Little-Acorn
Gold Member
People seem to be keying on the lies told by U.S. officials (up to and including the President) after the Benghazi attacks: They weren't real attacks, they were just protests that went wrong, they were due to a video etc.
That was a coverup, it is now clear. But a far worse coverup by the Obama administration was in place and running, long before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2012.
BACKGROUND
Osama bin Laden was killed on May 2, 2010, by U.S. forces authorized by President Obama. He immediately added it to his campaign theme for reelection: "Bin Laden is dead, and GM is still alive!" And he began reducing security at various American installations, apparently to appease Middle Eastern people and emphasize how benign and cooperative the U.S. now was.
Al Qaeda turned out to be less dead than he had hoped, though, and began testing our defenses, protesting at embassies and Cairo and elsewhere, firing over the walls of various U.S. and British installations etc., and generally undermining Obama's hoped-for image as a peacemaker and diplomat.
Attacks against U.S. buildings in Egypt and Libya picked up in 2012. The embassy and consulate personnel requested more guards and reinforcements from Washington, but the requests were denied, to maintain the image of peaceful relations. Some barbed wire and concrete barriers were added to the Benghazi consulate. Night-vision security cameras were sent, but never installed.
ATTACKS BEFORE SEPT. 11, 2012
Several bombings took place in Benghazi as intelligence reports indicated a deteriorating security situation.
On April 6, two former security guards for the Benghazi consulate threw explosives over the consulate fence. There were no casualties.
A week later, a bomb targeted a convoy carrying the head of the UN mission to Libya. No one was killed.
The Red Cross was attacked in May, causing them to withdraw from Benghazi altogether.
In early June, a bomb was thrown at the front gate of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi. No one was injured.
A bomb was placed against the wall of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in June, blowing a 12-foot hole in it. Further pleas for security improvements were denied by Washington.
A British convoy carrying the UK Ambassador was attacked with rocket-propelled grenades on June 11, injuring two.
REACTION
The Obama administration kept up their efforts at mollifying the militants. State Dept. security forces were replaced with Libyan personnel at Tripoli and Benghazi, and the number of American troops was reduced to a minimum. The administration was apparently concerned that sending American troops overseas while they were assuring the American people that our relations with those countries were improving, would raise the eyebrows of voters for the coming election.
The Obama administration arranged with the Libyan government for a Libyan quick-reaction force to help out in case of attack. Guards at the gates and perimeter of the Benghazi consulate compound, were replaced with Libyan personnel... and those guards were kept unarmed, equipped with only whistles and batons, to present a less offensive image to observers.
WHY WAS IT DONE?
Some people believe that the actions by the Obama administration were an attempt to make American voters (who had heard little about the spring and summer attacks) believe the situation was well in hand, with an election coming in November. Others speculate that the people in the Obama administration honestly and sincerely believed that negotiations, appeasement, and gestures of good will would defuse the situation and produce improved relations between the U.S. and various Muslim groups.
This belief in good will producing good results, is said to be a fundamental part of the Obama faction's ideology. And any attacks or protests are examined only with an eye toward figuring out how we need to approach the people involved and bring them over to our side. The idea that they can never be brought over to our side, is summarily rejected - further negotiations and appeals are the ONLY viable tools to be employed, since they will unquestionably result in eventual success.
RESULTS
By Sept. 2012, the number of American security personnel at the Benghazi consulate had been reduced to three. When Ambassador Stevens came on Sept. 9 for a five-day visit, two bodyguards accompanied him, bringing the total to five. Stevens had previously emailed his superiors in Washington, alerting them to a "security vacuum" in Benghazi. And just before Stevens' visit, the American Embassy warned that Libyan Officials had declared a "state of maximum alert" in Benghazi.
Today, Americans are still looking the wrong way when examining the attacks and the murders of Stevens and three other Americans. They are concentrating on the stories of "protests gone wrong", anger over a video, and other things that happened during and after the attacks themselves.
But the real, most tragic failures came long before the attacks.
Did the Obama administration and State Department deliberately pretend security could be safely reduced in our embassies and consulates, to craft an image of peace and success for the upcoming Nov. 2012 elections? Even as attacks against our facilities kept increasing over that spring and summer, and our personnel on the spot kept pleading for more reinforcements and security?
