Bengazi

Quote from futurecurrents:

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.
More...

Have you been huffing the Freon again? One has to suspend reality to believe this was not a well organized attack by well trained terrorists. Cairo was a protest. Bunch of people yelling and screaming, throwing a few rocks, occasionally setting a car afire.
spontaneous protestors don't have motors and assault weapons. They don't use advanced style tactics while breaching the wall.
 
Quote from CaptainObvious:

Have you been huffing the Freon again? One has to suspend reality to believe this was not a well organized attack by well trained terrorists. Cairo was a protest. Bunch of people yelling and screaming, throwing a few rocks, occasionally setting a car afire.
spontaneous protestors don't have motors and assault weapons. They don't use advanced style tactics while breaching the wall.
More...

" turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.

The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.

Surveillance of the American compound appears to have been underway at least 12 hours before the assault started.
The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses as well as many American officials who have viewed the footage from security cameras."
 
what a bunch crap - when the witnesses are allowed to appear perhaps we might believe leftist reporting. Till then it is obvious the left is in full cover up mode.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...lasts-ny-times-benghazi-claims-as-misleading/

New York Rep. Peter King, member and former chairman of the House’s Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told Fox News the argument that the most overtly anti-Western militia, Ansar al-Shariah – not Al Qaeda – led the attack is an academic argument over semantics, considering Ansar al-Shariah is widely believed to be an affiliate terror group of Al Qaeda.

“It’s misleading,” King said. “It’s a distinction without a difference.”
 
"In this case, a central figure in the attack was an eccentric, malcontent militia leader, Ahmed Abu Khattala, according to numerous Libyans present at the time. American officials briefed on the American criminal investigation into the killings call him a prime suspect. Mr. Abu Khattala declared openly and often that he placed the United States not far behind Colonel Qaddafi on his list of infidel enemies. But he had no known affiliations with terrorist groups, and he had escaped scrutiny from the 20-person C.I.A. station in Benghazi that was set up to monitor the local situation."
 
"In several hours of interviews, including ones conducted in the days before he became a prime suspect in the assault, Mr. Abu Khattala said he had no connections to Al Qaeda. But he never hid his admiration for its vision.
“The enmity between the American government and the peoples of the world is an old case,” he said. “Why is the United States always trying to use force to implement its agendas?”

Muslims and Christians, he later argued, were fighting an inexorable war. “The problem is in the nature of religions,” he said. “There is always hostility between the religions.”"
 
"There is no doubt that anger over the video motivated many attackers. A Libyan journalist working for The New York Times was blocked from entering by the sentries outside, and he learned of the film from the fighters who stopped him. Other Libyan witnesses, too, said they received lectures from the attackers about the evil of the film and the virtue of defending the prophet.'


And rumors of Libyans killed at the compound served as further motivation.
 
Eh, they've been trying & trying to pin something, anything, on Obama. And re Hillary, it'll be even more come 2016 since then they've got Obama + Clinton, or Republican BS squared; probably cubed is more likely.
Al Qaeda was never needed to explain what happened in Libya, either in Benghazi or with Qaddafi. It's a tribal country, and always will be. Qaddafi belonged to a tribe which, in the hierarchy of Libyan tribes, had been at the bottom of the pile before he came along. It went right back there once he was killed.
Trying to explain that to someone who's ignorance of the ME is bottomless is completely hopeless. Everything is centered on the US to a right-winger obsessed with Obama, so of course Benghazi and Qaddafi would be all about the US, rather than being all about Libya and its internal dynamics. The rest of the world only exists as a place on which to play out the endless kindergarten level crap about whether Obama/Clinton/Kerry/you-name-the-Democrat is being weak when dealing with Al Qaeda/Arabs/Hamas/Hizbollah/you-name-it.

Morons.
 
Ok last excerpt...

"But much of the debate about Benghazi in Washington has revolved around statements made four days later in television interviews by Ms. Rice, who was then ambassador to the United Nations.
“What happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo,” she said on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” “almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, prompted by the video.”
Republicans, pouncing on the misstatement, have argued that the Obama administration was trying to cover up Al Qaeda’s role. “It was very clear to the individuals on the ground that this was an Al Qaeda-led event,” Representative Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican who is the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said last month on Fox News.
“This was a preplanned, organized terrorist event,” he said, “not a video. That whole part was debunked time and time again.”
But the Republican arguments appear to conflate purely local extremist organizations like Ansar al-Shariah with Al Qaeda’s international terrorist network. The only intelligence connecting Al Qaeda to the attack was an intercepted phone call that night from a participant in the first wave of the attack to a friend in another African country who had ties to members of Al Qaeda, according to several officials briefed on the call. But when the friend heard the attacker’s boasts, he sounded astonished, the officials said, suggesting he had no prior knowledge of the assault.
 
