Honor and integrity are in short supply in Washington, been that way for quite awhile. Far as I can tell neither side has the moral high ground; lies, deception, misinformation, stonewalling, etc., have all become SOP when you get into some kind of trouble. It plays out over and over again, irrespective of political party.
In this case I will always believe that with less than 2 months to go before the election, a decision was made in the WH to put forth the story about the video and a demonstration that got out of control. Obama had been trumpeting all summer about how he had Al Quaida on the run, and this attack ran counter to that line. So, they went with that story and waited to see the reaction from the media, which was damn near nil except for Fox News. No reason to admit anything, no pressure was forthcoming from the media or the Romney campaign to change the story, and so they didn't.
They knew it was not true, had to know almost instantly; hell, there was nobody in the street less than an hour before the attack, and the State Dept was in real time communication with the people in Benghazi. A State dept official testified to that beofre Congress. They knew and deliberately lied about it, both Clinton and Obama standing next to the caskets of the dead ambassador and the 3 other Americans who were killed.
Why? Political reasons, nothing more and nothing less. I don't give a damn who lied about the Iran Contra deal or the WMDs in Iraq or Monica freakin' Lewinsky. None of that justifies doing it again. What difference does it make? Well, I guess that depends whether you like being lied to, or whether you can trust a president who does not tell you the truth. I guess it depends on whether you think it's okay if the media does not hold every president accountable for his actions. I guess it depends on whether you think it's okay if your side does it but not the other.
In this case I will always believe that with less than 2 months to go before the election, a decision was made in the WH to put forth the story about the video and a demonstration that got out of control. Obama had been trumpeting all summer about how he had Al Quaida on the run, and this attack ran counter to that line. So, they went with that story and waited to see the reaction from the media, which was damn near nil except for Fox News. No reason to admit anything, no pressure was forthcoming from the media or the Romney campaign to change the story, and so they didn't.
They knew it was not true, had to know almost instantly; hell, there was nobody in the street less than an hour before the attack, and the State Dept was in real time communication with the people in Benghazi. A State dept official testified to that beofre Congress. They knew and deliberately lied about it, both Clinton and Obama standing next to the caskets of the dead ambassador and the 3 other Americans who were killed.
Why? Political reasons, nothing more and nothing less. I don't give a damn who lied about the Iran Contra deal or the WMDs in Iraq or Monica freakin' Lewinsky. None of that justifies doing it again. What difference does it make? Well, I guess that depends whether you like being lied to, or whether you can trust a president who does not tell you the truth. I guess it depends on whether you think it's okay if the media does not hold every president accountable for his actions. I guess it depends on whether you think it's okay if your side does it but not the other.
