Can someone explain the Obama Benghazi controversy to me?
I understand that at first the administration thought the incident occurred due to anti-Islam video and then realized it was a terror attack, but what is the big deal? :o*( Thanks for any help!
- ?Lv 78 years agoFavorite Answer
Do Liberals not have a heart for compassion and do they not have a brain for logical analysis? Anyone who watched FOX tonight regarding who knew what and when about Benghazi and did not come away knowing that Obama is a lying sack of sh*t and was solely responsible for the murder of these 4 bumps in the road as he called them needs to be ostracized and thought of as monsters. I would be embarrassed if I were you and I would be looking for a hole to hide in. I here there is a empty hole in Iraq that was only used for a short period of time. If I were a family member of one of these four innocent victims I would be looking for the most expensive high profile lawyer I could find to see that this man is impeached and possibly never sees the light of day again.
- RobertLv 58 years ago
There have been multiple attacks on the consulate in Benghazi. The ambassador made multiple requests for additional secuirty. Not only were the requests denied, security was CUT!!!!!! Terrorists broke into the compound and killed the ambassador and four others. Cameras filmed the attack. The ambassador notified the embassy and help was sent but too late. Over a period of two weeks Barack Obama and various members of the cabinet went on television and said that the attack was a result of a group of Muslims being offended by some video on you tube, that they gathered at the consulate to protest and the protest got out of hand and the ambassador and others were killed as a result. There is film showing that this is absolutely false and various memebers of the Intelligence department and the state department have announced that it was not so. This was announced the day after the attack so everybody in the world knew that it was not so. These administration people when questioned stated their story about the video and when questioned about terrorists replied that they had no reason to believe that it was a terrorist attack. This went on for two weeks after the attack before they began to admit that the video story was incorrect and that it was a terrorist attack. When asked why they spread the story about the video they all said that they were merely repeating what they were told by the intelligence department. the intelligence department has said that they never said such a thing. On the debate a few nights ago Mitt Romney said that the president took two weeks to admit that the attack was a terrorist attack. Barack Obama interrupted him and said that he called it a terrorist attack the next day. Romney challenged him and said that he didn't say so for two weeks. Candy Crowley interjected and said that the president had, in fact called the attack a terrorist attack the next day. She then said that he also repeated the video story for two weeks.
In his speech the day after the attack Obama talked about the attack on the World Trade Center and the attack on the consulate and several sentences later he said "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation."
You decide for yourself if he said that the attack on the consulate was an act of terror. I don't think he did but if he did it is even worse because that proves what we all knew anyway - that he knew it was a terrorist attack and STILL spread the lie about the video for two weeks.
After he finally admitted that the attack was a terrorist attack he explained his reasoning that he wanted to be certain of the reason and didn't want to spread any false information. Does that make any sense to anyone? HE SPREAD FALSE INFORMATION BECAUSE HE DIDN'T WANT TO SPREAD FALSE INFORMATION?
There was a fantastic program on Fox News at ten oclock this evening (Friday) called Death and Deceit in Benghazi. I hope they repeat it and every voter should watch it.
- 8 years ago
I think you're getting the gist of why this is a controversy at this point. For the record though, Romney was not "caught in a lie" on live tv. Candy actually lied to make Obama look good. You can look it up. In the rose garden speech Obama used the word "terror" but never said "act of terror".
Also the ambassador requested more protection frequently in the days leading up to the "incident" and ultimately died because Hillary Clinton ignored his requests.
- 8 years ago
The fact that the American public was misled by this administration into believing that the attack was a spontaneous response to a video rather than being a terrorist strike is a big deal. Because the government lied to us (for whatever reason)... It was clear less than 24 hours after the attack that it WAS in fact a terrorist attack and had nothing to do with the video. The question is why were we misled? There is information coming out today and every day, but I have a feeling that it is going to show that these terrorists are the same people that the administration supported and supplied with weapons to overthrow Gaddafi. That is something that they would NEED to cover up, because it would destroy Obama. He would not only get crushed because of the coverup, but also because of the decision to support and to supply these people with weapons who then came and killed these 4 Americans. Not to mention that they denied additional security (most likely also for political reasons) after multiple requests for it. If they are lying to the public to cover up those things for political reasons then THAT is a big deal.
