RE: Benghazi: What's the Charge Again?
May 2, 2014 at 5:00 pm
(This post was last modified: May 2, 2014 at 5:01 pm by Heywood.)
(May 2, 2014 at 4:45 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: OK, so the other 13 attacks didn't attempt on any of the ambassadors lives? Or is the scandal that the terrorists got lucky and hit a higher ranking target?And how does "lying" about it (setting aside the question of what evidence you have that he did) help him politically? If the scandal is about an ambassador being killed, how does it help Obama politically that the attack that killed him was during a riot and not a coordinated assault?
Map it out for me, please.
I don't think lying about it helped or would have helped him much at all. In my opinion the American public is understanding of the fact that sometimes, despite our best efforts, the bad guys are going to land hits. Obama didn't need to lie in my opinion.
However, the days after the murder, The Obama administration seemed hell bent on portraying this as spontaneouss consequence of Muslim anger toward a YouTube film instead of a pre-planed coordinated terrorist attack. So if you want to know why Obama felt the need to lie....you will have to ask him. I don't see a need for a lie. I see a lie.