Obama administration KNEW Benghazi WAS TERRORIST ATTACK

[Scheavo]

Just because communication was good between those under fire, doesn't mean that commanders knew what was going on. You don't send troops into an unknown situation, and that's exactly what would have been required. How many people were attacking the consulate? How well were they armed? What kind of organization did they have? Without knowing any of those, sending in troops or any support is irresponsible and could easily have just lead to the deaths of more American's. The CIA agents were brave to want to go help when they heard gunfire, but do you honestly think they would have been able to prevent what happened? They would have just died on the streets, being outnumbered as they were, and being ignorant of what was going on. To rush into that situation is more rash than brave.

And if that happened, we'd be hearing about that non-stop from the same people complaining about us not sending in support.

[TL]

I've looked into this whole thing in depth, and I have to say, I honestly don't understand what the whole 'controversy' is supposed to be here. It just seems like people trying to make hay out of nothing. It's up there with people who tried to claim Bush knew 9/11 was going to happen because of reports that had been issued earlier that year.

In both cases, I think people just don't want to believe that these sorts of terrible things happen sometimes without any real warning. To them, if something terrible like this happened, it had to be preventable; someone must have slipped up. It's less terrifying and depressing than reality.

[El Barto]

Just because communication was good between those under fire, doesn't mean that commanders knew what was going on. You don't send troops into an unknown situation, and that's exactly what would have been required. How many people were attacking the consulate? How well were they armed? What kind of organization did they have? Without knowing any of those, sending in troops or any support is irresponsible and could easily have just lead to the deaths of more American's. The CIA agents were brave to want to go help when they heard gunfire, but do you honestly think they would have been able to prevent what happened? They would have just died on the streets, being outnumbered as they were, and being ignorant of what was going on. To rush into that situation is more rash than brave.

All of this might or might not be true.  Who knows?  The problem is that because of the political ramifications nobody's trying to find out.  Unless Metty's "fuck'em" scenario turns out to be the case, I really wouldn't hold any of this against Obama.  However, his unwillingness to confront what might be a significant blunder is pretty discouraging.  Step up and demonstrates some leadership for fuck's sake.  I've been pretty understanding of the whole thing, but the policy of pretending that it never happened is worrisome. 

Also, you send troops into unknowns all the time.  Cops too.  That's often how you find out what's going on.  There's nothing that says they have to go charging in like maniacs.  More importantly, if deployment is going to take 2 hours, you can ascertain the situation en route.  Worst case scenario is that you send the SO back to Italy or Tripoli after determining that they're not needed. 

[Scheavo]

The problem is that because of the political ramifications nobody's trying to find out.

I'm not sure how you can justify that statement. I've heard administration officials say on numerous occaisions that there will be an investigation and a review of what happened to make sure there isn't changes that can be made in the future. On top of that, Republicans have been attacking on this issue since the moment it happened, attempting to make this issue a huge distraction, and trying to dig up any dirt or shit they can.

Also, you send troops into unknowns all the time.  Cops too.  That's often how you find out what's going on.  There's nothing that says they have to go charging in like maniacs.  More importantly, if deployment is going to take 2 hours, you can ascertain the situation en route.  Worst case scenario is that you send the SO back to Italy or Tripoli after determining that they're not needed.

But this wasn't what was previously a war zone. You have a completely different level of ignorance in this situation. Either way, I don't see how this possibly amounts to a Presidential scandal, a political issue, or something that should be drawing attention away from the Presidential campaign.

[El Barto]

I don't think it's a presidential scandal by any means.  I think it's piss-poor leadership.

[adace]

I find it so ridiculous how Obama's handling of the Benghazi attack is all over the news, but there's hardly any mention of his drone strikes which have killed thousands of civilians. Are we supposed to think that their lives are somehow worth less than that of the ambassador?

[El Barto]

I think part of the problem is that it isn't all over the news.  FOX is certainly hammering it, but at this point, that doesn't trouble me too much.  Somebody should be asking the questions. 

And from my perspective, we should absolutely be raising hell about the drone strikes.  I've made the point abundantly clear.

