After all, it all happened a long time ago and in the end, what difference does it make? But
here you go:
"Everybody in the mission" in Benghazi, Libya, thought the attack on a U.S.
consulate there last Sept. 11 was an act of terror "from the get-go," according
to excerpts of an interview investigators conducted with the No. 2 official in
Libya at the time, obtained by CBS News' "Face the Nation."
"I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the
beginning," Greg Hicks, a 22-year foreign service diplomat who was the
highest-ranking U.S. official in Libya after the strike, told investigators
under authority of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Hicks,
the former U.S. Embassy Tripoli deputy chief of mission, was not in Benghazi at
the time of the attack, which killed Chris Stevens - then the U.S. ambassador to
Libya - and three other Americans.
When he appears this week before the committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa,
R-Calif., Hicks is expected to offer testimony at odds with what some American
officials were saying in public - and on "Face the Nation" - just five days
after the attack. Benghazi whistleblowers have rallied attention to
discrepancies among the administration's reaction to the attack, which The
Weekly Standard suggests
was frayed by ever-evolving talking points that sought to remove references to
al Qaeda.
On Sept. 16, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice hit the media
circuit, appearing on all five Sunday talk shows to dispel the notion that the
strike was a premeditated terrorist act and to perpetuate the case that it began
"spontaneously" out of protests in Egypt. Rice's spot on "Face the Nation" that
day was preceded by the new President of Libya Mohammed al-Magariaf, who said
his government had "no doubt that this was preplanned, predetermined."
I know, no one cares about Benghazi. I've been told that repeatedly. Don't mean to bug ya. I'll be quiet now.
10 comments:
Ever wonder when the lies finally catch up with this Admnistration? Furthermore, with Hillary Clinton in charge of the fiasco, how does she get to considered a front runner for the next presidential election?
If facts mattered to the new world order, somebody would never have overcome his associations with TUCC, Bill Ayers, Khalidi, Daley, Blagojevich, Wright, Pfleger, Jackson.......so a little black lie that stands to get a bunch of people killed in the future isn't going to matter.
Hope I'm wrong.
First off, let me thank you for printing the litany of failed Conservative Talking points you guys have been peddling for 5 or 6 years now. It's quite amusing, and gives me a warm fuzzy when I go down the list: TUCC-fail!, Bill Ayers-fail!, Khalidi-fail!, Daley-fail!, Blagojevich-fail!, Wright-fail!, Pfleger-fail!, Jackson-fail! and now, we can add Benghazi! Almost chronological too. Again, thanks.
Also, kudos to Anon for at least partially admitting that this is no longer about Obama. This stopped being about Obama on November 9th. It's all about getting Hillary now (And if it had happened under Bush, it would not have mattered to all of you one bit). Is it a tragedy? Absolutely. 4 good men were lost. Were mistakes made? Yes. But US consulates in war zones have been attacked in the past, and Benghazi is no different. The people that take those jobs know the risks, and Ambassador Stevens was a notorious risk-taker...a cowboy of sorts. Trying to make political hay out of a very unfortunate event where 4 Americans died is despicable. And the reason no one outside of the right-wing echo chamber is paying attention is because we have all watched you guys cry wolf on a daily basis for going on 6 years now. Good luck trying to keep this one alive for another 3 or 4.
Regards,
Rich
what difference does it make?
Rich,
Glad you were able to exchange talking points with Bubba. Yours appear to be in order.
Gino asks,
what difference does it make?
Well, the truth matters. Won't change the past, but people deserve to know what happened.
And I'm remiss in not pointing out that Rich's statement:
And if it had happened under Bush, it would not have mattered to all of you one bit.
is bullshit. Of course it would have mattered.
... bullshit. Of course it would have mattered.
Indeed, but irrelevant. Do you think for one millisecond the likes of ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, etc. would have let such a thing slide had it happened under Bush. That's the whole point. Any reaction the conservative blogosphere would've had if such a scandal happened 2001-2008 would have been drowned out by all the breathless MSM coverage.
Any reaction the conservative blogosphere would've had if such a scandal happened 2001-2008 would have been drowned out by all the breathless MSM coverage.
Yah, sure. And that's why the NY Times and WaPo and ABC and CNN still can barely bring themselves to admit that President Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld ordered the torture of prisoners in U.S. Custody. These allegedly left wing news sources have carried water for the Bush WH for a decade, but somehow, they are inherently left wing. Earth to Brad and Mark: You need to adjust your filters.
Regards,
Rich
Earth to Brad and Mark: You need to adjust your filters.
Let it play out, dude. See what happens.
Rich; nice talking points, but reality is that MOB blogs, including mine, generally contain a fair amount of criticism of the GOP. We leave marching in lockstep to others.
And in this case, what matters is that the State Department speak honestly to the guys who write their budget about what persons, policies, and assumptions led to this--and tell about what changes will be made in the same to prevent it happening again.
Used to be that Democrats insisted on this kind of thing, Rich. Is politics so important now that we can't ask these questions?
Post a Comment