Benghazi . . . an indepth account.
http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/?/?chapt=0#/?chapt=0
http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/?/?chapt=0#/?chapt=0
Bengazi
- Thread starter Spike Trader
- Start date
Occam's razor
a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities.
It turns out that Occamâs razor was the original theory minus the multi layered political expedient conspiracy theories was closest to the truth.
Therefore the video did play a part in the compound siege as it played a part in multiple other embassy sieges on the same day at the same time.
The question should have been, who dubbed the video into Arabic then posted it on line one month before the 9/11 anniversary and just before the presidential elections.
Who forwarded the video to Arabic TV channels via email and what were they trying to achieve during the hotbed of the Arab spring?
A tragedy has been turned into political farce and sideshow entertainment aimed at discrediting everyone who didnât go along with the phony outrage narrative.
It was used as an issue for Romney to win an election and in full knowledge that it was purely done for political gain.
It was used against Hillary Clinton to try and discredit her for 2016.
It cost multi millions of dollars to investigate,
It has been subject to selective, out of context leaking and true versions have been repressed, something Republicans used to great effect in the build up to war in Iraq.
It has been a shameless and dishonorable act carried out by the Issa Inquisition that has drowned out the truth with relentless innuendo.
Occamâs Razor.
The simplest answer is most often the truth.
a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities.
It turns out that Occamâs razor was the original theory minus the multi layered political expedient conspiracy theories was closest to the truth.
Therefore the video did play a part in the compound siege as it played a part in multiple other embassy sieges on the same day at the same time.
The question should have been, who dubbed the video into Arabic then posted it on line one month before the 9/11 anniversary and just before the presidential elections.
Who forwarded the video to Arabic TV channels via email and what were they trying to achieve during the hotbed of the Arab spring?
A tragedy has been turned into political farce and sideshow entertainment aimed at discrediting everyone who didnât go along with the phony outrage narrative.
It was used as an issue for Romney to win an election and in full knowledge that it was purely done for political gain.
It was used against Hillary Clinton to try and discredit her for 2016.
It cost multi millions of dollars to investigate,
It has been subject to selective, out of context leaking and true versions have been repressed, something Republicans used to great effect in the build up to war in Iraq.
It has been a shameless and dishonorable act carried out by the Issa Inquisition that has drowned out the truth with relentless innuendo.
Occamâs Razor.
The simplest answer is most often the truth.
The GOP has become truly disgusting. Reagan is rolling over..
Obstruct, deny, deceive, destroy, visciously accuse with little evidence. Low politics.
Obstruct, deny, deceive, destroy, visciously accuse with little evidence. Low politics.
".............turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATOâs extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam."
Hillary's exasperation is totally understandable.
Hillary's exasperation is totally understandable.
The coverup continues. The OP is correct about one thing. There is a simple explanation. Incompetency, cowardice at the highest levels and election politics produced a disaster that turned into an obvious coverup.
Incredibly, months after Obama and Clinton's lies about the video were discredited, the NYTimes is out there peddling the same ridiculous narrative. Of course, their goal is to insulate Hillary Clinton from any responsibility for her incompetency and poor judgment and her role in the ensuing coverup.
Hillary clearly is an expert at coverups, having perfected it during her time at the scandal-ridden Rose Law frim in Arkansas and turning it into an art form as First Lady.
Benghazi was clearly the result of a number of factors, chiefly monumental incompetency by the leaders of the State Department and CIA. A murky State/CIA operation was being run with no security despite high profile in a dangerous area. Requests for additional security were ignored. When the inevitable happened, the administration froze at the wheel, ordering rescue forces to stand down and hanging out the security detail, former SEALs, to die.
As bad as the attack and the coverup were, the adminsitration's cowardly inaction in the aftermath were worse. Their idea of a response was to send in FBI agents weeks later to wander around and gather "evidence." Incredibly, they treated a clear-cut terrorist assault as a criminal justice matter, not an act of war requiring an immediate and overwhelming response. They had a drone in the air as the attack unfolded, so it is obvious they knew which militias did it. They could have followed them back to their compound. They could have called in air attacks on them either during the attack or afterwards. Instead, this administration did nothing.
60 Minutes reporter and middle east expert Lara Logan made the point that this is exactly the kind of non-response that the Clinton administration offered to terrorist outrages in Africa, eg embassy bombings and the Blackhawk Down disaster. Did we win friends by just taking it? Or did we embolden them, leading to 9/11?
Incredibly, months after Obama and Clinton's lies about the video were discredited, the NYTimes is out there peddling the same ridiculous narrative. Of course, their goal is to insulate Hillary Clinton from any responsibility for her incompetency and poor judgment and her role in the ensuing coverup.
Hillary clearly is an expert at coverups, having perfected it during her time at the scandal-ridden Rose Law frim in Arkansas and turning it into an art form as First Lady.
Benghazi was clearly the result of a number of factors, chiefly monumental incompetency by the leaders of the State Department and CIA. A murky State/CIA operation was being run with no security despite high profile in a dangerous area. Requests for additional security were ignored. When the inevitable happened, the administration froze at the wheel, ordering rescue forces to stand down and hanging out the security detail, former SEALs, to die.
