People don't care about Benghazi!

[rudder]

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers.

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.


Which of these are in 24/7 rotation?

"You can't help but feel" because you're an ignorant partisan. Your helplessness over your beliefs is not a positive trait.

Well we could talk about warning signs as compared to Benghzai. Not sure if you are old enough to recall, but during the Clinton administration the CIA really suffered. With the cold war put on the back burner... there was not any real change in focus for the agency. That would have been a critical 8 years that intelligence assets could have been better developed in the middle east. but very few fucks were given at that time.

So again, Benghzai was neither an embassy nor a consulate (although obama and the media refer to is as such... to my knowledge they did not issue visas or passports from this location). It was a staging area for the operation to take Libyan weapons and send them off to al-qaeda affiliated rebel groups in Syria. In that list you posted did you take time to analyze what warning signs the government had (recall the lack of intelligence assets), were those sites engaged in the same type of arms running deals as Benghazi, or what was the response to terrorist attacks. My guess is you just copied and pasted from another site.

So who is the ignorant partisan? Someone who copies and pastes a meaningless list of attacks or someone trying to get others to understand the fuck up that was benghazi.

 

[Fern]

Originally Posted by rdubbz View Post
I'm a little curious to why there was such a large cia presence in benghazi and what role that may have played in the response.

The theory, which full disclosure: I have not corroborated in any way, is that the CIA was moving weapons through Libya to Syria.

Somebody was moving them. I remember Turkey finding shipment of weapons from Benghazi headed to Syria.

Here's some more: http://www.globalresearch.ca/cia-gun-running-qatar-libya-syria/5345464

Fern

 

[Bowfinger]

That's somewhat the gist of it. Why the Obama administration chose to represent a terrorist attack as a demonstration over a video no one had ever heard about isn't hard to see. It was election season and they couldn't risk Obama's spiking the football over the Osama kill coming back to bite him in the ass. The narrative was that the terrorist threat was neutralized.

One of the biggest problems here is that Fox and its peers have filled your heads full of "facts" that are simply untrue. For example, the talking point about the video "no one had ever heard about" is laughably false. It was huge news in the Middle East, spawning multiple demonstrations before Benghazi, and was widely reported as a major story by our own mainstream media. The simple fact is that even the CIA in Washington initially assumed the Benghazi attack was related to those protests. Further, in spite of repeated assertions by Republicans, the most recent investigation into Benghazi reported that the video likely was a factor, though not the only factor.

I'm quite willing to believe the Obama administration lied about Benghazi, but the screeching supposition and innuendo from the right are not supported by the factual evidence revealed so far. It's all smoke, but no fire. The most legitimate complaint I can see is that the administration initially down-played the CIA's note that some extremists were known to have participated. The White House explanation is that they didn't want to release information that could taint the FBI's investigation. I find that weak.

 

[Bowfinger]

Somebody was moving them. I remember Turkey finding shipment of weapons from Benghazi headed to Syria.

Here's some more: http://www.globalresearch.ca/cia-gun-running-qatar-libya-syria/5345464

Fern

Case in point. Innuendo and supposition reported as fact.

 

[DominionSeraph]

1200-1500km from Naval Air Station Sigonella, to Bengazi.
F18s on 10 minute Alert. 1.5-2 hrs with a A6 or USAF tanker to follow.

Unsure if any carrier assets were available closer.
Seals and/or Marines there could have been wheels up inside 30 minutes and airdropped within 4 hours.

LOL, ok, I was stationed there. Please point to the alert F/A-18's.

NASSIG is a logistics support base tenanted on an Italian patrol base, not a US Air Force base. There are no fighters there outside the occasional stopover. Why the heck would you think we'd have any there -- to protect from an African invasion?

Also, you seem to be under the impression that NATO is something other than a defensive alliance. Having resources in a host country doesn't mean we have been assigned carte blanche to use them. We need host nation permission to conduct offensive operations from their soil or through their airspace.

And you seem to be under the impression that we're the world's policemen and that everyone will just stand by as we invade them because "we're the good guys." Seriously, airdrop Marines into a sovereign nation to conduct combat operations without a means of extraction or host nation approval? You don't see any way anything can go wrong with this?
After the troops were encircled by the Libyan army we'd be hearing conservative talk go on about the epic, mindfuckingly stupid blunder due to Obama's "complete lack of military experience." But he didn't make that mistake -- something you won't ever hear on conservative talk.

