Quote:How can you continue to harp on Hillary without acknowledging what Bush did? He knew an attack was coming, did nothing to stop it (negligently or wilfully), then acted like it was a complete surprise and outrage.


The difference is that Hillary Clinton did not use Benghazi to strip Americans of their rights and start two wars that, conveniently, were great for the companies that key members of that administration has a stake in. It's not deflection; it's a valid question. How can you ride Hillary into the ground over Benghazi with a straight face while not demanding to know why Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld played a key role in allowing 9/11 to happen and realized great personal gains as a result of it?

 

The short answer to your question is the very topic of this thread.

 

The longer answer... if you want to look at the "issues" and "problems" in the Middle East right now, you need to go back a lot further.  I would actually possibly point to none other than Jimmy Carter as being the President that presided over this mess, though it can be traced further back.

 

The attacks on 9/11 were a "possibility" though the specifics were not presented.  They are very two different events and very different circumstances.  There was the "possibility" of a terrorist attack happening in 2001.  In 2012 it was more of an imminent threat.  All of the signs and all of the intelligence was there on the internet.

---