Skip to main content

Republicans didn’t care when Bush lied about WMDs, nor did they express outrage over 9/11/2001, the Iraq War, or the 13 embassy attacks with 50+ dead under Bush. Their outrage over Benghazi is phony and they are essentially spitting on the graves of those lost in Benghazi for political gain. If Republicans cared so much about embassy security, why did they cut funding for it by millions of dollars? Why didn't they express outrage over the 13 embassy/consulate attacks under Bush?

Here are some FACTS for those that attack Hillary Clinton on Benghazi:

1. The nonpartisan Accountability Review Board did not find Hillary Rodham Clinton responsible for the Benghazi attacks. Hillary never received the cables requesting more security from Benghazi.

2. Republicans cut millions and millions of dollars in “embassy security.” Cuts that Hillary Clinton called “detrimental” to our security overseas.

3. Over 50 people died from 13 embassy/consulate attacks under George Bush’s Presidency.

4. The Obama Administration did not “cover-up” the Benghazi attacks. Counterterrorism Director Matthew Olsen told Senator Joe Lieberman that Benghazi was a “terrorist attack”. This was only a few days after Susan Rice went on the Sunday morning talk-shows. Therefore, this would have to be the shortest “cover-up” in history.

Senator Joe Lieberman: “Let me begin by asking you whether you would say that Ambassador Stevens and the three other Americans died as a result of a terrorist attack.”

Counterterrorism Director Matthew Olsen: “Certainly on that particular question I would say, yes. They were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy.”

5. Hillary’s quote, "What difference, at this point, does it make" has been taken out of context. Hillary was referring to the Republican’s obsession with what Susan Rice said, not Benghazi itself. We now know the intelligence communities talking points that Susan Rice presented were incorrect. But to accuse the Administration of intentionally lying (when Counterterrorism Director Matthew Olsen called it a “terrorist attack” only a few days after Susan Rice went on the Sunday morning talk shows) is dishonest.

6. The reason the YouTube video was cited as a possible reason for Benghazi is because violent protests had been erupting throughout the Middle East when Benghazi took place. Some of the protests had to do with the YouTube video, which is why it was originally thought Benghazi was also related to the YouTube video.

Embassy attacks are an unfortunate reality in the world and have occurred under every administration in modern times. Security overseas is always risky business, and those who take jobs in dangerous places know the risks. Unfortunately, Republicans cut millions and millions of dollars from embassy security.


Are Republicans showing hypocrisy through their obsession with Benghazi?

96%138 votes
3%5 votes

| 143 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  T/GOP = hypocrite; it's in their platform since (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Nixon got elected.

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 11:57:47 AM PST

  •  They're doing the same thing with the budget (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The party that wanted massive tax cuts for the wealthy and started two wars without paying for any of it is suddenly demanding that extended unemployment benefits be paid for. Under G.W. they were completely unconcerned about the deficit. Now it's the most important thing in the world.

    Much more important then making sure people don't starve.

    I would call that the very definition of a hypocrite.

  •  Most salient point.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Ambassador Stevens was in the relatively safe Tripoli the day prior to the attack(s) in Benghazi.

    He was not ordered into harms way.

    The person most responsible for placing four Americans into harms way the Ambassador himself.

    He placed himself and others into harms way because he was a CIA operative and had a mission far and above issuing travel visas to the U.S.

    All of these fine Americans were heroes.

    People making political hay from their deaths are ghouls who are dishonoring the service of four dead Americans.

    •  There you go...blaming the victim. (0+ / 0-)

      It’s the Supreme Court, stupid! Followed by: It's always the Supreme Court! Progressives will win only when we convince a majority that they, too, are Progressive.

      by auapplemac on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 01:05:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  ??????? (0+ / 0-)
      He placed himself and others into harms way because he was a CIA operative and had a mission far and above issuing travel visas to the U.S.

      KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

      by fcvaguy on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 03:17:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  There are many to point fingers (0+ / 0-)

      at, but Stevens himself surely is on that list.  What did the CIA (right around the corner) know and when did they know it?  Stevens knew of the strong possibility of an imminent attack the day before the attack (as FromRed points out).  Did he run that up the flagpole?  Ignore it?  Regardless, he chose to be in Benghazi that day.  It appears that what "security" was there was insufficient at best.
      So many to point fingers at suggests to some that there is a coverup in play.  And maybe there is!  Who is covering up for whom?  Or what?  Or, it just could be that this was a clusterf*ck of mega proportions.  The keystone cops just couldn't get out of their own way.  But, clusterf*ck or not, coverup or not, the longer this drags on the more it looks like the latter.  Exactly what Issa hoping for. [sigh]

  •  Thankfully (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    We have diarists such as yourself diligently debunking this scandal that isn't a scandal far in advance of Hillary even announcing her run for the Presidency.

    Are Republicans "obsessing" over this any more now than they have been in the past, or do you just feel this is an "Achilles Heel" for her that needs to be persistently addressed?

    These similar diaires of yours strike me as fighting against a meme that lost its anti-Hillary effectiveness awhile ago, and one that continues to be an issue only in the minds of Republicans who won't vote for her anyway.

    Darkness falls, seasons change. Same old friends, the wind and rain.

    by DeadHead on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 12:52:54 PM PST

  •  Dairy direly in need of links nt (0+ / 0-)
  •  Thank You (0+ / 0-)

    But the Fox News Fans/True Believers are impervious to facts.  They know what they know, and will not consider a different viewpoint.

    It was a minor "surface event" in a long, tiresome struggle.  A generation from now, it will not rate much more than a footnote, maybe less in PhD dissertations, assuming people are still writing dissertations.  (Some days I feel really dystopian about our future).  The real historical story, which will only be available anecdotally or through oral history, will be how the right wing alternative world view used the event.  It's like the existential angst of the Cold War, unless you were there, you will never really understand it.  Future generations will not really understand how a minority was able to dominate our politics, they will either be happy socialists or ignorant, illiterate peasants.

    I think Benghazi should be (merely) another Data Point that a significant faction of one of the worlds major (Civilizations?) is similarly impervious (As the Fox News denizens) to our sincere offers of help;  This factions claim to represent (and control) one sixth of the planets population, the ONLY part of our planetary population that seems impervious to economic progress and demographic transition.  

    Which will be a geopolitical problem for at least the next generation, probably the next century.  And Liberals really don't like to consider the implications of that statement.

    In the dark shadow of the Great Satan of Retail

    by OzarkOrc on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 10:47:04 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site