WHY Are We Still Talking About Benghazi?

Last week, Congressional Republicans launched what was supposed to be the Hearings To End All Hearings on Benghazi. In addition to providing excellent fundraising fodder and red meat for an empty-headed conservative base, the Republicans were hoping against hope that the hearings would uncover hidden truths that would prove to be a presidency-ending scandal for Obama.

What actually happened, however, is that the hearings were a waste of everyone's time. They did not tell us anything we had not already known about the Benghazi attacks or the subsequent White House response to those attacks.

So here in reality land, where no right-winger has gone before, what are the actual facts compared to the Republican talking points on Benghazi?

Obama called it a "spontaneous attack"!
In its initial assessment, the intelligence community thought that the attacks were spontaneous. Thus, that's what they put in the talking points memo given to Obama:

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Benghazi%20Talking%20Points%20Timeline.pdf

When that was proven to be untrue, the intelligence community changed its assessment.


"Obama didn't call it an act of terror!"
The day after the attacks, Obama said the following in the Rose Garden at the White House:

                    "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that
                     character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for"

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/17/politics/fact-check-terror


Why didn't the military respond to the attacks?
According to an assessment by Leon Panetta, fighters scrambled in response to the attacks would not have arrived at the embassy in time to actually do anything about the attacks:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/07/leon-panetta-benghazi_n_2638283.html


Republicans were champing at the bit in November to hear testimony from General Petraeus on the Benghazi matter. There were conspiracy theories at the time that word about Petraeus' affair had been timed to discredit him so that he could not spill the beans over the alleged cover-ups involving the Benghazi attacks.

Now that Petraeus has actually testified that there was no conspiracy involving Benghazi, Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA) is now saying that Petraeus' testimony, formerly highly valued by Republicans, is not trustworthy:

GREGORY: Chairman, my reporting of the immediate aftermath of this talking to       administration officials is that CIA Director David Petraeus made it clear when he briefed top officials that there was a spontaneous element to this, that it was not completely known that this was a terrorist attack right away. You don't give any credence to the notion that there was some fog of war, that there were conflicting circumstances about what went on here?

          ISSA: David Petraeus said what the administration wanted him to say is the indication.

 http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51857413/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/#.UZGRu8plFWm


There is no conspiracy or cover-up surrounding Benghazi. It is not a scandal. Almost everything Republicans have been claiming about Benghazi is either a lie or a misrepresentation of the facts as we know them. There's no doubt that the loss of any American lives abroad - especially those lost due to terrorist activities - is tragic. We should be angry about what happened, and we should demand answers. Now that we have those answers, however, it's time to move on with our lives.