Who truly has blood on their hands?
I would like to respond with facts to Paul Bischoff's statements in the Oct. 14 Daily Herald saying Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have "blood on their hands" regarding the Benghazi attack that tragically resulted in the deaths of four Americans.
First, The New York Times reported that the requests made to the State Department were not for increased security for the Benghazi consulate, they were for the Embassy in Tripoli, Libya. Tripoli is 630 miles from Benghazi and would require a 13 hour one way trip, according to Google maps. Granting the request for Tripoli would have little preventable value for the Benghazi attack.
Secondly, from the date of the Cairo initial demonstration (riot) there have been 60 "headline" demonstrations regarding this movie trailer about Islam (according to the UK Guardian). They have occurred throughout the "Muslim" world also including such al-Qaida "hot spots" as Australia, Germany, France, Israel, and the United Kingdom.
Yes, the State Department misspoke about Benghazi. However, when confronted by the sheer number of protests regarding the movie and the immediate demand for an explanation as to whether it was "terror" or "the movie". They made a "call" after the attack and it was wrong. However, this, in my opinion, does not place "blood on their hands."
In the super heated political campaign this is being used by Mr. Bischoff, Fox News and conservative radio to use this horror to score political points. When they are willing to admit that President Bush and Vice President Cheney have buckets of blood on their hands based upon their mistakes about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I will be willing to seriously consider his accusations.