False Benghazi outrage?

QUESTION: WHY WAS THE US AMBASSADOR IN BENGHAZI, THE WORLD'S HOTBED OF TERRORISM, ON THE ANNIVERSARY OF 9/11 UNPROTECTED AND WHEN THERE WERE INCREASING ATTACKS ON FOREIGN TARGETS?

Would asking that question be considered 'false outrage,' 'partisanship,' or 'hackery?'

Would asking why Stevens was placed in such a dangerous situation without protection be too much?

Suggesting that there was no cover-up belies the evidence.

Why was he there?

There is an answer.
 
QUESTION: WHY WAS THE US AMBASSADOR IN BENGHAZI, THE WORLD'S HOTBED OF TERRORISM, ON THE ANNIVERSARY OF 9/11 UNPROTECTED AND WHEN THERE WERE INCREASING ATTACKS ON FOREIGN TARGETS?

Would asking that question be considered 'false outrage,' 'partisanship,' or 'hackery?'

Would asking why Stevens was placed in such a dangerous situation without protection be too much?

Suggesting that there was no cover-up belies the evidence.

Why was he there?

There is an answer.

I don't doubt that your outrage & concern about it is real.

Fox news & Dixie?

Not so much.
 
So the Right Wing has been crazed about this terrible tragedy since it happened. They want you to believe that its not because they feel they can score political points against a popular president and likely future president, but that its because true malfeasance has occurred.

I keep hearing that the "president lied"...

Please give me the quote you claim is a lie from the President?

.....?
..........?
...............?

Ok, if you don't have a quote, tell me what you believe the President did wrong?

Is it because he made the wrong call in the heat of the action?
Is it because he "failed to call it terrorism" for a time after the action?
Is it because his administration tried to control the message after the fact?

They shout Benghazi, Benghazi, yet they fail to give any articulate reason why they are so upset about it. Some scream impeachment, yet they have no crime. They say its going to bring HRC down, yet it appears she was not involved in the things they say were done wrong... So what is it?


http://www.forwardprogressives.com/republicans-there-is-no-benghazi-conspiracy-get-over-it/
 
Yes, I get that in today's 24/7 news cycle everything is looked at through a partisan lens of how an event helps/hurts the other political side, and I am as guilty of that as anyone. But, shouldn't everyone in the country be outraged that a US Ambassador was murdered by terrorists?

Outraged? Certainly. I know of no American that wasn't outraged by the death of the Ambassador. Going from outrage to attacks on this president when partisan hackery OUGHT to stop at the water's edge is uncalled for and inappropriate,imho. I don't understand why, in this fragile and unstable world, anyone would want to needlessly and gratuitously weaken our president.
 
Last edited:
To all those who claim this is just about false outrage ..

WHY WAS THE US AMBASSADOR IN BENGHAZI, THE WORLD'S HOTBED OF TERRORISM, ON THE ANNIVERSARY OF 9/11 UNPROTECTED AND WHEN THERE WERE INCREASING ATTACKS ON FOREIGN TARGETS?

It maybe false outrage for some .. but not for everybody.

Why was he there is such a dangerous situation at such a dangerous time?

Could this have anything to do with it?

Analysis: CIA role in Benghazi underreported

To really understand the push-pull over the bungled talking points in the wake of the Benghazi attack, you have to understand the nature of the U.S. presence in that city.

Officially, the U.S. presence was a diplomatic compound under the State Department's purview.

"The diplomatic facility in Benghazi would be closed until further notice," then-State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland announced last October.

But in practice - and this is what so few people have focused on - the larger U.S. presence was in a secret outpost operated by the CIA.

About 30 people were evacuated from Benghazi the morning after the deadly attack last September 11; more than 20 of them were CIA employees.

Clearly the larger mission in Benghazi was covert.

more
http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/15/analysis-cia-role-in-benghazi-underreported/

How about this?

Testimony: Stevens Went to Benghazi Mission on 9/11/12 So Clinton Could Announce on Upcoming Libyan Visit It Had Become Permanent U.S. Post - VIDEO
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/tes...112-so-clinton-could-announce-upcoming-libyan

You say there was no cover-up .. why was he there?
 
To all those who claim this is just about false outrage ..

WHY WAS THE US AMBASSADOR IN BENGHAZI, THE WORLD'S HOTBED OF TERRORISM, ON THE ANNIVERSARY OF 9/11 UNPROTECTED AND WHEN THERE WERE INCREASING ATTACKS ON FOREIGN TARGETS?