 

[Agent11]

LOL, ok, I was stationed there. Please point to the alert F/A-18's.

NASSIG is a logistics support base tenanted on an Italian patrol base, not a US Air Force base. There are no fighters there outside the occasional stopover. Why the heck would you think we'd have any there -- to protect from an African invasion?

Also, you seem to be under the impression that NATO is something other than a defensive alliance. Having resources in a host country doesn't mean we have been assigned carte blanche to use them. We need host nation permission to conduct offensive operations from their soil or through their airspace.

And you seem to be under the impression that we're the world's policemen and that everyone will just stand by as we invade them because "we're the good guys." Seriously, airdrop Marines into a sovereign nation to conduct combat operations without a means of extraction or host nation approval? You don't see any way anything can go wrong with this?
After the troops were encircled by the Libyan army we'd be hearing conservative talk go on about the epic, mindfuckingly stupid blunder due to "no military experience." But he didn't make that mistake -- something you won't ever hear on conservative talk.

I seem to recall that it worked swimmingly in Pakistan.

 

[DominionSeraph]

I seem to recall that it worked swimmingly in Pakistan.

And how would it have turned out without the additional SEAL teams, Chinooks, and the Carl Vinson? They trained for a month at a 1:1 mockup of the compound and still crashed a helicopter. And the Pakistanis raised one hell of a ruckus over it.

Having a detailed plan with several billion dollars worth of hardware at your disposal is not the same as throwing troops out the back of a cargo plane over a city of 600,000 with a briefing that consists of, "A mission is under attack. Do something."

 

[zanejohnson]

nobody cares, because they understand we had it coming...

just like in Iran in 78'

 

[UglyCasanova]

I would agree and don't understand Republicans sticking on this particular issue when there are so many other ones to go after the administration over that are more important than "he lied about it being a terrorist attack". Yeah, they lied. They are politicians, it's what they do.

I'm highly disgruntled with Obama and instead of rising above the bs like people thought he would do, all we got is more of the same leaving many feeling the entire political system is completely broken and all we do is go through the motions each elections and pretend like we are doing something. That said, lying about the reasons for the Benghazi attacks seems so typical of any politician and small potatoes when looking at the crappyness of the larger picture. The biggest reason they are so entrenched on this one stupid issue is that there is no fucking differences between the parties on most issues so you sling crap when you can.

 

[ivwshane]

I would agree and don't understand Republicans sticking on this particular issue when there are so many other ones to go after the administration over that are more important than "he lied about it being a terrorist attack". Yeah, they lied. They are politicians, it's what they do.

I'm highly disgruntled with Obama and instead of rising above the bs like people thought he would do, all we got is more of the same leaving many feeling the entire political system is completely broken and all we do is go through the motions each elections and pretend like we are doing something. That said, lying about the reasons for the Benghazi attacks seems so typical of any politician and small potatoes when looking at the crappyness of the larger picture. The biggest reason they are so entrenched on this one stupid issue is that there is no fucking differences between the parties on most issues so you sling crap when you can.

While I understand your sentiment I think your expectations of just what power the president has is misguided. There just isn't much the president can do in this political climate.

 

[CZroe]

"People don't care about Benghazi!"

I guess I am not a person then. Thanks, jerk.

The truth is, you want it to be true and if you say it enough you think you will get people to reject/dismiss the topic before they become familiar with it while, at the same time, suggesting that it is not a big deal and convincing them of that. It's a low tactic. Someone did it to you (MSNBC?) and you continued it to excuse your other views that align with theirs. Shame on you.

 

[CZroe]

nobody cares, because they understand we had it coming...

just like in Iran in 78'

How does that logic apply to, say, the September 11th, 2001 attacks? Plenty of people knew an attack like that was coming and warned/prepared. It certainly didn't reduce how much we cared in the aftermath.

 

[marvdmartian]

Am I the only one who feels this way? Yes, Benghazi was a tragedy and I do feel bad for the American lives that were lost. It's over!!

Do the Republicans really fear Hillary? I have a feeling that if Hillary wasn't involved this event would be in the history books.

I'd rather see congress tackle unemployment, low wages, student loan debt, health care, etc...


It's time to move on.

To people like you, I ask only one question: If it were your loved one who was killed there, and you thought there was any way it might not have had to happen, would you be satisfied with this administration's feeble stories and excuses??

More and more, we're seeing what's looking like a serious lack of action, and subsequent cover up, by the Obama administration. All that's required is for the president to be as transparent about this, as he promised his administration would be.