Did Obama basically trade four American lives in the consulate in Benghazi, Libya, for a bigger electoral margin in the Nov. elections?
That was a coverup, it is now clear. But a far worse coverup by the Obama administration was in place and running, long before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2012.
BACKGROUND
Osama bin Laden was killed on May 2, 2010, by U.S. forces authorized by President Obama. He immediately added it to his campaign theme for reelection: "Bin Laden is dead, and GM is still alive!" And he began reducing security at various American installations, apparently to appease Middle Eastern people and emphasize how benign and cooperative the U.S. now was.
Al Qaeda turned out to be less dead than he had hoped, though, and began testing our defenses, protesting at embassies and Cairo and elsewhere, firing over the walls of various U.S. and British installations etc., and generally undermining Obama's hoped-for image as a peacemaker and diplomat.
Attacks against U.S. buildings in Egypt and Libya picked up in 2012. The embassy and consulate personnel requested more guards and reinforcements from Washington, but the requests were denied, to maintain the image of peaceful relations. Some barbed wire and concrete barriers were added to the Benghazi consulate. Night-vision security cameras were sent, but never installed.
ATTACKS BEFORE SEPT. 11, 2012
Several bombings took place in Benghazi as intelligence reports indicated a deteriorating security situation.
On April 6, two former security guards for the Benghazi consulate threw explosives over the consulate fence. There were no casualties.
A week later, a bomb targeted a convoy carrying the head of the UN mission to Libya. No one was killed.
The Red Cross was attacked in May, causing them to withdraw from Benghazi altogether.
In early June, a bomb was thrown at the front gate of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi. No one was injured.
A bomb was placed against the wall of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in June, blowing a 12-foot hole in it. Further pleas for security improvements were denied by Washington.
A British convoy carrying the UK Ambassador was attacked with rocket-propelled grenades on June 11, injuring two.
REACTION
The Obama administration kept up their efforts at mollifying the militants. State Dept. security forces were replaced with Libyan personnel at Tripoli and Benghazi, and the number of American troops was reduced to a minimum. The administration was apparently concerned that sending American troops overseas while they were assuring the American people that our relations with those countries were improving, would raise the eyebrows of voters for the coming election.
The Obama administration arranged with the Libyan government for a Libyan quick-reaction force to help out in case of attack. Guards at the gates and perimeter of the Benghazi consulate compound, were replaced with Libyan personnel... and those guards were kept unarmed, equipped with only whistles and batons, to present a less offensive image to observers.
WHY WAS IT DONE?
Some people believe that the actions by the Obama administration were an attempt to make American voters (who had heard little about the spring and summer attacks) believe the situation was well in hand, with an election coming in November. Others speculate that the people in the Obama administration honestly and sincerely believed that negotiations, appeasement, and gestures of good will would defuse the situation and produce improved relations between the U.S. and various Muslim groups.
This belief in good will producing good results, is said to be a fundamental part of the Obama faction's ideology. And any attacks or protests are examined only with an eye toward figuring out how we need to approach the people involved and bring them over to our side. The idea that they can never be brought over to our side, is summarily rejected - further negotiations and appeals are the ONLY viable tools to be employed, since they will unquestionably result in eventual success.
RESULTS
By Sept. 2012, the number of American security personnel at the Benghazi consulate had been reduced to three. When Ambassador Stevens came on Sept. 9 for a five-day visit, two bodyguards accompanied him, bringing the total to five. Stevens had previously emailed his superiors in Washington, alerting them to a "security vacuum" in Benghazi. And just before Stevens' visit, the American Embassy warned that Libyan Officials had declared a "state of maximum alert" in Benghazi.
Today, Americans are still looking the wrong way when examining the attacks and the murders of Stevens and three other Americans. They are concentrating on the stories of "protests gone wrong", anger over a video, and other things that happened during and after the attacks themselves.
But the real, most tragic failures came long before the attacks.
Did the Obama administration and State Department deliberately pretend security could be safely reduced in our embassies and consulates, to craft an image of peace and success for the upcoming Nov. 2012 elections? Even as attacks against our facilities kept increasing over that spring and summer, and our personnel on the spot kept pleading for more reinforcements and security?
Did Obama basically trade four American lives in the consulate in Benghazi, Libya, for a bigger electoral margin in the Nov. elections?
