originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: Chronogoblin
You missed the issue entirely. The committee did not say "A video is whut dunnit," that wasn't even the WH position, only that in the immediate
aftermath, were talking hours here, the WH made a public statement that included 'the potential this attack was precipitated by an anti-Muslim
And you forget the fact that the attack was supposedly an eruption that occurred during a protest against an anti-Islamist video on Youtube, and that
argument was made by the Administration for days after they knew there had been no protest whatsoever leading up to the attack.
Now, the attack might have been at least partially precipitated by the YouTube vid, I can agree (and always have) about that. However, lying about
the circumstances is misleading the public.
Both sides, at least sometimes, mislead the public on a variety of topics. Usually this is for political reasons. It is this that got the
Republican's dander up because the lie followed through until after the election. They were robbed of the ability to make the argument that the
Administration had also misled the public on the topic of terrorism's supposed decline ( "Al-Queda on the run," etc.) So they made of it what they
Today it's obvious that the Obama Administration's foreign policy and specifically it's policy concerning Islam is a pipe dream and a considerably
deadly one at that. His policies in that area (and several others, I might add,) have completely collapsed and lie in tatters. At the time around
the attack that incompetency wasn't so obvious.
The Bengazi attack appeared at the time to repudiate Obama's claims about his successes in the area of terrorism so Obama couldn't allow the
opposition to make that argument in the Fall immediately preceding a presidential election.
Regarding other wrongdoing assertions made by Issa and Fox News, et al., these began as responses to utterly false pronunciations made by the
Democrats about the Republican candidate (Harry Reid, for example, stated mutiple times without a whit of evidence that Romney hadn't paid a dime in
taxes in ten years. Politifact rates that lie "pants on fire.")
The Republicans tried to respond to the Democrat's strategy of pure lies by taking that page for their own. How else does one respond to outright
lies during a campaign, if the truth (Romney paid a smaller percentage of taxes than the average taxpayer - though some of his income was not produced
in the US and was subject to other countries' tax bills) doesn't help you win? Winning is, after all, the only goal of a presidential campaign.
The rest of the claims have to do with political posturing and winning votes. I don't think any thinking person actually believes the Obama
Administration was culpable or negligent in the attacks or deaths.
Also, thinking people should think about that claim concerning the lack of security in Bengazi being due to cuts in the budget. Lots of money was
being spent on other embassies and security in other locations. If you look at it, it's reasonable that little was spent on security there. It
wasn't exactly supposed to be a "safe" place to begin with and using the term "Embassy" for the location is really pushing it since the
Ambassador wasn't stationed there.
Ambassador Stevens was known as a risk-taker. He felt that certain risks had to be taken. IMO, it caught up with him, though I certainly don't mean
to blame him.
That said, the idea that there was "no wrongdoing," while it almost certainly applies to the attack itself, does not cover the dissemination of
known untruths by the Administration in the week or so after the attack.