Hope I helped :)Source(s): my brain :)
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 4 years ago
first of all, Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis) is a political philosophy or worldview in accordance with concepts of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a large decision of perspectives reckoning on their information of those ideas, yet regularly they help concepts which contains free and honest elections, civil rights, freedom of the click, freedom of religion, free commerce, and private resources. each American is a liberal. Our US structure is liberal. Our founders were all liberal. A democrat isn't a liberal. neither is a conservative. they are political parities. Liberalism is an ideology that stems decrease back to the Romans and sped up in the course of the Enlightenment and Age of reason. Secondly, it particularly would not remember what i imagine. there is an analyze ongoing and once a end is performed, each little thing else is in user-friendly terms speculative. playstation - i have not any social gathering association. Cheers.
- Austin ShedevilLv 48 years ago
Basically they were informed before the attack that extra security was needed and the requests were ignored.
The attack happened, killing the ambassador and other Americans.
Then Joe said at the debate "we didn't know they needed security". (Many people think WTF?)
Then its investigated. Yes, they did ask for help and their requests were proven ignored.
Meanwhile, a game of "hot potato" was being played with the truth.
Hillary takes blame.
Then Obama said at the debate that he did refer it as a terror attack, in the Rose Garden-after Romney asked why it took him 2 weeks to tell the people.
The commentator backed up Obama, which is controversial in itself.
Then the commentator immediately after the debate admits Romney was right.
In fact, Obama didn't literally refer to the act of terror being related to Libya.
And now, today in the news, one of the moms of the victims is angry that Obama's comments towards her son and the victims were not appropriate. Lacking sympathy and very unpresidential. Her son is dead, and Obama didn't seem to show much care or concern.
- Uncle WayneLv 78 years ago
About 5 months ago Romney said he needed an international incident in order win the election. The Republicans cut the funds for security to about 50 embassies.
Then when an embassy was attacked all the Republicans blamed Obama.
In the mean time, on national TV during the debate, the whole country saw Romney caught in a lie about the incident.
End of story.
- ConvexLesLv 68 years ago
It's a figment of republican imagination. They are desperately trying to publicize a tragedy for their own political gain.
They are saying that Obama never called the attack an "act of terror" when the record clearly shows that he did. The families of the victims have asked the republicans and Mitt Romney numerous times to stop distorting the facts for the sake their own political gain - but those requests have been completely ignored by Romney, as well as his supporters. They are trying to accuse Obama of mishandling the incident, when in fact - it is our State Department who handles US Embassy security, and the incident is still under investigation.
- Antonia SmartLv 58 years ago
This is why the Republicans cannot win the Election because they spend all their time talking about stuff that in the grand scheme of things is unimportant, because they cannot compete on the important stuff.
It is sad that 4 people were killed in the Libyan Embassy, however thousands have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, and all they want is more war.
- 8 years ago
I'm watching fox news and they're breaking down what happened. Our ambassadors dead body was just shown. It breaks my heart to see fellow Americans not ourtaged and protecting a "president" for re-election, that should be facing IMPEACHMENT NOT RE-ELECTION. He has ultimate responsiblity for our embassies, not his secretary of state of which he selected for her to take the fall. There was no 'video' that caused our embassy to be attacked. It was 9/11 and our "president" should have taken the necessary steps to protect our embassy. Our embassy was calling for help to secure the embassy, of which they were denied. Obama LIED about the attack, saying it was a "video" to blame. Obama has ultimate responsibility, and he needs to be held accountable. Obama took a vow 4 years ago to "defend against all enemies foreign and domestic" of which he has FAILED.
IMPEACHMENT, NOT RE-ELECTION.