Everyone realizes Obama has been ruthlessly successful tracking down the terrorists who were once ravages us due to Bush's incompetency. That's why Obama mopped the floor with Romney in the election. The diversion here is the Karl Rove "Swift Boat" strategy- you take your opponent's biggest strength (here, national security, with Kerry, him being a war hero while Bush was a draft-dodger) then you concoct the biggest lie possible to negate the disadvantage (here Benghazi, there "Swift Boat"). It's the complete depravity of the Republican Party, who are such wretched citizens they were almost cheering our Ambassador's death because it meant the chance to score political points.
Lou, there is no Oil in Adghanistan. Bush wasn't invading Iraq on account of 9/11, he was being an imperialist.
Of course, this theory assumes the administration thought they could cover up AQ involvement for *2 months* despite the fact that there were questions and rumors about it within a day or two of the event. The theory works if the Presidential election is on Sept 15th. It doesn't work so much when the election is in November.
Interesting. So given that we all knew it was a terrorist attack well before election day and the administration was open about that, I assume you agree that the media is not in Obama's back pocket? Progress, at least.
Once again you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Some of those believed responsible have been arrested. The charges against the man were hardly trumped up.
Yet... No one other than Fox and neocons care... Carry on, I am sure folks will suddenly care months later... Yet another successful strategy by the far right.. That will show America!
giddy just wants to believe a conspiratorial cover up. It doesn't matter that logic and reason go against his cover up hopes. He'll still opt to believe in a scandal.
Time will tell. Logic and reason? Still telling only hopeful fairy tales days after the incident. What is it that you want to believe and why?
Doesn't need fairy tales because other than hard core conservative, the American people do not care enough about Bengazi to make any real difference.
I don't doubt that the campaign PR guys nosed in above their heads and applied their spin to the early official story, but probably so did the CIA strategist and, their preferred versions may have overlapped. Nuanced information is not a crime, especially if there were security implications.
I don't have any thing I want to believe. I haven't really seen anything objectionable about the handling of the situation so far. But what I do know is that lying for a week as some sort of campaign tactic when the election was two months away makes zero sense, and isn't something that anyone would do. They wouldn't do it because it makes zero sense. It wouldn't do anything to help their campaign, and is just plain silly. Looking at Obama's campaign it seems to have been run pretty well. Romney's maybe not as much, but I'd never even suggest that if it had been Romney's campaign they would do something that made as little sense as what you are saying is the most likely scenario.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/opinion/sunday/is-rice-cooked.html?_r=0 OUR Rice is better than your Rice. That’s the argument Democrats are aggressively making against Republicans. And it’s true. Condi Rice sold her soul. Susan Rice merely rented hers on the talk shows one Sunday in September. Ambitious to be secretary of state, Condi jilted her mentor, Brent Scowcroft, who publicly opposed the Iraq invasion. In 2002, she bolted to the winning, warmongering side with W., Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, helping them twist intelligence and getting Foggy Bottom in return. Ambitious to be secretary of state, Susan Rice wanted to prove she had the gravitas for the job and help out the White House. So the ambassador to the United Nations agreed to a National Security Council request to go on all five Sunday shows to talk about the attack on the American consulate in Libya. “She saw this as a great opportunity to go out and close the stature gap,” said one administration official. “She was focused on the performance, not the content. People said, ‘It’s sad because it was one of her best performances.’ But it’s not a movie, it’s the news. Everyone in politics thinks, you just get your good talking points and learn them and reiterate them on camera. But what if they’re not good talking points? What if what you’re saying isn’t true, even if you’re saying it well?” Testifying on Capitol Hill on Friday, the beheaded Head Spook David Petraeus said the C.I.A. knew quickly that the Benghazi raid was a terrorist attack. “It was such a no-brainer,” one intelligence official told me. Intelligence officials suspected affiliates of Al Qaeda and named them in their original talking points for Rice, but that information was deemed classified and was softened to “extremists” as the talking points were cycled past Justice, State, the National Security Council and other intelligence analysts. As The Times’s Eric Schmitt wrote, some analysts worried that identifying the groups “could reveal that American spy services were eavesdropping on the militants — a fact most insurgents are already aware of.” Rice was given the toned-down talking points, but she has access to classified information. Though she told Bob Schieffer on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that the extremist elements could have included Qaeda affiliates or Al Qaeda itself, she mostly used her appearances to emphasize the story line of the spontaneous demonstration over an anti-Muslim video. She disputed the contention of the president of Libya’s General National Congress, who called the attack “preplanned” when he talked to Schieffer just before Rice. Some have wondered if Rice, who has a bull-in-a-china-shop reputation, is diplomatic enough for the top diplomatic job. But she would have been wise to be more bull-in-a-china-shop and vet her talking points, given that members of the intelligence and diplomatic communities and sources in news accounts considered it a terrorist attack days before Rice went on the shows. (The president and his spokesman also clung to the video story for too long.) Rice should have been wary of a White House staff with a tendency to gild the lily, with her pal Valerie Jarrett and other staffers zealous about casting the president in a more flattering light, like national security officials filigreeing the story of the raid on Osama to say Bin Laden fought back. Did administration officials foolishly assume that if affiliates of Al Qaeda were to blame, it would dilute the credit the president got for decimating Al Qaeda? Were aides overeager to keep Mitt Romney, who had stumbled after the Benghazi attack by accusing the president of appeasing Islamic extremists, on the defensive? Writing in a 2002 book about President Clinton’s failure to intervene in the genocide in Rwanda, Samantha Power, now a National Security Council official, suggested that Rice was swayed by domestic politics when, as a rising star at the N.S.C. who would soon become Clinton’s director for African affairs, she mused about the ’94 midterms, “If we use the word ‘genocide’ and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November election?” An Africa expert, Rice should have realized that when a gang showed up with R.P.G.’s and mortars in a place known as a hotbed of Qaeda sympathizers and Islamic extremist training camps, it was not anger over a movie. She should have been savvy enough to wonder why the wily Hillary was avoiding the talk shows. The president’s fierce defense of Rice had virile flare. But he might have been better off leaving it to aides, so he did not end up going mano a mano with his nemesis John McCain on an appointment he hasn’t even made (though now Obama might feel compelled to, just to prove that he can’t be pushed around), and so he could focus on fiscal cliff bipartisanship. His argument that Rice “had nothing to do with Benghazi,” raises the question: Then why was she the point person? The president’s protecting a diplomatic damsel in distress made Rice look more vulnerable, when her reason for doing those shows in the first place was to look more venerable.
Since when do Americans stop caring about four dead Americans doing a risky job and perishing in the service of their country. If you don't look, you won't see....
Fact is you would lie about it when you have to lie about it-- when it happens. The timing on this was not dictated by anybody.
