let us not forget Romney’s claim that obama’s first actual reaction to it was to tell the middle-east “boy, we sure are sorry we’re just the worst! no wonder you can’t NOT kill us. we’re so sorry, arabs!”
Presidenting While Black.
Just curious: how many other American soldiers and representatives were killed or attacked elsewhere in the world in the 48 hours around the Benghazi tragedy? Presumably Americans elsewhere are dispensable - only diplomatic staff are worthy of (Republican) political attention.
Re: Susan Rice: Oh wow, so that’s what the right-wingers elsewhere were refusing to cite to me! No wonder! :rolleyes: The talking point on the right was that Susan Rice was sent out for weeks beforehand to lie about what had happened and blame the creator of “Of The Innocence of Muslims”. That’s… not even close to what happened. 
Do they honestly believe this? I mean, it’s kind of a question of “do they think we’re stupid, or are they stupid?”
I think you’re close to the answer here - the answer is BOTH.
The Republicans want us to think this is worse than Watergate and is the scandal that will bring down Obama. Personally, I think it’s much more like Whitewater. The general public doesn’t care and only the right-wing media and listeners do. If you ask them to actually explain what they’re talking about they simply cannot do so in any coherent manner. And it’s gotten even worse since the Petreaus thing has them trying to tie two scandals together which makes it all the more confusing (like Whitewater plus the Travelgate, Filegate, and Vince Foster bullshit all getting stuck together.)
I don’t understand the controversy about sending Susan Rice to the talk shows as opposed to someone else. Someone, or more likely, some people, did an investigation right after the attacks and came up with the initial talking points given to Rice by the CIA. Certainly no one would suggest that a CIA agent should have been the spokesperson. Therefore, the information was given to Rice to disseminate. The argument seems to be that she didn’t have anything to do with the investigation and so wasn’t the right person for the task. But everyone not at the CIA starts off with the same lack of knowledge Rice had. So why not her?
I can’t even see how it’s as scandalous as that. Whitewater at least raised some legitimate questions about the possibility of illegal activity. There was a specific, if unproven, accusation of a crime. Which might or might not have been true; it was never proven in court. But at least we know what Clinton was accused of. It is perhaps true that most people did not care, but anyone who bothered to do even the most cursory of reading could find out, pretty easily, what Clinton was accused of doing.
In the Benghazi case I’ve yet to hear anyone coherently explain what crime was supposed to have been committed.
I agree. How can there be charges of “cover up” until we know exactly what there was to cover up?
He didn’t say the magic word, but the duck dropped down and gave him five dollars anyway, so impeachment hearings are called for.
Seriously, these guys got nothin’! Hannity, today, was still ranting: “He didn’t call it a terrorist attack.” Um? So?
Nixon’s political career died.
Not to be flip, but there’s a difference between deliberate criminal activity and general bureaucratic incompetence.
Oh, I agree that in terms of actual scandal that there is no there there when it comes to Benghazi. I was thinking more of the general effect and attitude of the public. Let me put it this way–the Whitewater investigation went from when I was starting middle school (earlier if you count the 1992 campaign coverage) until the middle of my freshman year of high school and the only thing even related to those years of investigation that I can explain to someone else was the Lewinsky thing because that, at least, is fairly simple. I’m not sure there ever was a coherent explanation made to the general public of two decades of land deals in a place most people had never heard of.
If you want your scandal to catch on, make it simple and ideally make it sex-related. Blow job in Oval Office? Simple and sex-related. Decades-old Arkansas land deals? Not simple and not sex-related. Otherwise actually be able to explain what the problem is in a coherent manner. Watergate wasn’t really that simple and neither was Iran-Contra, but at least the explanations aren’t too torturous and Seth MacFarlane managed to put an explanation of Iran-Contra in song (which was actually the first really good explanation I ever got of it.)
The accusations are these:
There was a meeting one month before the attacks about how the compound was vulnerable and that there were terrorist militias affiliatied with Al Queda operating in the area. (cite)These militias had been targeting western targets in the area including several small scale attacks on the Benghazi compound.