It maybe false outrage for some .. but not for everybody.

Why was he there is such a dangerous situation at such a dangerous time?

Could this have anything to do with it?

Analysis: CIA role in Benghazi underreported

To really understand the push-pull over the bungled talking points in the wake of the Benghazi attack, you have to understand the nature of the U.S. presence in that city.

Officially, the U.S. presence was a diplomatic compound under the State Department's purview.

"The diplomatic facility in Benghazi would be closed until further notice," then-State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland announced last October.

But in practice - and this is what so few people have focused on - the larger U.S. presence was in a secret outpost operated by the CIA.

About 30 people were evacuated from Benghazi the morning after the deadly attack last September 11; more than 20 of them were CIA employees.

Clearly the larger mission in Benghazi was covert.

more
http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/15/analysis-cia-role-in-benghazi-underreported/

How about this?

Testimony: Stevens Went to Benghazi Mission on 9/11/12 So Clinton Could Announce on Upcoming Libyan Visit It Had Become Permanent U.S. Post - VIDEO
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/tes...112-so-clinton-could-announce-upcoming-libyan

You say there was no cover-up .. why was he there?


This is all about the CIA....not the Obama Administration or the State Dept. or Hilary Clinton.
 
I love how the righties have now quit calling the place "Benghazi" and have now added a few more words to its official name. Now it's "Benghazi, the world's hotbed of terrorism". When did it get this new name and who bestowed it upon this poor town? I am sure that the Benghazi tourist bureau and the Benghazi chamber of commerce, not to mention the Benghazi Realtors association are FURIOUS at this new name. What about Benghazi (I'm using the old name) was so terribly MORE dangerous than Tripoli or any other city in Libya last fall? Couldn't the ambassador have had his auto convoy ambushed and attacked anywhere and the results might very well have been four dead Americans? He went to Benghazi. Bad guys chose to attack him there. I would suggest that republicans realize that it is the organizations that create THOSE bad guys that are the real enemies of the USA.... NOT the president.

http://www.curiosityaroused.com/world/10-most-dangerous-cities-in-the-world/


Oddly enough, "Benghazi the world's hotbed of terrorism" did not make the list. Neither did plain old "Benghazi".
 
That doesn't send chills down your spine brother?

How can the war on terror be real if Al Qaeda is on our side?

My question to you is, do you REALLY want to know where the cover-up is? Respectfully, I don't think you do.

There was a civil war going on between the Libyan government and people against Al Qaeda .. and we chose the side of Al Qaeda.

Guess what else?

The CIA’s ties to the Gaddafi regime
SEPTEMBER 3, 2011
http://warincontext.org/2011/09/03/the-cias-ties-to-the-gaddafi-regime/

Guess what else?

Both Parties Are Trying to Sweep the Bigger Story Under the Rug

According to a 2007 report by West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center’s center, the Libyan city of Benghazi was one of Al Qaeda’s main headquarters – and bases for sending Al Qaeda fighters into Iraq – prior to the overthrow of Gaddafi

more
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013...azi-without-talking-about-the-syrian-war.html

You think it's just a wirch hunt .. but only now are the rea; questions being asked by MSM .. such as, why was the US Ambassador in Bengazi, the world's hotbed of terrorists, on 9/11 in what was essentially a CIA outpost?

Was it this .. you should watch the video

Testimony: Stevens Went to Benghazi Mission on 9/11/12 So Clinton Could Announce on Upcoming Libyan Visit It Had Become Permanent U.S. Post
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/tes...112-so-clinton-could-announce-upcoming-libyan

1) I've never believed the "war on terror" was real.
2) Politics and international affairs makes strange bedfellows.
3) If siding with AQ is in America's best interest in obtaining our goal in a particular region, I am sure we will and have done it.
AQ is not pure evil, as our Government and media have made them out to be, they are like any other group... some evil and some good. If their interest conflict with how we see the world, we call them evil, if not we side with them.
4) We don't tolerate killing in our nation, but we do it in other nations.
5) AQ is not the same organization that attacked us in 01. Japan is not the same nation that attacked us in 41'. Germany is not the same nation that attacked GB in 39'.
 
One thing that isn't being discussed in this thread is its premise. Jarod calls it false outrage.

Forget for a second the nuances of who said what, when.

Why is it not legitimate to be outraged at the fact that a US Ambassador was killed by Al Queda terrorists. Just that on its face is worthy of outrage.

It isn't like a US Ambassador being killed is a routine occurrence.

Yes, I get that in today's 24/7 news cycle everything is looked at through a partisan lens of how an event helps/hurts the other political side, and I am as guilty of that as anyone. But, shouldn't everyone in the country be outraged that a US Ambassador was murdered by terrorists?

Mostly because an American Ambassador was not murdered by AQ terrorists. I am outraged he was killed by terrorists, not outraged at President Obama but at the terrorists.
 
QUESTION: WHY WAS THE US AMBASSADOR IN BENGHAZI, THE WORLD'S HOTBED OF TERRORISM, ON THE ANNIVERSARY OF 9/11 UNPROTECTED AND WHEN THERE WERE INCREASING ATTACKS ON FOREIGN TARGETS?

Would asking that question be considered 'false outrage,' 'partisanship,' or 'hackery?'

Would asking why Stevens was placed in such a dangerous situation without protection be too much?

Suggesting that there was no cover-up belies the evidence.

Why was he there?

There is an answer.

I think you are asking a legit question. The false outrage is the outrage directed at President Obama because he did not blame AQ for the attack, that's false outrage. Legit outrage may be that the ambassador was killed, or what the ambassador was doing in the first place, or why we helped overthrow QUadaffy, or any other number of things. . .

The false outrage is that particular one that the Republicans are running with currently, and that is that they are outraged because they don't like the semantics he used when describing the attack. The false outrage is that outrage over Obama not blaming AQ, when the facts show it was not AQ that did this.
 
You can't see the forest for the trees!

Pure hyperbole.

You can tell me why you are outraged, but then there is no evidence to support what you claim happened. Then you can give me a quote, but it does not say what you claim outraged you.

You cant see the trees because they are hidden by your false imagined outrage.
 
I love how the righties have now quit calling the place "Benghazi" and have now added a few more words to its official name. Now it's "Benghazi, the world's hotbed of terrorism". When did it get this new name and who bestowed it upon this poor town? I am sure that the Benghazi tourist bureau and the Benghazi chamber of commerce, not to mention the Benghazi Realtors association are FURIOUS at this new name. What about Benghazi (I'm using the old name) was so terribly MORE dangerous than Tripoli or any other city in Libya last fall? Couldn't the ambassador have had his auto convoy ambushed and attacked anywhere and the results might very well have been four dead Americans? He went to Benghazi. Bad guys chose to attack him there. I would suggest that republicans realize that it is the organizations that create THOSE bad guys that are the real enemies of the USA.... NOT the president.

http://www.curiosityaroused.com/world/10-most-dangerous-cities-in-the-world/


Oddly enough, "Benghazi the world's hotbed of terrorism" did not make the list. Neither did plain old "Benghazi".

:0) WOW ..

U.S. knew for years of Benghazi extremism

Senior State Department, defense and intelligence officials were well aware that Benghazi and its surrounding area harbored al Qaeda-linked extremists long before the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in the eastern Libyan city.

Benghazi became famous last year as the birthplace of the revolution that swept Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi from power.

But in recent interviews with The Washington Times, several former high-level officials explained that eastern Libya was notorious in Washington’s counterterrorism community for more than a decade as a hub for jihadists leaving for or returning from insurgencies abroad.

The agencies’ long-standing knowledge about Islamic extremists in Benghazi raises questions about the level of security at the U.S. Consulate on Sept. 11, when heavily armed militants stormed the diplomatic mission and a CIA annex and killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, State Department officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

The officials pointed to the 2007 seizure by coalition forces in Iraq of a treasure trove of documents that highlighted the town of Darnah, just east of Benghazi, as one of the top destinations in the world from which foreign fighters were recruited to join al Qaeda’s insurgency against U.S. troops in Iraq.

In 2008, a secret cable from a U.S. diplomat in Libya, later posted by WikiLeaks, reported that many people in Darnah “take great pride” in their town’s public reputation as the source for such large numbers of foreign fighters and suicide bombers — “invariably referred to as ‘martyrs,’” the cable reads.

The association of Darnah and Benghazi with violent jihad goes back much further than the insurgency in Iraq, and predates even the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the U.S.

Always a hotbed

Eastern Libya was home to many Libyans who had left to join the first global jihadist insurgency — against the Soviets in Afghanistan in 1980s, said Aaron Y. Zelin, a scholar at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

In the 1990s, Libyan veterans of the Afghan jihad launched an insurgency in eastern Libya under the banner of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which Gadhafi forces crushed. The group split with al Qaeda after the Sept. 11 attacks, predicting that they would be disastrous for the global jihadist movement.

“Benghazi and Darnah were always viewed as an Islamist hotbed,” said Mr. Zelin, noting that extremists are not the majority in either town.

The documents recovered in 2007 in Iraq, which came to be known as the Sinjar records — named after a town on the Syrian-Iraqi border where the material was seized from an al Qaeda commander — included the identities and hometowns of hundreds of foreign fighters in Iraq.

“The info was picked up by special ops, and a very powerful decision was made not to treat it as intel but to declassify it and give it to the State Department so that it could be dealt with from a diplomatic approach and then to release the information academically,” said one former official with intimate knowledge of the discovery.

The result was a two-part report produced by the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.
Titled “Al Qaeda’s Foreign Fighters in Iraq,” the report showed that Libya ranked second only to Saudi Arabia as a country of origin for foreign fighters. The data shocked many U.S. analysts, who previously had not assessed Libya as a significant source of foreign jihadists.


Of 112 Libyans identified, 52 had come from Darnah and 21 from Benghazi, according to the report, which noted that this made Darnah the single-largest town of jihadist origin in the Arab world.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...or-years-of-benghazi-extremism/#ixzz2TTL0uo8T
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

By the way Mr. I Don't Know Shit .. I'm much further to the left than you are. You're much closer to being a right-winger than I am.
 
1) I've never believed the "war on terror" was real.
2) Politics and international affairs makes strange bedfellows.
3) If siding with AQ is in America's best interest in obtaining our goal in a particular region, I am sure we will and have done it.
AQ is not pure evil, as our Government and media have made them out to be, they are like any other group... some evil and some good. If their interest conflict with how we see the world, we call them evil, if not we side with them.
4) We don't tolerate killing in our nation, but we do it in other nations.
5) AQ is not the same organization that attacked us in 01. Japan is not the same nation that attacked us in 41'. Germany is not the same nation that attacked GB in 39'.

AQ is the exact same organization that SUPPOSEDLY attacked us on 9/11 .. which raises questions given our long-standing close relationship with them.

Why was he there?
 
AQ is the exact same organization that SUPPOSEDLY attacked us on 9/11 .. which raises questions given our long-standing close relationship with them.

Why was he there?

I don't know, but I suspect because we were working with AQ on this one.
 
I cannot fathom why people are so stupid they keep ignoring the truth.

1. al Qaeda was not behind the Benghazi attack.

2. The US, under Carter and Reagan, worked with al Qaeda (Mujadeen) to fight the Russians when they invaded Afghanistan in 1979, a horrible mistake that stifled an emerging westernization of populous Afghanistan and removal of Islamic law from it's society.

3. al Qaeda is nothing like what it was when bin Laden was killed. It's leaders are dead (thanks drones!), it's numbers are dessimated. al Qaeda now is a loose-knit group of rebel groups, primarily in Somalia, and throughout the middle east, including a presence in Pakistan.
 
I love how the righties have now quit calling the place "Benghazi" and have now added a few more words to its official name. Now it's "Benghazi, the world's hotbed of terrorism". When did it get this new name and who bestowed it upon this poor town? I am sure that the Benghazi tourist bureau and the Benghazi chamber of commerce, not to mention the Benghazi Realtors association are FURIOUS at this new name. What about Benghazi (I'm using the old name) was so terribly MORE dangerous than Tripoli or any other city in Libya last fall? Couldn't the ambassador have had his auto convoy ambushed and attacked anywhere and the results might very well have been four dead Americans? He went to Benghazi. Bad guys chose to attack him there. I would suggest that republicans realize that it is the organizations that create THOSE bad guys that are the real enemies of the USA.... NOT the president.

http://www.curiosityaroused.com/world/10-most-dangerous-cities-in-the-world/


Oddly enough, "Benghazi the world's hotbed of terrorism" did not make the list. Neither did plain old "Benghazi".


I love how you seem to think BAC is a 'rightie'...

let me guess, you just knee jerk reacted like a left wing nut beholden to the Democratic party would?
 
Back
Top