The Benghazi story is not going to cost Democrats votes in the midterms, nor HRC in 2016 (if she runs).
Deal with it.
After Larry and Ted get beat up, Terr goes to the Police for assistance, and they tell him that he’s SOL because the Town Council has eliminated all overtime for the police, yanno, to keep taxes down.
So Terr gets beat up, and the Police Department Media Rep says that it may have been a mugging, the Town Council decides that misstatement is the single most important aspect of the situation, and Terr agrees.
One must have perspective, musn’t one?
You tell us. A number of us have asked why the administration would lie, and pointed out that your “political cover” theory doesn’t make sense.
The cognitive dissonance in the right-wing echo chamber over this issue is astonishingly high. Even for them. It’s like Birth Certificate 2.0, except there is an actual tragedy associated with this.
I think it just shows how terrified they would be of a President Hillary that they have started the campaign against her 3 years out. I’m just licking my chops in anticipation of a Hillary-Cruz matchup.
When I first heard the teaser for this on 60 Minutes, I thought “Jesus Christ - this again?”
Then I saw it was Lara Logan, and I thought, “Okay, whatever you say.”. I’d watch Lara Logan read from the Brooklyn White Pages for half an hour.
I ended up missing it anyway.
To you. Blinders etc.
Our theory requires fewer assumptions, and makes a lot more sense. Assuming a few small mistakes were made (in getting the information out) seems a lot more reasonable and plausible then assuming lies and malice.
IMHO this is useful in the sense that many moderates and independents will **continue **to see this as yet another sign of the extreme positions the Tea Party and many conservatives are taking.
Positions that actually interfere with the workings of the government, and for very shaky reasons.
Better than a sleep mask.
Or those Republican Idiocy Sensitive Sunglasses.
No one needs to.
They started that campaign when she was First Lady. There was a whole cottage industry of anti-Hillary books (mostly published by Regnery).
Is that little fuckhead **adaher **going to come back to this thread or is he just planning to continue letting Terr flop around on the deck in his place?
Sounds to me like there was a Colonel in charge of security who knew the target and the time and had some resources, but not as much as he would have liked and is now not taking responsibility for not succeeding with what resources Congress saw fit to give him, which were less than the Obama Administration requested.
Ah, so saying they DID know what it was was a slick disinformation campaign against Al Qaeda. Got it.
I don’t think that’s the most likely explanation, but it’s far more likely and plausible than your “ooh they lied because ??? PROFIT” hypothesis. My explanation (in post #90) fits all the facts and requires fewer assumptions (as well as the more reasonable and plausible “rushed mistakes and miscommunications along with a plea for caution” explanation as opposed to the ludicrous “evil liars”).
They lied, because the spontaneous explanation holds them blameless, at a time when they really needed to be held blameless. A planned attack, even if it had been handled without loss of life, raises questions about whether they should have known.
… or anyone else. Again, how does the administration look better if it allows a diplomatic facility to be destroyed by an angry mob? That’s worse than letting it be destroyed by a carefully planned terrorist attack.
It’s impossible to know in advance of a spontaneous angry mob.
It’s perfectly clear, as long as you start with the conclusion that Obama is an evil liar and work backwards from there.