Benghazi - 6 Years Later & the Cover-Up Still Continues

Jump to Last Post 1-2 of 2 discussions (29 posts)
  1. RJ Schwartz profile image92
    RJ Schwartzposted 5 months ago

    Six years ago, the US Embassy in Libya was attacked by terrorists.  President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were notified as well as Special Ops groups around the region.  US Military contractors battled the attackers for 13 hours - lives were lost in the battle.  The President refused to send help.  Hillary Clinton refused to send help.  Special Operators were told to stand down.  This kind of cowardice by the Obama Administration was shocking and still echoes in the hearts and minds of millions of Americans.  What's even worse is that the survivors were all forced to sign NDA's on the events of that night.  It seems that protecting an Administration was much more important than admitting the truth.  The United States Special Mission Compound in Benghazi, Libya, served as the hub for a CIA program to arm rebels battling against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. 

    https://hubstatic.com/14205827.jpg

    1. PrettyPanther profile image82
      PrettyPantherposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      House Benghazi committee files final report and shuts down

      Gowdy on Monday called the report the “final, definitive accounting” of the Benghazi attacks.

      With Trump and a Republican majority in both houses, why would a cover-up still be happening, assuming there ever was one?

    2. crankalicious profile image92
      crankaliciousposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      This is what you care about? 3000 people died in Puerto Rico, yet President Trump called his hurricane response "incredibly successful". Trump was notified well in advance of the Hurricane's arrival, yet wasn't ready to respond. And 3,000 people died as a result.

      Should we investigate? Should Trump be thrown in jail for it?

      This is just one example of a response to assertions of a Benghazi conspiracy.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        A response, yes, but a response without any connection or relation to anything.  I doubt Trump could have stopped the hurricane, or could have magically changed the infrastructure of Puerto Rico so that more people would survive.

        1. crankalicious profile image92
          crankaliciousposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          A quicker, more coordinated response would have resulted in fewer deaths. Many people have said Trump had a grudge against Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans and that's why the response was so slow.

          And you're right, I'm offering up a straw man argument. But what are you supposed to do when the government has spent $10 million plus investigating this thing, produced lots of evidence of confusion and perhaps bad management, and yet the tin foil hat crowd still thinks it a thing just like they think Sandy Hook was faked, climate change doesn't exist, and the sun revolves around the earth.

          And, oh yeah, a mountain of evidence that President Trump is a lunatic and even his staff knows it and is working to keep him in his crib. But let's talk about Benghazi. The tin foil hat crowd are like dogs. LOOK! A squirrel!

          Can we call this BDS?

          Let me ask a question of RJ:

          Do you live in a house or a bunker? Do you have an underground pantry full of food that will last for months to help you ride out the nuclear winter?

          Hey, wait. Maybe the Puerto Rico hurricane didn't really happen.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            Don't get me wrong - I think the Benghazi thing was put to bed long ago and should remain there.  Gross mistakes were made, mistakes that likely cost lives, but it's over!  Let it rest.

            I just take exception to turning it into yet another Trump rant without justification, for President Trump's response to that hurricane was quite reasonable.  Unless you expect him to be on the first boat out, personally handing out bottles of water and climbing electric poles or paving roads to repair an infrastructure that was a massive failure long before the hurricane.

      2. GA Anderson profile image88
        GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        I know my response is aiding the hijacking of the thread topic Crankilicious, but ...

        There is one point I think is being misapplied - the 3000 death toll, (and its criticism), comparison to 'official' government, (U.S. and Puerto Rican), numbers of 64, or whatever updated numbers were used.

        It seems a very large majority of those hurricane-attributed deaths happened months and months after the storm hit.

        Consider the immediate reporting during and immediately after the storm. The talk was of how many died directly due to the storm; houses collapsed on them, people in cars swept away in the flooding or storm surge, people killed by trees falling on them, or live wires electrocuting them, drownings, etc. etc. Deaths caused directly by the hurricane.

        I think those are the deaths of the original reporting, that 64 number.

        I think that even though that very large majority of the 3000 number can be attributed to the hurricane - I think they must be considered as indirectly related.

