We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Wednesday, October 31. 2012
A friend asks, "Isn’t is surpassingly strange that no reporter, anywhere, has managed to track down a single survivor of the Benghazi attack for an interview?"
Probably a combination of they being kept under wraps by the State Dept., and there are not many reporters who are investigating Benghazigate.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
There have been interviews of a number of Libyans, including an officer stationed in Benghazi - in a few foreign press outlets, and noted on some blogs. But they did not fit the narrative...
Been wondering about those nameless survivors. They may be able to paint in some details.
The veil of silence over them seems pretty eerie, particularly given the media's lust for emotion packed reaction stories (about which, yuck, btw.)
I heard Panetta ordered the military not to talk. Can't have the self-serving incompetence of the senior national leadership revealed before the election.
But the silence is revealing. Either assets were ordered into the fight and turned back before engaging, hopefully, for some decent and logical reason. Or the order was never given. This order could only come from the President himself. Or we should really know who has the authority to authorize the use of military force in a "friendly" foreign country.
Which is more plausible: Someone in the Armed Services disobeyed a direct presidential order and did not deploy forces to go to the rescue OR the Armed Services were never given the order permitting them to go to the rescue?
I can remember a time when the armed forces would not have needed such an order as an attack on a US embassy is an attack on US soil and therefore automatically triggers defensive deployment of US forces to assist...
I'm wondering also why we haven't hear a peep about Christopher Stevens' autopsy results. Perhaps documentation of his injuries doesn't fit the narrative either.
Well, I don't think anybody's disputing that he was killed by enemy action; don't know what more an autopsy would reveal about that, unless it showed that he was tortured or killed in a manner inconsistent with a frontal attack.
This whole thing is boggling. I'm willing to believe it's a case of the coverup being worse than the crime - assuming there wasn't a deliberate "stand-down" order (I'm not sold on that allegation as true).
But the immediate (and ham-handed) misdirection the Administration engaged in - the focus on the Youtube video - just begs for people to smell cover-up. That and the subsequent pile-up of inconsistencies and failure to provide a frank account of what happened.
The "crime" would be, in particular, State's failure to respond to repeated warnings that the security situation in Libya was shaky and repeated requests for more security. In general it would be the failure of the Administration's policies in North Africa & the Middle East, or at least the collapse of a rosy foreign policy narrative: Al Quaeda not vanquished after all; "Arab Spring" not turning out very well; Syria turning into exactly the kind of civil war with large numbers of civilian casualties our "Right to Protect" Libyan adventure was premised on preventing.
Is that it? They just don't want to 'fess up that the Administration's F.P. has failed, in detail and in general?
Even if there's some super-secret, good reason why the Administration couldn't just come clean, couldn't they have contrived to do it in a way that wouldn't rebound on them and make them look sinister?
What's the adage - never ascribe to malignancy what's more likely caused by incompetence?
Please, PLEASE, drop the silly "gate" description. Benghazi is more than enough, and can stand alone for this event and the deceptions that followed. And alas, there was no "gate" - metaphorical or otherwise, needed to be accessed for the attack to succeed, for our people to die. There was no fence in the attackers' way.
I agree with you about attaching "gate" to it. It almost seems to diminish just how brutal it was.
There was a lot of noise in the press, particularly after videos came out of a group of "rescuers" yelling "Allahu Akbar" and dragging the late Ambassador around. The press narrative was that these "youths" were dragging him to safety and that their cries were cries of joy, thanking allah that the dead Ambassador was still alive. Pretty much concurrently, the noise on the internet was that the Ambassador had been sodomized, both before and after death.
As a U.S. citizen, I would like to know if our Ambassador was tortured while alive and whether his body was abused after he was killed. It matters to me. His death and the death of the three other men who were killed require vengeance upon the perpetrators. If he was also dealt with in such a shameful manner as having been sodomized, that ups both the punishment and the crime.
teresa: There was a lot of noise in the press, particularly after videos came out of a group of "rescuers" yelling "Allahu Akbar" and dragging the late Ambassador around.
The video shows the rescuers pulling the ambassador to safety, then when discovering that the ambassador was still alive, shouting "Allahu Akbar!" meaning God is Great. They rushed him to the hospital. Unfortunately, he died shortly afterwards. The doctor said the injuries were consistent with smoke inhalation, and that there were no other signs of injury.
This is the very problem of misinformation we have discussed on other threads. The rescuers were distorted beyond all recognition until they became, in the minds of some, torturers and rapists.
Zachass, the Snopes entry that you point out actually says, "Undetermined." And, Snopes usually leans liberal. Once again, in the opposite direction, you jump to a conclusion. -- Meanwhile, after 6-weeks, if there's nothing to hide, where's the autopsy report? -
As usual, you are a feeble propagandist for whatever excuse there is for this inexusable administration and its policies, hence your title Zachass.
Bruce Kesler: Once again, in the opposite direction, you jump to a conclusion.
We didn't jump to any conclusion. There is no evidence the ambassador was tortured and raped. Without evidence, it's called just making stuff up.
There is no evidence, period, without the long overdue Autopsy.
There is however, witness statements as to abuse. But those statements (foreign press) have NOT been vetted by any American law enforcement agency, Why?
But what is more likely, that the ambassador's body after being missing for several hours in the ransacked consulate was discovered with a spark of life left in him and from a area that even the hired Libyan guards had fled (wisely) was gently and lovingly carried through the streets by previously unseen pro-American Libyans to the hospital... or, that in a typical Muslim act of rage and barbaric display, the violated and abused remains were displayed to the world or at least the Arab world as a totem of victory.
This week, in which Christan churches in Africa have been bombed and shot at, and the accusation of deliberate murder by the current American administration by the grieving father of an Navy Seal has been totally ignored by every network (except Fox), when you would expect that such a accusation would be considered NEWS (whether you agreed with it or not). Don't you think that it's about time to admit that maybe we are not being told the truth?
Do you have no shame sir?
John the River: There is however, witness statements as to abuse.
Um, no. It was a false report by Jamahiriya News that was immediately retracted.
John the River: But what is more likely, that the ambassador's body after being missing for several hours in the ransacked consulate was discovered with a spark of life left in him and from a area that even the hired Libyan guards had fled (wisely) was gently and lovingly carried through the streets by previously unseen pro-American Libyans to the hospital... or, that in a typical Muslim act of rage and barbaric display, the violated and abused remains were displayed to the world or at least the Arab world as a totem of victory.
Whatever suits your prejudice, as the evidence apparently doesn't matter.