Why are right wingers obsessed with Benghazi???

[giovanni_hotel]

What's the coverup??

What did Hillary lie about???

What's the scandal???

There was an attack on an American consulate in Benghazi. A U.S. diplomat and a staffer died. Check. Check.

UN diplomat Susan Rice was provided talking points given to her by the CIA, edited by the WH and the State Department (although the 'facts' in those talking points didn't change), and said on TV that islamic protests outside the consulate sparked the attack.

Wrong.

Her 'error' was corrected within FIVE DAYS. Not six months. Not a year.

The facts of the attack did not change. Why is the origin of the attack and how it was initially reported so important to conservatives???

IMO the WH and the State Department tried to downplay the severity of the attack, which IMO this is what the Feds do and have done all the time when U.S. assets are attacked abroad.

Since when is initially underselling the severity of an attack a crime or unforgivable offense??

Or are conservatives that threatened by the idea of a Hillary Clinton presidency???

[Prospero]

I think your final point hit the nail on the head Giovanni. They see Benghazi as a chink through which the Democrats can be attacked.

[envivision]

The foreign policy of the Obama Administration in the last 5 long, long years, has been an utter failure. Just take a look at the M.E. The US should be fully supporting the revolution in Syria against the butcher dictator Assad - instead of sitting on the side like a spineless fool.

Why? Not because Assad is a butcher Dicktator we should eliminate him, but because it is in the national interest of the US.

Take a look at today's map. The Khomeinists in Iran control a large swath of land spanning all the way from Iran to the Mediterranean coast (Iraq to Syria to Lebanon). By killing Assad, we can put an and to the Khomeinists influence in Syria . Soon after, Lebanon will be freed. Lastly, we should support the Sunnis in Iraq against the Shiia regime which is in bed with Iran.

Iran will be surrended and the Regime will fall. Too bad our media (CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NY TIMES, etc,) is controlled by liberals who only want to inform the public about the latest news of the Kardashians and how great Michelle Obama looks.

[Stavros]

Re: Benghazi: since the Watergate scandal of the 1970s, opponents of government have leaped onto certain events to claim the truth is being covered up, hence the who knew what when questions -whether it is Reagan and Oliver North, Clinton and Lewinsky, Bush and Iraq, and so on. The aim is to weaken and undermine the government.

The other question is: What are the national interests of the USA in the Middle East? Is there one interest, more than one? And if it was forced to, what would the USA choose now if it was a choice between Israel and Oil?

If Bashar al-Asad died of a heart attack tonight or is murdered, what difference does it make? The Army is in power in Syria, and it hasn't been defeated, even if it has lost control of border areas, sections of entire cities and regions.

There is some debate among historians and political pundits about the curious unfolding of events almost 100 years after the French and the British divided the Arab lands of the defeated Ottoman Empire into separate states. Iraq is in a state of virtual 'civil war' with he central government fighting on two fronts: the Sunna minority in the central part of the country, and the Kurds in the North. Iran faces possibly stormy election this summer not least now that Rafsanjani may be on the Ballot -a clear riposte to the leadership of Khamane'i; Syria is convulsed without any sense of an ending; Lebanese politics could change if the Shi'a lose their financial and military goodies from Iran, but how much would it change?

From where I am sitting, other than exercising as much influence on the diplomatic front as it can to try and stop the fighting and commit to a transitional government in Syria, the USA should not otherwise get involved -the USA has a dismal record of direct intervention in Lebanon and Iraq, I don't see Obama making the same mistakes of previous -and mostly Republican- Presidencies of the past going back at least to 1958.

[reinhardt.lane]

This is really a long game mentality for the GOP. Hilary Clinton has a devoted base of supporters and is really the first viable female candidate for president that would get a majority vote from the general public.

This is something that happened under her watch, and could potentially be used against her in 2016. Notice how Rand Paul has already started the theme of 'she should never hold public office again.' This is a small bit of irony, considering he's considering a presidential run.

The real hypocrisy for the GOP is that while there have been numerous hearings about the Benghazi attack, the same group of Senators and Congressmen/women did everything they could to hold up intelligence hearings about Iraq. John McCain has been the most turned faced about this whole endeavor.

But this is political theater, and the facts are rarely ever the true objective. The most ardent base of the GOP (the ones who think that FEMA is hoarding all the bullets, and Obama was born in Kenya) are the ones who donate the most, who vote the most in primaries, and right now its them that are banging down the door of the congressional office demanding 'answers.'

The problem is, that the answers aren't satisfying enough for them. Now we have a 'whistle blower' who sounds more salty after a demotion than anything, so the 24 hour news media has a new focal point in which to spend countless hours over analyzing .

[hippifried]

The obsession isn't with Benghazi. It's with Obama. There's a concerted effort to deny & block everything he does, from appropriations, to policy, to appointments, etc... In this case, it worked. Susan Rice withdrew her name from consideration to be appointed Secretary of State, & that manipulation put a Senate seat up for grabs. The scandal is that the scandal mongers can't find a scandal. There's no dirt, & that deepens the obsession. So now they're just glomming onto anything that seems to have ever worked even a little bit.

[fivekatz]

The obsession isn't with Benghazi. It's with Obama. There's a concerted effort to deny & block everything he does, from appropriations, to policy, to appointments, etc... In this case, it worked. Susan Rice withdrew her name from consideration to be appointed Secretary of State, & that manipulation put a Senate seat up for grabs. The scandal is that the scandal mongers can't find a scandal. There's no dirt, & that deepens the obsession. So now they're just glomming onto anything that seems to have ever worked even a little bit.

They really have become the party of obstruction at all cost since 1993. There are few rational answers for much of what they do, except obstruction. They are what John Adams feared, party before country.

[porscheman372]

The obsession is because of the the cover up...which is blatantly obvious. This in turn falls in line with the same government/partisan hypocrisy that each side has been arguing against, but still upholding, since democracy (or a republic) was implemented.

The same arguments were there when Bush was in office, and clinton, and bush, and reagan, and carter...etc.

The only thing that will stop it is term limits for all branches of government.

Just read some history. It's quite nauseating.

[trish]

What cover up??? If it comes out of McCain's mouth on a Sunday morning talk show, it's not evidence of anything except his own hypocrisy.

[hippifried]

The only thing that will stop it is term limits for all branches of government.

Term limits take away options from the voters, thereby defeating the democratic process. The entire House of Representatives & 1/3 of the Senate are up for grabs every 2 years. The Presidency every 4. It's a built in way to peacefully overthrow "the Government" on a regular basis. So to all the complainers out there, I would ask: What, exactly, are YOU doing to remedy what you think is wrong with the US?