It's all in this thread, but basically the argument is that Hillary and Obama decided to cover it up, and call it a response to a youtube video, versus what it really was; a 9/11 attack on America by Muslim Fanatics.
-John
It's all in this thread, but basically the argument is that Hillary and Obama decided to cover it up, and call it a response to a youtube video, versus what it really was; a 9/11 attack on America by Muslim Fanatics.My old man's been going on about Benghazi for years and I still don't get it. We blame an American because a 150 jihadi attacked and killed a large number of US diplomatic staff? What is the expected response?
Maybe. It's kinda like the JFK assassination - there's so much secrecy, FUD and distraction that only the official story really holds water. Maybe the ambassador was orchestrating arms shipments for terrorists (read: the guys we hope will like us even though deep down we know they won't) in Syria, maybe somebody just screwed up by assuming the nearby CIA base would handle anything that came up, maybe there was some third thing going on. Just like the Democrat politicians need to do damage control, the Republican politicians need to do damage infliction and the newsies need to make headlines and sell adverts. None of these are notably more honest that the others, so who's to really know?If Clinton stays awake on stage long enough to be nominated, we'll even sell Benghazi t-shirts for the general election.
When orchestrating arms shipments for terrorists in Syria, it's best to keep a low profile. No one would have known about the trip except for the attack.
Not really cover it up, just put on it the least damaging remotely possible spin for as long as it could be stretched. Just like Team Romney (my guy) was trying to put on the most damaging remotely possible spin, that Hillary and therefore Obama were personally responsible for these deaths. We know that Obama's narrative was false, we almost certainly know Romney's narrative was false, and we've little reason to believe any of the explosive "investigative journalist" stories. We know someone fucked up and fucked up big time, but that's war - you can't win without taking chances, and when you take chances you sometimes lose, no matter how good you may be.It's all in this thread, but basically the argument is that Hillary and Obama decided to cover it up, and call it a response to a youtube video, versus what it really was; a 9/11 attack on America by Muslim Fanatics.
-John
Speaker in waiting Kevin McCarthy admitting that the Benghazi hearing (the longest hearings in Congressional history) was political and a way to drive down Clinton's favorability ratings.
Said McCarthy: Everybody though Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because shes untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...e-for-lowering-hillary-clintons-poll-numbers/
False narrative breeds lack of trust...she's finding this out the hard way.Speaker in waiting Kevin McCarthy admitting that the Benghazi hearing (the longest hearings in Congressional history) was political and a way to drive down Clinton's favorability ratings.
Said McCarthy: Everybody though Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because shes untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...e-for-lowering-hillary-clintons-poll-numbers/
Nothing to see here folks!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...hazi-should-raise-a-red-flag-for-republicans/
Wait, you mean W̶h̶i̶t̶e̶w̶a̶t̶e̶r̶ B̶e̶n̶g̶h̶a̶z̶i̶ Emailghazi is just a fishing expedition to throw shit against a wall and hope something sticks?
No way!
Ah, yes. The ol' "if she'd have just been honest from the get-go" argument.There should not have been any shit to begin with if she had been open about what and why.
She chose to make a mountain out of a mole hill by continually coming out with conflicting/discredited stories/explanations everytime something was dug up.
Doing so triggered more interest in what she was trying to cover up
Ah, yes. The ol' "if she'd have just been honest from the get-go" argument.
You realize this scandal is going to go the way of Benghazi and the rest of 'em, right? I mean, that y'all are already backpedaling to "but why didn't she just tell us that" argument isn't going to change a lot of minds 15 months out from the general.
But hey, nice try y'all.
How dare they point out her dishonesty!Speaker in waiting Kevin McCarthy admitting that the Benghazi hearing (the longest hearings in Congressional history) was political and a way to drive down Clinton's favorability ratings.
Said McCarthy: Everybody though Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because shes untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...e-for-lowering-hillary-clintons-poll-numbers/
I'll give you one thing, it is refreshing, when politicians are honest about their political fishing expeditions being just that. So, there's that!How dare they point out her dishonesty!
How dare they point out her dishonesty!
You cannot possibly believe that politically driven investigations began with the Clintons.Woah; it would behoove you to step back and consider the implications.
You cannot possibly believe that politically driven investigations began with the Clintons.
By all means shows us equivilant investigations done by dems. I'm curious to see what you come up with.
Well, there was Watergate, the Iran Contra affair & the Plame outing where some of the perps were actually convicted of crimes...
I thought everybody knew that Armitage leaked Plame (who was debatably covert, IIRC she really wasn't since she drove openly, had a well known husband, and was apparently outed by the russians before) but they kept going with a 2 year investigation. Libby's conviction is also questionable.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/peter-berkowitz-the-false-evidence-against-scooter-libby-1428365713
Among others.
I thought everybody knew that Armitage leaked Plame (who was debatably covert, IIRC she really wasn't since she drove openly, had a well known husband, and was apparently outed by the russians before) but they kept going with a 2 year investigation. Libby's conviction is also questionable.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/peter-berkowitz-the-false-evidence-against-scooter-libby-1428365713
Among others.
There should not have been any shit to begin with if she had been open about what and why.
She chose to make a mountain out of a mole hill by continually coming out with conflicting/discredited stories/explanations everytime something was dug up.
Doing so triggered more interest in what she was trying to cover up
Excuse me but wasn't the Benghazi hearing convened well before the email stuff came out?
And if she had come clean in the beginning, the email would have no traction regarding the hearings.
This was indivated in my previous post
Bengazi has become seperated from the email issue for most people.