[Scheavo]

I don't think it's a presidential scandal by any means.  I think it's piss-poor leadership.

And I don't see that. Obama got out there the next day saying there would be an investigation, and all accounts show that there is one occurring. Then there's the 2'nd debate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8JpxIv1d38

"And I am ultimately responsible"

So, there you have Obama: 1) Saying there will be an investigation 2) saying he is ultimately responsible 3) saying he will get the people responsible 4) saying he will do what he can to prevent this from happening in the future

So I guess I'm just not sure what the President could do that would be showing more leadership than what he has done. Could you clarify?

[TL]

I find it so ridiculous how Obama's handling of the Benghazi attack is all over the news, but there's hardly any mention of his drone strikes which have killed thousands of civilians. Are we supposed to think that their lives are somehow worth less than that of the ambassador?

Are you literally going to bring up drone strikes in every single political thread?

I would definitely like to see a legitimate source for your claim of 'thousands'. Yes, with drone strikes, there are occasionally civilian casualties, and that is a tragedy. However, the drones are being used in military operations that would be happening anyway, and where other means would put more lives at risk without really minimizing collateral damage.

[El Barto]

I don't think it's a presidential scandal by any means.  I think it's piss-poor leadership.

And I don't see that. Obama got out there the next day saying there would be an investigation, and all accounts show that there is one occurring. Then there's the 2'nd debate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8JpxIv1d38

"And I am ultimately responsible"

So, there you have Obama: 1) Saying there will be an investigation 2) saying he is ultimately responsible 3) saying he will get the people responsible 4) saying he will do what he can to prevent this from happening in the future

So I guess I'm just not sure what the President could do that would be showing more leadership than what he has done. Could you clarify?

It probably is unfair of me to dump the whole thing on his leadership.  The problem is that there seems to be a very real mentaility that if you ignore it it'll all go away, and anybody who brings it up is just looking to exploit it for political gain.  I've seen a good deal of that dismissiveness around here.  There are very reasonable questions that need to be asked, more and more the answers are looking like a significant blunder took place, and nobody really wants to address it.  And while Obama has said what he's needed to say, he hasn't exactly been forthcoming.  I guess my point here is that FOX and the Republicans are probably right to be pushing this thing, even if their motives are wrong.  I really don't get the feeling it'll get addressed any other way. 

I find it so ridiculous how Obama's handling of the Benghazi attack is all over the news, but there's hardly any mention of his drone strikes which have killed thousands of civilians. Are we supposed to think that their lives are somehow worth less than that of the ambassador?

Are you literally going to bring up drone strikes in every single political thread?

I would definitely like to see a legitimate source for your claim of 'thousands'. Yes, with drone strikes, there are occasionally civilian casualties, and that is a tragedy. However, the drones are being used in military operations that would be happening anyway, and where other means would put more lives at risk without really minimizing collateral damage.

There's all kinds of dirty shit going on with the drone strikes.  There's also no real way to know how many civvies have gotten blown up.  Particularly since we tend to blur the lines pretty badly with that.  The any male over military age thing is a fine example.  If you're 19 and male, you're an enemy combatant if you get blown up.  Your existence is proof of guilt.  Makes it real easy to downplay civilian casualties.

Also, it's a mistake to assume that all of these operations would be carried out by other means.  In fact, probably most of them wouldn't.  Pilotless drones allow you to take on operations you otherwise wouldn't if the risk outweighed the reward.  "Are those 4 guys worth risking a helicopter and 2 man crew?  Nah, I doubt it. Leave 'em be."  Drones remove that entire conversation.  Of course those four guys are worth a drone.  It's antiseptic warfare, where the consequences are negated for your side. 

[adace]

I find it so ridiculous how Obama's handling of the Benghazi attack is all over the news, but there's hardly any mention of his drone strikes which have killed thousands of civilians. Are we supposed to think that their lives are somehow worth less than that of the ambassador?

Are you literally going to bring up drone strikes in every single political thread?

