Why the number 7? Because that’s the number of times U.S. embassies/consulates were attacked during the presidency of George W. Bush.
See, every time conservatives trot out this line of attack against President Barack Obama, they’re conveniently ignoring the national security failings of the last Republican president.
- 2002: U.S. Consulate In Karachi, Pakistan, Attacked; 10 Killed, 51 Injured
- 2004: U.S. Embassy Bombed In Uzbekistan
- 2004: Gunmen Stormed U.S. Consulate In Saudi Arabia
- 2006: Armed Men Attacked U.S. Embassy In Syria
- 2007: Grenade Launched Into U.S. Embassy In Athens
- 2008: Rioters Set Fire To U.S. Embassy In Serbia
- 2008: Ten People Killed In Bombings At U.S. Embassy In Yemen
There’s absolutely no denying that the terrorist attack on our embassy in Benghazi is a tragedy, and it’s imperative that those responsible for the attack are held accountable, it’s also important to have a little historical perspective and context.
Luisa,
You seem to think that I have some sort of need for you to agree with me, as if there are two “balanced” and “equally valid” “sides” under consideration. “My” position and “yours” through which some satisfactory middle ground might be negotiated. Perhaps “one” might convince the ”other” or at best we can agree to differ. A tiny bit of sarcasm soon to follow, be prepared… uh, no. There is an objective reality here. How sad you say “that I assume that anyone who disagrees with me is incapable of critical thought.” I haven’t assumed anything. I have observed and examined.
Don’t worry I won’t push you for an “economic discussion.” If I did I would ask you to disprove your thesis that “government interventions actually prolong recessions and depressions.” I can easily argue your case for you. Can you formulate a cogent argument against it? Can you “prove” that “I’m right” and “you’re wrong?” That’s a rhetorical question. Meaning figure of speech. Meaning civility doesn’t require you to answer it.
And a good day to you too. I wish you well.
PJ,
You say that you have observed and examined that I am incapable of critical thought, and yet you continue to assert that the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi had something to do with an anti-Muslim video. I could understand believing that back in September when Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, Jay Carney, and others were claiming that was the reason, but why do you continue to believe it when even our government now admits that it was a premeditated, organized terrorist attack? There were no video protests or riots outside the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that day. Everything I’ve read says that the street outside the compound was pretty quiet all day, and was still quiet less than an hour before the terrorists attacked. How can you keep insisting that the attack in Benghazi had anything to do with a (non-existent) video protest? And my question is rhetorical as well — civility doesn’t require that you answer.
Oh, one thing that I did want to mention is that you misread something which I wrote in an earlier post. I said that the truth is out there, and “I am one who likes to find it.” You thought I wrote “I am THE one who likes to find it.” I’m not so arrogant as to believe that I am “the one,” but I am “one.”
I am extremely busy, so if I am unable to respond to further replies from you, I hope you won’t be offended. Well, I’m pretty sure you won’t be offended. You’ll get the last word, and I’m sure it won’t be kind, and I’m sure you will in some way attempt to insult my intelligence. 🙂 I have unsubscribed from this blog so that I won’t see your reply and be tempted to respond.
Luisa,
Pity you won’t be around to read my last word. “What you read” is in conflict with what is. CIA’s assessment is that the assault was planned in response to the unrest in Cairo which was in retaliation for the video. In other words it was a premeditated attack in response to the video. In addition there was no actionable intelligence even suggesting that the attack was planned months or weeks prior. The attack was the protest. “Attack” and “Protest” aren’t mutually exclusive.
You have divided “premeditated” from “opportunistic” in a way that is not only incorrect, but provides a foundation for politicizing the deaths of four American citizens.
If intelligence reveals a different scenario or if initial reports from the field are retracted, I’m open to changing my mind. All the assessments are subject to change and it isn’t a scandal if they do. It’s part of the investigation process. The investigation continues. We don’t have all the facts and what facts we have don’t fit any portion of the conservative narrative.
Pity you won’t be around for my final word which is this:
For God’s sake, let the investigation continue with no further politicizing interference. And that includes House Conservatives deliberately obstructing the investigation and deliberately slanting the investigation to serve the Conservative narrative.
You dishonor the honored dead when you politicize their deaths.