If only the demmycrats hadn’t cut defense spending, there could be a U.S. Marine in every private residence in the world!
Not quite.
What they originally said was “the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault …” So what’s mentioned is not a demonstration taking place at Benghazi, but rather attacks inspired by Cairo protests.
Significant in the initial draft were “we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qa’ida participated in the attack”, evidence of the involvement of members of Ansar al-Sharia, and reference to previous Benghazi attacks. The omission of these in subsequent drafts certainly helped invite the erroneous conclusion that what happened in Benghazi was a protest gone wrong.
Benghazi wasn’t an embassy, but the US ambassador was certainly there. And he certainly made requests for for improvements in security, which were not provided.
The problem doesn’t appear to be a slow understanding of terrorists’ motivation - it’s that information about the fact that this was an attack by terrorists (known by folks present to be the case as it was happening) was suppressed.
He probably shouldn’t have decided to travel to Benghazi without his security detail, then.
Yes, as House Oversight Chief of the Inquisition Darrel Issa said yesterday on (where else) Fox News:
So the position is that “Act of Terror” is not the same as “Terrorist Attack”. Therefore, when then-president George W. Bush said the following on September 13th, 2001, he was also supressing the truth:
Really guys, this whole Benghazi “scandal” boils down to what word someone used in the media (an endless, naval-gazing fascination for the talk-radio and Sunday-pundit windbags).
It also depends on believing that Obama instantly knew this one act in a war-zone would so ruin his record as a terrorist killer that he had to cover it up or lose the election. That theory has so many holes (the election was never that close, it ignores Obama’s rhetorical skills to rally the country behind him like Bush did after 9/11, the losses–though personally tragic–can’t possibly be spun as some great defeat in the GWOT) it’s ridiculous on its face.
Obama is right; the whole thing defies logic–unless you assume it’s just a political game the GOP is playing. Given that’s their default mode with this president, I think most people know the entire “scandal” is bogus. Not the tragic act itself, which we should investigate to improve protecting foreign diplomats–though I’m sure if it requires spending $0.01 on someone other than bankers and business, the GOP will carp about that as well.
Well, obviously Obama could never have been reelected if the people found out Benghazi was a terrorist attack.
Just ask President Romney.
So the President and Secretary of State are not responsible for making correct decisions if the issue is complicated? That’s their job. To address very complicated issues, and get them right. If you’re going to give the President and Secretary of State a pass every time the issue is “complicated,” then I wonder how you can ever hold the Obama admin – or any admin – responsible for anything they do.
Second, the President and Secretary of State are responsible for the decisions of the people they oversee and appoint. It doesn’t seem to have been a defense that Bush didn’t personally make all the decisions with regard to Hurricane Katrina and the tactics in Iraq. Why does a different standard apply to Obama and Clinton?
Moreover, it is incumbent upon the President and especially the Secretary of State to make sure there is adequate security to protect embassy personnel. It’s one of the essential functions of their job. “We got away with it a number of times without anyone dying” is not a defense when someone does die.
The outrage is not that we didn’t understand the terrorists’ motivation completely right away. The outrage is that the admin did understand what had happened, and then misrepresented what had happened for political gain. That’s the allegation. And it’s an allegation that jayjay says doesn’t matter, because the Obama admin gets a pass even if they lied lying.
And I never said that asking “why” the 9/11 attacks occurred implies that it was our fault. So please go batter your strawmen elsewhere.
I just posted this in the other thread, so I thought I should put it here too:
CNN Blows Huge Hole In GOP Efforts To Prosecute Benghazi Scandal
So this is what ABC wrote:
This is what the email actually said:
I’m sure there will be apologies.
I’d ask for a cite, but I’m not sure you’re even making a point here.
On the one hand, you argue that Republicans are responsible for cutting embassy security. On the other hand, you argue that the state of embassy security is irrelevant. So you appear to be arguing that the Republicans did something that was irrelevant.
What you seem to be ignoring is the fact that the Obama admin was responsible for the security at Benghazi, and the Obama admin provided “grossly inadequate” security. That’s not just my conclusion. That’s the conclusion of the Pickering report, and the Obama admin agrees.
No way. This is patently, demonstrably false. Please take your falsehoods elsewhere. From CNN:
Did he have access to more than those two?
Please see the first part of the quoted statement (emphasis added):
Yeah, I assumed those were already there. So not part of his detail.
Could he have brought more of his security detail?
I should also point out that the attack took place in two waves. The first attack apparently occurred around 9:30 pm, and resulted in the death of Amb. Stevens and one other American.
After the first attack, 6 American security personnel flew from Tripoli to Benghazi to provide additional security in case of a subsequent attack. They arrived before a 2nd attack occurred at around 1:30 am. (cite)
So I would assume that there were 5 security personnel at the Benghazi site during the first attack, and another 6 (making a total of 10 or 11, depending on whether the American killed in the first attack was security personnel or not) during the second attack.
If you have evidence, feel free to provide it.
I was asking you the question. You said that Stevens travelling without his security detail was a lie.
I was asking if those two people were his *entire *security detail. Of course, unless he had a personal army, he’s not gonna be able to repel a concerted surprise attack by 150 armed men.
First, I didn’t say that Stevens traveling without his security detail was a lie. I said it was false. And it was.
Second, I asked you the same question. If you’re suggesting that he wasn’t traveling with his entire security detail, or that he had control over the size of his security detail that traveled with him to Benghazi, then it is incumbent upon you to provide evidence to support your argument.
I’m not asserting it. I’m asking you. If you don’t have the answer, that’s cool.
And I’m asking you. If you don’t actually have any evidence, then that’s cool.
If you’re not even asserting it, then why would I spend time digging up cites for your not-an-argument?