Dec 302013
 

When Muslim terrorists attacked the US compound in Benghazi, Libya, the bodies of the four Americans killed were still warm, when Republicans tried to create a scandal, accusing the Obama administration of a cover-up.  They have relentlessly propagandized over the incent ever since, but now we know that the original assessment from Obama’s team was accurate, and everything on which Republicans have based their conspiracy theories is wrong.

1230Times…Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.

A fuller accounting of the attacks suggests lessons for the United States that go well beyond Libya. It shows the risks of expecting American aid in a time of desperation to buy durable loyalty, and the difficulty of discerning friends from allies of convenience in a culture shaped by decades of anti-Western sentiment. Both are challenges now hanging over the American involvement in Syria’s civil conflict.

The attack also suggests that, as the threats from local militants around the region have multiplied, an intensive focus on combating Al Qaeda may distract from safeguarding American interests.

In this case, a central figure in the attack was an eccentric, malcontent militia leader, Ahmed Abu Khattala, according to numerous Libyans present at the time. American officials briefed on the American criminal investigation into the killings call him a prime suspect. Mr. Abu Khattala declared openly and often that he placed the United States not far behind Colonel Qaddafi on his list of infidel enemies. But he had no known affiliations with terrorist groups, and he had escaped scrutiny from the 20-person C.I.A. station in Benghazi that was set up to monitor the local situation… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <NY Times>

I have provided just a small outtake from an extensive article.  I strongly suggest reading it in its entirety to understand the full impact.

Of course Republicans have their panties in a huge bunch that their propaganda has been blown away.  This should prove that the Times article is accurate.

Just like clockwork. here we go with the push back on the New York Times and their reporting on the attack on our consulate in Libya. Fox "news" has got way too much time invested in pushing their misleading and outright lying talking points and fake outrage over their drummed up Benghazi "scandal" and they’re not about to let it go now…

Inserted from <Crooks and Liars>

 

If the Republican Reichsministry of Propaganda, Faux Noise, makes a controversial claim, rest assured that the opposite is true.

As I see it, the American fault for the incident can be divided three ways.  Most responsible is Ambassador Chris Stevens, who should never have ignored security warnings he received and placed himself in such an exposed position.  Next come Congressional Republicans, who slashed the funding for diplomats’ security.  Next come Republican hate mongers, who created the video designed to ridicule Islam.  No doubt, Republicans will try to project their just share of responsibility onto Obama.

Share

  11 Responses to “Bye, Bye Benghazi!”

  1. David Gregory could best be described as apoplectic on Meet The Press yesterday. You just knew he wanted to refute the report but didn't quite know how. Poor baby! He wanted Pres. Obama and Hillary Clinton to be responsible for something to do with attack or "cover-up".

    • I wish I had seen him with his panties in a bind.  I quit watching Meet The Press after he started there, he caused my blood pressure to sky rocket.

    • I caught part of that this morning.  Giving him a pound of Ex-Lax would have been an act of mercy.

  2. "It's an odd thing but when you tell someone the true facts of a mythical tale they are indignant not with the teller but with you. They don't want to have their ideas upset. It rouses some vague uneasiness in them, I think, and they resent it. So they reject it and refuse to think about it. If they were merely indifferent it would be natural and understandable. But it is much stronger than that, much more positive. They are annoyed.  Very odd, isn't it.” – Josephine Tey, The Daughter of Time

    I'm afraid we are going to have Benghazi conspiracy theorists with us until they all die.  And that is if we are lucky and there isn't a second generation, on which I would not bet any important body parts myself.

    This article is a year and a half old but still on target (and was an accurate predictor too):  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-melton/birther-movement_b_1558979.html

    • Joanne, that is the difference between opinions and cherished beliefs.  People's world view aree defined by the latter, and knowing how painful it can be to have to rebuild one's world view, it's not surprising that people, especially those who like being under authority, avoid it.

      I agree, and your link is a fitting example.

  3. I am sure the Republicans will keep telling their lies and will attempt to refute the report.  They have too much invested in this incident to let it go.

  4. What do facts have to do with the Republican attack on the Benghazi incident?   It's all about getting ready for Clinton's possible presidential candacy.    (They need to be careful, what happens if a real progressive such as Elizabeth Warren gets the job?)

  5. ~~The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi.

    A thought of the Military Industrial Complex perpetuation comes to my mind… :evil: