Thoughts on Benghazi, Sorting The Dereliction Out

Discussion in 'Politics' started by bitterlyclingin, Sep 29, 2012.

  1. bitterlyclingin

    bitterlyclingin Silver Member

    Aug 4, 2011
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    [Here are a couple of articles that should rightly turn a patriotic Americans stomach re: what happened in Benghazi and what led up to it. Are we in trouble? Answer that yourself after reading.]

    "It is a common tactic among politicians and others who are in trouble to plead guilty to a lesser offense in order to distract attention from their real transgression. That is, I think, what the Obama administration has done in admitting belatedly that the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was an act of terrorism, not, as Mark Steyn put it, a movie review that got out of hand. Scott detailed that sorry history earlier this morning. The administration hopes, I think, that acknowledging the obvious with respect to the nature of the attack will allow the press to put the whole issue aside until after the election.

    But an important question remains–a question that is not only important, but is far more explosive, politically, than how the genesis of the event is classified. That question is, what happened to Ambassador Stevens? In particular, when and how did he die? Who killed him? And what lapses on the part of the Obama/Clinton State Department made his murder sickeningly easy?

    The administration first put out the story that Stevens, who fled to a supposedly safe house along with several others during the first wave of the attack, was overcome by smoke inhalation and, apparently, abandoned by whoever had been with him. He was then found by a group of friendly Libyans who rushed him to the nearest hospital, where he was pronounced dead from smoke inhalation by a physician who added that there were no signs of any other injury. There you have it: Stevens’ death was virtually accidental.

    But the facts never aligned with this narrative. Stevens’ whereabouts were unknown for a long time; the estimates I have seen range between four and ten hours. No one has tried to explain why the terrorists who attacked the safe house mysteriously disappeared long enough to allow a friendly crowd to rescue the ambassador, only, apparently, to return some hours later to attack the relief force from Tripoli. And, most of all, the videos and photographs that have emerged on the internet do not support the administration’s narrative. One brief video clip purports to show the discovery of the ambassador–still alive–by a group of Libyans who might be friendly. But the photographs of what happened thereafter, which are surprisingly few in number, under the circumstances, obviously do not show Stevens in the hands of solicitous Libyans who are rushing him to the hospital. On the contrary:

    The appalling possibility, of course, is that Stevens survived the initial attack on the safe house and was later murdered by the terrorists or by the mob that we see in the photographs. Such a scenario is consistent with the hypothesis that Stevens was the target of the attack from the beginning, and that the terrorists had been leaked intelligence about the place to which he would flee from an attack on the consulate. At present, his fate during the missing hours is unknown, except for what we can infer from the pictures. An account in one Arabic-language newspaper is so horrifying that I will not describe it here.

    What we do know is that through its gross negligence, the Obama administration got an American ambassador (and, of course, several others) murdered and dragged triumphantly through the streets by an Arab mob. From there, the story can only get worse. It is the facts surrounding the death of Ambassador Stevens that the Obama administration desperately wants to keep secret until after the election, and it will happily plead guilty to misclassifying the cause of the event if that will enable the press arm of its campaign to change the subject."

    Benghazi: The Unanswered Question | Power Line

    "For over forty years now, the Watergate scandal — the June 1972 break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters and the subsequent cover-up by the Nixon administration — has been the sine qua non of American political malfeasance. It has been followed by myriad other “gates” affecting both parties but has never been superseded.

    Until now.

    Benghazi or Benghazigate, as some call it, is worse. Far worse. Incomparably worse.

    Watergate caught numerous public officials lying, including the president of the United States, but Benghazigate has all that and more.

    It involves the terrorist murder (not an electorally irrelevant burglary) of government officials, their reckless endangerment, the undermining of the Bill of Rights and free speech by our own administration in response to Islamist threats, and, ultimately, the complicity of that same administration, consciously or unconsciously, in the downfall of Western civilization.

    Meanwhile, the mainstream media function as their more-than-willing accomplices in this downfall, in essence as Obama’s court eunuchs.