 

[cabri]

The experts in the Pentagon disagree with you. They have stated on the record that the sorts of movie-inspired military responses demanded by critics were simply not feasible, because the right forces were not in the right places with the right equipment and the right information. While I understand the compulsion to attack everything the Obama administration does (or does not do), rational people are going to accept the judgment of the experts from the Pentagon over the infotainers on Fox.

The experts in the Pentagon are not willing to stick their necks out after the fact.

The decision was made to NOT attempt to do anything; not that anything could be tried. there was a window of 1-2 hours max to attempt to do anything; the decision was to not attempt because of political considerations.

Nowdays, within the Pentagon; it requires weeks/months of analysis/planning/training to implement a mission.
Off the cuff; quick response no longer is considered because of blowback.

That type of thought process came into play with the CYA attitude after Vietnam.

 

[cabri]

lol.

You nutters really make it easy for Dems and progressives.

As stated above, there is a CYA attitude and lack of "we can do it" attitude that now exists at the upper levels of the chain of command (civilian & military).

They never attempted because State would require over-flight authorization from Libya - something that would take hours/days.

Politics first.

 

[DominionSeraph]

As stated above, there is a CYA attitude and lack of "we can do it" attitude that now exists at the upper levels of the chain of command (civilian & military).

They never attempted because State would require over-flight authorization from Libya - something that would take hours/days.

Politics first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw

 

[zanejohnson]

How does that logic apply to, say, the September 11th, 2001 attacks? Plenty of people knew an attack like that was coming and warned/prepared. It certainly didn't reduce how much we cared in the aftermath.

because in 2011, there was a tiny bit of patriotism left..........because everyone was blinded by the shiny things our government put in front of us to distract us.....

fast forward to 2014, everyone wanted to figure out WHY,,

what would compel some people to attack us blatantly, and without remorse and in cold blood at the world trade center???

because we deserved it.

plain and simple... people know now... people aren't that stupid.. we understand how the american govt works... we install a puppet dictator, we incite chaos, we brand some people as "terrorists" then me move in and conquor and plunder..

it's simple as fuck, and now people have caught on, and the people who orchestatrated the evil have become rich and elite..

and now we'll suffer blowback of enormoust proportions.......what they branded as "terrorist" is going to actually come alive right under there noses.

 

[Bowfinger]

The experts in the Pentagon are not willing to stick their necks out after the fact.

The decision was made to NOT attempt to do anything; not that anything could be tried. there was a window of 1-2 hours max to attempt to do anything; the decision was to not attempt because of political considerations.

Nowdays, within the Pentagon; it requires weeks/months of analysis/planning/training to implement a mission.
Off the cuff; quick response no longer is considered because of blowback.

That type of thought process came into play with the CYA attitude after Vietnam.

I assume it's your years of experience watching Rambo movies and playing Counterstrike that makes you such an expert? Rush in guns a blazin' right? How did that work out in Mogadishu, by the way? Lord save us from armchair generals.

Oh, and for the record, your assertion about why the military decided not to rush in has no basis in anything except your rectum. It's empty speculation posing as fact.

 

[sportage]

I think if people in glass houses want to toss stones, fox news and the republicans have plenty to worry about. Maybe Fox should do a little long overdue digging into those eight GW/Cheney years.
And all the people killed in those Bush/Cheney war(s) were American soldiers, just kids, under false blatant lies from an administration yet to be held accountable.
Democrats, sadly, don't pull this crap against republican administrations.
Ask a republican, how many dead American soldiers does it take to equal one Christopher Stevens?

Then you have the fact where the republican congress defunded protection of American embassies around the world.

But... I do hope Boehner's so called committee is dumb enough to call John Kerry to testify.
You will see some amazing fireworks from Kerry.
And well justified indeed.

Its not so much people don't care about Benghazi, its that people are still waiting for those Bush/Cheney administration accountability hearings.
And justice.

 

[Matt1970]

I think if people in glass houses want to toss stones, fox news and the republicans have plenty to worry about. Maybe Fox should do a little long overdue digging into those eight GW/Cheney years.
And all the people killed in those Bush/Cheney war(s) were American soldiers, just kids, under false blatant lies from an administration yet to be held accountable.
Democrats, sadly, don't pull this crap against republican administrations.
Ask a republican, how many dead American soldiers does it take to equal one Christopher Stevens?

