A Deadly Mix in Benghazi

christiefan915

christiefan915

Catalyst
This is an excerpt from a much longer article. It's guaranteed to annoy the Hillary haters, who probably won't even read it in full before going into attack mode.

"Fifteen months after Mr. Stevens’s death, the question of responsibility remains a searing issue in Washington, framed by two contradictory story lines.

One has it that the video, which was posted on YouTube, inspired spontaneous street protests that got out of hand. This version, based on early intelligence reports, was initially offered publicly by Susan E. Rice, who is now Mr. Obama’s national security adviser.

The other, favored by Republicans, holds that Mr. Stevens died in a carefully planned assault by Al Qaeda to mark the anniversary of its strike on the United States 11 years before. Republicans have accused the Obama administration of covering up evidence of Al Qaeda’s role to avoid undermining the president’s claim that the group has been decimated, in part because of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

The investigation by The Times shows that the reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of those story lines suggests. Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs...

The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses as well as many American officials who have viewed the footage from security cameras.

(Continued)

http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/#/?chapt=0
 
Ah yes;an Obama defense puff piece from the New York Times...a less than credible account trying to suggest that it was not spontaneuous, but spontaneous nonetheless but not really related to terrorism.

Let me summarize what really happened in Benghazi for the kool-aid swilling dunces on the left. Due to the arrogance of this buffoonish President thinking that after helping a band of thugs oust Khaddafi they would embrace him as a hero, and the gross incompetence of his Secretary of State the Hildebeast in ignoring the numerous warnings; our diplomatic mission came under attack resulting in the deaths of an Ambassador and three other Americans.

After ALL of our allies evacuated their missions due to safety concerns and an inability to protect them, and heeding Lybian warnings, Americas leaders incompetence not only left our people in harms way, but woefully and inadequately protected.

But then, during an election year where the American sheeple were being told Al Qeada was dead and GM was alive, after the attacks in Egypt and Benghazi, the inept buffoons of this Administration and the willing media as a branch of the DNC and practicing malfeasance, tried to blame the events on a nondescript video and spontaneity.

Nothing could have been further from the truth. But as the American sheeple are slowly learning, this Administration thinks that it can create it's own version of the truth and continually lie to the American sheeple with the complicity of the media to promote it's leftist agenda and consolidate political power thanks to the low information dullards who vote for them.

What we do know now is that it was planned, it was well coordinated and this administration was culpable in the deaths of four Americans through gross negligence and incompetence. What we also know is that 15 months later, the culprits of this attack have still not been brought to justice and this administration desperately wishes to sweep these events under the carpet and pretend they never happened; after all, they couldn't find a way to blame Bush for this one.

Benghazi was one of the many examples of the incompetence, inexperience and failure of this Presidents foreign policy.

But the pinnacle of incompetence and buffoonery was when this dunce of a President elevated the miscreant who tried to lie about Benghazi on public television for two weeks, to Security Advisor. Stunning to say the least. But then, this inept buffoon of a President loves to stick his finger in the eyes of his political opponents rather than providing anything that could be mistaken for leadership and finds comfort in the eternal campaign mode.

Now you have the truth rather than the kool-aid induced puffery of the New York Times intended for the consumption of uneducated leftist dunces.
 
Last edited:
christiefan915 said:
This is an excerpt from a much longer article. It's guaranteed to annoy the Hillary haters, who probably won't even read it in full before going into attack mode.

"Fifteen months after Mr. Stevens’s death, the question of responsibility remains a searing issue in Washington, framed by two contradictory story lines.

One has it that the video, which was posted on YouTube, inspired spontaneous street protests that got out of hand. This version, based on early intelligence reports, was initially offered publicly by Susan E. Rice, who is now Mr. Obama’s national security adviser.

The other, favored by Republicans, holds that Mr. Stevens died in a carefully planned assault by Al Qaeda to mark the anniversary of its strike on the United States 11 years before. Republicans have accused the Obama administration of covering up evidence of Al Qaeda’s role to avoid undermining the president’s claim that the group has been decimated, in part because of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

The investigation by The Times shows that the reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of those story lines suggests. Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs...

The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses as well as many American officials who have viewed the footage from security cameras.

(Continued)

http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/#/?chapt=0
Click to expand...


LMAO... @ 'anger of the video motivated the initial attack'

Seriously... that tells you all you need to know about the NY Times... shill for the Democrats
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... @ 'anger of the video motivated the initial attack'

Seriously... that tells you all you need to know about the NY Times... shill for the Democrats
Click to expand...

Did you actually read the article and is it possible for you to pick out a few points you disagree with and argue against them?

I'm really sick and tired of "bad Hillary, traitorous Hillary, clueless Hillary" blah blah blah ad nauseum.

It's not like your shill Faux News is fair and balanced on the issue.
 
christiefan915 said:
Did you actually read the article and is it possible for you to pick out a few points you disagree with and argue against them?

I'm really sick and tired of "bad Hillary, traitorous Hillary, clueless Hillary" blah blah blah ad nauseum.

It's not like your shill Faux News is fair and balanced on the issue.
Click to expand...

They asked for help two weeks before the attack because they had a warning. Why wasn't something done?
 
They can't answer the question. They begged for additional security for months and none was sent. Hillary Rodham Clinton has blood on her hands.
 
