Speak Your Mind!
13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush’s Watch Without a Peep from Fox News
by Bob Cesca/Daily Banter
The Republican inquisition over the attacks against Americans in Benghazi has never really gone away, but it appears as though in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing and the House Oversight Committee’s Benghazi hearings this week there’s renewed psycho-histrionics over Benghazi. Lindsey Graham and Fox News Channel in particular are each crapping their cages over new allegations from an alleged whistleblower, while they continue to deal in previously debunked falsehoods about the sequence of events during and following the attacks. Fox News is predictably helming the biggest raft of hooey on the situation — turning its attention to Hillary Clinton in an abundantly obvious early move to stymie her presidential run before it even begins.
So I thought I’d revisit some territory I covered back in October as a bit of a refresher — especially since it appears as if no one, including and especially the traditional press, intends to ask any of these obnoxious, opportunistic liars about why they’re so obsessed by this one attack yet they entirely ignored the dozen-plus consulate/embassy attacks that occurred when George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were allegedly “keeping us safe.”
The Benghazi attacks (the consulate and the CIA compound) are absolutely not unprecedented even though they’re being treated that way by Republicans who are deliberately ignoring anything that happened prior to Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009.
January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.
June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al-Qaida attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.
October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of “Bali Bombings.” No fatalities.
February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.
May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al-Qaida terrorists storm the diplomatic compound killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.
July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.
December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.
March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name “David Foy.”This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what’s considered American soil.)
September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.
January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.
March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaida-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.
July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.
September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen.Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.
I ran a search on each attack along with the name “Lindsey Graham” in the hopes of discovering that Graham had perhaps commented about the attacks or raised some questions about why the administration didn’t prevent the attacks or respond accordingly to prevent additional embassy attacks. No results. Of course. Now, this could mean the search wasn’t exhaustive enough. But one thing’s for sure: neither Graham nor any of his cohorts launched a crusade against the Bush administration and the State Department in any of those cases — no one did, including the congressional Democrats, by the way. This leads us to the ultimate point here. Not only have numerous sources previously debunked the Benghazi information being peddled by the Republicans and Fox News (for example, contrary to what the Republicans are saying, yes, reinforcements did in fact arrive before the attack on the CIA compound), but none of these people raised a single word of protest when, for example, American embassies in Yemen and Pakistan were attacked numerous times.
Why didn’t the Bush administration do something to secure the compounds after the first attacks? Why didn’t he provide additional security? Where was your inquest after the Karachi attacks, Mr. Graham? Where were you after the Sana’a attacks, Mr. Hannity? What about all of the embassy attacks in Iraq that I didn’t even list here, Mr. McCain? Do you realize how many people died in attacks on U.S. embassies and consulates when Bush was supposedly keeping us safe, Mr. Ailes? Just once I’d like to hear David Gregory or George Stephanopoulos or Wolf Blitzer ask a Republican member of Congress about the above timeline and why they said nothing at the time of each attack. Just once. Nearly every accusation being issued about Benghazi could’ve been raised about the Bush era attacks, and yet these self-proclaimed truth-seekers refused to, in their words, undermine the commander-in-chief while troops were in harm’s way (a line they repeated over and over again during those years).
So we’re only left to conclude the obvious. The investigations and accusations and conspiracy theories are entirely motivated by politics and a strategy to escalate this to an impeachment trial. In doing so, the Republicans have the opportunity not only to crush the president’s second term, but also to sabotage the potential for a Hillary Clinton presidency. Even if they never arrive at that goal, they have in their possession a cudgel formed of horseshit — a means of flogging the current administration with the singularly effective Republican marketing/noise machine, including the conservative entertainment complex. Very seldom does this machine fail to revise history and distort the truth.
Ultimately, they don’t even need a full-blown impeachment proceeding when they have a population of way too many truthers and automatons who take all of these lies at face value — not to mention dubiously sourced chunks of “truth” proffered by radio and cable news conspiracy theorists who, if nothing else, are masters at telling angry conservatives precisely what they want to hear: that the probably-Muslim president is weak on terrorism. And so they’ll keep repeating “Benghazi-Gate, Benghazi-Gate, Benghazi-Gate!” without any regard for history or reality. Like always."
I have been listening to the hearing today. It is a joke.
It is so "compelling" (sarc) that CNN, which was covering the hearing live, has left it to resume regular news at this point.
Wednesday, May 08, 2013 4:02 pm
Why are you taking the hearings so personal, John? Your name hasn't been mentioned.
The investigations and accusations and conspiracy theories are entirely motivated by politics and a strategy to escalate this to an impeachment trial. In doing so, the Republicans have the opportunity not only to crush the president’s second term, but also to sabotage the potential for a Hillary Clinton presidency. Even if they never arrive at that goal, they have in their possession a cudgel formed of horseshit — a means of flogging the current administration with the singularly effective Republican marketing/noise machine, including the conservative entertainment complex.
Sounds like those are the accusations of a conspiracy theory of your own there John. I also find it curious you would bring Bush up as way to some how justify what we saw happen in Benghazi. "Well Bush did, so it's ok if Obama does it". That's hilarious! And oh so typical of the left's way to minimize this POTUS actions.
The hearing today is even less impressive than I was expecting. Entirely political.
I also find it curious you would bring Bush up as way to some how justify what we saw happen in Benghazi. "Well Bush did, so it's ok if Obama does it". That's hilarious!
Fox News was around through all the previous embassy attacks, as were people like Graham and Issa. Never a peep from them before about security inadequacies or anything else. It speaks for itself.
You have watched this hearing today. Where is the "bomshell"? This is a joke.
What I'm seeing here is finally someone who works for this worthless Government who knows the chain of command. These whistleblowers are the FIRST time we've heard any kind of explanation as to where orders came from. Up until this very day not once has the WH bothered or offered a believable outline or explanation as to who gave the orders, who's responsible for them, and who ultimately has the responsibility for any that were passed down the "nobody knows where they came from" chain of command. It happens with every controversy surrounding this POTUS. "It's not my job, I was unaware of it, even though I am that department's head dog" "No that's not my signature, it's on every piece of paper sent out of this office, yet I'm not responsible for ANY of those decisions, even those this is my job to know these things". Bullshit! It's a cover up from day one, Bush's fault or not, and makes Nixon's cover up look like an alter boy. This entire 5 yrs has been one cover up after another for advertising this as the most transparent administration in history.
I think what we will see happening even more and more is they have to cover their tracks and lie to do it so frequently now they can't keep up with all of them to hide them anymore. Like the old saying "if you tell the truth you don't have to remember the lies". Well they're now finding that to be more true than they could ever imagine.
I seem to forget the self blaming youtube video right before an election during the bush disaster years though.....
Let's be real Captain Weenie didn't want to look weak right before the election so he covered it up with idiocy and now your the tool bag with the mop, blogging away the fantasy that nothing inappropriate happened.
Bombshell #1 Government Lawyers came to Hicks, and told him not to answer questions from Congress. Never in his 20+ years of service has that request ever happened before.
Bombshell #2 Whistleblowers lawyers denied access to hearings due to security classifications
It's more I am like someone slapping some sense into deranged delusional lunatics.