10-25-2017, 03:55 AM
(10-24-2017, 09:13 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I never argued that one way or the other. The fact remains, diplomatic land is US soil. Combine that with a dead ambassador and the immediate reaction of trying to call a duck a pig, and it becomes nothing similar at all, and any comparisons to attempt it fall flat on it's face.
If those soldiers were killed on US soil, and a US ambassador was included in the death toll, and the attack was blamed on spontaneous protests, then get back to me on comparing the two.
They were both terrorists attacks.
The Benghazi consulate was a temporary consulate without a Consul General (because it was fake) which didn't exist before 2011 and was only established after the CIA operation was running and the CIA personnel out numbered the consulate staff 4:1 and ceased to exist in 2012. Are you seriously going to make a case two terrorist attacks are vastly different because for less than 18 months out of the totality of human history a small patch of sand in Lybia was US soil while covering up a CIA operation?
Are you going to argue the life of an American ambassador is more valuable than the life of a US service member? Thus we can't compare one terror attack that left four Americans dead to another terror attack which also left four Americans dead?
Really the only significant difference is the cover story to try to maintain the secrecy of the CIA operation and the sham of a consulate used to provide cover for the CIA operation. So I ask again, what did you expect them to say when they were caught with their hand in the cookie jar?