Truth Detector said:
Ah yes;an Obama defense puff piece from the New York Times...a less than credible account trying to suggest that it was not spontaneuous, but spontaneous nonetheless but not really related to terrorism.

Let me summarize what really happened in Benghazi for the kool-aid swilling dunces on the left. Due to the arrogance of this buffoonish President thinking that after helping a band of thugs oust Khaddafi they would embrace him as a hero, and the gross incompetence of his Secretary of State the Hildebeast in ignoring the numerous warnings; our diplomatic mission came under attack resulting in the deaths of an Ambassador and three other Americans.

After ALL of our allies evacuated their missions due to safety concerns and an inability to protect them, and heeding Lybian warnings, Americas leaders incompetence not only left our people in harms way, but woefully and inadequately protected.

But then, during an election year where the American sheeple were being told Al Qeada was dead and GM was alive, after the attacks in Egypt and Benghazi, the inept buffoons of this Administration and the willing media as a branch of the DNC and practicing malfeasance, tried to blame the events on a nondescript video and spontaneity.

Nothing could have been further from the truth. But as the American sheeple are slowly learning, this Administration thinks that it can create it's own version of the truth and continually lie to the American sheeple with the complicity of the media to promote it's leftist agenda and consolidate political power thanks to the low information dullards who vote for them.

What we do know now is that it was planned, it was well coordinated and this administration was culpable in the deaths of four Americans through gross negligence and incompetence. What we also know is that 15 months later, the culprits of this attack have still not been brought to justice and this administration desperately wishes to sweep these events under the carpet and pretend they never happened; after all, they couldn't find a way to blame Bush for this one.

Benghazi was one of the many examples of the incompetence, inexperience and failure of this Presidents foreign policy.

But the pinnacle of incompetence and buffoonery was when this dunce of a President elevated the miscreant who tried to lie about Benghazi on public television for two weeks, to Security Advisor. Stunning to say the least. But then, this inept buffoon of a President loves to stick his finger in the eyes of his political opponents rather than providing anything that could be mistaken for leadership and finds comfort in the eternal campaign mode.

Now you have the truth rather than the kool-aid induced puffery of the New York Times intended for the consumption of uneducated leftist dunces.
Click to expand...

We might take you more seriously if you could even spell Libyan correctly.
 
Ishmael Pequod said:
Yes. Why were no added security sent?
Click to expand...

Then you shouldn't have any problem pointing out how fearful Stevens was and how he begged for help.

Security vacuum,” Ambassador Stevens wrote in his personal diary on Sept. 6 in Tripoli, in one of the few pages recovered from the Benghazi compound. “Militias are power on the ground,” he wrote. “Dicey conditions, including car bombs, attacks on consulate,” he continued. “Islamist ‘hit list’ in Benghazi. Me targeted on a prominent website (no more off compound jogging).” A map of his Tripoli jogging route had appeared on the Internet, seemingly inviting attacks, diplomats said.

But when he arrived from Tripoli for a visit, he was glad to be back in Benghazi. “Much stronger emotional connection to this place,” he wrote in his diary on Sept. 10, “the people but also the smaller town feel and the moist air and green and spacious compound.”

Mr. Stevens, who spent the day in the compound for security reasons because of the Sept. 11 anniversary, learned about the breach in a phone call from the American Embassy in Tripoli. Then a diplomatic security officer at the Benghazi mission called to tell the C.I.A. team. But as late as 6:40 p.m., Mr. Stevens appeared cheerful when he welcomed the Turkish consul, Ali Akin, for a visit.

There was even less security at the compound than usual, Mr. Akin said. No armed American guards met him at the gate, only a few unarmed Libyans. “No security men, no diplomats, nobody,” he said. “There was no deterrence.”
 
christiefan915 said:
Then you shouldn't have any problem pointing out how fearful Stevens was and how he begged for help.

Security vacuum,” Ambassador Stevens wrote in his personal diary on Sept. 6 in Tripoli, in one of the few pages recovered from the Benghazi compound. “Militias are power on the ground,” he wrote. “Dicey conditions, including car bombs, attacks on consulate,” he continued. “Islamist ‘hit list’ in Benghazi. Me targeted on a prominent website (no more off compound jogging).” A map of his Tripoli jogging route had appeared on the Internet, seemingly inviting attacks, diplomats said.

But when he arrived from Tripoli for a visit, he was glad to be back in Benghazi. “Much stronger emotional connection to this place,” he wrote in his diary on Sept. 10, “the people but also the smaller town feel and the moist air and green and spacious compound.”

Mr. Stevens, who spent the day in the compound for security reasons because of the Sept. 11 anniversary, learned about the breach in a phone call from the American Embassy in Tripoli. Then a diplomatic security officer at the Benghazi mission called to tell the C.I.A. team. But as late as 6:40 p.m., Mr. Stevens appeared cheerful when he welcomed the Turkish consul, Ali Akin, for a visit.

There was even less security at the compound than usual, Mr. Akin said. No armed American guards met him at the gate, only a few unarmed Libyans. “No security men, no diplomats, nobody,” he said. “There was no deterrence.”
Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question. Requests were made by Stevens in March, July, and August for more security. None was sent. Why?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top