OK, someone on either side of the political aisle, please explain this one to me. What's the allegations regarding the supposed scandal in Benghazi? This obsession has been going on for almost three years now and I still haven't heard what the charges are exactly.

Now, before anyone answers it this way, yes, I know this is just a page out of the anti-Clinton playbook. "Whitewater II: White Harder." Keep investigating anything and everything and hope something sticks or at the very least you bog the whole system down with your kicking and screaming. It's the search for some reason, any reason, to impeach.

Got it. But at least with Whitewater, you had an allegation. Granted, it was crazy. Granted, there was nothing of real substance there. But it was a coherent accusation. I'm not even sure what the alleged crime is with Benghazi.

Sometimes, it's supposed to be about the lack of preparation. We should have provided more security. We should have seen this coming. Never mind the 13 embassy attacks under the W Bush administration. Never mind 9/11 itself. Nobody could have seen them coming but Benghazi we should have anticipated or prepared for.

Sometimes, it's supposed to be about the inept response (or even more crazy, deliberately sacrificing the ambassador and other lives that were lost that day for some reason). Where was Obama? Why didn't he do more? Why wasn't more done to save the lives of the ambassador and his staff? Why haven't any of the attackers been found and brought to justice? This same inquiry was never done after 9/11, never mind the 13 embassy attacks under W Bush.

Sometimes, it's supposed to be about the post-attack spin. "Obama lied after they died". The spin was that it was a spontaneous attack after an anti-Islamic video was released. They "suppressed" the knowledge that it was an Al Qaida attack. Why again? Because, we're told, it went against the narrative that Al Qaida was on the run. If Obama ran for re-election on the slogan that Al Qaida was completely neutralized and could never launch another attack ever again, I never heard of it. Al Qaida has been on the run ever since 2002, yet they continued to launch terror attacks. Have I mentioned the 13 embassy attacks that happened under the W Bush administration?

I've been so mystified as to what the charges are even supposed to be and I can't find anything coherent.

I mean, just listen to the crazy (eight minutes of near incoherent ranting with nothing of substance offered): http://www.spreaker.com/user/theatheista...ghazi-evil

So who can map this out for me? What's the charge? Fill it in for me, conservatives, "Obama (should/should not) have _____."

I spent time researching the history of moles in the CIA and FBI during the cold war.

The staggering amount of incompetence and lack of due diligence has a consistency with embassy attacks across many presidents, where there were signs of something brewing yet no action is taken.

Such blindness appears again and again in the US intelligence community.

What makes Benghazi so different?

Benghazi = black president.

(May 2, 2014 at 12:26 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: What makes Benghazi so different?

The current President, when he was Senator, had a "D" in parenthesis after his name when it appeared on the television news captions that introduced him to the viewer. If he'd had an "R" instead, that would be different.

(May 2, 2014 at 12:30 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(May 2, 2014 at 12:26 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: What makes Benghazi so different?

The current President, when he was Senator, had a "D" in parenthesis after his name when it appeared on the television news captions that introduced him to the viewer. If he'd had an "R" instead, that would be different.

Forced to agree. If 9/11 had happened a year earlier, Clinton would never have heard the end of it and Faux News would have started every broadcast for the next three years by reminding everyone that 9/11 was his fault. Instead, it happened under the watch of their man Bush and nobody really thought that maybe he might be at fault. In fact, a lot of Republicans are trying to blame 9/11 on Clinton.

That, right here, is the crux of a lot of what Republicans argue: Whenever things go right while a Democrat is in the oval office, it happened because of the Republican who was last there. Whenever things go wrong while a Republican is president, it's always the fault of the Democratic president before him.

The scandal is that the administration intentionally misrepresented to the public at large the nature of incident for purely political purposes......which they obviously did.

I still hear from the left charges that Bush misrepresented Iraq's WMD to sell a war and that's going on 13 years now. Occasionally we still hear about Iran-Contra and that scandal was almost 30 years ago.

You act all surprised that the right wants to get the most mileage out of this scandal? When an administration lies, it takes long time for people to forget about that lie.

---

(May 2, 2014 at 12:28 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Benghazi = black president.

Minimalist peddling his hate again.

The legitimate scandal of Benghazi is that the Obama administration appears to have purposely misled the American people about what transpired, to protect the President's foreign policy rep, just two months away from an Presidential election.

Even worse, the administration continues to perpetuate the lie and smears anyone who dares question the official narrative and the competency of Obama as a nut job racist or conspiracy theorist.

