Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem
(Post 4673654)
I'm still a bit confused as to why Benghazi is such a big deal. I understand that it's being drawn out in an effort to score political points, but why would anyone in the public buy it? Particularly since the politicians' primary concern seems to be finding out who decided to call it a protest instead of a terrorist attack. Why does that matter?
If they said that some security procedure was missed or handled improperly, then I could understand the witch hunt and procedures analysis. If they wanted to discuss funding and ways to ensure that this didn't happen again then I would say that it's worthwhile. But to claim that something was covered up because the words "terror" and "terrorist" weren't used immediately? Am I missing something, or am I correct in saying that Congress - our highly-paid, public servants - are wasting their time on something ridiculous yet again?
|
"why Benghazi is such a big deal."
"why would anyone in the public buy it?"
"to claim that something was covered up because the words "terror" and "terrorist" weren't used immediately? Am I missing something?"
You are missing the context of the moment, and the timing of the falsified and manipulated reporting to protect the Administration's future.
The Administration was in a heated political battle, with one of their promoted strengths being the victorious campaign against terrorist opposition to the USA. Voters, swing voters of 2008 who were disappointed with continued involvement in Afghanistan and the Middle East in 2012 were being courted to repeat their vote for President Obama. The strategy was that these voters owed their vote to Obama, despite the continued war in Afghanistan, because the Obama Administration was claiming that their foreign policy had won the war on terror. The message to voters being that the Obama Administration has an obligation to remain in Afghanistan as a temporary (forgivable) concession, because the Obama Administration policies were resulting in a permanent (supportable) solution to the previous hostile attitudes violently expressed against the USA.
The Administration could not afford recognition that their foreign policy was ineffective.
The direction of the Arab Spring leadership fallout was headed to a more radicalized style of government in Egypt, and the direction of Libya was undetermined. The Obama Administration supported the opposition to Mummar Gaddafi and was framing the Libyan victory as a foreign policy victory. The introduction of troops and military assets in the Obama Administration's Libyan policy had already angered previous Obama supporters who opposed the U.S. entry into another foreign civil war. The Obama Administration policy actions undertaken without an approval vote of Congress was being viewed as arrogance and hypocrisy after the broken promises since 2008. The attack that resulted in the death of the Ambassador would have ravaged these pacifist voter's confidence in the Obama Administration's foreign policy, a risk the Administration could not allow.
The Obama Administration choose to covertly redirect the cause of the attack on a motive removed from foreign policy, and in the haste of the moment chose to redirect the motive to an
unknown video of limited release and very limited public exposure. This redirection lasted until the election, until the swing voters who were already unhappy with President Obama's foreign policy in Libya were secure Democrat votes.
The deception did not start and stop at the introduction of the video as "the motive," it was paralleled with scrubbing of all references to hostile opposition resulting from the Obama Administration foreign policy actions in the Middle East. The word "terror" was replaced by "violence," as if the motive for these actions were unknown and ambiguous (when the Administration received reports both before, during, and after the attack that the violent faction taking action was a terrorist group). The entire deception was a (successful) effort to protect the pacifist voter who was already disappointed with broken promises and the prior involvement in Libya by the Obama Administration.
The failure of this deception would have resulted in a lost Presidential campaign, and the Obama Administration knew this risk was too great due to the timing and sensitivity of voter opposition to U.S. involvement in Libya and they chose the video deception to maintain their Democrat Party loyalty.
The deception and inaction (before, during and after the attack) was contemptible, more due to the motives than the actual acts, but the coverup and extended embrace that the video was the motive for the attack in Benghazi throughout the election debates and final days when the truth was known to the President is unacceptable.