http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...1e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html?tid=socialss Symptoms of Benghazi Syndrome By Richard Cohen, The American Psychiatric Association’s latest handbook — the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) — is about to be published. It is the handbook of mental health, and if you’re not in it, you are among the fortunate few. Even though the hour is late, I beseech the DSM’s publishers to consider one additional entry, the seriousness of which will be apparent to anyone who watches Fox News: Benghazi Syndrome. Benghazi Syndrome is a grave malady of the noggin, the symptoms of which are a compulsion to grossly exaggerate matters and to compare almost anything to Watergate (see Watergate Syndrome, DSM-IV). Patient Zero in this regard is Sen. Lindsey Graham, a usually affable Republican from South Carolina who has suggested that the Benghazi episode warrants an investigation by a special congressional committee, just like Iran-contra and — drum roll, please — Watergate. Others have gone even further. Sen. James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma and a man who once suggested the Environmental Protective Agency has something in common with the Gestapo, called the Benghazi whatchamacallit the “most egregious cover-up in American history” and possibly an impeachable offense. These charges are so serious we can only conclude that l’affaire Benghazi has the potential to bring down the Obama administration — the proverbial thread that, if pulled, could unravel the entire garment. Such drama! So what is Benghazi? It is the place in Libya where the United States maintained two installations — a consulate and a much larger CIA outpost. Both of these were attacked on Sept. 11, 2012, a date of some significance. The assaults, we all now know, were conducted by a jihadist group and were not — as the Obama administration initially maintained — a spur-of-the-moment thing precipitated by the airing of an anti-Muslim video. We also know that the administration either was unsure of the facts or simply didn’t like them. So it knitted together the infamous talking points that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice repeated on all the Sunday talk shows. Aside from “good morning,” little of what she said was true. President Obama was then really Candidate Obama and he surely did not want the words “terrorist attack” uttered during the presidential campaign. In addition, the CIA and the State Department were in a cat fight and could not agree on the wording of the talking points — or even, from a fair reading of their clashing e-mails, who the fanatical enemy was: al-Qaeda or members of Congress? In all this, it’s almost possible to forget that four Americans died in Benghazi. The event was a tragedy and it hardly matters, as then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton vociferously maintained, if the attack occurred spontaneously or was planned. Either way, it was a success for the terrorists and a debacle for the United States. It is good to find out how this happened — who’s responsible for the inadequate security, etc. — and it is also good to hold the Obama administration accountable for putting out a misleading statement. But the record will show that a thorough report was, in fact, compiled. Its authors were Thomas Pickering, an esteemed retired diplomat, and Adm. Mike Mullen, an equally esteemed retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They found the standard mistakes and snafus — but no crime. Watergate, though, was a crime. Iran-contra was a crime. Government officials were convicted and some of them went to jail. Fudging a press release is not a crime. Compromising on wording is not a crime. Making a decision — even if wrong — that there was no time to call in the cavalry is not a crime. And having inadequate security is not only not a crime but partly a consequence of congressional budget cuts. It is not a crime either to make a mountain out of a molehill, but this particular one is constructed of a fetid combination of bad taste and poisonous politics. Dig down a bit and it becomes clear that some — many? — Republicans suspect that Barack Obama and-or Hillary Clinton are capable of letting people die to cover up a terrorist attack. Either that, or this is what they want us to think. In the end, it all comes down to an irrational and absolutely rabid dislike of Obama that so clouds judgment that utterly preposterous statements are uttered, usually within the precincts of the Fox News studios. This, as you might have guessed, is classic Benghazi Syndrome. There is no known cure.
These are, then, explicit admissions that this kind of thing went on. The unanswered question is "Why fudge?" and "Why compromise?"
