Difference between revisions of "2012 Benghazi attack"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(enough for now) |
(more details) |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
Based on the assumption that the evidence was both solid and known to the [[Obama administration]], Republicans have accused Obama of lying about the nature of the attack and attempting to cover up the evidence. They have also launched a number of other secondary attacks, including accusations against then-Secretary of State [[Hillary Clinton]]. | Based on the assumption that the evidence was both solid and known to the [[Obama administration]], Republicans have accused Obama of lying about the nature of the attack and attempting to cover up the evidence. They have also launched a number of other secondary attacks, including accusations against then-Secretary of State [[Hillary Clinton]]. | ||
| − | There is some hypocrisy involved in that | + | There is some hypocrisy involved in that congressional Republicans: |
| + | * in 2011, cut Obama's request for embassy security funding by $128 million | ||
| + | * in 2012, cut Obama's request for embassy security funding by $331 million | ||
| + | ** '''2012-09-18''' [http://thehill.com/homenews/house/250237-gop-embassy-security-cuts-draw-democrats-scrutiny GOP cuts to embassy security draw scrutiny, jabs from Democrats] | ||
| + | *** '''2012-10-09''' [http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-forget-about-big-bird/2012/10/09/5f9a411c-1258-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_story.html Forget Big Bird. What about the Snuffleupagus in the room?] ([[Dana Milbank]]) | ||
| + | * ignored Hillary Clinton's warnings that the cuts would be "detrimental to America's national security" | ||
| + | ** '''2011-02-14''' | ||
| + | *** [http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/02/secretary-clinton-house-republ.html GOP leaders propose billions in cuts to Obama's budget request] | ||
| + | *** [http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/143923-clinton-gops-state-dept-cuts-detrimental-to-national-security Clinton: GOP's State Dept. cuts 'detrimental' to national security] | ||
There is further hypocrisy in the fact that embassies were attacked during the [[Bush-Cheney administration]] no less than eleven times, with a total of 47 dead (including a US Ambassador), yet the GOP did not see any need to investigate. | There is further hypocrisy in the fact that embassies were attacked during the [[Bush-Cheney administration]] no less than eleven times, with a total of 47 dead (including a US Ambassador), yet the GOP did not see any need to investigate. | ||
| − | It seems very likely that this is a [[manufactroversy]], although we are still awaiting conclusive [[evidence]]. | + | It seems very likely that this is a [[manufactroversy]] created as part of the general GOP campaign to drum up anger at Obama, although we are still awaiting conclusive [[evidence]]. |
==Links== | ==Links== | ||
===Reference=== | ===Reference=== | ||
| Line 48: | Line 56: | ||
** '''2013-05-09''' [http://www.politicususa.com/republican-propagandists-pr-push-prove-benghazi-hearings-politically-motivated.html Republican PR Push Proves Benghazi Hearings Are Politically Motivated] | ** '''2013-05-09''' [http://www.politicususa.com/republican-propagandists-pr-push-prove-benghazi-hearings-politically-motivated.html Republican PR Push Proves Benghazi Hearings Are Politically Motivated] | ||
| + | ** '''2013-05-10''' [http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/05/11/18184149-a-look-at-the-republican-benghazi-talking-points-as-theyve-been-laid-out-so-far A look at the Republican Benghazi talking points as they've been laid out so far] (video: [[Rachel Maddow]]) | ||
| + | *** [http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/vp/51849144#51849144 full show] in which Benghazi is put in context of relentless and generally pointless GOP attacks on Obama | ||
* pro-coverup: | * pro-coverup: | ||
| Line 58: | Line 68: | ||
**** The evidence for terrorist connections: "One of the jihadists, a member of Ansar al Sharia, reported to the other that he had participated in the assault on the U.S. diplomatic post. Solid evidence." ...except that Ansa al-Sharia did not take credit for the attack. | **** The evidence for terrorist connections: "One of the jihadists, a member of Ansar al Sharia, reported to the other that he had participated in the assault on the U.S. diplomatic post. Solid evidence." ...except that Ansa al-Sharia did not take credit for the attack. | ||
*** Article is datestamped 2013-05-20, but it was posted on or before 2013-05-12. | *** Article is datestamped 2013-05-20, but it was posted on or before 2013-05-12. | ||
| + | * security funding: | ||
| + | |||