I think SOMEBODY owes the public an explanation for the Benghazi incident. I got questions, but not many answers. I look at this sorry mess and wonder what were we thinking. Why did we make the decisions we did.
1. It was known that terrorism was on the rise in Benghazi and in Libya and across northern Africa, yet the decision is made to pull out our Site Security Team (SST) in August, one month prior to the attack. Why? They were asking to keep the people they had, not add more people. The SST had 16 people, and we're talking ex-Seal types. I suspect the outcome would have been different had these guys been there. Don't give me the story that it was about money; State Dept officials testifying before Congress said that was not the case. And those guys are paid out of DoD money, but State pulled 'em anyway.
2. A senior State Dept official, Charlene Lamb, testified before Congress last week that there was no demonstration and no mob, it was an attack pure and simple. Ambassador Stevens walks his last visitor out of the compound to the street at 8:30 pm, nothing going on, no noise. 9:00 pm, still nothing. There wasn't a demonstration going on, at all. Lamb knew this in real time as it was happening, how come the WH and the CIA and other intelligence agencies don't know this? How come the president doesn't know this? A US ambassador and 3 other Americans are murdered, and he doesn't know this? WHY NOT?
3. The CIA station chief says the same thing in a report sent within 24 hours, and yet a talking points memo is circulating in the WH afew days later that is still sporting the fiction that a demonstration over a video got out of hand and it was not a terrorist attack. WTF? How is that possible? I wanna know who wrote it and why they got it so wrong; did politics come into play here? How can I think otherwise?
4. The president and his administration, including UN Ambassador Susan Rice continue to support the demonstration/video story, on the sunday talk shows some 4 or 5 days later. Jay Carney (WH press secretary) explicitly says it too days later, how can they possibly still be spreading this story? The president himself goes on Letterman and before the UN General Assembly and intimates the same story, 2 weeks later. How is this possible? How can they not know within a day or two at the most that the demonstration/video story is not true? Were they just hoping the story would go away, or they could delay it until after the election?
5. Alternatively, the president claimed in the 2nd presidential debate that he did say it was a terrorist attack the next day. If that is true, then how can they explain what was said for 2 weeks after the attack? What's the real truth here, it doesn't add up. I ain't buying the fog of war BS, there weren't any bullets flying and bombs going off in Washington DC.
6. To me, the inescapable conclusion is that the Obama Administration wanted the president to look good at least until the election was over. He had been touting for several weeks that he had Al Qaida beaten and on the run, that was why the SST was withdrawn from the Benghazi Consulate and why the fiction about the demonstration over the video was talked up. It sure looks like politics trumped security concerns in Benghazi, and a US Ambassador and 3 others paid for that with their lives. It'll be very interesting to see what comes out of the presidential debate tomorrow night about this.
1. It was known that terrorism was on the rise in Benghazi and in Libya and across northern Africa, yet the decision is made to pull out our Site Security Team (SST) in August, one month prior to the attack. Why? They were asking to keep the people they had, not add more people. The SST had 16 people, and we're talking ex-Seal types. I suspect the outcome would have been different had these guys been there. Don't give me the story that it was about money; State Dept officials testifying before Congress said that was not the case. And those guys are paid out of DoD money, but State pulled 'em anyway.
2. A senior State Dept official, Charlene Lamb, testified before Congress last week that there was no demonstration and no mob, it was an attack pure and simple. Ambassador Stevens walks his last visitor out of the compound to the street at 8:30 pm, nothing going on, no noise. 9:00 pm, still nothing. There wasn't a demonstration going on, at all. Lamb knew this in real time as it was happening, how come the WH and the CIA and other intelligence agencies don't know this? How come the president doesn't know this? A US ambassador and 3 other Americans are murdered, and he doesn't know this? WHY NOT?
3. The CIA station chief says the same thing in a report sent within 24 hours, and yet a talking points memo is circulating in the WH afew days later that is still sporting the fiction that a demonstration over a video got out of hand and it was not a terrorist attack. WTF? How is that possible? I wanna know who wrote it and why they got it so wrong; did politics come into play here? How can I think otherwise?
4. The president and his administration, including UN Ambassador Susan Rice continue to support the demonstration/video story, on the sunday talk shows some 4 or 5 days later. Jay Carney (WH press secretary) explicitly says it too days later, how can they possibly still be spreading this story? The president himself goes on Letterman and before the UN General Assembly and intimates the same story, 2 weeks later. How is this possible? How can they not know within a day or two at the most that the demonstration/video story is not true? Were they just hoping the story would go away, or they could delay it until after the election?
5. Alternatively, the president claimed in the 2nd presidential debate that he did say it was a terrorist attack the next day. If that is true, then how can they explain what was said for 2 weeks after the attack? What's the real truth here, it doesn't add up. I ain't buying the fog of war BS, there weren't any bullets flying and bombs going off in Washington DC.
6. To me, the inescapable conclusion is that the Obama Administration wanted the president to look good at least until the election was over. He had been touting for several weeks that he had Al Qaida beaten and on the run, that was why the SST was withdrawn from the Benghazi Consulate and why the fiction about the demonstration over the video was talked up. It sure looks like politics trumped security concerns in Benghazi, and a US Ambassador and 3 others paid for that with their lives. It'll be very interesting to see what comes out of the presidential debate tomorrow night about this.
Last edited:
