Proof comes from the lack of outrage at other presidential administrations who suffered similar--often worse--attacks at US installations overseas. As has been often stated, over sixty Americans died in such attacks during the previous administration. They made the news, but did not inspire outrage from Right Wing World, at least not toward the administrations in power at the time. What is different this time? And why the obsessive focus on Ambassador Susan Rice? Yes, her statements on the Sunday morning talk shows turned out to be partially incorrect (though she framed the information as tentative anyway). What that day has to do with today, I have no idea. Why her appearance is so much more interesting than, say, Dick Cheney going on the same shows, and citing a story he himself had sourced, saying that 9/11 was tied to Saddam Hussein. A flat-out lie, one with far worse ramifications, leading to an event far, far more deadly than Benghazi.
|Image from source, The Daily Beast|
The excerpted article below is one of the best I've read on the subject of Benghazi. It points out that the sort of tragedy that happened in Benghazi used to be cause for rallying 'round the flag, and supporting the president, not attacking him. For drawing the country together, not using it as a political bludgeon. Think back, if you will, to the national reaction to 9/11, and then imagine if the exact same scenario happened under Obama. And then imagine how Republicans would respond. Not pretty, is it?
Beirut Barracks vs. Benghazi
One of the most maddening things about this Benghazi nonsense is the way Republicans have gotten a lot of Americans to go along with the idea that 10 investigations of something is normal; that as long as there’s one unanswered question, one area where the administration’s position is ambiguous or where its cooperation has been anything other than the immediate handing over of any conceivably related document, we still need to get to the bottom of matters. . .
Read more: Daily Beast