        So with the public demand for death toll information related to the storm in its immediate aftermath, is it fair to consider, (or criticize), either government for their directly-related numbers, with a comparison of a death toll number derived from non-immediate and non-directly related deaths?

        GA

        1. crankalicious profile image92
          crankaliciousposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          I don't really think Trump had too much to do with it, though we do know about his disdain for Puerto Rico, so perhaps he just didn't think the Puerto Ricans were worth helping? After all, they're not really Americans and they're mostly darker-skinned and they mostly speak Spanish.

          The accusation I have seen leveled is that the response was slow, much slower than other hurricanes, and that people died as a result.

          1. GA Anderson profile image88
            GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            "The accusation I have seen leveled is that the response was slow, much slower than other hurricanes, and that people died as a result."

            I have seen similar accusations Crankalicious, and I don't know much about it. More accurately, all I do know about it is from public reporting, and as Ken is fond of saying - we all get to choose which of that reporting we believe.

            I was only addressing the point that I think this "3000 vs. 64" deaths controversy is an apples and oranges comparison used purely for political purposes. Specifically as a club to beat-up Pres. Trump. I think it is wrong.

            However, I can agree that I think many folks see Puerto Rican American citizens as different from U.S. American citizens, and that, Puerto Rico as a territory is different than a U.S. mainland state.

            GA

          2. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            "The accusation I have seen leveled is that the response was slow, much slower than other hurricanes, and that people died as a result."

            I've seen that, too.  I've also seen the rest of the story - that the amount, type and distribution of the aid needed would not have been possible even before the hurricane, let alone after the massive destruction it produced.  The entire electrical grid, for instance, needed complete replacement and roads were insufficient to get large quantities of supplies to outlying areas long before the hurricane.

            Take away the airports, shipping docks and most roadways and aid very simply could not be delivered on what other disaster relief efforts considered a timely basis.  This was not the "fault" of Trump or anyone else - it was a simple fact that Puerto Rico did not have the infrastructure to allow massive relief.

            1. crankalicious profile image92
              crankaliciousposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              You and GA seem to be making a lot of assumptions. Look, a massive relief effort like that, on an island, has got to be infinitely harder than on the mainland.

              I'm not really trying to argue if there was malfeasance there. Maybe. Maybe not. But given the number of people who perished and the potential for screw-ups and the accusations flying about concerning the number of deaths, I'm saying that perhaps we should spend a bunch of taxpayer money investigating it given the baseline we have established with Benghazi.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                I'm pretty satisfied that there was no malfeasance in Puerto Rico.  We could have done better, certainly, had we spent millions, or hundreds of millions, in preparation...and maybe lost more lives doing that than were actually lost.  How many ships could we have stationed off the island, in the path of a hurricane, without losing any?  How many planes could we have landed on substandard (or non-existent) runways without losing any? 

                We will never beat mother nature, and when we build crap to withstand a hurricane...well, we're going to lose.  Every time, and that's exactly what we saw in Puerto Rico.  Crap buildings, crap infrastructure, crap electrical grid, all trying to withstand a major hurricane. 

                And of course there is one additional thing to consider; how much should we be spending on a forecast?  Resources and money are always limited; how much of those resources should we spend "just in case", leaving nothing for when it actually happens somewhere else?

                1. crankalicious profile image92
                  crankaliciousposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  You're satisfied based on what? I have a friend from Puerto Rico whose mother lives there still and he visits. Things are bad. People died because of the governments poor response - at least that's what many believe.

                  I think there's a cover-up here. We should investigate. Many more lives were lost than in Benghazi. If we spent $20 million investigating Benghazi, shouldn't we spend a few million to make sure this was handled correctly and that nobody made a mistake?

                  Seriously, my response to Katrina was that, maybe if you don't want to be flooded, don't live below sea level and in the path of hurricanes. And maybe if it happens once, you should move. Same thing if you live next to the Mississippi river. It floods. Don't live there if you don't want to be flooded. If you live at the bottom of a snowy mountain and you get hit by an avalanche, is it the government's fault. Are the taxpayers responsible? And if you live in the forest and your home burns down because of a forest fire, should the taxpayers foot the bill?

