Wednesday, October 3, 2012

If Benghazi Was A Screw Up, What Was 9/11?



The right-wing media, led by Faux News, has been trying for weeks to construct a narrative castigating the Obama Administration for incompetence in the events leading up to the tragedy at the Benghazi consulate. Clearly there is an earnest hope of creating an “October surprise” to upset the President’s momentum heading into the last weeks before the election. 

The Benghazi consulate was bombed twice, and the bad guys issued warnings on Facebook. “Bombed” should be considered loosely. A couple of guys, in one case, threw a device over the wall, and no one was injured. Still, it’s an incident. Also, an extremist group posted ominously on Facebook that it knew Ambassador Stevens’s regular jogging route. He stopped jogging for a week and then resumed his normal route.

Sorry, wingers, this doesn’t have legs as a campaign issue.

If Benghazi, an attack that killed four people, is Obama’s Watergate, what was 9-11? In the former, we have no evidence that any warnings ever came to Obama’s desk, and it seems highly unlikely that we ever will. It’s not as if holes in diplomatic security, a chronically underfunded enterprise, are going to raise deep-red flags. It's a well-known and hard to address problem. I guess this may have made it to the Secretary’s desk, but the President’s?

Meanwhile, we know for a fact that Bush had explicit advance warning that 9-11, an attack that killed 2,800 people, was coming. Now, if Benghazi is Watergate, what was 9-11?

They’re such naked propagandists, these people. The same people who spent years making excuses for why Bush shouldn’t have taken that August 6 PDB seriously are now trying to argue that an attack that was about 1/700th as cataclysmic should be Obama’s undoing? You've got to be kidding me.

If you are trying to use the deaths of these people as a political cudgel to get Obama because every other piece of crap attack you’ve tried has failed, you are doing something that’s both contemptible and ineffectual. And, if you insist on doing this, then to be consistent you must acknowledge Bush’s culpability for 9-11. There's no way out of that.

3 comments:

  1. Ok 9-11 was Bush's fault. But is Bengali Obama's Pearl Harbor?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well let’s see.
      Was territorial America attacked? NO.
      Was most of our Pacific Fleet destroyed? NO
      Were hundreds of American servicemen killed? NO
      Are we planning to put all Americans of Middle Eastern descent in camps? NO
      Were we attacked by a country with geographic confines that we could attack in return? NO
      Should I continue, or just say that the answer to your question is NO?

      Delete
    2. BUT!
      It was a planned attack by al-Qaida to commemorate their 9-11 attack. YES!
      Our intelligence was faulty again. YES! (See 9/11 Commission Report)
      We dropped our guard again? YES!
      Do we learn from History? NO!

      Delete

All comments subject to moderation. All commenters must use their own name or a screen name. No comments labelled as "Anonymous" will be published. To use your name or a screen name select "Name/URL" from the drop down menu. Insert you name in the "Name" space and leave the "URL" space blank.