Nine Congressional investigations into Benghazi. Led by people who would like nothing better than to do harm to this administration. Still waiting for any damning conclusions. No indictments, no arrests, no censures. Unfortunate? Certainly. Criminal? Still awaiting proof.
Still, you can believe whatever you choose. We still have that freedom. So far.
What is terrorism? I take terrorism to be the attacking of innocent civilians with the intent of creating terror in a civilian population. Does Benghazi count as terror?
Thank you for the references. If I posted references from MSNBC or the New York Times, you would be noting that they are unacceptable, as they are likely biased. How does this differ from you sending me links to “teapartytribune.com"?
But, to be fair, Sen. Issa, for example, has these sites at his disposal, as well; maybe they’re even bookmarked. Yet, what has his committee concluded? Who in the Obama administration is being held responsible? If the info you refer to is true, why is there no action? Perhaps because the story is being exaggerated just a wee bit by the sources you cite?
Do you think either of us will ever know the truth? If you do, you’re way more optimistic than I. But I still hold to the idea that, if even Mr. Obama’s sworn enemies can’t find a smoking gun, perhaps there isn’t one.
The Benghazi attack was a combination of factors, the movie, terrorists upset with the Libyan government, less than “full security” at MANY State Dept. missions around the world, cuts in funding for that by REPUBLICANS on committees in the HOUSE, and a commitment by the Ambassador himself to leave Tripoli against advice of the government, and go to Benghazi, where CONTRACTORS were the only security and employed “less than reliable” locals.
The comparison however of the sad loss of two government workers, and two contractors (mercenaries btw is the proper term) to the tragic loss because of a huge pile of lies, over 4,000, in Iraq, is a patent absurdity. Given that it WAS our unwarranted invasion of Iraq, as well as attacks on all “bad guy” Muslim countries (for their oil), who seek autonomy for THEIR way of life, even if we don’t agree with it, is what caused many attacks, including 9/11, maybe it’s WE who need to analyze our motives in the light of reality?
Well, I’m not sure that I follow exactly what your argument is, though I gather that you’re not impressed with the way Obama dealt with the situation. Here’s my take on this — certain words have become magic words, and saying the words has become more important than whatever the reality may be. I don’t think that this attack was an act of terror. It was an attack on a US government installation, which was pretty clearly a cover for some kind of CIA operation. But for some reasons, it has become important in the political language of today to use the word “terror” all over the place. I happen to interpret Obama’s remarks to mean that he did call this an act of terror. I also happen to think that it wasn’t. I think it would have been perfectly correct if he had said, “This was a horrible attack, but it wasn’t an act of terror.” Not politically wise, but correct. But as I read the remarks, the whole point of what he was saying was to link this attack with 9/11 and to say that they were both acts of terror. By my understanding of terror, 9/11 was certainly terror, but Benghazi wasn’t. The real question, to my mind, is “Did someone drop the ball? Could this attack have been prevented? Or once it was underway was there a better response that should have happened?” Those are real questions. Fighting over words seems a waste of time.
Wow, Harley. Sure hit a nerve by calling you on your absolute ignorance of the truth about Benghazi. It was a tragedy, not a scandal, caused partly by an intolerant video hitting an intolerant population. You are demonstrating here the dangers of being so angry so cluelessly. The fact that there have been nine investigations and NO evidence found of a scandal should be a clue. You can use that.
I Play One On TV over 10 years ago
Nine Congressional investigations into Benghazi. Led by people who would like nothing better than to do harm to this administration. Still waiting for any damning conclusions. No indictments, no arrests, no censures. Unfortunate? Certainly. Criminal? Still awaiting proof.
Still, you can believe whatever you choose. We still have that freedom. So far.
lonecat over 10 years ago
What is terrorism? I take terrorism to be the attacking of innocent civilians with the intent of creating terror in a civilian population. Does Benghazi count as terror?
I Play One On TV over 10 years ago
Thank you for the references. If I posted references from MSNBC or the New York Times, you would be noting that they are unacceptable, as they are likely biased. How does this differ from you sending me links to “teapartytribune.com"?
But, to be fair, Sen. Issa, for example, has these sites at his disposal, as well; maybe they’re even bookmarked. Yet, what has his committee concluded? Who in the Obama administration is being held responsible? If the info you refer to is true, why is there no action? Perhaps because the story is being exaggerated just a wee bit by the sources you cite?
Do you think either of us will ever know the truth? If you do, you’re way more optimistic than I. But I still hold to the idea that, if even Mr. Obama’s sworn enemies can’t find a smoking gun, perhaps there isn’t one.
Dtroutma over 10 years ago
The Benghazi attack was a combination of factors, the movie, terrorists upset with the Libyan government, less than “full security” at MANY State Dept. missions around the world, cuts in funding for that by REPUBLICANS on committees in the HOUSE, and a commitment by the Ambassador himself to leave Tripoli against advice of the government, and go to Benghazi, where CONTRACTORS were the only security and employed “less than reliable” locals.
The comparison however of the sad loss of two government workers, and two contractors (mercenaries btw is the proper term) to the tragic loss because of a huge pile of lies, over 4,000, in Iraq, is a patent absurdity. Given that it WAS our unwarranted invasion of Iraq, as well as attacks on all “bad guy” Muslim countries (for their oil), who seek autonomy for THEIR way of life, even if we don’t agree with it, is what caused many attacks, including 9/11, maybe it’s WE who need to analyze our motives in the light of reality?
lonecat over 10 years ago
Well, I’m not sure that I follow exactly what your argument is, though I gather that you’re not impressed with the way Obama dealt with the situation. Here’s my take on this — certain words have become magic words, and saying the words has become more important than whatever the reality may be. I don’t think that this attack was an act of terror. It was an attack on a US government installation, which was pretty clearly a cover for some kind of CIA operation. But for some reasons, it has become important in the political language of today to use the word “terror” all over the place. I happen to interpret Obama’s remarks to mean that he did call this an act of terror. I also happen to think that it wasn’t. I think it would have been perfectly correct if he had said, “This was a horrible attack, but it wasn’t an act of terror.” Not politically wise, but correct. But as I read the remarks, the whole point of what he was saying was to link this attack with 9/11 and to say that they were both acts of terror. By my understanding of terror, 9/11 was certainly terror, but Benghazi wasn’t. The real question, to my mind, is “Did someone drop the ball? Could this attack have been prevented? Or once it was underway was there a better response that should have happened?” Those are real questions. Fighting over words seems a waste of time.
Michael Peterson Premium Member over 10 years ago
Yes, the conservatives are going to very quietly sit this one out. Haven’t heard a peep from them on the topic.
ARodney over 10 years ago
Wow, Harley. Sure hit a nerve by calling you on your absolute ignorance of the truth about Benghazi. It was a tragedy, not a scandal, caused partly by an intolerant video hitting an intolerant population. You are demonstrating here the dangers of being so angry so cluelessly. The fact that there have been nine investigations and NO evidence found of a scandal should be a clue. You can use that.