- Dec 18, 2011
- 12,919
- 4,823
- 350
Thanks for the very insightful analysis and the expert critique, much appreciated. (and agreed to an some extent, though I don't believe the attack would've have taken place if assurances weren't extended to the attackers that resistance would be minimal.) I never take everything I read at that site as the gospel truth. Often times I know the empirical facts might be correct, but the way they are interpreted are going to be, like most news organizations, heavily spun. This site was much more reliable during the primary process in revealing the heavy corruption and media bias against Ron Paul. (obviously)
Due to the fact that a lot of their editorial staff is made up of former military and government officials, they have connections with inside intel. that often can't be released to the public. So this is one of those, "you just have to trust us" on this sort of deal. (You know, our sources have to remain confidential.) Is this anymore reliable than how the public gets it's information now? Not really. The government and it's experts create media releases and that is what we believe.
On the point of his "axe to grind?" Yes, you are correct, he is in the tank for Obama. I do not trust him, nor should anyone else. If you have ever heard of an organization called the Trilateral Commission, it has had very little currency since the Carter administration. It might be what is behind this site, though there is little to no proof. Several times a year the lead editor will write an article praising Zbigniew Brzezinski, and the enlisted men commenting there aren't idiots, they completely rag on those pieces and it seems at those points, readership declines. Everyone knows the relationship between Ziggy and Obama. Axe to grind? At this point, you bet. Be sure there was some disinfo. in that piece. But a wise man can find the information in every piece of disinformation.
The fact remains, this source of news is far better than the NYT, the Washington Post, or anything you are going to get on your evening news.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/3302-elites-push-government-funded-public-media
It is best to combine it with other sources of information to get a clearer picture of what is going on. Although his site is supported by Ziggy, his staff is pretty independent, and he has connections to quite a few others in the independent and whistle blowing media.
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2012/10/03/syria-the-story-thus-far/#more-16199
http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/conflicts/27-09-2012/122279-ambassador_stevens-0/
http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/09/16/website-us-ambassador-stevens-raped-and-dragged-in-street-warning-graphic-photo/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/libyas-green-resistance-did-it-and-nato-powers-are-covering-up
http://americanfreepress.net/?p=6414
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2012/1024/Benghazi-e-mails-What-did-Obama-administration-know-when*
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20072745*
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223747/CIA-agents-Benghazi-twice-asked-permission-help-Ambassador-Chris-Stevens-bullets-flying-twice-told-stand-down.html*
* not exactly independent of corporate and establishment power and interests, but still revealing articles.
From information I have read, it sounds like the administration knew there was a substantial amount of pre-planning, and heavy armaments involved in the attack. There might have also been the great probability that to commit more US forces to this incident might have turned it into an ambush or a "black hawk down" situation.
It seems to me, that for the administration, at that time, with the amount of force they could bring to bear, it was either a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" type situation. They were either going to lose a few good men, or it might have turned into a truly nightmarish public relations fiasco. Would slaughtering 30, 40, 50 or more Libyans have done them any good or would it have just inflamed the entire region? And could they have possibly lost a lot more men? It sounds like there was a LOT of heavy armaments possessed by the militants in the area.
Why did they tell the marines to stand down? Makes no sense when they could fire on those terrorists they had in their sights. I don't give a damn if any Muslims are offended when our people defend themselves. I think it's better to send a message saying, "Don't fuck with us" than to show them that we'll lay down and take it.
