It seems that there was definitely a cover-up to try to make the administration look better on security and foreign affairs over the Benghazi issue. The shame is they lied to the families of those killed and the American people to make themselves look better.
So much for the ethical administration and great foreign relations Obama was supposed t give us. And before my friends from the left want to start crying about "Bush and Iraq", there is a big difference in not knowing something vs. knowing and purposefully changing what you tell the American peopleThis is a manufactured scandal created by the Republicans as a preemptive strike against Hillary in 2016. Personally, I don't give a damn what this incident is called, terrorism, apple pie or what have you. The problem is that the embassy wasn't as fully as protected as it should. We need to ensure that our embassies in hot spots need to be protected adequately. The Republicans seem fixated on why the the Administration didn't start shouting terrorist attack from the rooftops.
There were multiple crimes committed in Watergate. What possible crimes could there have be committed regarding Benghazi?
but lets be honest, if this had happened on GWB's watch, the left would be running with this big time as well.
I think this is a valid argument around Hillary's fitness in 2016, and you can guess there will be plenty of clips of her saying "what does it matter". When we have dead Americans, it all matters.
Does Benghazi rhyme with chappaquiddick 
For your edification.
And how many of those were State Diplomats?
Whoever they were, they were killed for the same reasons as those who were killed at Benghazi; security was not strong enough or effective enough to protect them.
I'm not saying the attacks did not happen but among the few I checked, the stats show some exaggeration. One attack killing 4 included the deaths of 3 terrorists. Another actually happened in the parking lot of a Marriott hotel, not the US consulate. And yet another was an attack on a school not the embassy (although it was thought by some the terrorists made a mistake in identifying their target).
Of course all this is pretty much a moot point since the main outrage is not about the attack but about the cover up and lies afterward.
Did your source of these stats indicate any claims of lies or improper response from GWB regarding same?
But there are things he and Dept of State could have done....
1) Provided security to Chris Stevens when he was begging for it
2) Fess up to the attack that it was a terrorist attack than down playing it
3) And stop telling the whole world that Al-Qaeda is on the run..
4) Oh and if he were a true gentleman, he would give at least some credit to Bush for finding OBL. After all the intelligence gathering started in W's administration.
The date today is May 13th, 2013.
GWB's successor is in his SECOND TERM!!!
If the best you can do is go back in history, and use the "but your guy" argument, well, then you have already lost the argument.
Thanks for proving my point.
What happened under Dubya's watch to our embassies was many times worse than Benghazi, and NO Republican was at all outraged by it. Yet now, because of one attack and 4 deaths, they are puffing with outrage and acting like it's the worst thing that ever happened. Can you spell hypocrisy? Apparently not. You are again proving what a complete political hack you are.
Thank you for proving my point.
-- Modified on 5/13/2013 4:08:22 PM
So which of the attacks (exaggerated by your post) under GWB did Bush try to cover up or was accused of denying appropriate security?
Again, the attack is not the sticking point for Obama’s detractors. People understand that shit happens. It was Obama’s improper responses during and after that have people outraged.
But that was not my point. The Republicans also questioned why no one in the Administration responded by sending help. In the recent hearings, they got the former DCM there to state that he and the Marine Colonel in Tripoli wanted to send a few Marines. So they have looked over everything to do with this tragedy in an attempt to play the blame game and politicize it. Go back and find some examples of Democrats doing this with the numerous incidents during the Bush administration and you'll see the hypocrisy here. Bottom line: the Republicans have fastened on Benghazi not because they want to get at the truth but because they want to distract the country from realizing they are trying to slow down and damage the legislative agenda.
If they'd put as much effort into cooperating to strengthen the economy or fix immigration we'd all be a lot better off. But they have no solutions to offer, will not compromise or cooperate with Obama and thus must resort to political stunts.
No reasonable person is complaining that Obama did not prevent the attack. Like I said, shit happens. You are obviously dodging the real point here.
I asked if any of the attacks during Bush (even with the mistakes in your post) followed the same or similar template as Benghazi. If you can point to similar circumstances of cover up or obfuscation then we have something to discuss. That was my point. It’s not my responsibility to make your case hold water.
To partially address your most recent point, probably the closest incident during Bush that resembles the dynamic of Benghazi is the Pat Tillman incident. When a cover up was suspected the Democrat controlled House was all over it with hearings and rightfully so. There is a big difference though, at least thus far. Back then the person accused of the cover up, a Lt General, was fired (OK, demoted and allowed to resign, same difference in the military). Let’s see if anything similar happens in the Obama administration. He’s got 3-1/2 years to make good. What’s your bet? I’m purposefully not addressing your new points regarding Republican motives since its just more obfuscation. Questioning ones morals or motives instead of the facts is cheap.