Typical leftist nonsense. Shift the topic to the irrelevant. Al Qaeda, a affiliated group, another terrorist group altogether...makes no difference as that ain't the story. Leftists don't want to talk about the real story, which is, why was this American outpost such a poorly defended position given all the events leading up to the attack? Events which lasted for months. Why was the Secretary of State so completely in the dark about these events and the general worsening condition overall? Why, during the highly coordinated attack, did the administration decide to take a watch and see what happens position? An attack of which they had real time intel coming to them. Why did they turn a deaf ear to the cries for help when a Rapid Response team was at the ready? Instead they want to talk about whether those doing the attacking were wearing their Bin Laden Rocks t-shirts or not. Year and a half and this is still all they got. Pathetic!

Quote from futurecurrents:

Ok last excerpt...

"But much of the debate about Benghazi in Washington has revolved around statements made four days later in television interviews by Ms. Rice, who was then ambassador to the United Nations.
“What happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo,” she said on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” “almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, prompted by the video.”
Republicans, pouncing on the misstatement, have argued that the Obama administration was trying to cover up Al Qaeda’s role. “It was very clear to the individuals on the ground that this was an Al Qaeda-led event,” Representative Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican who is the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said last month on Fox News.
“This was a preplanned, organized terrorist event,” he said, “not a video. That whole part was debunked time and time again.”
But the Republican arguments appear to conflate purely local extremist organizations like Ansar al-Shariah with Al Qaeda’s international terrorist network. The only intelligence connecting Al Qaeda to the attack was an intercepted phone call that night from a participant in the first wave of the attack to a friend in another African country who had ties to members of Al Qaeda, according to several officials briefed on the call. But when the friend heard the attacker’s boasts, he sounded astonished, the officials said, suggesting he had no prior knowledge of the assault.
More...
 
Quote from CaptainObvious:

Typical leftist nonsense. Shift the topic to the irrelevant. Al Qaeda, a affiliated group, another terrorist group altogether...makes no difference as that ain't the story. Leftists don't want to talk about the real story, which is, why was this American outpost such a poorly defended position given all the events leading up to the attack? Events which lasted for months. Why was the Secretary of State so completely in the dark about these events and the general worsening condition overall? Why, during the highly coordinated attack, did the administration decide to take a watch and see what happens position? An attack of which they had real time intel coming to them. Why did they turn a deaf ear to the cries for help when a Rapid Response team was at the ready? Instead they want to talk about whether those doing the attacking were wearing their Bin Laden Rocks t-shirts or not. Year and a half and this is still all they got. Pathetic!
More...

Typical righty ignorance, baseless accusations and delusions.

About the security situation, from the article...

"
Taking stock of the deteriorating security situation on Aug. 8, 2012, a cable titled “The Guns of August” and signed by Mr. Stevens struck an understanding tone about the absence of effective policing.
It noted that Libyans were wary about the imposition of a strong security apparatus so soon after they expunged Colonel Qaddafi’s. “A diverse group of independent actors” — including criminals and “former regime elements” as well as “Islamist extremists” — was exploiting the vacuum, the cable said. But it found no signs of an organized campaign against the West.

The Americans had another reason to feel secure: the team of at least 20 people from the Central Intelligence Agency operating out of an unmarked Benghazi compound known as “the Annex” that was about a half-mile southeast of the mission.
Some were highly skilled commandos. “I knew the backup guys at the Annex, who were quite heavily trained and equipped,” said an Obama administration official who visited in the months before the attack.
In addition to buying up weapons spilled out during the revolt, the team was assigned to gather intelligence about anti-Western terrorists and the big militia leaders. But there were hundreds of small brigades, affiliations were fluid and overlapping, and the agents often found themselves turning to Mr. Stevens for advice because he seemed to know the militia leaders better than any other American expert."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top