BENGHAZI ATTACK & McCAIN.

Is his reaction to the issue personal?

Sen. John McCain would not be called as a witness in any court of law in the world in the case of the Benghazi attack, because he was beaten by President Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election, and that alone would disqualify him.

When someone should beat another person in an election, the loser normally became the winner's enemy for life; and that was what many people thought, as McCain has contributed so much to make the Benghazi attack into a hot potato issue in the current political campaign.

The Benghazi attack was an incident of unpredictability; and most of all, the United States military saw what was going on at the precise time, and made the determination that troops could not be rushed in to intervene; according to a report on CNN Internet front page this morning.

"The U.S. military did not get involved during the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, last month because officials did not have enough information about what was going on before the attack was over, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said Thursday." (CNN, 10/26/12).

In other words, very little information was coming out of Benghazi, mixed with the furor of the demonstrations in various parts of the world, due to the film or video on Mohammad that the Obama government has stuck to initially as being part of the cause of the attack.

The emails that were being sent out to the State Department and several federal offices did not contain specifics; therefore, lawmakers like McCain holding the president's feet to the fire, as not calling the attack as being by terrorists was rather preposterous.

Four extremely good Americans have lost their lives in that attack, and for all to maintain cool heads to deal with it, it has been turned into a football match between the White House and Capitol Hill; which prompted the the U.S. current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, to say, "It's not helpful to provide partial answers,"; to which the U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta added that the criticism directed at the Obama administration was a "Monday morning quarterbacking." (CNN report, 10/26/12).

Yet, Sen. McCain and other Congressional Republicans were engaged in politicizing the issue to the extreme, just to sour the Obama campaign in the president's bid for a second term.

It would be fair to say that they were very much concerned of how the whole thing happened; but so were all Americans, who were anxious to see the outcome of the matter, as many government investigations were going on to get to the bottom of it; and that the perpetrators would be caught and brought to justice.

Also, the Democratic Senate-led Intelligence Committee would hold closed hearings next month "to review the security situation and intelligence surrounding the Benghazi attack," the article said.

To label it as a "terror" attack or not would then not be a problem, as the Senators would delve deep into the situation to get the answers that would satisfy all concerned, including particularly, the families of Ambassador Chris Stevens and the three diplomats that perished with him.

The media streaming it, and politicians debating it to gain political points, as Sen. McCain and his friends were doing to favor Mitt Romney, Obama's opponent in the 2012 election, would only add to the confusion that already existed on the Benghazi attack.

Comments 4 comments

American View profile image

American View 4 years ago from Plano, Texas

" the United States military saw what was going on at the precise time, "

""The U.S. military did not get involved during the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, last month because officials did not have enough information about what was going on before the attack was over, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said Thursday.""

Do you not see the contradiction in the two statements you have in this article? Nothing more needs to be said on this subject, those two statements say it all.


owurakwasip 4 years ago Author

Hi American View,

The two little words that you must focus on are "enough information". They reflect on "saw what was going on at the precise time".

If you would go to the CNN Internet front page to read the whole article, it would explain why they could not intervene.

After reading it, and if you still do not understand what it (article) is saying, then I will not know what to tell you.


American View profile image

American View 4 years ago from Plano, Texas

I did read the article and it shows nothing. We have rapid response units all over the world to deal with all kinds of situations. They can all be mobilize in under 10 minutes. The attack went on for 7 hours, was being monitored by 2 drone spy planes and watched by camera from across the street looking into the compound. We also know that they were in contact with the people on the ground getting fresh intell. Sorry, there is no reason they could not have gone in. To believe otherwise is to be taking a long drink from the koolaid glass.


owurakwasip 4 years ago Author

Hi American View,

Sorry, I don't drink Koolaid; but you seem to be suffering from over information syndrome, and I cannot help you there. However, the U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was watching the scenes too, and you did not know better that he did, as to when or whether to send in the "rapid response units" or not.

I would leave the answer of that to your own judgment, since you were so smart and seemed to be a "know it all".

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working