OBAMA & THE BENGHAZI ATTACK.
What are the Republicans trying to achieve?
Several terrorist attacks have occurred in the past, such as the USS Cole bombing, the Pan Am Flight 103 Lockerbie bombing, the September 11th, 2001 attacks, etc., and they could never be blamed on the sitting president at the time.
In fact, the 9/11 attacks on both the WTC in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. helped President George W. Bush to win a second term in 2004, and nobody ever used those attacks collectively as a political weapon against him.
So, how come the Republican Party, with its members in the United States Congress, and also through the help of TV channels, like FoxNews.com, were insisting that the Benghazi attack in Libya on a U.S. consulate there should be pinned on President Barack Obama?
Weren't they purposefully doing so to undermine Obama's campaign for a second term; and if so, why?
The president and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have both expressed deep concerns about the Benghazi attack that has killed four U.S. diplomats, including Ambassador Chris Stevens on September 11th., 2012, and the government has double down on several serious investigations to find the culprits of that heinous act.
Their statements that were made soon after the attack were conflicting; however, they were based on the information by the intelligence community on the incident, and therefore any accusation, by the Republicans of negligence on the part of the Obama administration, was pure claptrap.
They (Republicans) were using a crime that was committed by terrorists, in which four Americans lost their lives, as a political campaign tool to get to Obama; and more so, to poison the minds of voters in Tuesday's presidential election, by postulating that he (Obama) did something wrong, in regard to the Benghazi attack.
Former Gov. Mitt Romney, the Republican Party candidate running against Obama would not speak elaborately about the Benghazi attack, because his knowledge on foreign affairs was next to zero; and that was one vital point against his (Romney's) candidacy, as his inexperience would show in his foreign policy, should he ever become president.
The number two critical point was that his trip to Europe last Summer was a total failure, as he has offended the U.K,, the closest U.S. ally, when he was almost thrown out of that country for running his mouth on how the London Olympic games were being handled.
The British media took him to task and blasted him with even profanities before he left there to continue with the rest of his itinerary; and it was in Poland and Israel that his visit was a little bit diplomatic.
To recap, foreign relations was not his specialty; and as he would also declare a trade war between the U.S. and China, as he himself has said, should he succeed in his own bid to become president, he would make things worse for this country, worldwide.
The scope and capacity of his audiences were dwindling on the campaign trail; and what his friends in the Republican Party could do for him to keep his political efforts from falling apart was to get the electorate to rail against Obama's second term bid; hence, the relentless attack on the president's role in the Benghazi saga.
What patriotic Americans would do now would be to wait for the fallout of the Benghazi attack to be fully realized, through the numerous investigations that were still ongoing, and then the chips will fall "where they may".
However, using it as a political accessory by the Republicans and their media cohorts against a sitting president was more than outrageous; it was treasonable. (Or better still, was it not treasonous on their part?).