(May 2, 2014 at 3:42 pm)Heywood Wrote: The scandal is that the administration intentionally misrepresented to the public at large the nature of incident for purely political purposes......which they obviously did.

OK, so just to be clear, the scandal was NOT that the administration should have seen it coming and didn't provide enough security (which has been said) and it was NOT that the administration didn't do anything they could have once the attack started (which is being said now) but that the administration claimed it was a spontaneous attack instead of an Al Qaida attack

I understand you correctly?

Since you allege that the administration lied, that they did so for "purely political purposes" and that their guilt is "obvious", I'm hoping you can map it out for me a little better than just the bare assertion that it is so. Let me guide you a bit with a few questions:

1. What evidence is there that the administration knowingly lied, saying the attack was a spontaneous riot and not a coordinated Al Qaida attack?

2. Does the fact that the administration corrected itself and acknowledged that the attack was a terrorist attack the day after do anything to assure you there was no effort to mislead?





3. Can you help me understand the significance of such an attack being in the heat of a riot or an Al Qaida attack and what difference that would make politically? Especially since the correction was issued in short order, long before any debates or any elections?

4. Can you help me understand why there is not a similar concern over the 13 embassy attacks under the W Bush administration or in Condi Rice's lie that no one could have foreseen the attacks on 9/11 when there were ignored reports and insiders like Gen Clark who was practically screaming warnings about Al Qaida and being ignored by that administration?

Quote:I still hear from the left charges that Bush misrepresented Iraq's WMD to sell a war and that's going on 13 years now.

[*] Yellow cake from Niger
[*] Gen Clark's testimony in "Against All Enemies"
[*] The Downing Street Memo
[*] Repeated claims of certain knowledge of Al Qaida links and WMDs that turned out to not be remotely true
[*] Colin Powell's speech to the UN
[*] Bush's speech at the 2004 RNC regarding his anguished decision to invade Iraq but we had to because we'd been attacked on 9/11 (this is a lie by implication since he knew Saddam had nothing to do with it).
[*] This repeated lie when he was confronted by Helen Thomas in 2006

That's just a few I can think of off the top of my head.

Care to discuss Valerie Plame? We know she was outed as a CIA agent. We know it was done for political purposes. We know Bush commuted the sentence of Scooter Libby, which effectively halted the investigation.

Next to these two scandals, "It was a spontaneous attack. Oops, no it was a terrorist attack" seems kind of weak, don't you think?

Quote:Occasionally we still hear about Iran-Contra and that scandal was almost 30 years ago.

We'll wait forever for justice on that act of treason.

Quote:You act all surprised that the right wants to get the most mileage out of this scandal? When an administration lies, it takes long time for people to forget about that lie.

My surprise is that the scandal isn't even articulated so long after it supposedly happened. This is not the case with Iraq, Plame or Iran-Contra. You say it's about the alleged lie after it happened. Others say it was the response when it happened. Others say it was the failure to provide enough security. I just want your side to make up your minds. Then we can have a discussion.

(May 2, 2014 at 4:17 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: The legitimate scandal of Benghazi is that the Obama administration appears to have purposely misled the American people about what transpired, to protect the President's foreign policy rep, just two months away from an Presidential election.

How would such a lie help?

Embassies get attacked by terrorists all the time. It happened 13 times under Bush, which Al Qaida was "on the run". Why would it be especially damning to have one happen under Obama? And why does a riot make it any better? An attack is an attack. Dead is dead. The damage is done either way, whether the attack was planned or spontaneous.

(May 2, 2014 at 4:25 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(May 2, 2014 at 4:17 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: The legitimate scandal of Benghazi is that the Obama administration appears to have purposely misled the American people about what transpired, to protect the President's foreign policy rep, just two months away from an Presidential election.

How would such a lie help?

Embassies get attacked by terrorists all the time. It happened 13 times under Bush, which Al Qaida was "on the run". Why would it be especially damning to have one happen under Obama? And why does a riot make it any better? An attack is an attack. Dead is dead. The damage is done either way, whether the attack was planned or spontaneous.

Actually whether or not the attack was the result of a stupid YouTube video or a response to a CIA blacksite that was responsible for kidnapping and torturing local "terrorist suspects," that makes a big difference.

---

It also stinks to high heaven that CIA director David Petraeous was forced to resign days after the election over an affair, and a month prior his mistress accidentally admitted this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PgsLSsSKMI