Why a Benghazi Cover-Up Makes No Sense

[babylonsister]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/11/18/why_a_benghazi_cover-up_makes_no_sense.html

Why a Benghazi Cover-Up Makes No Sense


The Economist: "At the most fundamental level, the reason it is absurd to suspect the existence of a 'cover-up' over the Benghazi attack is that such a cover-up could not have had any conceivable goal."

"Back to the beginning: the underlying accusation about Benghazi is that the Obama administration deliberately mischaracterised the terrorist attack there as having grown out of a spontaneous demonstration because that would be less politically damaging. Such a cover-up would have made no sense because the attack would not have been less politically damaging had it grown out of a spontaneous demonstration. The attack on the Benghazi compound would not have been any less politically difficult for the administration if it had grown out of a riot, nor would any normal voter have expected it to be less politically damaging, nor would any normal campaign strategist have expected any normal voter to have expected it to be less politically damaging."

[hobbit709]

1. The reality challenged are not swayed by facts.

[rock]

10. Which is odd, as they claim great value to the truth!

[leveymg]

2. Makes sense to try to protect policy of regime change in Libya, Syria and Iran. Blowback is bad PR.

By making it seem like random violence, the damage is contained.

Not very difficult to figure that out.

[FarPoint]

3. My daddy always said...

" A fox smells his own hole".

What I take from that is the GOP would indeed and has mislead America...so that would be what is normal for them assuming the Obama Administration would not hesitate to mislead....Which is false assumption.

Plus, they nedd a target...they are seeing what may stick to the wall.

[wishlist]

4. If WH built up war on terror angle rather than influence of video

Repubs would have criticized WH for taking advantage of the attack to make Pres look like wartime Pres going after terrorists and right wing would have pushed the influence of the video rather than Al Queda. So no matter what, Repubs would have found something to twist around and criticize in such a complicated situation because they were so determined to undermine the President's foreign policy successes.

[hedgehog]

5. If a Republican President had been in Obama's place, the Benghazi attack would have

been a campaign centerpiece - a chance to repeat 9/11 9/11 USA! USA!

[FarCenter]

6. They needed to limit disclosure while they were trying to rescue what they could of the CIA network

The overrunning of the CIA safehouse resulted in the Islamists being able to roll up an extensive CIA operation in Libya.

It was a major covert operations disaster.

[leveymg]

8. Exactly.

[djean111]

7. You are making freeper heads hurt.

Evidently there is a great swathe of voters who never ever ever look behind the crap that is carefully spewed to them.
If they hear "Benghazi terror coverup Obama" in the same sentence, that is what they will believe no matter how much logic is cast before them. They are as bonded to that first impression as much as baby ducks to their mother.

As long as that first impression feeds their fantasy world.

Any attempt to correct that first impression is treated with disbelieving scorn. If Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, and Romney and all of Faux tried to correct that first impression, they would just be treated as turncoat cowards who had been bought off.

[Enrique]

9. it doesn't make sense in a partisan way

but it conceivably makes sense as the same kind of deceptions that we have always seen from the government regarding activities throughout our empire.