to try to talk about the part of this story that actually matters.
Did the 60 minutes piece deal with these “lies”?
No, it provided information that shows that those were lies.
I don’t give a fucking rats ass what happened after the attack. Four fucking corpses and all you fucking give a shit about is who said what.
No wonder your fucking party is despised. You don’t give a shit that your anti-tax worship actually impeded our country’s ability to protect a consulate. What’s important is the way you can spin those corpses into a Pro-Republican narrative.
Quit managing the narrative and start managing the fucking country, that’s supposed to be the friggin’ job.
And sooooo…?
C’mon, drop the other shoe, fer cryin’ out loud.
Your little “gotcha” didn’t work so you decide to throw a tantrum?
Then those “lies” aren’t really the topic of the thread, are they?
Why can’t we deal with what happened in Benghazi as a lesson to learn from and to better protect/assign people to take care of our interests overseas? To me this whole “lie” thing is exactly what I said earlier, dragging dead bodies out on parade to score some imaginary partisan point rather than focusing on what is important, protecting human lives.