Election spin, the self-important men behind the scenes that see appearances and inferences as hugely important in deciding elections. If that's your job and you see yourself as the difference between election and defeat I can see how you would want to 'play' the message even in a time of crisis. I don't think the pervasive TV/movie caricatures are too far from the reality. I do think there is still a story yet untold here and possibly damaging to the CIA. My guess is they and the Ambassador got set up by counter-intelligence, because the real and imminent danger for the Ambassador was so sorely underestimated. I think the Ambassador wouldn't have been so exposed unless he thought the militia, with their large numbers and heavy weapons were allies. We know some were, some weren't and most were changeable depending on any perceived slight. It may have been possibly in retaliation for reneging on promises to support an Islamist militia head or to free someone being held in the CIA compound. We probably won't know for a long time. The first facts did appear that this action was coordinated with the other '9/11 protest' across the Arab Spring states though. It would be hard to say if these event were unrelated, related as a plan or related with rogue elements exercising their own agendas. Throw in a possible CIA spin and/or and election spin and the changeable story is pretty understandable: a CYA scramble, possibly involving top secret clearances that everyone exposed now just has fall on their sword over and not talk about publicly.
Because there are people like you who will twist every word to make your point...THAT is one major reason talking points are ALWAYS revised a few times at least. You complain about too much information from the Osama raid being released for political reasons, then you complain out of the other side of your mouth that you should have been made aware of every piece of information about Benghazi from day 1, again for political reasons. You cannot have it both ways, and you don't have any right to know all the information in the first place. You cannot only support classified information when it suits your political arguments, although you will certainly keep trying.
Oops! Full White House Benghazi Email Undermines GOP’s Cover-Up Claims CNN has obtained the full email from a White House official on the Benghazi talking points, which undermines claims that the administration acted deliberately to change the intelligence community’s assessment. Previously, the Weekly Standard and ABC News had reported that Rhodes intervened on behalf of the State Department, urging that the talking points be changed to scrub al-Qaeda references at Nuland’s request. The Standard paraphrased the email as Rhodes “respond[ing] to the group, explaining that [State Department spokeswoman Victoria] Nuland had raised valid concerns and advising that the issues would be resolved at a meeting of the National Security Council’s Deputies Committee the following morning.” Likewise, ABC paraphrased the email’s content as saying “[w]e must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.” The elevation of the talking points to infamy has seemingly instead helped to undercut the Republican case that a cover-up occurred. In actuality, the only thing to be revealed during this latest round of investigation seems to be a turf war between the CIA and State Department to avoid further blame for the attack, one that played out in the editing process of the talking points. In the end, contrary to Republican claims, the intelligence community did have the last say in what went into the talking points, including that the attacks “were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo,” and immediately preceded by a demonstration.
CNN exclusive: White House email contradicts Benghazi leaks CNN has obtained an e-mail sent by a top aide to President Barack Obama about White House reaction to the deadly attack last September 11 on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, that apparently differs from how sources characterized it to two different media organizations. The actual e-mail from then-Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes appears to show that whomever leaked it did so in a way that made it appear that the White House was primarily concerned with the State Department's desire to remove references and warnings about specific terrorist groups so as to not bring criticism to the department
SHAMEFUL Well I am glad we can put this whole fake outrage to rest. On to the Bush/Cheney war crimes, a real scandal.
Unfortunately, just as a birth certificate never stopped the birthers, I fully expect the crazies to continue their conspiracy circle jerk.
Nay. And no to the house hearing. From what I heard it's more politically focus than going for the "truth". I more interested in the fbi report when it comes out than all of these political theaters
the truth about what? Why you were lied to by the State Department or what happened at Benghazi? Either way the House hearings have been great for both. Hicks (the highest ranking living witness) gave his minute by minute account of events on the ground at last weeks hearing.
Try to view it from both angles. It's very slanted. e.g. there are witnesses that were not allowed because they show a different side of the story. Anyhow, I seen to many of these hearings through the year that are mostly politically motivated. Sometime they ends up with something awesome, but most of the time, it's just a waste. Doesn't mean it shouldn't happen, just don't think it's after the truth with no political bias. I'm outta here. Cheers.
Pickering, Mullen, Petraeus Why wouldn't Issa allow these men to testify? Don't bother answering, we know why.
