tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4114849513980773570.post9099182500802256273..comments2023-12-22T14:04:55.065-05:00Comments on Ehlers on Everything: The Right-Wing Benghazi Obsession: A Shameful, Irresponsible Waste of TimeMark J. Ehlershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06410705618925284448noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4114849513980773570.post-77070625889863338392016-10-14T12:05:20.836-04:002016-10-14T12:05:20.836-04:00Thanks for your honest answer. I may be wrong, bu...Thanks for your honest answer. I may be wrong, but I suspect that insofar as it has succeeded the Republican smear campaign against Clinton over Benghazi resonates -- even with a political moderate like me -- because we know Clinton strongly endorsed eliminating Khaddafi, apparently without anticipating the chaotic power vacuum his death would bring about.<br /><br />I might even be tempted to say that the right's smear campaign against Clinton over Benghazi is a proxy for their disgust with what they see as Clinton's responsibility for the terrorist valhalla post-Khaddafi Libya has become.<br /><br />Of course, that's a pretty nuanced viewpoint to impute to people like Trey Gowdy or Darrell Issa. I doubt their thinking extends any further than the greater good of destroying Clinton's political reputation and presidential candidacy.<br /><br />If there's an irony here, it's that just as Clinton's enthusiasm for taking out Khaddafi led to the unintended consequence of Benghazi, Gowdy and Issa's enthusiasm for taking out Clinton could lead to the unintended consequence of President Trump ... a man whose profound foreign policy ignorance is matched only by his complete lack of interest in remedying it.Dick Hartzellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07065924271517452841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4114849513980773570.post-3313611298447363832016-10-13T19:04:05.564-04:002016-10-13T19:04:05.564-04:00Thank you for the comment and thoughtful questions...Thank you for the comment and thoughtful questions. I do not believe that Clinton's "responsibility" as Secretary of State for the security lapses at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is a reason to oppose her presidential candidacy, but ultimately that is a decision each voter must make. In my opinion, she is responsible for what happened only in a "the bucks stops here" sense, but her record as Secretary of State compares favorably to many past administrations that have overseen similar or worse incidents. And by accepting responsibility, she did the right thing in (1) authorizing a thorough review and (2) implementing the recommended steps for improving security in the hope of preventing a similar incident in the future.Mark J. Ehlershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06410705618925284448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4114849513980773570.post-75526777080759248752016-10-13T13:11:32.653-04:002016-10-13T13:11:32.653-04:00Thanks for posting this informative article. In l...Thanks for posting this informative article. In light of Trump's latest claim about Sidney Blumenthal supposedly emailing Clinton about her responsibility for Benghazi, I read the Kurt Eichenwald Newsweek article that was the *real* source of the comments attributed to Blumenthal. The money quote from Eichenwald's article (which Trump read aloud at a rally, believing Blumenthal made it) is this one:<br /><br />"One important point has been universally acknowledged by the nine previous reports about Benghazi: The attack was almost certainly preventable. Clinton was in charge of the State Department, and it failed to protect U.S. personnel at an American consulate in Libya. If the GOP wants to raise that as a talking point against her, it is legitimate."<br /><br />Granted, the Republicans aren't content to limit themselves to this talking point -- apparently it's important to attribute the attack and the deaths associated with it to Clinton's venality, corruption, and cynical indifference.<br /><br />But if we set aside this unfounded hyperbole and acknowledge that Clinton has accepted responsibility for "failing to protect U.S. personnel" in Benghazi, is her failure a valid reason to oppose her presidential candidacy? And without resorting to comparisons to Donald Trump -- a man I consider perhaps the most supremely unqualified candidate *ever* to run for president -- is it reasonable to place blame, "the buck stops here" style, on Clinton herself for this particular security failure?<br /><br />Or is your comparison of the Benghazi attack with the 1983 suicide bombing in Beirut -- an incident I'm old enough to recall firsthand as a spectacular piece of Reagan-era security bungling -- intended to illustrate that despite what Kurt Eichenwald may say, Clinton's responsibility for Benghazi is, in her role as secretary of state, mostly pro forma?<br /><br />In the heat of this alarming campaign season no one seems much interested in posing questions like these, much less in trying to answer them ... so if you've got an opinion I'd very much like to hear it.