What apology tour?<quoted text>
My simplistic take on this article is that it sounds like an apology article to go along with Obama's apology tour. I understand the concept of American not having the right to inflict its will on other countries, just as I understand the concept of this world needing SOMEONE with morals regarding human rights needing to stand for that no matter what. The jihadists would glady go for world domination and take away all rights from all peoples; therefore, someone strong should stand against it. I also see how some American greed and avarice would also affect those interactions.
I didn't even listen to Mitt's statement right after Benghazi. I just felt it was important that if we DO send American ambassadors to other countries, we should also have whatever is necessary to keep them safe available to them at all times, and apparently this administration did not take those precautions, nor as now is apparent, even send help AFTER the attack started. I feel this administration failed in that regard, kn that responsibility to our citizens, and my opinion has nothing to do with Mitt Romney.
Which fact checker would you like? Politifact? FactCheck? American Conservative? This is the internet. Where truncated quotes can fact checked for full context.
But I agree with the rest of that paragraph. The second wanders into opinion, which I care not to take as the gospel until we know the full story.
What Happened in Benghazi
Though I am in no way a fan of President Obama’s foreign and security policies, the flailing that the Republican Party is engaging in at the moment to demonstrate some kind of cover-up in the aftermath of the Benghazi attack reveals a complete lack of understanding of how intelligence collection and analysis works. David Ignatius explores the subject in an op-ed,“CIA documents supported Susan Rice’s description of Benghazi attacks.”
Ignatius observes that intelligence is developed when something happens and that evidence is frequently “fragmentary and conflicting.” While there may be such a thing as incontrovertible facts relating to any incident, that solid information is something that frequently cannot be easily discerned. Ignatius notes that Republicans have been beating Obama over the head most recently with the assertion that there was a CIA Station Chief cable the day after the killing of the ambassador that indicated that the attack had been planned and organized by a militant group. But I would bet that there were at least 15 other reports that went out the same day that provided alternative scenarios. If you intercept a cell phone call in which someone is claiming credit for organizing an attack, is he speaking the truth or is he boasting and trying to take credit for some reason or other? If a source in a militia is claiming that he knows who ordered the attack, does he have an agenda that is driving his claim? All of that has to be sorted out, which takes time and cross checking.