As bad as the attack and the coverup were, the adminsitration's cowardly inaction in the aftermath were worse. Their idea of a response was to send in FBI agents weeks later to wander around and gather "evidence." Incredibly, they treated a clear-cut terrorist assault as a criminal justice matter, not an act of war requiring an immediate and overwhelming response. They had a drone in the air as the attack unfolded, so it is obvious they knew which militias did it. They could have followed them back to their compound. They could have called in air attacks on them either during the attack or afterwards. Instead, this administration did nothing.
60 Minutes reporter and middle east expert Lara Logan made the point that this is exactly the kind of non-response that the Clinton administration offered to terrorist outrages in Africa, eg embassy bombings and the Blackhawk Down disaster. Did we win friends by just taking it? Or did we embolden them, leading to 9/11?
from the article. I recommend righties try and read it. Only a nitwit would casually dismiss the NY Times reporting, one of the best papers in the nation.
"Fifteen months after Mr. Stevensâs death, the question of responsibility remains a searing issue in Washington, framed by two contradictory story lines.
One has it that the video, which was posted on YouTube, inspired spontaneous street protests that got out of hand. This version, based on early intelligence reports, was initially offered publicly by Susan E. Rice, who is now Mr. Obamaâs national security adviser.
The other, favored by Republicans, holds that Mr. Stevens died in a carefully planned assault by Al Qaeda to mark the anniversary of its strike on the United States 11 years before. Republicans have accused the Obama administration of covering up evidence of Al Qaedaâs role to avoid undermining the presidentâs claim that the group has been decimated, in part because of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
The investigation by The Times shows that the reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of those story lines suggests. Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs."
"Fifteen months after Mr. Stevensâs death, the question of responsibility remains a searing issue in Washington, framed by two contradictory story lines.
One has it that the video, which was posted on YouTube, inspired spontaneous street protests that got out of hand. This version, based on early intelligence reports, was initially offered publicly by Susan E. Rice, who is now Mr. Obamaâs national security adviser.
The other, favored by Republicans, holds that Mr. Stevens died in a carefully planned assault by Al Qaeda to mark the anniversary of its strike on the United States 11 years before. Republicans have accused the Obama administration of covering up evidence of Al Qaedaâs role to avoid undermining the presidentâs claim that the group has been decimated, in part because of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
The investigation by The Times shows that the reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of those story lines suggests. Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs."
yeah, that's the one I believe. Seems pretty obvious, and the democrats know it.
Don't forget the convenient head injury Hillary suffered making it impossible for her to answer even simple questions.
But no matter how stupid democrats are, republicans are always even stupider, so the first thing you heard on FOX was accusations of negligence by Obama.
I don't care about the negligence, that could happen to anybody, but I do care about the lie and the cover up.
The debate over whether or not the attackers were Al Qaeda linked or not is irrelevant. The fact is they were a well organized terrorist group, not a bunch of pissed off protesters as the administration tried to have us believe. The fact is this attack was well organized, impossible to be this well coordinated as a spontaneous event. Consequently any link to the video and/or protests in Cairo are purely coincidental.
The two real questions remain unanswered. Why were the Ambassador and his team such easy targets in such a well known hotbed of terrorist activity? Using Acams Razor as the OP suggests, the answer is diplomatic indifference. Clinton was too busy jetting around the world building her resume' for the 2016 campaign. Simple as that! The second, and more troubling question is why was help denied after the attack began? Rapid response teams were readily available and within reach. Why were they not deployed? The answer that comes from the administration is that they really didn't know how big or how long the attack would last. Really? That would be the exact reason the RR teams should have been deployed. How did the administration know the attack wouldn't last for many hours, or even days?
Bottom line, the administration, specifically Clinton and her team dropped the ball at all timelines involved. Beginning, middle and end. All events occurring after the fact is purely political cover. Something a biased and willfully ignorant press is only to happy to provide.
The two real questions remain unanswered. Why were the Ambassador and his team such easy targets in such a well known hotbed of terrorist activity? Using Acams Razor as the OP suggests, the answer is diplomatic indifference. Clinton was too busy jetting around the world building her resume' for the 2016 campaign. Simple as that! The second, and more troubling question is why was help denied after the attack began? Rapid response teams were readily available and within reach. Why were they not deployed? The answer that comes from the administration is that they really didn't know how big or how long the attack would last. Really? That would be the exact reason the RR teams should have been deployed. How did the administration know the attack wouldn't last for many hours, or even days?
Bottom line, the administration, specifically Clinton and her team dropped the ball at all timelines involved. Beginning, middle and end. All events occurring after the fact is purely political cover. Something a biased and willfully ignorant press is only to happy to provide.
Well you're free to make up your own facts but...you seem to have missed that it was NOT Al Qaeda. A small but important thing. So there was no lie or cover up. Another small point.
It was also not "well organized" in that it largely occurred in response to the video exactly like Rice said. Another "small" point.