I would definitely like to see a legitimate source for your claim of 'thousands'. Yes, with drone strikes, there are occasionally civilian casualties, and that is a tragedy. However, the drones are being used in military operations that would be happening anyway, and where other means would put more lives at risk without really minimizing collateral damage.

I was only bringing it up in this thread to point out the hypocrisy and short-sightedness of the media in handling the Benghazi attack. And no, I won't bring it up in every political thread and neither should anyone bring up the Benghazi attack in every political thread.

As far as statistics go, it appears that it's not in the thousands as I claimed but rather in the hundreds. I apologize for not doing research before I made that claim. However, it's still a very high number and is far more than were killed at the Benghazi embassy.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes/index.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/06/drone-deaths-yemen][url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/06/drone-deaths-yemen[/url]

As for the argument that drone strikes reduce collateral damage, the problem is that any civilian deaths just cause more terrorism.

[TL]

All I'm saying vis a vis collateral damage is that, sadly, it would be happening regardless of whether or not they were using drones. To me, it would make more sense to argue against the military campaign as a whole rather than specific means being used (exceptions of course being if a country was using biological weapons or something).

[adace]

All I'm saying vis a vis collateral damage is that, sadly, it would be happening regardless of whether or not they were using drones. To me, it would make more sense to argue against the military campaign as a whole rather than specific means being used (exceptions of course being if a country was using biological weapons or something).

I totally agree with that. That's why I am arguing against the military campaign as a whole.

[Scheavo]

I don't think it's a presidential scandal by any means.  I think it's piss-poor leadership.

And I don't see that. Obama got out there the next day saying there would be an investigation, and all accounts show that there is one occurring. Then there's the 2'nd debate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8JpxIv1d38

"And I am ultimately responsible"

So, there you have Obama: 1) Saying there will be an investigation 2) saying he is ultimately responsible 3) saying he will get the people responsible 4) saying he will do what he can to prevent this from happening in the future

So I guess I'm just not sure what the President could do that would be showing more leadership than what he has done. Could you clarify?

It probably is unfair of me to dump the whole thing on his leadership.  The problem is that there seems to be a very real mentaility that if you ignore it it'll all go away, and anybody who brings it up is just looking to exploit it for political gain.  I've seen a good deal of that dismissiveness around here.  There are very reasonable questions that need to be asked, more and more the answers are looking like a significant blunder took place, and nobody really wants to address it.  And while Obama has said what he's needed to say, he hasn't exactly been forthcoming.  I guess my point here is that FOX and the Republicans are probably right to be pushing this thing, even if their motives are wrong.  I really don't get the feeling it'll get addressed any other way. 

I guess I just don't 'see this "significant blunder" that took place. And I also don't see how you can say no one wants to address it. What happened was a rather standard event through out our history, and it shouldn't be surprising that attacks will happen on our embassies given our foreign policy.

I mean, what exactly is the huge problem here? That there wasn't enough security there? That an attack happened? That support wasn't 'sent into a sovereign nation when no one had a good idea of exactly what was going on? The problem I have, is that after hearing about this for over a month, I'm still not sure what the scandal allegedly is. It's been ever-evolving, which shouldn't be surprising because what's going on is simply a cynical attempt by the Republican establishment to make hay out of this event for political gain. Every time I've turned passed Fox News in the past three weeks, they've been talking about Libya - every time. I can understand having a segment about this, about asking the questions when it initially happened, but to keep going into, every fucking day, does not help an actual investigation occur, or to correct any missteps that may have occurred.

[KevShmev]

A girl friend of mine, who only watches MSNBC, had almost no idea of the Libya story when I asked her about it prior to the second debate.  And this was more than a month after it happened.  I think it goes without saying that CNN and MSNBC are barely covering this (in other words, occasional token mentions, or when they had no choice, like after the second debate) because they don't want to cost Obama the election, and Fox News is covering it non-stop because they want it to cost Obama the election.  Right or wrong, that about sums it up.

[hefdaddy42]

A girl friend of mine, who only watches MSNBC, had almost no idea of the Libya story when I asked her about it prior to the second debate.  And this was more than a month after it happened.  I think it goes without saying that CNN and MSNBC are barely covering this (in other words, occasional token mentions, or when they had no choice, like after the second debate) because they don't want to cost Obama the election, and Fox News is covering it non-stop because they want it to cost Obama the election.  Right or wrong, that about sums it up.

I watch MSNBC a lot, and CNN occasionally, and I've seen it covered there.  Actually covered, not just given lip service.  They just aren't making as big a deal out of it as FOX is.  And we all know why that is.

[kirksnosehair]

A girl friend of mine, who only watches MSNBC, had almost no idea of the Libya story when I asked her about it prior to the second debate.  And this was more than a month after it happened.  I think it goes without saying that CNN and MSNBC are barely covering this (in other words, occasional token mentions, or when they had no choice, like after the second debate) because they don't want to cost Obama the election, and Fox News is covering it non-stop because they want it to cost Obama the election.  Right or wrong, that about sums it up.

I watch MSNBC a lot, and CNN occasionally, and I've seen it covered there.  Actually covered, not just given lip service.  They just aren't making as big a deal out of it as FOX is.  And we all know why that is.

Same here, I've actually seen two or three people on MSNBC cover it, so the allegation that it's not being covered on MSNBC is plainly false.  What's not happening on MSNBC is they're not drooling over it or sensationalizing it like Fox News (SIC) is.


I am definitely with Scheavo on this.  It's nothing but manufactured outrage by the right because there really ain't all that much to fault the Obama administration for on foreign policy, especially compared to the unmitigated disaster that the previous administration was.

[KevShmev]

A girl friend of mine, who only watches MSNBC, had almost no idea of the Libya story when I asked her about it prior to the second debate.  And this was more than a month after it happened.  I think it goes without saying that CNN and MSNBC are barely covering this (in other words, occasional token mentions, or when they had no choice, like after the second debate) because they don't want to cost Obama the election, and Fox News is covering it non-stop because they want it to cost Obama the election.  Right or wrong, that about sums it up.

I watch MSNBC a lot, and CNN occasionally, and I've seen it covered there.  Actually covered, not just given lip service.  They just aren't making as big a deal out of it as FOX is.  And we all know why that is.

First off, I'm sorry (for the bolded).

Secondly, was this before or after the second debate?  It is my understanding that their coverage of it greatly increased (from almost nothing to still not much) after the second debate, since they almost had to cover it a little bit because of what a big deal it became in that exchange between Obama and Romney.  But even an interview Obama did the other day with Brian Williams of NBC had him being asked one question about it, him ducking the question and giving the same answer we have already heard 100 times and then the interviewer letting him off the hook and not pressing him for more answers.

Lastly, hef, serious question: do you honestly think the Obama administration has done a good job in their handling of this situation? 

[TL]

Obama has handled the situation about as well as any administration probably would have.

Again, the narrative of 'someone must have slipped up, this was totally preventable' is false, and people just keep repeating it because they don't want to believe that sometimes, terrible things like this happen without any real warning, and that there wasn't really anything that could have been done.

[kirksnosehair]

Obama has handled the situation about as well as any administration probably would have.

Again, the narrative of 'someone must have slipped up, this was totally preventable' is false, and people the right wing just keep repeating it because they don't want to believe that sometimes, terrible things like this happen without any real warning, and that there wasn't really anything that could have been done.
Don't have anything else to criticize Obama with in regards to foreign policy.

Edited for accuracy

[El Barto]

Here's a very simple question.  Should news outlets, including FOX, be raising questions about this, and reporting inconsistencies with the official explanation?  Some of you guys are really making it sound like any criticism of Obama by a right wing news outlet is automatically out of bounds. 

[KevShmev]

Here's a very simple question.  Should news outlets, including FOX, be raising questions about this, and reporting inconsistencies with the official explanation?  Some of you guys are really making it sound like any criticism of Obama by a right wing news outlet is automatically out of bounds.

Exactly.  Is Fox News slanted to the right?  Of course.  But that doesn't mean a lot of the questions they are raising in regards to this situation are out of bounds.

[Scheavo]

Here's a very simple question.  Should news outlets, including FOX, be raising questions about this, and reporting inconsistencies with the official explanation?  Some of you guys are really making it sound like any criticism of Obama by a right wing news outlet is automatically out of bounds.

When you give the amount of attention Fox News is giving this bogus scandal to anything you're going to be able to find some inconsistencies.

But I still haven't seen that much inconstancy, just very poor and biased interpretations of what was said by Fox.

[ResultsMayVary]

The only inconsistencies I see on this whole situation is where the intelligence dept said one thing and the state dept said another. And then the administration got their story straight. No one should be blaming Obama directly for that. It would have been less of an issue if the two depts didn't contradict each other at the time. I'm not too happy with the fact the intelligence dept and state dept weren't on the same page, though. That's concerning. And from there, you can speculate about what the President knew since the intelligence dept and state dept seemed to have contradicting views on the entire attack.

Did Fox News really take this farther than it should have? Yep. Is the entire coverage of this unwarranted? Not really, since it does bring up a few questions that are legitimate.

Fox did put some right wing spin on it, for sure, but like EB said above, most people are saying this is completely out of bounds, and it certainly is not.

[hefdaddy42]

was this before or after the second debate?

Both.

Lastly, hef, serious question: do you honestly think the Obama administration has done a good job in their handling of this situation?

For as fucked up a situation as it was, yeah, pretty much.

[El Barto]

When you give the amount of attention Fox News is giving this bogus scandal to anything you're going to be able to find some inconsistencies.

That's not a bad thing, though.  In fact, it's probably a good thing.  FOX keeps looking and FOX keeps finding things.  Just because you don't find their arguments compelling doesn't mean they're invalid. 

[Scheavo]

When you give the amount of attention Fox News is giving this bogus scandal to anything you're going to be able to find some inconsistencies.

That's not a bad thing, though.  In fact, it's probably a good thing.  FOX keeps looking and FOX keeps finding things.  Just because you don't find their arguments compelling doesn't mean they're invalid.

I think you misunderstood what I'm saying. I'm saying, there's nothing there, nothing more than anything. You try hard enough to find inconsistencies, you'll find inconsistencies because you want them to be there. The human mind has an amazing ability to create a pattern where one doesn't exist, and to confirm one's own biases.

[El Barto]

When you give the amount of attention Fox News is giving this bogus scandal to anything you're going to be able to find some inconsistencies.

That's not a bad thing, though.  In fact, it's probably a good thing.  FOX keeps looking and FOX keeps finding things.  Just because you don't find their arguments compelling doesn't mean they're invalid.

I think you misunderstood what I'm saying. I'm saying, there's nothing there, nothing more than anything. You try hard enough to find inconsistencies, you'll find inconsistencies because you want them to be there. The human mind has an amazing ability to create a pattern where one doesn't exist, and to confirm one's own biases.

For fuck's sake, dude, I would rather be on your side.  I started solidly on your side.  There is no confirmation bias here.  There are issues here, whether you recognize them or not.  A CIA team saying they were denied permission to intervene is something.  You might not think it matters, and maybe it doesn't, but it is there.  An operative lazing a terrorist mortar position for a gunship which may or may not have been on station is something.  The fact that plenty of different military assets could have been deployed well within enough time to prevent deaths at the CIA compound is something.  A defense specialist for the State Department asking for more security in response to a credible threat and being denied is something.  These are all valid topics to bring up.  Taken as a whole, they might add up to dick, but let's not pretend that they're not there at all.

And now we have a retired colonel suggesting that this whole thing was unfolding live in the White House situation room.  That's something, as well.  For all I know, that colonel is stuffed completely full of wild blueberry muffins, but who knows.  The fact that the White House won't say anything other than "that doesn't have anything to do with the election" certainly doesn't shed any light on things. 

I think where we keep running into problems is that plenty of people think it's being made into too big of a deal.  That probably is the case.  However, the people who think that for some reason also think that means it shouldn't be brought up at all.  It is a problem, and while it shouldn't be a dealbreaker for Obama, it does have to be addressed. 

[Scheavo]

For fuck's sake, dude, I would rather be on your side.  I started solidly on your side.  There is no confirmation bias here

I was referring more to Fox News and their ability to bring up "inconstancies."

A CIA team saying they were denied permission to intervene is something.  You might not think it matters, and maybe it doesn't, but it is there.  An operative lazing a terrorist mortar position for a gunship which may or may not have been on station is something.  The fact that plenty of different military assets could have been deployed well within enough time to prevent deaths at the CIA compound is something.  A defense specialist for the State Department asking for more security in response to a credible threat and being denied is something.  These are all valid topics to bring up.  Taken as a whole, they might add up to dick, but let's not pretend that they're not there at all.

The explanation given makes quite a bit of sense to me, and no one has brought up anything to make me thing otherwise. I see nothing suspicious about help being denied when commanders were in the dark. The CIA team that requested permission to intervene would have ran into a death trap, and it makes good sense to me to tell them to stand down. There's nothing they could have done, and it makes more strategic sense to me to keep that team alive. Would it have been worth it for aide to have been given, only to piss off one of our few allies in the region by violating their sovereignty.

Either way, I think it's false to say that these questions were raised, and that an investigation isn't being pursued. I don't see anything to support the claim that these issues are being buried or ignored, and my issue all along has been that this is being used as a political issue to try and attack Obama. Meaning, I have no problem with these questions being asked, I have a problem with the way the questions are being asked, and the reason they're being asked by Fox News.

However, the people who think that for some reason also think that means it shouldn't be brought up at all.  It is a problem, and while it shouldn't be a dealbreaker for Obama, it does have to be addressed. 

And that's where I feel I'm being misunderstood. I'm not saying these issues should be completely ignored, I'm annoyed by the attention they are being given by Fox News, the accusations being made explicitly at the President, and the opportunistic nature of many of the complaints. Seems like we could all take a step back, and wait for more results of an investigation to come about, rather than trying to make this a political issue for the election.

[El Barto]

The explanation given makes quite a bit of sense to me, and no one has brought up anything to make me thing otherwise. I see nothing suspicious about help being denied when commanders were in the dark. The CIA team that requested permission to intervene would have ran into a death trap, and it makes good sense to me to tell them to stand down. There's nothing they could have done, and it makes more strategic sense to me to keep that team alive. Would it have been worth it for aide to have been given, only to piss off one of our few allies in the region by violating their sovereignty.

As I understand it, they disregarded their instructions, went and rescued some people, returned to their compound and then got killed.  There were things they could have done.  And like I said, there's just no excuse for not getting reinforcements started in that direction.  Sovereignty doesn't factor in since we're already very present assisting with Libyan security.

And that's where I feel I'm being misunderstood. I'm not saying these issues should be completely ignored, I'm annoyed by the attention they are being given by Fox News, the accusations being made explicitly at the President, and the opportunistic nature of many of the complaints. Seems like we could all take a step back, and wait for more results of an investigation to come about, rather than trying to make this a political issue for the election.

I agree that a lot of the accusations leveled at the president are bullshit.  I still maintain that the events that transpired shouldn't reflect on him.  However, the way to deal with such allegations is damn sure not avoidance and obfuscation; that'll only make things worse, as we're seeing.  Under normal circumstances, there should be briefings to keep people up to date, and all of this bogus campaigning shouldn't stop him from being the president.  The White House hasn't had anything tangible to say and continue to avoid any questions about what they knew and when they knew it.  How many briefings with Panetta has he had in the last 6 weeks?  I don't expect to be filled in on his PDBs, but I know better to believe that he just doesn't know about any breakdowns in communications, and whatever he may want to believe, it really is our business. 

[Scheavo]

But what obfuscation? I just don't see any. Maybe its' because for the first several days of this "scandal" I was completely out of contact from the media and society, but I just rewatched the infamous Ambassador Rice statement that conservatives like to latch onto, and I still don't see a damn thing that was obfuscating or could be called a lie. Fox News seems to be trying to say that because something happened spontaneously, that it couldn't be organized - which is just false. The reports I've read recently on the matter still say that there is no proof that the attack was pre-planned. Everything I have seen regarding the matter shows them being very concise in saying there's an on-going investigation, and relaying information forward. Fox News et al are then trying to cherry-pick intelligence reports, which are not definite nor proof of anything, to try and say that there was evidence to the contrary, so that means Ambassador Rice was lying. And I just do NOT see it. I see a ton of claims that they have been doing this, but I haven't seen any evidence that they were.

I think it's easy to second guess why aide wasn't sent in, but I don't see anything that warrants more than a few reports on the matter, and an internal investigation to see if that was the appropriate course of action. In the end, I think their decision can be something you are free to disagree with, but it hardly amounts to a scandal that people in command didn't want to create a bigger catastrophe by sending more aide into a very confusing situation.

[KevShmev]

People usually have trouble seeing something they don't want to see.

[Scheavo]

And people usually have an easy time seeing something they want to see. What's your point?

[kirksnosehair]

Here's a very simple question.  Should news outlets, including FOX, be raising questions about this, and reporting inconsistencies with the official explanation?  Some of you guys are really making it sound like any criticism of Obama by a right wing news outlet is automatically out of bounds.

I'm definitely OK with NEWS OUTLETS raising questions, yes.  I think they should raise questions.  I don't see Fox News (sic) as a "news outlet" though.  And that's where I see the vast majority of the criticism and questions coming from on this.  From Fox News (sic) and conservatives.  And frankly, most of it seems opportunistic and just designed to make Obama look bad ahead of the election.


Here's where I get and will continue to get my facts about what happened, because I don't really think FactCheck.org has a political agenda.

We cannot say whether the administration was intentionally misleading the public. We cannot prove intent. There is also more information to come — both from the FBI, which is conducting an investigation, and Congress, which has been holding hearings.
But, at this point, we do know that Obama and others in the administration were quick to cite the anti-Muslim video as the underlying cause for the attack in Benghazi that killed four U.S. diplomats, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. And they were slow to acknowledge it was a premeditated terrorist attack, and they downplayed reports that it might have been.

Source


I think we have a culmination of events and circumstances that led the administration to mistakenly identify the video as the reason for the attack instead of an organized terrorist attack.  I think they probably could have been better organized about how they went about informing the public about what happened, but I also think they were in a lose-lose situation because no matter which way it ended up going down, people who we should have been protecting ended up dead.


I think when you have people like Senator John McCain comparing the Benghazi situation to Watergate (McCain: Benghazi "worse than" Watergate) well, that's patently absurd and it kind of tells the story of the underlying theme of what's really going on here and that is a concerted effort by conservatives to hang this thing around the neck of Obama like some kind of albatross.


That's what I think.


4 people dead in a terrorist attack in Libya and the right is foaming at the mouth and out for blood.


1,033,000 people dead because of "WMD" in Iraq and we've just kind of moved on. 


You'll have to pardon me if I    over this Benghazi shit.

[El Barto]

McCain's been hit and miss.  I agree that dumping the whole thing on Obama is stupid.  If we're to start placing the president solely responsible for every embassy attack, then Obama is suddenly Abraham Fucking Lincoln.  The attack shouldn't reflect on him.  However, the administration has handled it pretty badly after the fact. 

I'm definitely OK with NEWS OUTLETS raising questions, yes.  I think they should raise questions.  I don't see Fox News (sic) as a "news outlet" though.  And that's where I see the vast majority of the criticism and questions coming from on this.  From Fox News (sic) and conservatives.  And frankly, most of it seems opportunistic and just designed to make Obama look bad ahead of the election.

I think FOX is as silly as you do, but that's just wrong.  If Bozo the Clown, Andy Dick and Charlie Sheen get together and expose wrongdoing, it's still worth investigating regardless of how asinine they usually are.  FOX has a distinct tendency to spin things to the Republican's advantage, as we all know, but that doesn't mean their facts can't occasionally be right. It's foolish to assume otherwise.