Jake Tapper stuns Jeb Bush: If your brother is blameless for 9/11 why is Hillary Clinton responsible
Benghazi?This is such an obvious question, and if Democratic politicians had any spine, they would have asked this a hell of a long time ago, and some variation of it well before Benghazi.
This one question and a couple of aggressive follow up ones, could drive a stake in the heart of any GOP claim to "tough" on defense, and should kill them as a party.
They are not tough on defense. They are "tough" on killing people in other countries to get what they're corporate masters want.
And if their masters are happy with how a country does business with them, why they will look the other way (or worse), just as they did with the Saudi government involvement in 9/11.
That Democrats in and running for political office don't pursue this shows it's just one other area where they don't want any daylight between themselves and the GOP.
But if they aren't on the right side when enough people aren't afraid to ask these questions out loud, they could end up with the GOP as a footnote in history.
JEB BUSH: Well I the question on Benghazi which, is hopefully well now finally get the truth to, is was the place secure? They had a responsibility, the Department of State, to have proper security. There were calls for security, it looks like they didnt get it. And how was the response in the aftermath of the attack, was there a chance that these four American lives could have been saved? Thats what the investigation is about, its not a political issue. Its not about the broad policy issue, is were we doing the job of protecting our embassies and our consulates and during the period, those hours after the attack started, could they have been saved?
TAPPER: Well thats, thats kind of proving the point of the critics I was just asking about, because you dont want to have your brother bear responsibility for 9/11 and I understand that argument and Al Qaedas responsible, but why are the terrorists not the ones who are responsible for these attacks in Libya?
BUSH: They are, of course they are but of course they are, but if the ambassador was asking for additional security and didnt get it, thats a proper point and if its proven that the security was adequate compared to other embassies, fine, well move on.
http://www.cnn.com/video/api/embed.html#
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/19/jake_tapper_stuns_jeb_bush_if_your_brother_is_blameless_for_911_why_is_hillary_clinton_responsible_for_benghazi/
PatrickforO
(14,570 posts)Of course Tapper might be fired by the corporate overlords because of it. If not now then later.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Samantha
(9,314 posts)so I guess Jeb would say Obama is responsible for that.
If something tragic happens under a Democratic administration, it is the Democratic President's fault. If it happens under a Republican President's administration, it is a situation above and beyond the control of the President. Right....
Sam
SusanaMontana41
(3,233 posts)4bucksagallon
(975 posts)...."if its proven that the security was adequate compared to other embassies, fine, well move on."
enid602
(8,615 posts)He should have asked Jeb? if 8 committees on Bengazi lasting eons was not overkill, given that the prospect of any meaningful investigation into 9/11 was scuttled.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)only instead of triggering a migration of white racists from the Democrats to the Republican Party, it would signal that the rich have just about given up on the GOP as their water boy of choice, not because they disagree with their goals but because their ability to win elections is declining. I think we're already seeing this at the presidential level and it will trickle down from there.
The big question is how long the Democrats can hold together as the party of both corporate tools and progressives and which faction will form a new party.
But the GOP can't expand to include Latinos and others and hold on to their base of xenophobes, know nothings, and those nostalgic for Jim Crow.
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)Hoppy
(3,595 posts)Spending for increased security at the embassies.