The questions would stop if the answers started.
On September 11, 2012, four Americans were killed in Benghazi, Libya, including an Ambassador. That's a fact. There were several requests for added security before the attack, and those requests were denied. Another fact. As the consulate was being attacked, there were pleas for help. Nearby special forces were ordered to not help. As the country reacted to these deaths, US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice went on the Sunday talk shows and repeatedly insisted that the attacks were a spontaneous and unplanned part of a demonstration protesting an anti-Muslim YouTube video that had sparked rage in the Islamic community. This was not a fact. This was not supported or even suggested by any evidence, and it eventually became clear that the deaths of 4 Americans were the result of a planned attack by terrorists.
However, if you criticize the actions of the State Department that didn't help their Ambassador, you are politicizing. If you question the role of the Secretary of State in all of this, you are politicizing. If you ask what Obama was doing as these attacks were taking place, you are politicizing. If you ask why Rice, an appointed voice of the Obama Administration, was talking about YouTube videos, you are politicizing.
You also, apparently, like Chick-fil-A. At least that's what the Washington Post declared...
The Post, which uncovered the Watergate scandal, is actively making fun of and dismissing people who are questioning their government and potential deceptions being issued by government officials. Does anyone else see an historical irony here?
Jonathan Stewart also questions the motives of people talking about and questioning what happened at Benghazi. He pointed out that dozens of diplomatic installations were attacked under George W. Bush, and 13 Americans killed in those attacks. He then asked why such a big deal was being made over Benghazi.
|The Daily Show with Jon Stewart||Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c|
|The Big Benghazi Theory|
|The Daily Show with Jon Stewart||Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c|
|The Big Benghazi Theory - "If"|
Although Stewart helps make a great point that because Republicans throw a tantrum over everything Obama does, when there is a legitimately major issue, it's the boy crying wolf, and nobody listens.
Because nobody ever blamed a YouTube video for those attacks, Jon. Nobody ducked and dodged questions about those attacks. And no part of the media seemed eager to move on from those attacks.
And Stewart only had Fox News video to use in his clip because the rest of the media doesn't seem to care. CNN barely covered Wednesday's Benghazi hearing. MSNBC didn't cover it AT ALL. CBS was the only network to give it any significant time. One thing The Daily Show and Fox News had in common was that they were among the few shows to lead with the hearing. Most buried it behind the Arias trial and the Cleveland kidnappings.
Back to the issue, if you raise any questions about how the State Department and the White House handled Benghazi, before, during, or after the attacks, you're politicizing. You're not criticizing, you are politicizing.
What's the difference (at this point) between criticizing and politicizing?
We all criticize politicians. Obama criticizes Bush for the deficit, Conservatives criticize Obama for increasing the deficit. And so on. Criticizing policies and politicians is part of politics.
When you politicize, that's when you criticize just because you don't like that person's politics in general. When you politicize, you take an event that has nothing to do with politics, and use it to further your political agenda. Like when Barney Frank said that tax cuts wouldn't have saved anyone from the Boston Marathon bombers (which is now ironic considering how much taxpayer money went to the bombers over the years). Or like how I just pointed out that taxpayer money went to the bombers. Barney and I are both politicizing the Marathon bombings.
So if you question what happened in the State Department around September 11, 2012, you're just politicizing. You're taking advantage of a tragedy and trying to destroy Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
If you ask why Susan Rice's talking points were changed from terrorism to YouTube, 2 months before an election, you're politicizing.
If you ask Hillary Clinton what happened and why Susan Rice's talking points were changed, she'll get mad at you. Because you're politicizing.
I don't blame Obama for Benghazi. That'd be like blaming FDR for Pearl Harbor or Bill Clinton for the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. I don't blame Hillary Clinton, either. It seems like requests for additional securities were made, they were denied. This was a mistake. A catastrophic mistake. Made by people and an organization. That happens, unfortunately. I don't see any malevolence or incompetence from Clinton or Obama leading up to the attack. They can't know the future.
What pisses me off is what happened after. The blaming of the YouTube video. An Ambassador, whose job it is to be the voice of the President, firmly and confidently blamed outrage over a video for this attack. And this assertion was based on NOTHING. They didn't get inaccurate information, they didn't get any information. They just went with a talking point that didn't involve a coordinated terrorist attack.
Barack Obama, addressing the UN, criticized the video and its anti-Muslim messages. He has spent far more time criticizing that video than he has explaining why a video was blamed for the attack.
And we still don't know how or why that was the message that Susan Rice was instructed to deliver. That seems like a relatively simple mystery to solve. That is, of course, if the government were trying to solve it.
They're not. They've moved on. And if you have any questions about this incident, you're politicizing. How dare you.