Don't forget you have an Indy voter who voted for Barry, and could vote for Hillary on your side! I do not think this is an ideological issue. It is a question of facts, and the letter of the law. In my opinion the OP is correct.
And, Benghazi? Another one of those ridiculous issues Republicans that make Indy's think Republicans are grasping in desperation. File Benghazi with Acorn and the Birther issue. NO ONE CARES. And it makes Republicans look petty.
Again, I could vote Republican.
Worse, Benghazi reminds Americans of the failed Iraqi war. The thousands of young Americans dead. The tens of thousands maimed for life and the cost to the US reaching unknown trillions over the next 50 years for medical care for all the tens of thousands maimed because Republicans hoped they could steal another country's oil. Terrible..
No, it doesn't. It shows how the current regime LIED to the public over a SUPPOSED video that caused a riot that has been proven to be a lie!
"The
CIA’s former deputy director disclosed Wednesday that
Obama administration officials were alerted the day before they went on national television that a key tenet of their original Benghazi storyline might be inaccurate. But he did not explain why the
administration continued to cling to its narrative even after
U.S. intelligence debunked reports that the deadly attack was born out of a protest over an anti-Islam video.
In often testy exchanges with Republicans who accused him of a cover-up,
Michael Morell flatly denied that he “inappropriately altered and influenced” the infamous Benghazi talking points to downplay the role of terrorism in the attacks.
But he acknowledged overruling the wishes of his boss at the time,
CIA Director David H. Petraeus, by excising from the talking points information that the
CIA had warned about possible
al Qaeda terrorist attacks in
Libya before the Benghazi tragedy unfolded on Sept. 11, 2012, killing ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
“I saw the language as self-serving and defensive on the agency’s part,”
Mr. Morell replied to skeptical lawmakers. “Here was a tragic event, and we were saying, ‘We told you so.’ This was wrong, in my view, and would have been seen as an attempt to make the
CIA look good and shift any possible blame for failing to see the risk of an attack from the agency to the
State Department.”
What would you have done in Iraq, after Saddam had been shooting at our planes patrolling the NO FLY zone, and even the Democrats in Congress agreed to go to war?