Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex
Yes, I think there was a coverup. The CIA was doing something we don't know about, and I suspect was targeted in direct retaliation for whatever those activities were. They can never say what those activities were, because they were classified. So the cover up is of those activities, basically. Do I care? I guess, but no more than I can care about all the rest our spooks do overseas that I don't know about. I care less about them than the BIG lie which is the sort of wrapper around our entire ME policy. It's not about security or terrorism in my view, but much broader and raw power related than that - some form of hegemony.
What confuses me here is the 'cover up' isn't like Iran Contra, for example, where the WH actively hid illegal acts by Executive branch officials, acts they sanctioned directly violating laws addressing those actions. That might have happened here, depending on what the CIA was doing there. But that's not the 'scandal' - the scandal is some weird coverup of the MOTIVE of some terrorists who attacked us, and that the lie wasn't "it was a random act of terror" which would have been a 'good' lie, but allegedly the 'bad lie that it was in retaliation for the video which is for some reason unacceptable. They're both likely lies - the motive was CIA - but the scandal is the WH used a lie that arguably, for a few days, made them look a bit better in the press than claiming the lie this was just a random target of 'terrorists.' I just cannot figure out why I'm supposed to care more than intellectually - yeah, WH spins events to their advantage, and water is wet.
You know I thought about that, more or less a cover story to hid some activities by the CIA or other intel organization. Perhaps if I heard correctly, the consulate was a CIA sub office of the Embassy in Tripoli. Maybe, maybe not. But I do think for whatever reason, most of the American public accepts being lied to. That was my point in my post. Now there are instances due to national security I actually condone lying when a no comment would be the same as admitting that something is going on that we, the U.S. shouldn’t be doing. But if you get caught like Eisenhower was with the U-2 flights, it is best to just come out and admit it. Americans are a very forgiving people and IKE was forgiven quite fast for telling the fib about a weather observation plane flying off course over Russia. Even after Reagan admitted his misdeeds in Iran Contra the public forgave him. That is except the hard core Democrats.
Where most presidents get in trouble is the cover up, not the actions or even the wrong doing. Before Iran-Contra became known Reagan was at 60% plus approval rating, he fell to around 45% during it, but once he admitted to his wrong doings, his approval immediately rose back into the 60’s and he left office at 65%.
Obama is in a different boat, 50% plus a point or two approval rating form January of 2013 through May of 2014 and then has been in decline to where he is at 44% today. Benghazi alone is not the reason for that decline. It is a combination of a whole lot of things. Thus I do not believe President Obama coming on TV and radio saying something like, “Yeah, we used the video excuse to cover up A, B, and C. I don’t think it would help him much in his approval rating as there is so many reasons for its decline, Reagan’s decline was almost all Iran-Contra. Reagan’s Iran-Contra and Benghazi are entirely two different things. It is like you said, Reagan broke some laws, Obama just told some lie. But I do like what you said about the lie
that the lie wasn't "it was a random act of terror" which would have been a 'good' lie, but allegedly the 'bad lie that it was in retaliation for the video which is for some reason unacceptable.
Yeah, I agree, there can be good lies and bad lies. I think in the grand scheme of things lies about Benghazi really doesn’t mean that much if they were to cover up some intel activity. Most Americans will buy that and that may be what a lot of Americans think the cover up is all about. I wouldn’t have a problem with that kind of lie. But if it is proved that the lie was made for political advantage or to maintain a political advantage, which in itself is not unusual, the shrugging of shoulders by most of the public may stop.
But we don’t know that. I still think as time has passed, presidents and our elected leaders have lied to the public about so many things under all sorts of circumstances that we have come to expect it. In the end, it is probably no big deal. It is like I said, if a president of your party lies, that is okay, if the president is of the other party, now that is wrong and he should be hung. Those in the middle of the parties have just come to accept lying and they do not pay any attention to it anymore. Just my opinion.
