General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI'm lazy: Can someone summarize Benghazi, Petraeus, Susan Rice and so on?
All I read was that Petraeus had an affair and how it is somehow connected to the CIA and FBI and blaming Obama for Benghazi or something. Is there a short summary of the story?
jpljr77
(1,004 posts)Things had been going too well, so they put all effort into pinning this on Obama.
redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)jpljr77
(1,004 posts)Of course now, it's not so much the black guy's fault as the black lady. "GRRRR, we hate her so much with her power and position," said every Republican ever.
Old Codger
(4,205 posts)Misdirection, watch this and ignore that....in other words "politics as usual"
Enrique
(27,461 posts)there were flaws in the information the government provided to the public about the attack, in particular some appearances Susan Rice made on TV the weekend after the attack.
Petraeus resigned after the election, saying it was about an affair. The CIA is connected because he was CIA director and Benghazi was a CIA facility.
redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)Enrique
(27,461 posts)to prevent him from testifying about Benghazi. That theory became less popular when Petraeus testified about Benghazi.
There are theories linking it to the election as well.
redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)It seems like it is less complex than I thought. In a nutshell: Freepers tried to peddle a conspiracy theory and failed.
So there really was no connection between the mistress and Benghazi.
I thought I had read something about the emails containing classified information, but as I said, I didn't really pay much attention to the whole Benghazi/Petraeus subject until I recently realized that DU, after so many weeks, still had threads up about it.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)table and actually said, "Heard you talking and I think Rice PAID the White House for her job"
I just looked at her and said, "That's the absolutely craziest thing I have ever heard." She walked away shocked.
the wingnuts think Rice misled the public so it wouldn't look like Obama failed in reigning in terrorism during his
presidency (forgetting he got Bin Laden).
When was it clear it was terrorism? Before the election?
Personally, I think this doesn't matter at all. I was an act of murder no matter who did it - a crazed protester or a group who planned it under the cover of basic civil unrest. There is quite a fine distinction. But....they are running this idea to the ground.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)Now, now. You're a pacifist, remember?
But I think a spit-take would have been entirely appropriate. ('Laura Spit Your Drink'?)
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)Since Republicans live in their own special universe (and, heck, since you're using the Starship Enterprise as an avatar), let's take that metaphor and run with it.
Think of Benghazi as the sun. Think of the various things that make Republicans apoplectic about Benghazi as planets orbiting that sun.
Planet 1 is supposedly Rice's performance on the Sunday shows after Benghazi, where she conveyed talking points that later proved to be inaccurate or incomplete.
Planet 2 is the Petraeus thing, which is unrelated to Benghazi per se but which led to his resignation right before the Benghazi hearings, something wingnuts decided was suspicious.
Basically, GOPstronomers are looking for signs of life on one of these planets, while hoping to discover other planets as well. They've already conceded that Planet Petreaus, like our own Venus, is hot and humid but cannot sustain life. So now they've got McCain, a/k/a "Rover," crawling all over the surface of Planet Rice. No life there yet either, but the probe continues.
Make sense now?
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)revolve around the Earth which is only 6,000 years old.
redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)... that there was some conspiracy to Carter-ize Obama over Benghazi and that Petraeus and his mistress were involved in it.
I think there was a thread up on the topic for a long time, but I don't remember the exact title.
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)One is that military support was deliberately withheld during the Benghazi attack in order to tar Obama with a debacle similar to the botched Iran rescue mission in 1980 -- with the similar result of making him a one-term president.
Similar, but even further out there, is the notion that this was somehow all about a coup that Obama discovered and foiled. This is basically the plot of the 1950's potboiler 7 Days in May, which is a fine book and better movie but -- and I really can't stress this enough -- is fiction.
Luckily, our side confines its tinfoil-hat types to internet forums, which is why the above goofiness had no legs. Their side, however, gives their tinfoil-hat types jobs on Fox and seats in the Senate, which is why we all have to hear it so regularly.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)people are filling in the details that we are not allowed to know. Our overseas activities are none of our business.
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)And probably has everything to do with the CIA presence in the annex that no one is supposed to be talking about. What bugs me is not speculation, which is reasonable in the absence of facts, but the way speculation instantly flies to the furthest reaches of the improbable. Poor William of Occam spins in his grave, desperate for a shave.
shraby
(21,946 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)MineralMan
(146,317 posts)Plenty of threads on this for you to read already.