Why have Republicans not held hearings on all US Embassy attacks or are the Benghazi hearings just political?
June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51.
February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Truck bomb kills 17.
February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Gunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards.
July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan
Suicide bomber kills two.
December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Militants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded.
March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomate directly targeted by the assailants.
September 12, 2006, U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria
Gunmen attacked embassy with grenades, automatic weapons, and a car bomb (though second truck bomb failed to detonate). One killed and 13 wounded.
January 12, 2007, U.S. embassy in Athens, Greece
A rocket-propelled grenade was fired at the embassy building. No one was injured.
July 9, 2008, U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey
Armed men attacked consulate with pistols and shotguns. Three policemen killed.
March 18, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Mortar attack misses embassy, hits nearby girls' school instead.
September 17, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Militants dressed as policemen attacked the embassy with RPGs, rifles, grenades and car bombs. Six Yemeni soldiers and seven civilians were killed. Sixteen more were injured.
- Mr. SmartypantsLv 77 years agoFavorite Answer
Yes, the hearings are 100% political. We keep hearing that from Fox News and right wing radio that new evidence will come out about Benghazi -tomorrow- that will change the way we all feel about Obama. But we haven't seen it yet, have we?
This is an old time-honored Republican tradition. They treated Clinton the same way. Make up crimes and spend millions of dollars investigating them, then behave as if all the charges were proven while constantly adding new charges. There is NO difference between Benghazi and the embassy attacks under Bush, except that Obama is a Democrat and the House is controlled by Republicans.
- 7 years ago
With the Benghazi hearings, as we learned yesterday, the administration was in a position to rescue the embassy folks (the rescue team was all set to move in), the administration told the rescue team to stand down. Then, when the attacks killed four Americans that should've been rescued, the current administration intentionally covered it up by telling those involved not to talk to Congress in the event that represenatives asked them any questions.
Also, Hilary Clinton blamed the attack on a YouTube video uploaded by an Israeli, when it turned out that the video she was blaming was uploaded by an Egyptian, not an Israeli - and the video really had nothing to do with it. One of the things that shocked me the most was that apparently Clinton was speaking at a funeral of one of the victims and she said something along the lines of "we'll get the guy who made this video". Um, why not go after the people who were directly responsible? Why not go after the people who killed four innocent Americans?
The American public doesn't like it when their leaders intentionally do bad things and then try to cover it up. For examples of this, see: Whitewater Scandal, Watergate Scandal, etc.
And then on top of all of it, you have the media helping the administration cover it up. Three days before the election, the whistle blowers told the news outlets what was really going on, and instead of releasing that info to the public (which could've cost Obama the election), the media just sat on the story and did not really report it.
That's why this is such a big story now.
Now compare that with the events you mentioned - where the government wasn't responsible for the deaths of those Americans - and, as a result, there was no "cover up".
- Anonymous7 years ago
Because most of the incidents you name happened instantly without the possibility of military intervention by the US. The Benghazi incident was more drawn out and, while we could have sent help, those in charge decided not to. Then they lied about it rather than admit that we had a successful terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9-11. Admitting that would have cast a bad light on Obama's re-election campaign. Yes, the hearing are political, because Obama was playing politics with those people's lives.
- Dan L BounLv 77 years ago
Keep throwing mud at the wall... Surly at some point, something will stick... That's been the GOP agenda, sense 2008... As Mitch McConnell said... Our number one priority, is to make Obama, a one term President... Other than abortion, & gerrymandering... That's pretty much,, all the right, has done...
No help at all, for the working class... Now they've got the auto thief, Darrel Issa, taking a page from Alex Jones, with Benghazi
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous7 years ago
Even with out the current hearings, Benghazi was a MONUMENTAL FU#K-UP ON "EVERY LEVEL," not to mention the lying, distortion and incompetence of the actions (or lack of) of this administration!Source(s): Reality-Awareness of!
- IngridLv 77 years ago
Those hateful smucks in Washington are simply on a fishing expedition while we ar epaying their way?
Why are we not checking into THEIR crazy behavior and lack of work for WE THE PEOPLE?
- How Would I KnowLv 57 years ago
Hrmm.. did the white house lie about any of those attacks being caused by a you tube video? No?
Looks like you've failed again.
- Uncle PennybagsLv 77 years ago
Because there are no issues with any of those embassy attacks.
No allegations of support being denied. No allegations of lies told to the American people about these attacks.
- u_bin_calledLv 77 years ago
Because the Administration, State Department and military responded to questions from the outset.... No further "hearings" were necessary...
- Anonymous7 years ago
Nobody lied about what happened for political reasons before Benghazi.Source(s): And of course, no US Ambassador had been killed since Carter.