What Benghazi Truthers Are Looking For

[DonViejo]

ELSPETH REEVE 11:09 AM ET

Truth has been the watchword of the Benghazi controversy. "The goal here is to get to the truth," said House Speaker John Boehner said at a Thursday press conference. "Four Americans lost their lives. Their families want to know the truth. The American people want to know the truth. And I believe it is Congress’ obligation to get to the truth." The truth may indeed be out there, but where it lies depends on who you ask.

For more mainstream Republicans and commentators, the Benghazi controversy is as obvious — the Obama Administration spun the attacks on Sunday talk shows in a way that would minimize political fallout in the middle of a presidential election — as it is tedious. With the release of all 12 drafts of talking points used for those Sunday shows (you can view how they evolved here), the heart of the scandal is whether bureaucrats talked about a tragedy properly. Did the State Department use the word "terrorists" behind the scenes? Is the word "extremists" close enough?

But for Benghazi truthers, the scandal is much, much more interesting. There are actually two camps: regular old Benghazi truthers believe that the CIA was arming Syrian rebels out of the Benghazi annex, while the ultra truthers believe the Obama administration colluded with terrorists to stage the kidnapping of Ambassador Chris Stevens in order to set up a prisoner exchange that would made President Obama look like a tough peace negotiator right before the election. Some people with surprisingly solid credentials buy these theories. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul has hinted he's a Benghazi truther, floating the idea that the CIA annex was attacked because it was part of a secret gun-running operation. Retired Admiral James Lyons, who commanded the U.S. Pacific Fleet in the 1980s, is a Benghazi ultra truther. The Atlantic Wire spoke to Lyons to better understand his theory.

As we have noted, what happened in Benghazi is a gripping, tragic story — a deadly attack by shadowy terrorists we still haven't fully identified. But what most Republicans are hoping will become a major scandal is not about that. It should not be surprising that The White House played politics with Benghazi (or that House Republicans are playing politics with Benghazi now) since that's what politicians do. But if you're going referee this particular game of politics, anyone watching the politics play out last fall has to conclude that while Obama's team handled the politics deftly, the Republican presidentail campaign's attempts to play politics with Benghazi was a miserable failure. (Warning: the cynical armchair thinking driving this narrative follows.) Hours after the attack, Mitt Romney issued a statement saying President Obama was "sympathizing with those who waged the attacks," which made him look like a jerk, and also neglected the more important talking point, which was that Obama was incompetent on national security. The Romney campaign's clumsiness turned what, by cynical rules of D.C. politics should have been a layup — a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11 happens right when a Republican challenger is accusing the sitting Democratic president of being soft on terrorism — turned into a win for Obama who looked better suited for handling crises abroad and avoided the usual media freakout in the wake of a terrorist attack. A Romney aide's new tell-all ebook says the off-key response "left the candidate naked, embarrassed, and disarmed." And it wasn't the last time on this very issue.

full article:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/05/what-benghazi-truthers-are-looking/65092/

[Common Sense Party]

1. Someone doesn't want Hillary to run in 2016.

They think the leak of these rough drafts will damage her reputation.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Benghazi%20Talking%20Points%20Timeline.pdf

As far as I can tell, that's what this is all about.

[applegrove]

2. Yup. The neocons in Canada run attack

ads on the opposition leaders as soon as they win the leadership, long before the elections.

[Common Sense Party]

4. It could also be someone in her own party who would rather she didn't get the nomination.

Doubtful, but politics is a dirty game.

[Cha]

5. I'm thinking they also see it as a rallying cry for the 2014 Elections.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

14. ofcourse

[John2]

3. All of that stuff,is

guess work presented by people who want to see what they want to see. I have a right to my guesses too. Here is my guess. The politicians in Washington are all playing Politics. They all have agendas and jealous of each other. They all want power.

However, the Foreign Policy agenda in the Middle East are they same but both are competing with each other to see who can best carry out that agenda. Their agenda in both Parties is intervention in the Middle East and regime change. They both compete on who best can protect the Interests of Israel.

The Libyan Government led by long time Dictator Gaddaffi was over thrown not just by agitators against Gaddaffi but also Libyan extremists inside and outside upset with Gaddaffi. The same guy made good with the Bush Administration.
One of the militia groups in the rebellion, was the group associated with Al Qaeda. The U.S. intervened in that situation also with the same strategy the Republicans are recommending right now to the Obama Administration. The Arab Spring is nothing but a overall continuation of Neocon Policy regarding regime change in the Middle East. Both parties are arguing on which one can do it better and which one should be in power. Even though the Democratic Party is carrying out the neocon agenda, the Republicans stab them in the back regardless of National Security and unity.

The bottomline is, there is no coverup between the Parties at least. There might be concealment from the American people on Congress's real agenda but there is no coverup in Congress. The building that got attacked was not an Embassy by my definition. The Embassy was in Tripoli. Libya doesn't even have a legitimate Government formed. There was no Government in Libya to guarantee the protection of anybody and anybody that went to Libya knew how dangerous it was including Chris Stevens. The persons described as Navy Seals that died with him were also attached to the CIA under General Petraeus. And I do not believe the Republicans didn't know this because they are privileged to covert activities conducted by the U.S.

By definition alone, Covert activities means just that militarily, and they are authorized by Congress. By the very environment covert personnel operate, freedom of information is restricted to the American public because it could cause the lives of those that work in this environment. The Republicans know this especially Issa and McCain. They know Administration officials cannot reveal information about secret operations not authorized on the International stage. All countries with intelligence agencies conduct secret operations in other countries as part of the military. The only structure within that region was this facility and a cIA annex about a mile or two away.

