And they called the wind "Benghazi".

I think there has to be a certain limit of patience one can have for the scandal-mongering certain persons have been engaging in regarding the tragedy that took place on 9/11/12.  I'll admit, my own limit came that very evening when it came to my attention that the Romney campaign meant to characterize the Obama Administration as, at the least, sympathetic to terrorists and I stayed disgusted, for many days afterwards . (That broken link regarding my 9/11 reaction should take you to Team Mitt's immediate and disgraceful reaction to what had happened.) And I frankly never left that state of shock and anger that, for political reasons, some persons might like to capitalize on a tragedy.

Booman has the right point when he points to all the similar attacks that occurred during the course of the Bush Administration, without anything like a similar investigation taking place. How strange that only now it seems like an administration should be blamed for the work of people who hate us! But I want to point out that what the argument of the Benghazi Blamers has devolved into is so petty that the suggestion of an email is suddenly fraught with significance to the people buying into it--

Consider this. An email released as a part of an FOIA submission from Judicial Watch, headed by Larry Klayman who is a fascinating character but supposedly not a dummy, which refers to a number of things that happens to include the protests that actually did contemporaneously happen with the Benghazi assault--over an apparently intentionally obnoxious video--is being used as "proof" that the White House was trying to influence the message given out about what had happened and what the causes of it were.




Because no White House, ever, in the history of time, coordinated a message by checking it through different agencies before release. Your people may call it a conspiracy--my people call that being competent government officials. The talking points in and of themselves are not evil--they are a way of providing a spokesperson with a solid answer that is clear, does not conflict with the answer of other government personnel, and does not offer room for speculation beyond what is presently known. The timing of the attack coinciding with the protests was a real thing. The word on the ground at the time that this was related to the video was a real thing. The overall message that any group of protests were not against the US policies specifically but against anti-Islamism actually should make sense to anyone aware that there is a cultural allergy, lets call it, among certain practitioners of Islam, to the perception of insult to their faith.

Let's just be clear--no one died in Benghazi due to talking points.

But let's just take a look at who has picked up this torch that the Romney folks themselves should have handled with tongs and asbestos gloves, hm? Let's take a nice hard look at Senator Lindsey Graham, who has been well out in front of asking questions and making conclusions about what the Obama Administration may have done wrong--

The Obama Administration put a political stance on a disaster. Huh.

Who even tries to put a political stance on a disaster? Or should I rephrase that question--"Hey Senator, buy any cheap rugs, lately?"

See, back in the days of the Bush Administration, when we were at war in Iraq, it kind of looks like some people were so eager to paint a pleasant picture of the then-current administration's policies that, far from merely bringing talking points to a comfy chair on MTP, some senators went on a heavily guarded shopping expedition so they could make happy talk about how well things were going. And were responded to hours later with mortars.

In other words, Sen Graham can shove his concern where it would neither tickle nor bleach with age. And so could those following after him.

Also, as an afterthought--if Cabbagemallet believes that this is the smoking gun of a cover up, he must have proof that the timing of the attack had nothing whatsoever to do with the coinciding video protests, which I doubt he's got, and also be able to explain what exactly has been covered up--because we have many details about what happened. I don't think actual things happening that day have been withheld from us. I think he just doesn't care for the Administration and that is, actually, not news.