patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,208,230 comments by 14,359 users - Al_Sharpton_for_President, desertguy, RayAmerica, Robert Sproul, WookieMan online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 47 - 48 of 48 Search these comments
I just don't get the obsession with Benghazi .
Obama's appeasement of Muslim world has failed. Govts in UK, Germany, and the rest of Europe get it... he doesnt. So he covers it up and blames
the attack on a video, which it wasnt.
Are you going to say it was the fault of a video which triggered the attack ?
"Fox News Channel’s Charles Krauthammer had a different reaction: “We now have the smoking document, which is the White House saying, ‘We’re pushing the video because we don’t want to blame it on the failure of our policies.’â€
That’s as spot-on as it gets. As Krauthammer notes, it was the Obama gang who politicized Benghazi, lying and stonewalling and covering up in order to protect the president in an election season.
The Obama White House’s chief concern about the Benghazi attack was making sure that President Obama looked good.
These documents undermine the Obama administration’s narrative that it thought the Benghazi attack had something to do with protests or an Internet video. Given the explosive material in these documents, it is no surprise that we had to go to federal court to pry them loose from the Obama State Department.
There are far more dangerous things that Obama is doing- NSA,
Hardly... Spying on foreigners is hardly dangerous.
« First « Previous Comments 47 - 48 of 48 Search these comments
Ever since militant jihadists killed four Americans, including the U.S. Ambassador, in an attack on a U.S. diplomatic outpost in that remote Libyan town two years ago, House Republicans have kept up a drumbeat of insinuation. They have already devoted thirteen hearings, twenty-five thousand pages of documents, and fifty briefings to the topic, which have turned up nothing unexpected.
Around dawn on October 23, 1983, I was in Beirut, Lebanon, when a suicide bomber drove a truck laden with the equivalent of twenty-one thousand pounds of TNT into the heart of a U.S. Marine compound, killing two hundred and forty-one servicemen. The U.S. military command, which regarded the Marines’ presence as a non-combative, “peace-keeping mission,†had left a vehicle gate wide open, and ordered the sentries to keep their weapons unloaded. The only real resistance the suicide bomber had encountered was a scrim of concertina wire.
Six months earlier, militants had bombed the U.S. embassy in Beirut, too, killing sixty-three more people, including seventeen Americans. Among the dead were seven C.I.A. officers, including the agency’s top analyst in the Middle East, an immensely valuable intelligence asset, and the Beirut station chief.
There were more than enough opportunities to lay blame for the horrific losses at high U.S. officials’ feet. But unlike today’s Congress, congressmen did not talk of impeaching Ronald Reagan, who was then President, nor were any subpoenas sent to cabinet members. This was true even though then, as now, the opposition party controlled the majority in the House. Tip O’Neill, the Democratic Speaker of the House, was no pushover. He, like today’s opposition leaders in the House, demanded an investigation—but a real one, and only one. Instead of playing it for political points, a House committee undertook a serious investigation into what went wrong at the barracks in Beirut. Two months later, it issued a report finding “very serious errors in judgment†by officers on the ground, as well as responsibility up through the military chain of command, and called for better security measures against terrorism in U.S. government installations throughout the world.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2014/05/ronald-reagans-benghazi.html#entry-more
#politics