People don't care about Benghazi!

[Mai72]

Am I the only one who feels this way? Yes, Benghazi was a tragedy and I do feel bad for the American lives that were lost. It's over!!

Do the Republicans really fear Hillary? I have a feeling that if Hillary wasn't involved this event would be in the history books.

I'd rather see congress tackle unemployment, low wages, student loan debt, health care, etc...


It's time to move on.

 

[Mai72]

It's funny that FOX News has unlimited Benghazi coverage, but CNN might show maybe a 5 minute clip.

 

[Newell Steamer]

They'll care about it, and care about it plenty!!!

 

[SaurusX]

It's time to move on.

I just can't help but feel that if Benghazi happened under a Republican administration that most of the people wanting to "move on" would be braying for blood.

 

[Mai72]

I just can't help but feel that if Benghazi happened under a Republican administration that most of the people wanting to "move on" would be braying for blood.

You're saying that if it happened under a Republican dictatorship then Democrats would be looking for blood?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

You're saying that if it happened under a Republican dictatorship then Democrats would be looking for blood?

Yep, just like they did every little thing through out Dubya's Presidency.

 

[blake0812]

You're saying that if it happened under a Republican dictatorship then Democrats would be looking for blood?

That's exactly what he's saying

Republican dictatorship

Oh come on, don't be like that.

 

[trenchfoot]

I suppose when you're dealt a weak hand, you gotta huff, puff and bluff your way to a win.

BUT, the Repubs have been using this strategy along with rigging the game to win much more than their fair share of the pot, so I really don't blame them for using such a ploy, but I really do hold them accountable for putting themselves in such a vulnerable position in the first place.

 

[Agent11]

The fact that someone who seems very likely to run for president was in charge of the state department at the time makes me care quite a bit actually.

 

[SaurusX]

You're saying that if it happened under a Republican dictatorship then Democrats would be looking for blood?

That's somewhat the gist of it. Why the Obama administration chose to represent a terrorist attack as a demonstration over a video no one had ever heard about isn't hard to see. It was election season and they couldn't risk Obama's spiking the football over the Osama kill coming back to bite him in the ass. The narrative was that the terrorist threat was neutralized.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Yep, just like they did every little thing through out Dubya's Presidency.

Yeah, he was really taken to task over that other 9/11 thing.

 

[senseamp]

Benghazi, yes, Benghazi talking points, no.

 

[Fern]

Am I the only one who feels this way?
-snip-

Just google polling on it. Never mind, I did it for you.

Here's an article that mentions a number of polls: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...o-be-a-big-deal-and-not-for-just-republicans/

Seems most, or many (depending on the poll) disagree with you, especially independents.

That article is almost a year old. If you want a newer poll you'll have to google for yourself.

Fern

 

[nageov3t]

I'd rather see congress tackle unemployment, low wages, student loan debt, health care, etc...

they're not mutually exclusive... the people wasting time on Benghazi aren't necessarily the same people who'd otherwise be tackling unemployment, wages, etc.

the fact that those important issues aren't getting tackled doesn't have much at all to do with these investigations.

 

[DominionSeraph]

I just can't help but feel that if Benghazi happened under a Republican administration that most of the people wanting to "move on" would be braying for blood.

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers.

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.


Which of these are in 24/7 rotation?

"You can't help but feel" because you're an ignorant partisan. Your helplessness over your beliefs is not a positive trait.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Yeah, he was really taken to task over that other 9/11 thing.

The fact the matter, both parties slobber all over themselves and froth at the mouth when the other party is in power. All the political hacks join in with the party they support, this forum is a great example of such.

 

[SaurusX]

Which of these are in 24/7 rotation?

How many were caused by an internet video that no one had seen or heard of? A large part of the issue is the blatant politicizing of the attack and the deliberate obfuscating of what really happened to try and sway the elections. The fact that nothing was done in response when there was time to act is another issue. Dithering over the XL pipeline is one thing, but when peoples' lives are in the balance it's another.

"You can't help but feel" because you're an ignorant partisan. Your helplessness over your beliefs is not a positive trait.

Hello, pot. This is the kettle calling.

 

[trenchfoot]

Benghazi, yes, Benghazi talking points, no.

Good point.:thumbsup:

Aside from how the Repubs are playing whack-a-mole with this, I'd like to know what national security concerns (CIA related) the Obama admin. had to deal with in the unfolding hours of the incident and how those concerns affected their handling of the consequences of their actions. I can see where once the ball got rolling in a certain direction it took on a life all its own and the only thing that could be done was to hop on, hang on and ride it all out into obscurity.

I'm wondering if those concerns were worth, in real life terms, the sacrificing of American lives, which to me lie at the heart of the matter.

It doesn't concern me at all about how the Repubs are ideologically focused on hammering this issue for pure political gain. Preaching to the choir doesn't gain much political ground, if any. As well, they've pretty much pounded this incident into some unrecognizable contortion, leaving only their desire to fashion it into some kind of Clinton killing dagger as evidence of its existence.

 

[DominionSeraph]

How many were caused by an internet video that no one had seen or heard of? A large part of the issue is the blatant politicizing of the attack and the deliberate obfuscating of what really happened to try and sway the elections.

The tinfoil is strong with this one.

Bears repeating:

"You can't help but feel" because you're an ignorant partisan. Your helplessness over your beliefs is not a positive trait.

Do better.

 

[moonbogg]

Well shoot!

 

[SaurusX]

The tinfoil is strong with this one.

You're right. It never came up during the debates and was never an issue.

What's it like to live in your inverted reality?

 

[blake0812]

The tinfoil is strong with this one.

He's right though, there WAS a time to act. And they never took advantage of it. Why would some group be so offended by a simple youtube video? That's like if I saw a fat woman wearing red outside i'd protest Kool-aid for a month. Not that I drink it in the first place but whatever.

 

[DominionSeraph]

You're right. It never came up during the debates and was never an issue.

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

All these happened prior to the 2004 election.

 

[frowertr]

Your right, there is much more important news out there like what CNN rolls daily with MH370.

Oh, wait...

 

[DominionSeraph]

He's right though, there WAS a time to act. And they never took advantage of it.

An unfolding situation in a foreign country, and you want to send in military forces willy-nilly? Tell me, what are the ROE that will prevent an unmitigated disaster?

This isn't some Hollywood movie in which the bad guys are sequestered in their own little groups so the good guys can neatly take them out. You're talking about unilateral action to conduct military operations in a major city in a foreign country with its own police and military forces.

If the Russian Embassy in DC was attacked by far right extremists, what do you think the US response would be if the Russians sent in Backfires to "protect their personnel"?

And you're conveniently ignoring:
http://www.aol.com/article/2014/05/...d=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk3&pLid=471794

Issa has been the GOP's most prominent investigator of the Benghazi attack. But his star witness at a hearing Thursday came under sharp criticism from a fellow California Republican, Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, who heads the House Armed Services Committee.

Retired Brig. Gen. Robert Lovell told Issa's panel that U.S. forces "should have tried" to get to the Benghazi outpost in time to help save Stevens and the other Americans. Lovell blamed the State Department for not making stronger requests for action.

McKeon responded by saying Lovell didn't serve in a capacity that gave him reliable insight into the available options commanders had during the attack, and repeated his own committee's conclusions that the State Department didn't delay a decision to deploy military resources and that the military couldn't have made a difference.