Visitors had been warning people in the compound that the terrorist militias were watching the compound.
More security had been asked for and denied. Cite
Then during the attack there were emails sent be people in the compound saying it was a terrorist attack and that the militias were claiming credit. Cite
The CIA chief in Libya reported less than 24 hours after the attacks that were carried out by the militias.
Within 24 hours of the attack the Intelligence agencies knew the identity of four people who participated in the attack and the whereabouts of two. Cite
Despite this knowledge adminitration spokespeople continued for over two weeks to characterize the attacks as a spontaneous reaction of a mob to an internet video.
The question is why they would keep telling falsehoods, those with a more conspiratorial frame of mind tend to think that it was a plan to keep an intelligence and security failure off the news until after the election. I tend toward the belief that it is just more incompentence and wishful thinking from this administration.
Or option 3)
The intelligence community did not want the terrorists to know we had a good idea who they were and to not blow the cover of the ones that helped on the tracking of the perpetrators.
Emphasis as this was reported a few days ago, I guess some sources are still ignoring information coming from hearings.
From your site “Some intelligence analysts worried, for instance, that identifying the groups could reveal that American spy services were eavesdropping on the militants — a fact most insurgents are already aware of.”
So the country was lied to for weeks to keep the terrorists from finding out what they already knew. That makes me feel better, the country is in the best of hands.
^won’t matter. clearly the GOP and supporters have already–long ago–made up their mind on the matter. the details (reality) won’t change anyone’s mind. that’s what bugs me about this…the conclusion has long ago been drawn that obama fucked up. all that’s left is how small the straws will get that they will continuously grasp at.
The political positions of John McCain are largely driven by opportunism and personal grudges, so this pretty much nails it. The only reason this “scandal” has gone on this long (read: After the election, when its usefulness to Republicans pretty much dried up) is because McCain has a personal axe to grind. It also helps that he seems to enjoy appearing on the Sunday talk shows and has cultivating the kind of chummy political friendships that dupe senators like Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham into going out on the limb with him.
you need to read this.
whitehouse emails saying al ansar sharia took credit are not necessarily what al ansar claims. they still maintain they weren’t involved.
the whole thing just might be a little more complicated than the GOP wants it to be. part of that is based on the factionalism of what al ansar al sharia is–it’s a loose affiliation of civil protestors, militants and a mix of non-congealed fellows who come from disparate ideologies. it’s not a well-organized group with clear boundaries and respected, succinct leaders.
this is why i think it’s foolish to have already drawn conclusions–so much data is still coming in. turns out Rice’s talking points were deadfuckingon from what the CIA said, but the GOP cannot get past their initial knee-jerk reaction of “she lied!” she didn’t lie.
what about that?
according to people on the ground in Libya, and according to people quoted as being involved in the attack themselves, the attack was over the video.
so it would appear there’s a nitpick over “protest.” it was about the video, and it was an attack. it wasn’t something planned for weeks in advance, it was spontaneous, pre-planned in the moments before action, which is what the video corroborates. <–and that’s a right-wing nutter cite for you, even they admit the attack was weakly planned.
the reality is there’s no evidence anyone flat out lied. the only thing they COULD have lied about was linking it to the video–which it was. nitpicking protest just proves the GOP is unwilling to accept defeat on their initial assertions. they’ll just keep finding more and more things to be outraged about.
I think it’s more interesting to note just how common attacks with fatalities are on our overseas diplomatic facilities in the wake of 9/11–and how that’s just a sad fact of international relations life barely worth noting until we’re near election day in a close race with an incumbent Democrat who’s slightly ahead.
As I said in the other thread: I’ll be more interested in listening to these conspiracy theories when someone gives me a motive that makes even an ounce of sense for any malfeasance.
If it’s just “it was an intelligence failure and some poor decision-making on the part of the administration” and not malfeasance, well, then I’ll weigh those four deaths against both the average number of lost lives in these kind of attacks, and the soldiers’ lives saved by the administration’s good decisions in Iraq and Afghanistan (compared to previous administrations)–in which care it looks like pretty small beer to me.