This is like saying "there's still an ongoing investigation into 9/11" - technically, you're not wrong; realistically, it's a farce that we should have closed the book on
years ago, and the fact that Richard Gage won't shut up about it says more about his bias than anything else. See, no matter how many investigations come up with nothing (and let's be clear now -
there have been seven thus far, all coming back with pretty much the same "we can't find any dirt"), the Republicans won't drop this. Why should they? They can spend taxpayer money to continue to use this as a campaign attack dog, and the moment they give it up, they lose a powerful tool in their arsenal. The fact that they've commissioned an
eighth investigation into this issue after the last seven found nothing is not evidence that there's dirt to be dug up, it's evidence that they have a vested interest in making us believe there's dirt to be dug up.
Or, to put it another way: there are still ongoing investigations into Obama's birth certificate.
See, speaking of things that simply aren't the case...
Again,
every single one of the seven investigations into the subject (including at least two led by republicans) found that this simply is not true. To quote
CBS News:
So if you want to claim that they were "left for dead", I'd like to see some
actual evidence. The fact that they didn't send every available air support within 1000 kilometers (and keep in mind, Tripoli, the closest available military base, was, in fact, about a thousand kilometers away) is not evidence that they were left for dead. The people with the actual authority to investigate the chain of command and classified decisions made that day seem to be under the distinct impression that the response was timely and that no opportunity for a military rescue was missed.
And investigation after investigation has shown that Susan Rice was going off of what the CIA told her, which was (again, information was sparse on the ground) what they knew at the time.
Except that as numerous investigations have discovered,
this is what the CIA believed at the time. The information was faulty, but the information-gathering process was not. It just needed more time. Oh, and as previously stated: he was not jailed for making the movie. He was jailed for violating his parole. You realize "that guy" was a career criminal and fraudster with a record heading out the door, right? In fact, in his actual trial, he struck a plea bargain that
completely dropped every charge related to the film, which most people would not have had but he had on account of, again, his parole conditions. Turns out lying to your parole officer is kind of a no-no (read: felony).
Politifact rates this "half true". I find that
incredibly charitable to Romney. And also, keep in mind that the actual intel on the ground was still sparse. Did Obama
know at that point whether or not it was a terrorist attack? I have no idea.
Yes, we should have
immediately declared war on the responsible parties and sent out troops to capture them. Because, you know, the last time this happened (oddly enough on the exact same date), it ended so well for America. And of course, there's a pretty clear and obvious difference between an attack on mainland America and an attack on an embassy. Sure, it's
technically American soil, but if you can't see any substantial differences, then maybe you should look harder.
You're right, I agree. The government is corrupt in a lot of ways. But when we're talking about corruption, it's important to consider the bigger picture.
What possible motive could the Republicans have to cover the Democrats' *****? It makes no sense. If there was anything to find, the House Intelligence Commission would have touted it to the world. They would have shouted from the rooftops, "LOOK! HILLARY CLINTON ****ED UP!" You know, because that would really hurt her in the 2016 election, and at this point it's something the Republicans desperately need. But they didn't. They quietly released a report which said the same thing as all the other investigations: "nothing to see here, move along". The only way that even
begins to make sense is if, well, they couldn't find anything.
No. If you assume that the whole goal is to manipulate, then look at Benghazi, you start seeing all kinds of neat little threads. But if you don't assume that, and look at the available evidence, what comes out is an extremely typical story of a wartime encounter with very limited information. You want me to ask all these questions, as if they're rhetorical bombshells; the problem is, we have
answers to those questions already.
Bad intel.
The CIA documents circulated around the time of Susan Rice's infamous press conference say pretty much the same things she said on TV. But even if this wasn't the case, I would still mirror Clinton's (eternally taken-out-of-context) response: "What difference does it make?"
They did. On september 12th, Obama got up in the Rose Garden and said:
"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."
After that, though, the intel became murky, and what exactly had happened was unclear. Is it any wonder that they held back on making public statements, lest they make an *** of themselves right before election day?
I'm not sure. Maybe it wasn't in the budget (
it had recently been cut); maybe they didn't consider it a high-priority target; maybe
Stevens had previously turned them down; maybe Stevens' letter was simply too late. I don't know why; there are numerous possible explanations. Maybe you can help me out there; why do you think they didn't buff up Libyan security?
Did you read the post you quoted? Or the news article
you cited? Here, once more, with feeling:
Earlier, six Americans flew from Tripoli to Benghazi to attempt to aid the embattled personnel at the diplomatic mission.
But even if they hadn't, here's a proposal:
they had incomplete, lacking intel and didn't want to throw military personnell into a meat grinder. Seriously, they weren't sure what was going on there. What if they had sent a squad of guys there, and it had turned out to be a small army with artillery support? Congratulations, you've just tripled your body count. Now, I'm not 100% sure on what intel they actually had as the event was unfolding. I'll have to look into that. But given what I've heard from the numerous reports (including the two reports by a hostile faction in congress), this makes a hell of a lot more sense than "they just sat on their ***** and let them die (for no apparent reason)".
None of these questions lead down the path you want them to, I'm afraid.
It's perhaps worth noting that I really don't give a **** whether or not the Obama administration lied about the exact events or the cause of the events. It doesn't matter. It's
totally meaningless. Oh wow, they lied in a campaign season about something which barely even matters (oh, a diplomacy got attacked? Yeah, that only happened
13 times under Bush, with at least 60 dead) - exactly how the attack happened. Your point was that they "left them for dead". This is simply not true.