People don't want to examine the dead's actions because of retribution from the Public. These structures can be used as fronts to look like they are embassies but could be carrying out covert activities by the CIA. Like funneling weapons. If it were, then Chris Stevens wasn't just working as an Ambassador, because he would have known what was going on. The fact that the militia group they accuse of having ties to Alqaeda was also used as a group to protect the structure should not be disregarded also. He was in Libya personally when a violent Revolution was going on. If he took chances then, why would he not take the same risks in this situation? Any real investigation would look at his actions also. Then you look at the Syrian situation and it has some similarities. You make beds with your enemy,then you don't know when they will turn their backs on you. Al Qaeda knows very well about the traits of the U.S. Government in Congress as evidence of Afghanistan in the Russian War. And you still have unrest and groups you cannot trust in Libya. You also have to take into account, some arms that was acquired from Gadaffi's fall could be taken into the Syrian conflict now along with the arms supplied to them in that rebellion. As far as I'm concerned the whole Middle East Policy is a mess and can be attributed to both Parties. That is why I think there is no coverup between Congress and the Administration, just fighting like dogs on the best one to carry out their neocon Foreign Policy of regime change. And I'm no Terrorist, don't even try it. I'm not a traitor either. I'm just an American that disagree with their stupid Foreign policy which is bought and paid for. So there, I can guess what went on too without concrete evidence from suspicious appearances. The reason is because I don't trust any of them after Iraq. And I'm for the U.S. just getting the hell out period before they make their mess bigger in the Middle East.

[Cha]

6. How about this TRUTH, boner? I got this on TOD..

Nena20409
May 10, 2013 at 11:15 am
I copied this from an e-mail I had gotten. I have seen a version here at TOD.

It is worth repeating again and again.

1. On September 11, 2001 —2,996 civilian deaths, including 19 hijackers.

2. On January 22, Read More… , Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami gunmen attacked the US consulate at Kolkata, killing 5 people.

3. On June 14, 2002, an Al-Qaeda truck bomb detonated outside the US consulate at Karachi, killing 12.

4. On October 12, 2002, the US consular office at Denpasar (Indonesia) was bombed by Jemaah Islamiyah as part of the Bali bombings.

5. In 2002 again, 9 people were killed by bomb blast near US embassy in Lima (Peru). An attempt to disrupt forthcoming visit by President George W. Bush.

6. On February 28, 2003, unknown gunmen attacked US embassy at Islamabad, killing 2 people.

7. On June 30, 2004, a suicide bomber hailing from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacked US embassy at Tashkent, killing 2 people.

8. On December 6, 2004, Al-Qaeda gunmen raided the diplomatic compound at Jeddah (Saudi Arabia), killing 9 Americans.

9. On March 2, 2006, two people were killed when a car bomb exploded outside the US consulate in Karachi.

10. On September 12, 2006, gunmen raided the US embassy at Damascus (Syria), killing 4 people.

11. On January 12, 2007, a Greek revolutionary group fired an RPG at the US embassy at Greece. No damage done.

12. On March 18, 2008, a mortar attack at the US Embassy at Sana’a (Yemen) killed 2 people.

13. On July 9, 2008, an armed attack at the US consulate at Istanbul killed 6 people.

14. On September 17, 2008, 16 people were killed when the US embassy at Sana’a (Yemen) was attacked.
~ Media Matters, International The News, Daily Kos, Mother Jones

http://theobamadiary.com/2013/05/10/rise-and-shine-495/#comment-717189

[DonViejo]

8. Yes, all that's true Cha, but,...

the Flying Monkey Brigade is twisted because an "American Ambassador and three others were killed. The FIRST Ambassador killed since..." Ultimately, the three others, will not be remembered by them either, just like the people in the list you posted.

Remember too, in the weeks following the murders, the monkeys were smearing Ambassador Stevens; "he's gay, they punished him for engaging in anal sex, blah, blah, blah." Now he's their hero, so long as none of that icky stuff is mentioned.

[Cha]

12. And, it's just Awful and so sad that Ambassador Stevens,

and Security Guards, Sean Smith, U.S. Foreign Service
Information Management Officer, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone S. Woods were killed in that atrocious attact on the Embassy in Libya, on September 11, 2012. As well as those who were killed when Bush was President. But, the Flying Monkeys need to learn a valuable lesson here, and that is.. Don't Lie about deaths of Americans to score political points with your brainwashed supporters.

I did not know about the attempt to smear Ambassador Stevens before the FM decided he was a useful victim for them in their attempts to bring down President Obama and Hillary.

Their shame knows no bounds.

thank you, DV

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack

[DonViejo]

16. Here...

American Family Association: Ambassador Stevens was gay, so no wonder...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101759572

Granted, the AFA is from the shallow end of the gene pool but, their brand of hate is particularly mean and vicious

[Cha]

17. ..

[DesertRat]

10. Awesome

Thanks for sharing this.

[Cha]

13. You're welcome, DesertRat

[quadrature]

7. it was a funding problem, or not?

Vice President Biden blames a funding problem.
....help me connect the dots .....................

several days before 9/11,
the Feb 17 Martyrs Brigade said they
would no longer protect vehicle operations.
or not

please enlighten me

[DonViejo]

9. Do you have a link to the site from...

where you obtained this information. I'm not clear what you are writing about.

[quadrature]

11. the Vice Presidential debate

if I remember correctly.

VP Biden, blamed some funding shortfall
on the usual suspects
(Republicans, fiscal cliff, sequester, bla bla bla)

[Rosa Luxemburg]

15. One can probe more into what Bush was doing on 9/11?

he failed