Then you have the fact where the republican congress defunded protection of American embassies around the world.

But... I do hope Boehner's so called committee is dumb enough to call John Kerry to testify.
You will see some amazing fireworks from Kerry.
And well justified indeed.

Its not so much people don't care about Benghazi, its that people are still waiting for those Bush/Cheney administration accountability hearings.
And justice.

It is absolutely impossible for you to be more detached from reality.

 

[frowertr]

I think if people in glass houses want to toss stones, fox news and the republicans have plenty to worry about. Maybe Fox should do a little long overdue digging into those eight GW/Cheney years.
And all the people killed in those Bush/Cheney war(s) were American soldiers, just kids, under false blatant lies from an administration yet to be held accountable.
Democrats, sadly, don't pull this crap against republican administrations.
Ask a republican, how many dead American soldiers does it take to equal one Christopher Stevens?

Then you have the fact where the republican congress defunded protection of American embassies around the world.

But... I do hope Boehner's so called committee is dumb enough to call John Kerry to testify.
You will see some amazing fireworks from Kerry.
And well justified indeed.

Its not so much people don't care about Benghazi, its that people are still waiting for those Bush/Cheney administration accountability hearings.
And justice.

Six years man. It's been six friggin years and the dems still blame G.W. for everything. If that is true, than that clown we have in office now is the most overrated president we have ever had if he can't fix ANYTHING in 6 years and still blames Bush for all his shortcomings.

 

[trenchfoot]

Six years man. It's been six friggin years and the dems still blame G.W. for everything. If that is true, than that clown we have in office now is the most overrated president we have ever had if he can't fix ANYTHING in 6 years and still blames Bush for all his shortcomings.

No, not everything. Just for the lies Bush/Cheney fooled the American people with to invade Iraq, and for the idiotic attitude Bush,Cheney and Rumsfeld had toward thinking that the Iraq war was going to be short, sweet and oh so profitable for the likes of Halliburton and its many subcontractors. Well, one out three ain't so bad huh? It sure was/is profitable as hell. And let's not forget that little economic downturn that occurred as Bush/Cheney was leaving office. I'm sure it wasn't ALL their fault but they did absolutely NOTHING toward preventing it from happening for the eight years they had control of the White House and for the six years they had a rubber stamping Congress to fully exploit.

If you honestly think the Bush/Cheney Corp. was ever going to get away with what they did to the country and the condition they left it in as they left office, let alone their lame attempts to rewrite history or suppress the memories.....well, I guess nobody likes to be reminded how it takes a whole lot longer to heal a damaging wound than the moment in time it takes to create it.

 

[boomerang]

So, we can see that the title of the thread has proven to be false. People do in fact care about Benghazi. Both camps want the same thing. Both want to rein in a government that is increasingly less accountable for their actions. Dem's want to rein in the ghosts of Republican administrations past and Repub's want to rein in the Democrats of the here and now.

So who's winning? The Politicians. They keep us fighting amongst ourselves to a degree that renders us totally ineffective. They win, we lose.

Who's the dumb one's?

 

[Matt1970]

No, not everything. Just for the lies Bush/Cheney fooled the American people with to invade Iraq, and for the idiotic attitude Bush,Cheney and Rumsfeld had toward thinking that the Iraq war was going to be short, sweet and oh so profitable for the likes of Halliburton and its many subcontractors. Well, one out three ain't so bad huh? It sure was/is profitable as hell. And let's not forget that little economic downturn that occurred as Bush/Cheney was leaving office. I'm sure it wasn't ALL their fault but they did absolutely NOTHING toward preventing it from happening for the eight years they had control of the White House and for the six years they had a rubber stamping Congress to fully exploit.

If you honestly think the Bush/Cheney Corp. was ever going to get away with what they did to the country and the condition they left it in as they left office, let alone their lame attempts to rewrite history or suppress the memories.....well, I guess nobody likes to be reminded how it takes a whole lot longer to heal a damaging wound than the moment in time it takes to create it.

Let me know when you start seeing people here defending Bush's actions and the Iraq war. And that's real cute saying the economic downturn wasn't ALL Bush's fault seeing as how the majority of the blame is on legislation that was passed before he even took office. Either way those are moot points as Bush is 6 years removed form office. The guy that is in there now campaigned on fixing the problems and making great changes. We're still waiting.

 

[TreVader]

Can we just get a benghazi circle jerk sticky already. That way I can ignore it like every other sticky.