Yeah, not so much…
The cover-up story relies on the premise that Obama administration officials pushed the idea of spontaneity in order to obscure the fact that they had missed warnings of planned terrorist attack. It’s plausible that someone was pushing that story for parochial reasons in these email exchanges. Perhaps the CIA put that idea in its first assessment and kept it there in every subsequent version to cover for its failure to stay on top of the al-Qaida affiliates in Benghazi, even though there was a CIA outpost there. It’s also obvious that the State Department wanted to shift blame away from its failure to protect its people in Benghazi. But there’s no evidence in the emails that the idea of spontaneity was initiated by anyone associated with Obama, the White House, or the president’s wider political fortunes. Did Obama benefit from the spontaneity narrative? Yes. But to embrace intelligence from your CIA that is favorable to you–when you have no reason to doubt your intelligence service–is not the same as making up a false story. It’s not even a sin.
Our own PJ also does an excellent job of debunking the manufactured scandal by Republicans, and there’s this as well:
As Erik Wemple points out, this contradicts the other damaging accusation from the scandal known as “Benghazi-gate.” The Obama administration’s first fumbling attempts to explain the killings put them in the context of “protests” against a viral anti-Muhammad movie. On Sept. 16, UN Ambassador Susan Rice probably talked her way out of a promotion by sticking to talking points on the event and saying a “spontaneous” protest was hijacked by an armed “clusters of extremists.” McCain and other critics scoffed at the gullibility on display. “Most people don’t bring rocket-propelled grenades and heavy weapons to a demonstration,” said McCain on CBS News, speaking immediately after Rice.
The truth lay in between the talking points and the snark. The mob that crashed the consulate was attacking diplomats. But they were able to kill our ambassador, and sow confusion, by setting fires. The heavy weapons came later.
So far, three State Department officials have fallen on their swords in response to this report. That was what investigators asked for, basically, blaming the circumstances in Benghazi on “senior State Department officials” who “demonstrated a lack of proactive leadership and management ability.” They failed to provide security before Sept. 11. On Tuesday, describing the video he’d been able to watch of the attack, Sen. Bob Corker told reporters that the compound was so wanly protected that “you or I could have walked right in.”
That doesn’t suggest a real-time campaign of cowardice. It doesn’t suggest a cover-up, either. It suggests that the neglected budget for embassy security needs a harder look in 2013. When that happens—or when it doesn’t happen—we’ll know what politicians learned from Benghazi.
As for the impact of the Republican attempts to find a coverup where none exists regarding Benghazi, the impact on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be absolutely nil.
That’s cute.
Cindy, thanks for visiting; you always add so much to the discussion!
I’m just leaving this right here.
Honestly, any conservative who gets on the case of these people dying and were cheering when the embassy security being cut to keep their precious tax dollars down over the last several years? Needs to shut up. Because everything that I’ve heard about this ‘controversy’ roots down to the fact those people were doing the best they could with their limited resources they had due to the fact they were cut for our precious tax breaks.
Is it tragic that those people were killed? Yes. Was it a risk they were aware of? Yes. But how many other people died in such attacks and not even a peep was heard about it? Are those lives less than those people because those attacks happened under a republican president? Because honestly, when I point that out and conservatives say “stop pointing out the past” – I guess that’s all those dead people are to you is that. The past. Nevermind they also died due to the fact that the security for the U.S. Embassies were always being cut as well.
One thing I hope, is that if one thing comes out of this is we will protect these people better. But considering the lock step foundation of the republican party in power are nothing but opportunists, they’ll probably cut more from these people.
T.
Quite right about Conservative rank and file shirking off reality by denying the pertinence of embassy/consulate attacks during the Bush regime:
Calcutta, 2002
Karachi, 2002
Denpasar, 2002
Islamabad, 2003
Riyadh, 2003
Tashkent, 2004
Karachi, 2006
Damascus, 2006
Athens, 2007
San’a, 2008
Istanbul, 2008
San’a, 2008
To admit that Congressional Republicans did nothing in response to these, but hang on like pitbulls in their Benghazi witch hunt, would force any rational being to think more critically than Conservative rank and file are willing to do. They would be forced into the uncomfortable position of admitting that the Conservative leadership in America is operating in a manner adverse to the interests of the United States.
The only controversies surrounding Benghazi are perpetrated by the Republican Establishment – as you point out, slashing embassy funding for the arbitrary, subversive purpose of lowering taxes and shrinking government; but also politicizing the deaths of American citizens for political gain; obstructing the legitimate investigation into the Benghazi attack; obstructing their own illegitimate investigation with deliberate falsehoods – lying to the public (Pickering); launching a political attack against the White House in order to undermine the presidency of the United States; and falsifying evidence in order to accuse the President of … falsifying evidence.
All together one of the most hideous machinations of political warfare yet seen in American politics. Combine their obstructionism, attempts to subvert the very structure of government, and devotion to interests other than the American people, and what we have are Republicans unfit to govern. To preserve the integrity of the Congressional institution Democrats in DC should move to expel every Conservative extremist in Congress. The Constitution provides for their removal, and historically expulsion from Congress has involved abuse of position or disloyalty to the United States. Congressional Conservatives can be described as nothing but disloyal and abusive.
I think the fact many conservatives have not replied to this, is because by pointing this out they know they are no matter what: responsible for this situation.
(Note: I say conservatives because there are many blue dog democrats who are only ‘democrat’ in name, so I think conservative is a bit better to use.)
You may be right about the lack of Conservative response. And you’re right about terminology. “Conservative” isn’t synonymous with “Republican.”
Oops my comment pooped.
But the point still stands.
I fixed your comment.