Give me the rundown on Benghazi. It was some attack on a US embassy and there have been multiple investigations that have all agreed that it was a terrorist attack. That's all I know, correct me where appropriate. Why is this now an issue? Did something come up that changes everything?
yea, what Binro said. Also since the Obama administration didn't come out right away and say it was terrorists and admit that they screwed up identifying what happened, it can be spun as a cover up because it happened a few months before the 2012 election, the logic being Obama wouldn't want to be seen as having allowed a terrorist strike during his presidency. All in all some pretty weak arguments, that I am actually quite surprised to still see getting this much play.
Even around here in Republican stranglehold country, all the Repubs I've talked to around here wish the Repubs would give Benghazi a rest, mostly because it's a fucking waste of time and money and both sides should really be focusing on far more important things.
There were some security screw ups and steps that should have been taken but weren't, but nothing different from lots of other embassy attacks. Fox and the GOP strategists knew that if they just kept asking over and over "if" there was a scandal and cover-up by Hillary, or calling it a scandal then adding "if evidenced, this is damning", she'd be tarnished whether or not they ever found anything.
It's been nearly two years and they've found nothing, even with many attempts to spin nothing into something. But they've been saying it so long and so emphatically that their base genuinely believes there was a cover-up, and the GOP sees no downside to keep hammering it as long as there's a hope of hurting Hillary or the President. It's a combination of self-delusion, and seeing no downside to continuing the deliberate lie.
In this situation the media should be stepping in as fact checkers to point out that every investigation, including those by Republicans hostile to the White House, has found nothing. But CNN doesn't consider fact checking their job, MSNBC isn't listened to by those who give the scandal any credence, Al Jazeera US might as well be a terror sleeper cell as far as these people are concerned, and newspapers are dead.
In brief, oddeye, the Republicans want to make it look like Obama and Clinton fucked up Benghazi in the same, colossal way that Bush fucked up 9/11. They're desperately trying to make it look like the US embassy was attacked by terrorists, we knew about it in advance, and that we did nothing to prevent the 5 or so deaths that occurred as a result of it. The problem is that, even after commissions and special investigations, virtually nothing is uncovering either a terrorist plot (this was violence spurned on by other protests and riots in the region) or any ineptitude on the part of the government. At least one of the marines that was killed was killed because he moved from his post without orders, and the ambassador who we are being told was captured and tortured for hours by Al Qaeda actually died from smoke inhalation as a result of a fire in the building where he was and locals were actually trying to get him out, but failed. He was not tortured or even injured in any grievous way.
But they want whatever slightly plausible excuse can be used to vote for articles of impeachment, same as with Bill Clinton. Only, unlike Clinton, Obama has been cleared of wrong-doing multiple times.
In short, Benghazi has literally reached Birther/Truther levels of wingnut batshittery to a level that most of the American public are not even remotely aware of.
Thanks guys, this is why I ask here.
Moslems in Libya started protesting because of a youtube video that insulted muhammed. The protests resulted in riots which lead to a attack and deaths in the US embassy.
That is what the administration tells us. The republicans think there is more to the story and have been trying to investigate.
That was the administrations explaination of events as espoused by Susan Rice. After the fact, it became clear that the attack was not random but planned, likely with the intent of influencing the midterm elections. It's also pretty clear that the administation knew this when they rolled out Susan Rice.
So, is this a coverup? I suppose it is. The alternative however ( to scream and panic about being attacked by terrorists as the last admin was fond of doing ) is EXACTLY THE GOAL OF THE TERRORISTS. For the election indeed would have been swayed, and we'd likely have Mitt Romney in the White House.
Now I complain about Hopey, but let's give the man credit where it is due. He rarely responds to trolls. That's an admirable quality, and his handling of the bengahzi attack shows how effective an anti-response can be. It completely deflated the thrust of the attack. The election was not influenced. It served his personal purposes, that is true, and it is the heart of the legitimate complaint from the repubs. But it also greatly served the national interest, and is exactly the best response to the attack.
The deeper question the Repubs need to ask of themselves is; if indeed the intent was to influence the election, then it's clear the terrorists would prefer a republican leader. Is a state of permanent war something you think is in the national interest? I think it is in the terrorists interest, quite a bit. It's not serving me, that's for sure.
|The Mothership |
It's BREAKING, now!
"Benghazi" is GOP for "Dammit, we couldn't sabotage healthcare! Fall back!"
Hil-dawg is a juggernaut for 2016, they have to do SOMETHING
I'm surprised republicans are not pushing harder with the whole fast and furious fiasco. Something that got a lot of coverage, i guess some of them were just happy mexicans were killing each other in bigger numbers.
Is the outrage faux, is the indifference faux, are both the outrage and the indifference faux, or is there a mixture of sincerity and callous partisan self-interest to both sides?
Actively spreading misinformation about a brutal terrorist attack and then covering it up to protect the short-term political interests of the parties involved may not be the biggest thing we have to worry about at the moment (lord knows the US is involved in much worse stuff than one CIA psyop), but I have to wonder: if George and Dick had been caught doing this (and they most certainly did this), would everyone just not care, and maybe even turn the scandal into an opportunity to bitch about Democratic pettiness? Or would there be just as much outrage and indifference, merely flipped around along gang lines?
Alternately, we could have screamed bloody murder and declared war against Libya. We could spend another national fortune, you could be mobilized and doing some real fighting and dying for people you neither know nor care about, rather than posting to this website, and the terrorists would have achieved all of the goals they were after.
I suppose that is where our difference of opinion lies. I rather like the fact that the president is looking out for the national interest along with his own, rather than just his own which is the more standard fare you are promoting.
Is anything organic about this woman's(?) face.
Seriously, fuck politics a moment, what the fuck is this lump of plastic pretending to be a face even existing for?
But of course Brunei is not a topic. Because oil.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|