Benghazi "cover-up"

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I'm not a Hillary fan, but I have to ask this: If there's a cover-up in Benghazi, as the Republicans allege, then what exactly is being covered up???

Am I the only person who's actually asked this yet?

Does the GOP just assume something was covered up, so they're working backwards from a conclusion?

[tik 🪀✨]

Isn't the big controversy somewhat about how they were ill-prepared and forewarned?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Isn't the big controversy somewhat about how they were ill-prepared and forewarned?

They keep calling it a "cover-up." I just don't see what's being covered up.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Isn't the big controversy somewhat about how they were ill-prepared and forewarned?

9/11/01 much more so.

[tik 🪀✨]

Isn't the big controversy somewhat about how they were ill-prepared and forewarned?

They keep calling it a "cover-up." I just don't see what's being covered up.

Of course you don't.. that's why it's a cover-up.

[Jared]

The GOP is attacking like this is the second Holocaust.

Some people died in Libya.  The real question is; how long till we caught the bastards who did it?

[Zarn]

Some people think there is a connection to Syria, in terms of supplying rebels. I am not making that assumption.

It's hard to engage in any conversation about it, because it is either the Alex Jones nut crowd going well... nuts, or it is Dems thinking the issue should be dropped completely that I ever see say anything on it.

I think it warrants investigation, but I think jumping to any conclusion is stupid. We still have not heard from everyone involved. The one thing that makes Clinton look bad to me is her uncooperative nature. The anger and the withholding of witnesses testifying is a little fishy.

I do not believe that the Bush 9/11 thing matters. If Clinton was responsible for something, it does not matter if Bush was responsible for his. It is a different case. If Bush was put on the hot seat for numerous things, including ignoring intel on 9/11, I would not cry over it.

[Link]

It's hard to engage in any conversation about it, because it is either the Alex Jones nut crowd going well... nuts, or it is Dems thinking the issue should be dropped completely that I ever see say anything on it.

This is slander.  I challenge you to give us the name of a single Democrat who has gone on the record saying we should not investigate the death of a diplomat in the line of duty.  You are a part of the problem.

The one thing that makes Clinton look bad to me is her uncooperative nature. The anger and the withholding of witnesses testifying is a little fishy.

A request was sent to numerous people within the State Department to come forward if they had information and present it to the independent investigator who was a retired diplomat.  These people decided not to come forward and now they are claiming no one questioned them.  If I was Clinton I would be pissed too.

I do not believe that the Bush 9/11 thing matters.

Of course you don't.

Am I the only person who's actually asked this yet?

No.  I've asked this same question multiple times since I first heard "cover up."  No Republican has been able to tell me what exactly is being covered up.  I haven't even heard good conspiracy theories.  It's been over half a year and multiple Congressional hearings and we are still no closer to this Republican holy grail.

[dead0man]

The only problem (if it is one) that I see is that the President seemed at the time to really REALLY not want to call it "an attack" or "terrorism" and was trying hard to blame that stupid movie despite all evidence to the contrary...and that's weird.  Why was he doing that?

[Link]

The only problem (if it is one) that I see is that the President seemed at the time to really REALLY not want to call it "an attack" or "terrorism" and was trying hard to blame that stupid movie despite all evidence to the contrary...and that's weird.  Why was he doing that?

Who cares?

[Brittain33]

Republicans are upset because they think that if anything covered up had been released in fall 2012, America's eyes would have been opened to Obama's treacherous incompetence (which they've been aware of all along) and he would have lost. That's reason 1 why they consider this the new Watergate--they truly believe this disqualified Democrats from power and have lost sight of how trivial this individual incident is in the larger scheme of a war, as tragic as it is. They have forgotten this argument even though it underlies several years of averting their eyes to the millions of lives destroyed by incompetence and callousness in Iraq.

Part 2, to restate the obvious, is about throwing everything but the kitchen sink at Hillary Clinton's campaign before she becomes the inevitable next president.

[Brittain33]

I understand the position. Back before Bush invaded Iraq and showed how colossally he could screw up whole countries, his administration churned out minor scandals and cover ups which reinforced to me and my colleagues at Daily Kos how he was unfit for office, and it was frustrating that others didn't see it or didn't care. So now Republicans are dealing with an administration that has been extraordinary clean and, for a large bureaucracy, well run, and when something happens that wouldn't cause a reporter to bat an eye during the bush term, they feel it's a combination of Watergate and the Holocaust.

[Zarn]

Link, Dem voters on this very site have said it should be left alone, and that's me paraphrasing them politely. I'm not talking about politicians, outside of Clinton herself.

There were people who were not allowed to testify up until this point.

I still do not see what this has to do with Bush. It is a separate matter.

Gravis, This administration is anything but squeaky clean. The administration is run nothing short of "Chicago-style" politics. Obama could not even fill up his initial administration, without running into controversy. There was even an issue with his dog. We do not know how deep the rabbit hole is.

[Link]

Link, Dem voters on this very site have said it should be left alone, and that's me paraphrasing them politely. I'm not talking about politicians, outside of Clinton herself.

I have not seen anyone say that the death of a diplomat on duty should not be investigated.  Not sure which site you are referring to.

There were people who were not allowed to testify up until this point.

Yeah the independent investigator said they asked numerous people in the State Department with knowledge of this event to come forward.  Multiple people did not.  After the fact they wanted to testify to Congress.  Well sorry.  You didn't want to say anything for months when the investigation was going on and now once the report has been made you want to hop on TV and tell your version?!  I don't think so.  If there is an investigation at your work you make your statements to the investigators.  You don't sit there silent and when the investigation is over go public.

I still do not see what this has to do with Bush.

You never will, Zarn.  The good thing about it most of the American people aren't stupid.  To this day no one can tell me what exactly Clinton, Rice or Obama did that is in any way problematic let alone worth talking about while Bush sit comfortably in Texas painting.

[bedstuy]

Does the GOP just assume something was covered up, so they're working backwards from a conclusion?

Exactly.  Here's the logic:

Obama is a Democrat. Therefore, he is weak on defense and unpatriotic.  Therefore, everything he does is premised upon being weak and unpatriotic.  Therefore, his administration acted weakly and unpatriotically during the Benghazi situation.

Also, Obama seems foreign/black/Muslim, so he must have some affinity for Muslims, terrorists and those greasy Middle eastern types.  Because he loves Muslims and/or is one, he wanted to help whitewash the attack to make Muslims look better.  Or even worse, he let Americans die by inaction because his administration is weak/muslim/liberal/black/foreign/gay/pinko/communist/socialist/NWO/what have you. 

It's ridiculous thinking.  But, really the actual politicians don't think that, they just see an issue where they can get some blood in the water.  And Obama has been so hawkish and competent on defense, they have no other options for attacking him.

[Zioneer]

Link, Dem voters on this very site have said it should be left alone, and that's me paraphrasing them politely. I'm not talking about politicians, outside of Clinton herself.

There were people who were not allowed to testify up until this point.

I still do not see what this has to do with Bush. It is a separate matter.

Gravis, This administration is anything but squeaky clean. The administration is run nothing short of "Chicago-style" politics. Obama could not even fill up his initial administration, without running into controversy. There was even an issue with his dog. We do not know how deep the rabbit hole is.

Nope, you're wrong, sorry. The Obama administration might not be squeaky clean, but it basically is compared to the last administration.

[Zarn]

Why are you putting me in the position of defending Bush? I didn't like what the Bush administration did. I'm a libertarian, not a neocon, or can either of you tell the difference?