<br /><br />Thank you.Dick Hartzellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07065924271517452841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4114849513980773570.post-57488948430356903792016-10-05T19:43:03.102-04:002016-10-05T19:43:03.102-04:00Now if Republicans will just READ this and try to ...Now if Republicans will just READ this and try to grasp the truth and the waste that GOWtY has perpetuated. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00454584100382437327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4114849513980773570.post-5399961237783968062016-09-24T06:10:21.914-04:002016-09-24T06:10:21.914-04:00Grasping at Straws. This article is extremely info...Grasping at Straws. This article is extremely informative. But Anonymous,I fear your mind is closed to the facts.Lenore Schultehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12091960043942466087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4114849513980773570.post-11774216089026769262016-09-02T15:25:49.002-04:002016-09-02T15:25:49.002-04:00What about the PDB state that terrorist plan to at...What about the PDB state that terrorist plan to attack us with high jack air plane; or the disclosure of a CIA operative?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4114849513980773570.post-33549672835965032282016-09-02T10:56:29.286-04:002016-09-02T10:56:29.286-04:00Joe - Thanks for the question. As I think my essay...Joe - Thanks for the question. As I think my essay makes clear, during the week or so following the attack, there were many conflicting accounts of what happened and why. As Hillary herself explained in the book excerpt I cited, in the first few days after the attack, "[t]here were many theories-- but still little evidence. I myself went back and forth on what likely happened, who did it, and what mix of factors--like the video--played a part. But it was unquestionably inciting the region and triggering protests all over . . .Later investigation and reporting confirmed that the video was indeed a factor." Moreover, as noted by the House Select Committee minority report on June 27, 2016, “it remains unclear precisely what motivated all of the individuals in Benghazi on the night of the attacks.” Former CIA Director David Petraeus testified, “I’m still not absolutely certain what absolutely took place." And the CIA chief of station in Libya believed at the time that the anti-Muslim video might have motivated the attackers. <br /><br />So, to this day it is still not clear to anyone who has studied this case that the anti-Muslim video was not at least a contributing factor to the attack on the consulate (it is undisputed that violent protests had erupted throughout the Arab and Muslim world the previous week or two, resulting in hundreds of injuries and more than 50 deaths).<br /><br />But even assuming Hillary was initially less than forthcoming about certain aspects of the attack, it was a "lie" that lasted, at most, nine days. By September 21, 2012, even Hillary referred to the incident as a "terrorist attack." So, did this really justify eight separate congressional investigations and millions of dollars in taxpayer dollars? To me, it is simply a reflection of our polarized times and irrational political landscape.Mark J. Ehlershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06410705618925284448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4114849513980773570.post-56503231741331910332016-09-02T00:11:18.226-04:002016-09-02T00:11:18.226-04:00Please comment on one thing: Why was it necessary ...Please comment on one thing: Why was it necessary for Hillary to lie and tell the American people it was a crowd response to the video and tell Chelsea it was a premeditated terrorist attack using heavy weapons? ----- JoeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4114849513980773570.post-63690604115063350572016-08-30T07:13:19.310-04:002016-08-30T07:13:19.310-04:00Thank you for catching that.Thank you for catching that.Mark J. Ehlershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06410705618925284448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4114849513980773570.post-72393933410541470842016-08-30T04:58:54.727-04:002016-08-30T04:58:54.727-04:00Thanks for putting together the facts, in a well w...Thanks for putting together the facts, in a well written article.<br /><br />A small but important typo: "Here is what Rice told Jake Tapper of ABC News on This Week with George Stephanopoulos on September 16, 2016". Should be 2012 ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4114849513980773570.post-61365218009587500582016-08-29T02:20:57.156-04:002016-08-29T02:20:57.156-04:00Excellent article. Thank you for putting all the f...Excellent article. Thank you for putting all the facts together in a clear time line. Those who just spout the word "Benghazi" as shorthand for "Hillary is corrupt and should be hanged" never even seem to know the facts, just the word. This helps me to refute the lies, by pointing to this complete source instead of a multitude of articles of partial facts. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08186802665776251393noreply@blogger.com