Is this Benghazi issue being used as a smokescreen?
I was so proud to hear Secretary of State Hillary Clinton point out emphatically what are the most important issues that need to be resolved in this matter. Is the GOP using this club to mask more important issues that need to be addressed at this time?
I absolutely think the answer to your question is yes. Having said that, I also think think they are nevertheless necessary, for the agencies of the federal gov't will cover up wrong doing or weaknesses, often not fixing either (20 years of experience in DoD). Some problems are sufficiently important or wide-spread to require this level of scrutiny to force change.
Clearly, something in the State Departments security mind-set and operating procedures plus the interface between the State Dept and Dept of Defense needs changing as the facts from the investigation obviously show.
Is the point of the conservative hearings a witchhunt and to embarrass the administration? No doubt about that in my mind. Nevertheless, these hearings will keep the pressure on to help insure the State Dept gets their security procedures in working order and may also highlight the lack of funding Congress provided, forcing, among other things, personnel cut-backs in the security departments.
Benghazi leads down a road that Obama and company cannot afford to go down at any price. The smokescreen is the attempt to leave Benghazi as simply a botched security situation as the government was "slow" to recognize the real situation...somewhat like calling "Watergate" just a "two-bit burglary" and not looking at the reasons behind that burglary or the ensuing coverup. There is a path there that leads to weapons in the wrong hands and in the wrong places. The administration will settle for accepting a slap on the wrist for botched security as long as it puts the matter to rest in terms of the investigation. Hilary will sit in her seat snarling and filibustering to avoid the answers that need to come forth. Four Americans died needlessly to facilitate this coverup and Obama will walk on it just as he did with Fast n' Furious...no blood on his hands....yet. ~WB
I must point out that at the time the dipomats died, their was no cover-up going on.
Is it a coverup? Is is possible that human beings misjudged the situation and a horrible mess including death occurred? And is it possible we have our hands in too many pots to keep an accurate & appropriate watch over them all? Dee
One of the Senators asked Secretary Clinton the question that explained why the embassy was bombed in the first place and she basically refused to answer. The question was in regards to the government using a state department annex in Libya to funnel arms to other bases and regimes throughout the region. The US "embassy" in Benghazi was not a proper embassy. It was a walled compound where the state department and CIA planned paramilitary operations and funding to gain political control over the new governments in the region. A few year ago, Chalmers Johnson predicted something like this would start happening at our embassies in his essays.
The Obama administration actively covered up the cause of the attack becuase it was an election year. They wanted to portray an image of great progress in the middle east. When in fact the region is in utter chaos. The Arab spring is little more than a major leap foward for radical islam. Now places like Egypt are more dangerous than ever, where Christians are persucuted more now than ever before. Thanks to a complicit media, they were able to blame some obscure filmaker and not hurt his chance of relection. The real question is why was no response sent to assist these people for more than 7 hours. Most likely to sacrifice American lives and pretend there is no problem. And clowns like Chris Matthews go on CNBC for weeks after the truth came out still balming some filmaker for some poorly produced movie. The notion that funding from congress is to blame is ridiculous. Perhaps if we weren't spending millions of dollars in stimulus monies on congressional districts that don't exist, there would be more funds for proper security requests.
It certainly was a short cover-up; 7 days after the atk, the WH was testifying to Congress that it was a terrorist attack. I think the answer to your question about the response was contained in the report from the investigation into the matter.
Except for the fact that the President was trying to sell a different story to the public in his UN Speech two weeks after the incident. I guess their either intentionally misleading the public or incompetent
You and I must have heard two different speeches. The one I heard had Obama speaking briefly about the attack in Benghazi, but he focused most of his time on the broader subject of peace in the Middle East and tolerence between religions.
This was TWO weeks after the incident...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfiUQASpVdc Why mention it if you're not blaming it on this obsure filmaker. More misleading of the American people. He needs to get his story straight.
by Ralph Schwartz17 months ago
It took President Obama six hours to respond to the crisis is Benghazi when our ambassador and his detachment were killed by enemy combatants on September 11th. Obama’s six-hour absence, during which the United...
by Mike Russo20 months ago
After more than two years and $7 million spent by the Benghazi Committee under taxpayer funds, it had to today report that it had found nothing — nothing — to contradict the conclusions that the independent...
by Susan Reid4 years ago
Is Benghazigate/IRSgate/APCIAgate equal to, worse than, or not as damaging to Obama's presidency than previous presidential scandals? A nice little history lesson here.And a very good summation on why these...
by rhamson20 months ago
Can't say it enough. The system is rigged against the rest of us. A couple of meetings and what do you want to bet Lynch and Comey continue on under Clinton's administration?http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/...
by Barefootfae4 years ago
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … medium=RSSAccess is denied to the survivors.Now why can't they be interviewed?
by Mike Russo3 years ago
The committee that is investigating Benghazi is either stupid or just naive. If you were given a week to turn over your server, what would you do? I know what I would do. I would delete all my...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.