“The State Department under Clinton kept open the Benghazi mission with
little protection in the midst of well-known dangers.”What
well known dangers? Oh, you mean all the protests, in which fifty people died,
over the video slandering Mohammed. Yes, that was going on at the same time.And as the article pointed out, Ambassador “Stevens also twice
declined the U.S. military's offer of a special operations team to bolster
security and otherwise help his staff.”Apparently the
Ambassador could not see the future any better than Hillary Clinton.And yes it’s too bad that four Americans died . . . but whether they
died because of a spontaneous protest or a planned terrorist attack . . . .
“What difference, at this point, does it make?”Aside
from this tragedy being exaggerated, lied about, and shamelessly exploited by
“Conservatives” for political gain . . . “What difference, at
this point, does it make?”
Was it really about a video?
@GaryOWhile you cherry-picked the article for your own purposes, and
despite evidence to the contrary, you just can't overcome the fact that
this was failure of foreign policy. While the Senate threw the military under
the bus for not being prepared, even though they didn't have military
personnel on the ground to do an assessment to be ready for that particular
attack, you still want to know "what difference does it make?". The difference, is the appearance of political white-washing during a
Presidential campaign. If politics was the driving force in the decisions made
in this attack, then the public rightly has reason to mistrust this
administration. Mr Romney correctly warned of the issues in Libya, Syria and
Russia, but was vilified for his stand. If he knew about the threat, why
didn't this administration know it. Turns out, he was right. When all
this is considered, the American public rightly questions the intent of the
response and how the talking points were formulated. It's a question of
trust, and if deception for the sake of politics is found, outrage is the
result.That's the difference it makes.
“What difference, at this point, does it make?”Ask that
that to the those that lost a father, or brother, husband.They will
tell what difference it makes.Four lives were needlessly lost to
terrorists that easily have been saved, if Obama did not turn his back on
them.It does not matter if stevens turned down security, he and the
others still could have been saved.The real question is, and it
gets to the real cover up, is why was Steven in Benghazi in the first place?And why was Obama running guns to terrorists groups in Syria and to
other terrorist groups in the middle east.The arab spring was a
complete failure yet Obama was still pushing it and arming it. Yes the
real cover up, just like he covered up guns to mexico and the IRS attack on
free speech of conservatives during the elections.The obama
administration is dirty as the day is long.
Mt. t is free is free to want all the Benghazi information there is. I
don't happen to agree with his conclusions, but that's OK.What does concern me, however, is this. Benghazi lost the lives of four
people. That's not good, but what did t think about the loss of thousands
dead and wounded in Iraq? Didn't he notice the increasing evidence of
bungling and corruption in that little eight year assignment? Because if
it's OK with him as long as there's a (R) in the White House, then we
know today's attack is just political.
It I sad that this event is now being used by Conservatives as yet another
attack. I really wish that the GOP would place something on the table that
would help American Citizens increasing wages, equal pay and assistance with
refining the now successful health care programs. That would show that the GOP
is there doing something.
This was a tragedy. To say that he was left unprotected is not true. The
Intelligence Community told State of dangers who told Stevens to get out and
back to Tripoli. He refused which was failure one. He was offered protection
in another US hardened facility and declined, failure 2. The use of locals as
security was another failure, talk to the Libyan Govt. In essence, he was
responsible for his decisions.What was an error was State and the WH
jumping to satisfy the Republicans demand for information NOW. If it was a less
political time, I would want the WH to say "we'll be with you shortly,
after a full bipartisan review". That would hopefully avoid stitching known
with unknown facts.It is still a shame. As a Republican this
"Trial" will accomplish nothing but only prove there is no scandal and
this is a party of wailers with nothing else to offer the American people.
The truth is that our president manipulated the message for political gain.With that as a backdrop we can add the possibilities of a CIA rendition center
in Benghazi and a gun running operation to Syria, both very distasteful ideas to
progressives.Obama was saving his own skin ahead of the 2012 elections.
What's wrong with that? Plenty, if you ask me.Of course, those loyal
to Obama will say the issue has already been investigated. I say, it's not
an investigation when the White House controls the evidence we are able to see.
Conservatives are being accused of politicizing Benghazi, yet it was the
administration that politicized it in the first place by developing a false
narrative concerning Islamic hate as expressed through a video made by an
American. This lie was concocted in order to protect the sitting President from
political attack during an election season. All because of a false belief that
more moderate Islamic thought would prevail if leadership in several Islamic
countries would change. False beliefs led to false actions which led to lies.
That is why the story is relevant. If the administration is incompetent and
lying, won't it matter to get the light on the matter?Wouldn't it be nice if politicians could just come clean and be
accountable for the misfeasance/ malfeasance? "We misunderstood and
miscalculated - then we lied about the reasons." Those words would put this
What if some Americans want some honesty and accountability from our government?
That only happens when Democrats investigate Republicans, right?
M-man - Sometimes the truth is still hazy after the investigating takes place.
Bush certainly wanted nothing to do with any factfinding on 9/11, but finally
caved a little by agreeing to appear - as long as there were no oaths and Cheney
was able to say whatever he wanted. Result? A GOP victory with Bush able to
begin his next 1000 speeches with 9/11 references.
Benghazi is evidense of an administration with no conscience.People
were killed and it makes no difference.
I agree with Ms. Clinton. The job is to figure out what happened and make sure
it never happens again. That said, not sure any of these
congressional committees are doing much to answer either of those questions.Seems more like grandstanding, but there shouldn't be a need for a
congressional committee for the Administration to fulfill the commitment made by
then Sec. Clinton.The onus is on the Administration to figure out
what happened and make sure it doesn't happen again. It's a fair
question to ask the President and the former Secretary of State should she
decide to run for President. Let the American people hear their answer and
decide for themselves whether they've accomplished the job Sec. Clinton
said was theirs to accomplish.
I've still not ever seen the Video nor can I find it on-line. Maybe
it's there but I can't find it. This was a terrorist attack and not a
protest. If I can't find the video, what makes anyone think that someone
in Libya could find it and organize a "protest" so fast?The
whole thing was a mess from the get go and the resulting attempt at cover up
really hits the "most transparent administration in history" right where
they live. In the credibility factor.Maybe nothing could have been
done by the military, but there should have been at least a try at helping these
folks. The administration did nothing.