-- Modified on 5/13/2013 5:54:41 PM
No, I did not say anyone complained that Obama "did not prevent the attack." I said people complained that there was no response while it was going on. Please go back and read my post again, if you have failed to understand that. Also, how is it disingenuous to choose to respond to snowman's bleat by pointing out there were many more attacks against diplomatic facilities during Bush's reign and the Dems did not politicize it the way the Reps are now doing over a much less deadly incident. Dredging up Pat Tillman is another red herring because it's a different sort of issue and therefore irrelevant. Talk about obfuscation! The Tilman incident "resembles the dynamic of Benghazi?" Bullcrap. If you want to recast things to suit an argument, go ahead. Just don't expect me to buy into it.
And just because I decline to research your point does not prove anything. You think my post was off topic? I respectfully disagree. Besides, I was talking to snowman and I have yet to hear him respond.
The OP was about the coverup not attacks on embassies which is where you were trying to take things. Its not surprising you'd label any comparison to Tillman as a bad analogy as it's clear you can't or won't see the coverup today.
You are clearly just as blind as you accuse me of being. At least you're consistent on that one.
I originally posted with your comment from a couple of days ago in mind. You were lamenting the lack of civil debate here so I thought I give it a whirl. I got the impression that offering my opinion as to why your logic was lacking would be accepted as civil debate by you. I guess not. I can understand that you can’t or won’t acknowledge my point but let’s not complain further that lack of civility is the only problem here.
-- Modified on 5/14/2013 8:13:29 PM
Telling the family members of the deceased that he was killed by terrorists vs. an angry mob? Do you really think it makes that much difference to them compared to what was told to Pat Tillman's family?
to tell the family of the dead what they should think or fell?
Show me some of their responses. I did read where one of the mother's held Hilary Clinton responsible for her son's death. That is a somewhat connected issue, but not the same.
In truth, you're not being honest. I never said they shouldn't have feelings about what happened to their loved one's who died. I just made the comparison to the parents of Pat Tillman. So, let's draw a comparison, and see which you would choose for yourself. You learn that your son died defending the Consulate at Benghasi. He was either killed by a member of an angry mob, by Al Qaeda or some Al Qaeda wannabe; it's not yet clear. You've experienced a devastating loss. And, you have some strong feelings about the confusion about who did it. Compare that to the feelings you would have when you've been notified that your son was killed in action, fighting the Taliban or some other Afghans. Then, later you find out that he was killed from friendly fire, and the evidence of such has been burned, or withheld from people in the military all the way up to the White House. And, there's even more evidence that he was not only killed by friendly fire, but he was actually assassinated, because he was once the poster boy for Bush's Iraq War, but has since let others know that he's become disillusioned with the war and wants to speak out. Do you really want to stack what happened at Benghazi up against the crimes and the military and Bush administration cover ups, in the matter of the death of Pat Tillman?
well, they did it too!!!
Really, you have to use that weak a defense and go that far back to try to justify the actions of the current administration???
Well, if that is the best you can do in this argument, you have already lost.
Thanks for proving my point.
that's 10 times worse! Shows what a partisan hypocrite you are! Personally, I have no vested interest in what is found regarding Obama, or Hillary. I just don't think there's much fire in the midst of all the smoke Issa and Huckabee are blowing. I just like pointing out your hypocrisy!
I would suggest you go to the history channel web page of you want to talk about old events.
What I find funny is a hypocrite like you trying to call someone else some.
What you think about it, isn't that hypocrisy in its purest form?
Trying to equate Bush with Obama is a just just in the fact that the White House claims to not have interfered, but it is now shown they did and lied about it. I could point out other facts, but I know you never let facts get in the way of your opinion so I will not bother...
'Got Nothin' when you revert to those lines! No different than the ones used by seventh-graders when they've "Got Nothin."
It is fun to watch you squirm like a worm on hot pavement, when you avoid the issue of Pat Tillman and the Bush administration. And, Bush used his death as a presidential campaign prop.
End of discussion hypocrite!!!
Your problem is that you want others to go back in history and blame people who are no longer relevant because the only defense you have is "see, they do it too!!"
MAN, YOU SUCK AT POLITICAL DEBATE, PERHAPS YOU SHOULD TRY THE SPORTS FORUM.
Hell, I could go back and talk about how it was democrats who tried to block equal rights legislation and were huge KLAN supporters. KKK = DNC!!!!
Hopefully even someone like you can figure out why your approach does not work (or to use a middle school vernacular like you like to do, IT SUCKS MAN)
GOP using Benghazi to smear
For some Republicans, 2016 is 1992: Hating Hillary Clinton is chic again. Only more so, since the former secretary of state is also the partner of and potential successor to the last two Democratic presidents—Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
Some of us believe, with good reasons, that the Republicans are "mad-dogging" Hillary Clinton with the Benghazi hearing to damage not only her presidential prospects, but also to damage President Obama's credibility.
Polls show Obama is trusted more than his Washington opponents, especially on the economy. So, to defeat his economic agenda and substitute their own, which has already lost on logic, they've decided to undermine Obama's credibility and authority.
The Benghazi hearing, which House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, orchestrated and planned for months, is a classic "killing two birds with one stone" scenario for Republicans. Or maybe three: They see an opportunity to smear Obama, sabotage Clinton and fundraise like giddy televangelists.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/15/opinion/brazile-benghazi-truth/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn