can anyone tell me what all the fuss is about?

Posted: November 19, 2012 in Obama, politics

I still just don’t understand the controversy and blame and anger and conspiracy theories and calls for investigations and all.   I really don’t.   I’ve been reading, listening, and I still can’t figure out what the right wing is so upset about.  Of course, they’re upset that people died, as we all are.  And that more wasn’t done proactively (security).   It was a tragedy.  But why is this being seen as an evil plot or a conspiracy?    Our consulates and embassies have been attacked for years…why is this time so different?   Can anyone help me understand?

  1. jeff says:

    It was attempted to be downplayed by the Obama administration, so they could propagate their election-targed narrative that Al-Qaeda was neutralized. They tried to blame it on an private citizen that produced a disgusting video but who was exercising his right to free speech. Administration officials lied to the American people, repeatedly. Also, Obama administration officials turned down requests for improved security well prior to the incident. It was a PREVENTABLE tragedy.

    Why was the left so upset at Nixon over Watergate?

  2. I have wondered exactly the same thing since all of this came about. And, in what way is this the fault of the current administration, even if it does somehow pose a new security threat?

  3. nash says:

    Jeff – I get that this could have been prevented….so could 911 and the dozen other attacks on Americans over the years. But why are you so convinced that Susan Rice and Obama lied? Could it be possible that they had the facts wrong? Once they were given the correct information, they explained what happened. And what “election narrative that Al-Queda was neutralized?” Are you serious about that? They’ve never said anything of the sort. In fact, Obama has said repeatedly that Al-Queda is still a problem.

    • jeff says:


      Unlike 9/11/2001, this particular case had specific requests for specific increases in security due to specific concerns about several known Al-Qaeda camps near the Benghazi compound, in preparation for an upcoming anniversary of 9/11. These requests were denied. Why, Nash, why? The Obama administration includes the whole Executive Branch of government — the full Military, the full CIA, the full State Department…all of whose bucks stop at Obama’s desk, whether he accepts and respects that accountability or not. Someone in that administration denied those requests, Nash. Why? If Obama knew about the requests and endorsed the denial of those requests, he’s accountable for those 4 deaths. If Obama didn’t know about the requests, then his branch of the government — for which he’s accountable — is incompetent. Either way, it’s not pretty, Nash. How can you blindly put your trust in an Executive Branch that puts its people in dangerous parts of the world and then esentially abandons them because the incident comes at an inconvenient time politically? In my eyes, this raises all kinds of questions about integrity and the public trust. I want to know the answers to ALL of it. But apparently you don’t. You call this just a “fuss” ?? I’ll tell you what a “fuss” is: My aunt Mildred raises a fuss when she goes down to the drugstore and they’re out of her favorite brand of laxative.

      You say “Could it be possible they had the facts wrong?” You’re acting like there isn’t significant amounts of congressional testimony available now about the ACTUAL timeline of events, including who knew what when. And much more will be coming out as the “fuss’ continues. I have no interest in vaguely debating with you about “possibilities” when facts are becoming available in the form of a timeline, which you’re apparently not interested in examining.

      You said “And what ‘election narrative that Al-Queda was neutralized?’ Are you serious about that? They’ve never said anything of the sort.” Nash, the President and his many many campaign surrogates said things “of the sort” all summer and fall. Here’s just a small portion of the available evidence:

      From the third presidential debate on Oct 22nd:
      “Well, my first job as commander in chief, Bob, is to keep the American people safe. And that’s what we’ve done over the last four years. We ended the war in Iraq, refocused our attention on those who actually killed us on 9/11. And as a consequence, Al Qaeda’s core leadership has been decimated.”

      You didn’t address my point about the Obama Administration’s repetetive statements that blamed the Benghazi attack on a spontaneous uprising due to an internet video produced by some ignorant dipsh*t who was nevertheless just exercising his right to free speech (as we are doing right here on your blog).

      You didn’t answer my question “Why was the left so upset at Nixon over Watergate?” In that case nobody died, Nash. But Nixon resigned over it, because he would have faced impeachment.

      Your last sentence was “Can anyone help me understand?” Well, that’s up to you Nash. I’ve done my part. Do you even want to understand? Can you remove your partisan eyeglasses and look at all of the facts and their ramifications objectively?

      In closing, I observe the following: You posted a blog article that specifically asks “can anyone tell me what the fuss is all about?” I took that as a forthright, honest question…not a baited hook to draw me into your superficial efforts to defend an indefensible coverup. I gave you a short answer the first time because I thought it was a straightforward question, not an invitation for a pillow fight. Now, why don’t you ante up and do some objective, relevant research of your own?

      – Jeff

  4. nash says:

    Good points, Jeff. I’m not arguing with all of it. I just think that you’re making a fair amount of assumptions. As I’ve followed the story, I’m tending to believe Susan Rice’s narrative of events – what she knew, when she knew it. I’m also tending to believe Obama’s narrative of events. General Petraeus backs him up as well. I get that mistakes were made. It was a fuck up, for sure. And people died. I’m not trying to put that in the same light as your aunt’s laxatives. It was a tragedy that could have been prevented, like 911. But it needs to be put in perspective – maybe using 911 as part of that perspective. I believe Obama needs to answer for this, to take responsibility (which he has, actually, in both words and deeds). And he should step up more. But I think we need to move forward. McCain’s attempt to block Rice’s appointment (should that happen), and his statement that he’s going to block ANY and ALL secretary of state appointments, because Susan Rice didn’t know all the facts on a Sunday show last month, is crazy and partisan and not in anyone’s best interest.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s