Benghazi: What's the Charge Again?

[DeistPaladin]

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?

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?

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.

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.