Benghazi Boogaloo

Audience member: I think that had to do with the fact that the Iranians perceived Reagan would do something to really get them out. In other words [unintelligible]…and that's why I'm suggesting that something that you say over the next few months gets the Iranians to understand that their pursuit of the bomb is something that you would predict and I think that's something that could possibly resonate very well with American Republican voters.

Romney: I appreciate the idea. I can't—one of the other things that's frustrating to me is that at a typical day like this, when I do three or four events like this, the number of foreign policy questions that I get are between zero and one. And the American people are not concentrated at all on China, on Russia, Iran, Iraq. This president's failure to put in place a status forces agreement allowing 10-20,000 troops to stay in Iraq? Unthinkable! And yet, in that election, in the Jimmy Carter election, the fact that we have hostages in Iran, I mean, that was all we talked about. And we had the two helicopters crash in the desert, I mean that's—that was—that was the focus, and so him solving that made all the difference in the world. I'm afraid today if you said, "We got Iran to agree to stand down a nuclear weapon," they'd go hold on. It's really a, but…by the way, if something of that nature presents itself, I will work to find a way to take advantage of the opportunity.

Read the article , and tell me where it says the Clinton Admin provided the Bush Admin with actionable intelligence about a 9/11 scope plot against the homeland. What is says is that they told the Bush Admin that al-Qaida represented the greatest terrorist threat to national security.

At the time the general public didn't know much about al-Qaida or bin-Laden. They knew terrorists had bombed our embassies and attacked the USS Cole, and they knew the terrorists were Middle-Eastern, but not many appreciated the extent of the Islamist threat. If the Clinton Admin. did,why didn't it do more to combat it instead of dumping it at the feet of the incoming Admin?

In any case it is irrelevant in terms of the Benghazi scandal.

If one Admin dropped the ball and 3,000 people died, wouldn't you expect
ensuing Admins to be all that much more cautious?

And irrespective of the scope of the screw up, a cover up is a cover up.

That you blithely dismiss this one because the Prez is a leftist speaks volumes.

Missed the "shift the goalposts" comment.

Are you trying to suggest that the Clinton Admin telling the Bush Admin that al-Qaida were really, really bad guys, was enough for the latter to have prevented 9/11?

It was a preplanned terrorist attack that had nothing to do with the target video and which the Admin was fully cognizant of with 24 hours, and yet it pathetically attempted to characterize it as a spontaneous reaction to a months old video.

The fighters said at the time that they were moved to act because of the video, which had first gained attention across the region after a protest in Egypt that day. The assailants approvingly recalled a 2006 assault by local Islamists that had destroyed an Italian diplomatic mission in Benghazi over a perceived insult to the prophet. In June the group staged a similar attack against the Tunisian Consulate over a different film, according to the Congressional testimony of the American security chief at the time, Eric A. Nordstrom.

At a news conference the day after the ambassador and three other Americans were killed, a spokesman for Ansar al-Shariah praised the attack as the proper response to such an insult to Islam. “We are saluting our people for this zeal in protecting their religion, to grant victory to the Prophet,” the spokesman said. “The response has to be firm.”

Oh Lord, I'm bleeding out from that razor sharp retort!