    Sound excessive?

    Hear me out.

    But first a word from Democratic pollster Pat Caddell, who evidently feels the same way:

    First of all, we’ve had 9 days of lies.…If a president of either party…had had a terrorist incident and gotten on an airplane [after remarks] and flown off to a fundraiser in Las Vegas, they would have been crucified…it should have been, should have been, the equivalent, for Barack Obama, of George Bush’s “flying over Katrina” moment. But nothing was said at all. Nothing will be said. [...] It is [unacceptable] to specifically decide that you will not tell the American people information they have a right to know. [The MSM] has made themselves the enemy of the American people. It is a threat to the very future of the country; we’ve crossed a new and frightening line on the slippery slope, and it needs to be talked about. (h/t: The Anchoress)

    Not to mention Democratic pundit Kirsten Powers:

    There are so many unanswered questions, not just about Libya, but also about Cairo. Who is it that Rice thinks “widely disseminated” this “movie?” Surely she can’t believe that the Egyptian Coptic Christian who made the video had the capacity or even desire to put it in the hands of the people who did the inciting. Also, has the administration noticed that the mob in Cairo, so spontaneously upset about the video, just happened to be carrying an Islamist flag to hoist over our embassy? On 9/11. What a massive coincidence…. They say curiosity killed the cat. In this case, lack of curiosity on the part of the American media very well may kill more Americans. (h/t: Hot Air)

    And so on. There’s more at both of these links. Watergate is child’s play by comparison.

    What really is going on here? Terrorism and rioting broke out all over the Muslim world on 9/11. What caused it? We thought Osama bin Laden was supposed to be dead. But apparently the assassination of bin Laden meant little. Actually, only an idiot would think otherwise.

    (“Obama, Obama, we are all Osama!” Evidently.)

    Obviously, an ideology is at play — a gigantic, uncompromising ideology — that our government refuses to confront or even recognize. And our media, with a few exceptions, barely looks at it either. Nevertheless, a direct line exists from the denial of Islamic influence in the Ft. Hood massacre (even though Major Hasan yelled “Allahu Akbar” in the process of killing or maiming forty-two of his fellow soldiers) and what occurred in Benghazi, Cairo, and elsewhere.

    Our government, more than ever under Obama, has never named our enemy, making it all the more likely that enemy will engulf us. Indeed, as has been described here at PJ Media, government directives exist to avoid imputation of Islamic or even Islamist terror motivation by the State Department, Defense Department, or the FBI.

    You could say that is appeasement. Unfortunately, I am beginning to think it is more than that. It is, on the part of some, intentional.

    We can trace that back, among other places, to Obama’s famous Cairo speech. That speech was naïve, yes, but even more it was subversive in its intentions. Obama wanted to make outreach to and common cause with an Islamic culture that is misogynistic, homophobic, and in favor of the ascendancy of religious Sharia law over state law across a globe ruled by an Islamic caliphate — in other words, against the very fabric of everything on which this country was founded, not to mention Western civilization, the Enlightenment, etc.

    Think of that, my fellow Americans. That is what Barack Obama did on our behalf — and the media lapped up unquestioningly.

    Liberals, most of all, you would think would abhor this. But they don’t. They have been brainwashed out of their ideology — that is, assuming they ever had one.

    And that, of course, is the work our media. They say Islam is a “shame culture,” but we have become one too. Our media is too ashamed to admit they made a mistake about Barack Obama, so ashamed they are willing to look the other way at every occasion.

    So what do we do if, as Pat Caddell says, channeling Ibsen, the MSM is the new “enemy of the people”? How do we respond? Well, we yell and scream as loud as we can, for one thing. That’s what I’m attempting to do now....."

    Roger L. Simon » Benghazi Worse than Watergate

    [Had enough? Will there even be an America left in 2016? Or will it be simply one world under Sharia Law if Obama is re elected? Second article courtesy powerlineblog]

Share This Page