At the end of last night’s Hannity segment with Republican Congressmen Darrell Issa and Jason Chaffetz, a Romney surrogate, Sean Hannity dropped a question that made it clear the three of them were using the tragedy at Benghazi as political fodder. Just in case you had a doubt.
Hannity: I’d like to see that (surveillance) video. Any chance we get to see it before the election? Hear the audio?
Chaffetz: I hope so. We should. We should.
Issa: Only if it’s leaked to us.
Think he was dropping a hint?
Chaffetz: The president said he would. He said he’d show it as the information is out there.
Hannity: Well, let’s see, Mr. President Transparency. Mr. President, let the American people see this. Let’s get this in real time.
Yeah, let’s get this in “real time” so that we can use it to affect the election!
Drones that see in the night still cannot provide firm details on who’s there. I’ll grant you that they’ll be able to distinguish between four-legged and two-legged creatures but not so easy to do so between humans. As for the early story, it might actually have been a distraction aimed at smoking out the mole. Only a full investigation will put paid to so much speculation but, as you wouldn’t believe anything that comes out of the ongoing investigation, this conversation is over.
PS (for parting shot): at least I admit mine is a theory not a certainty.
Are you as angry that you were lied to about Iraq’s WMD and connection to 9-11 attacks? Are you as angry and demanding of answers as to why Bush ignored numerous warnings about 9-11 attacks?
Considering what happened 11 years ago and the subsequent wars have caused much more death and destruction than what happened 80 days ago, you are a hypocrite for waiting 11 years for one major event then losing patience in a fraction of that time for a very minor event.
A) Reality on the ground. The events at Benghazi occurred in the middle of the night on september 9th 2012. As there is no public lighting in that part of the world, the only source of light was probably a battery of generators at the Consulate itself (and the blaze, of course). Allarmed emails do not provide sufficient knowledge for efffective action. Until well past dawn, the drones would not have seen much more than a blaze and moving figures on the ground: goats? donkeys? chickens? women? children? men? or militias?
B) Who knew what? Ambassador Stevens was not your usual political appointment but the top-ranking agent whoâd spent several months in Benghazi as an advisor to the militias fighting Ghaddafi. He was therefore the person most likely to be best informed on the situation and yet he went there with only three security personnel. I personally do not believe for a minute that he was suicidal. In any case, the early emails point to an emerging not an immediate risk. To have acted on such flimsy evidence would have placed additional American lives at risk.
C) What could/should have been done? Something clearly went wrong (as it did prior to the first 9/11 event in 2001, I beg to remind you) and itâs important to find out what and why. Expecting that to be done as from the day after is foolish. Personally, I think there may be a mole within the Embassy but thatâs speculation on my part and I donât pretend to be a proper ânewsâ journalist. If there was/is a mole within the US diplomatic set-up, it would be foolish to say anything that would spook him/her, donât you agree?
E) The risks of unconsidered action. It was pitch-black dark during the attack and drones would not have been able to see more than a blaze and running figures. Sending in a rescue squad would simply have placed even more American lives at risk. Sending in the drones to bomb the place to smithereens would have killed many more people. The Foxies couldnât care less about Muslims but they should at least care something for the men and women belonging to those rescue squads.
E) What the real experts are saying I have personally seen both Condoleeza Rice (Secretary of State under President Bush) and General Michael Hayden (Director of CIA under President Bush and credited with having completely overhauled the agency) express essentially âwait-and-seeâ opinions on Fox and both have been TOTALLY IGNORED. Instead, Fox re-airs clip after clip by a former CIA field operative called Mike Baker. Thatâs like saying the indian knew more than the chief. Sheeeesh!
F) My Conclusion. Thereâs no way that anybody could have said anything with certainty as from the day after an attack that occurred in the middle of the night and that the very competent Ambassador clearly had not anticipated. Otherwise, heâd not have been there. And, yet, thatâs precisely what the Foxies are clamoring for and they are clearly doing it in hope of influencing the elections. It is they who are politicising this tragic event and they are doing it so blatantly that only the most brain-dead will not realise whatâs happening.
Being somewhat of a PollyAnna (or Candide), I believe that this has become so blatant that it cannot but backfire on the Foxies.
And if you think the f*cking right-wing and FoxNoise aren’t more interested in THEIR political party than they are about the country, you’re just plain deluded. So, SHAME ON YOU.
We DO deserve answers. But we also deserve those answers come from a FULL investigation, and not the witch hunt that Issa and FoxNoise want to do.
So, Evan, you can just kiss my a—. And don’t worry about getting any sh*t in the process since you’re so ready and willing to eat all the sh*t that FoxNoise produces.