Prior to Benghazi, there were 13 attacks on embassies and 60+ deaths under President George W. Bush.
Why wasn’t anyone in the Bush administration scrutinized and blamed the way Hillary was?
During any of those attacks that occurred under Bush, were reinforcements and rescue delayed in any way, even for a second? Did anybody lie about the causes?
Moved to Great Debates.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
apples to oranges
At Benghazi, the American Ambassador to that country got killed.
How does that make it an “apples to oranges” comparison? Are you suggesting that attacks on our embassies are only worth investigating if someone sufficiently important gets killed?
So as long as no American get killed, attacks on our embassies/consulates are acceptable?
From the OP’s link.
Oh look. Americans were killed. Just no one you consider important.
Not that we know of, but I’d be interested if you had any evidence suggesting either of those things happened.
220 Marines die in Beirut. One Congressional investigation, bipartisan recommendations, pretty much followed by the Reagan administration.
Four personnel die in Benghazi. Thirty three hearings, extremely partisan, focusing on minutiae such as emails being erased.
We used to have an opposition party that was actually interested in governing; now, we do not.
Just to quote the article from the OP:
If you don’t understand that, I don’t know how else to explain it to you.
Here’s a list of deadly attacks on US diplomatic targets during the Bush administration.
So how many regular Americans (and nationals of the host country) does it take to equal one Ambassador?
Or was the mockrage because a Democrat was in office?
“Why X?”
“Because X!”
That’s not an explanation, that’s a tautology.
Gawd, he said he didn’t know how to explain it, what do you want!?
Is the “Why X?” in this equation “Why is the death of an ambassador more noteworthy then the death of some other random American?”
Is that the threshold for your indignation - that Ambassador is the minimum rank to trigger it? How did you come to develop that standard?
You’re right about one thing - you can’t explain it. But that isn’t *our *fault.
Apples and oranges.
Hundreds of Americans were proud to give their lives at Embassies serving under Reagan or Bush, among the greatest and patriotic Presidents ever. Hundreds of other fine Americans regret that they were not there to sacrifice their lives too.
But the callous contempt for American life which stains the Teleprompter “Saviour” who pretends to be half-white and his sidekick, the Wicked Witch of Arkansas, is a different matter altogether. When are we going to have more hearings on their treasons and felonies?
Exactly.
It sounds like a “standard” developed after the fact to me. Were any of the other attacks investigated as extensively as this one?
Why was Benghazi worse?
The **cover up ** by Barack HUSSEIN Obama and Sect of State Hillary via Susan Rice.
And that’s why we know nothing about what happened that day, oh wait…
There was no cover-up. There was a period during and immediately following the attack that the details of the attack and the reasons for it were not fully known, and the intelligence view changed a few times as further information was received. But if you have evidence of actual intent to cover up, I’m sure we’d all like to hear about it.
And you don’t have to capitalize Obama’s entire middle name. Just the first letter will do.
But then how will we know he’s really a Muslim traitor?
Please don’t do that. It’s already hard enough to try and figure out when American posters are being sincerely batshit insane or just posing.