There were two disparate parties to be found on Twitter during the Benghazi hearings – those interested in the truth (mostly “Chick-fil-A-loving white males” according to the character assassins at the Washington Post) and those who wanted to refute the findings and defend Obama/H.R. Clinton Administration against the villainous GOP witch-hunt.
The usual partisan hacks were present. However certain opposing posts, which lacked overtly malicious objectives, raised legitimate contentions. There was one person in particular whose questions, posted in earnest, raised legitimate and reasonable points. In sympathizing with the recognizable indignation and underlying passion for the truth behind each post, these posts, coming from a former republican voter who switched parties back in 2008, are worth repeating.
Why don’t we investigate how many people died as a result to Reagan selling weapons to Iran, funding Contra and arming Bin Laden #Benghazi
Several examples exist of presidencies that colluded with questionable allies in efforts to shore up U.S. interests abroad. Throughout Cold War history, presidents from both parties armed freedom fighters and supported contingent operations that fought against oppressive regimes and the Soviet State by proxy. Despite the assumption that Republican presidents were never investigated, the Iran-Contra hearings and the Congressional Task Force on Afghanistan were conducted and did occur.
(Let us not forget that our current president has sent F-16s to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and has lent his support sending lethal arms to Syrian rebels in the past few weeks not to mention the influx of assault weapons getting into the hands of Mexican drug cartels during his Fast and Furious operation).
@Igystrvigy Ah Right wing logic – to bad Bush exploited Pat Tillman even AFTER he was told it was friendly fire.
In his blog post, Streicher writes,
“In April 2004 a brave man who gave up millions in NFL money to fight for his country was killed in Afghanistan. On April 29th the top commander in Afghanistan contacted Central Command and advised them that Mr. Tillman was likely killed by friendly fire and suggested “The president be contacted in order to preclude any unknowing statements which may later embarrass the country” . May 3rd the Bush Administration had a nationally televised memorial for Mr. Tillman and the story was still he was killed by Enemy fire despite knowing better. May 29th it was finally announced that Pat Tillman was killed by friendly fire the official story has never been released and the family is still waiting for answers but the White house had no problem using the death of Mr. Tillman to promote their political agenda.”
In agreeing with Streicher’s assertion that the Bush administration got caught in the cover up of the circumstances surrounding Pat Tillman’s death, there is no denying that the Obama/H.R. Clinton administration got caught yesterday for pushing their political agenda for political gain as well.
The difference is this, the Bush administration never gave orders to stand down nor did they withhold tactical military assistance to those in jeopardy. They never dismissed the call for help. The Obama administration withheld tactical support in a time of need. The Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST) consisting of elite military units whose primary mission is to be “wheels up” ready for rapid deployment to high risk areas, poised to tactically respond to terrorist outbreaks, was commanded to stand down. Yes, troops and diplomats died in other embassy attacks but they were never “on their own”.
Blaming Pat Tillman’s death on behest of enemy combatants did fit into President Bush’s narrative of American exceptionalism with Tillman as the self-sacrificing hero leaving his NFL money to fight for his countrymen. Whereas the Obama/Clinton narrative held that an anti-Islamic video was the protagonist in their blame America first story line. Both narratives were shattered by the facts on the ground.
One cannot reasonably conclude nor argue from a morally relativist standpoint that the actions of these administrations are the same.
When all else fails…
Black President w/ 4 dead American in #Benghazi = 12 investigations /// White President w/ 200 dead in Lebanon = 0 or 3K dead on 9/11 = 0 ??
President Obama was not solely under scrutiny for his handling of the Benghazi attack. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and high-ranking members of the President’s cabinet were under scrutiny as well. (By the way, Clinton isn’t black). Scrutiny of not only the President’s UN address blaming the video when known facts were contrary, but of Clinton’s blaming the video, promising justice to families who knowingly lied about cause of their deaths, and Susan Rice who knowingly lied about the video while making the rounds on Sunday morning news shows were under scrutiny as well.
The fallacy that white presidents are not investigated when investigations were held at length in regards to September 11th (9/11 Commission) and the Beirut embassy bombings/Marine barrack attacks (the Long Commission and U.S. Department of Defense Commission on Beirut International) is just that.
Selective recollection aside, the left’s political lens will not allow facts to penetrate their deeply entrenched worldview that every Republican is inherently racist and that any accusation or call for accountability of President Obama is a racist assault.
Refuting Twitter posts will not change the minds of convicted Progressives; it is no more than a futile effort trying to do so. But for those on the periphery who are apolitical, casual observers of the news who wonder what all the fuss is about over Benghazi (insert Gosnell trial, Fast and Furious), perhaps they will see both sides of these stories and draw their own conclusions giving credence to the cry, “trust, but verify”.