                  I'm just trying to make a point. There's no cover-up in Benghazi and never was. There's no conspiracy. It's a bureaucracy. Ever seen anything run smoothly in a bureaucracy in times of real crisis?

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    Turns out we wasted money on the Benghazi investigation.  Now, with nothing more to go on that your personal "feeling" you wish to waste $20 million more - "waste" because you know as well as I do that even if you can find errors or intentional foot dragging (as opposed to outright fraud) that no one will take a fall for it.  Your statement about Benghazi (no conspiracy; it's a bureaucracy) can certainly be stated about Puerto Rico, and in spaces.  Benghazi was a tiny event, with few people; the same cannot be said about the hurricane damages.

                    I certainly agree with you about Katrina, and I feel, and have for some time, the same way.  If you wish to take the risk, don't expect me to help pay for your expenses when the inevitable happens.  I'm tired of rebuilding New Orleans only to see it ravaged again in an unending stream of disasters.

              2. GA Anderson profile image88
                GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                What assumptions have I made Crankalicious?

                GA

      3. promisem profile image97
        promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        It's amazing how many people are experts on:

        - The CIA
        - Islamic terrorism
        - Communication problems
        - Embassy security
        - Congressional investigations
        - Diplomatic protocol
        - Military readiness

        and many other complicated factors that all were part of Benghazi.

        I've ready many articles from many sources on the subject. I don't see how we ordinary citizens can pass judgment on what went wrong and who is responsible.

        If hostile and aggressive Republican investigations didn't come up with anything against Obama and Clinton, then I find it hard to understand why some extremists are still calling them murderers.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          For the same reason they call Trump racist for trying to protect America by banning travel from known terrorist havens that do not vet their travelers?  All a political game built out of hatred.

    3. tsadjatko profile image61
      tsadjatkoposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      In a brazen attempt to re-write history, President Barack Obama in a speech on Friday blamed “the politics of resentment and paranoia,” which he said had found a home in the Republican Party, for “wild conspiracy theories – like those surrounding Benghazi.”

      What a reprehensible way to frame an event that killed four Americans while they waited for rescue and protection they deserved from people Barack Obama never sent.  Of course, you only heard about Obama’s characterization of Benghazi if you pay attention to conservative media.  By and large the mainstream press excluded references to Benghazi from their reporting of the speech. 

      With President Trump methodically erasing the Obama legacy, this bizarre attempt to reframe the narratives around Obama’s greatest failures should fool no one.

      Kris “Tanto” Paronto, one of the heroes who watched his friends die that night in Benghazi, called Obama’s comments “disgusting,” tweeting: 

      “Benghazi is a conspiracy @BarackObama?! How bout we do this,let’s put your cowardly ass on the top of a roof with 6 of your buddies&shoot rpg’s&Ak47’s at you while terrorists lob 81mm mortars killing 2 of your buddies all while waiting for US support that you never sent.

      https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews. … i.amp.html

      1. crankalicious profile image92
        crankaliciousposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        Yes, it's a conspiracy. Right-wing nutcases have beat this to death and spent tens of millions of dollars investigating it and turned up almost nothing. We'd be better off spending our money investigating your next favorite concern - Pizzagate.

        1. tsadjatko profile image61
          tsadjatkoposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          And you know more than Kris “Tanto” Paronto, one of the heroes who watched his friends die that night in Benghazi who called Obama’s comments “disgusting,”

          Have some respect - he might as well have tweeted this...

          “Benghazi is a conspiracy @BarackObama?! How bout we do this,let’s put your cowardly ass on the top of a roof with 6 of your buddies&shoot rpg’s&Ak47’s at you while terrorists lob 81mm mortars killing 2 of your buddies all while waiting for US support that you never sent.

          ...about you.

          1. crankalicious profile image92
            crankaliciousposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            I know he doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about and neither do you. My guess he's talking about a request for extra security prior to the attack. Go do some research and see if that request ever got as high as the President. It didn't. I don't even think it got to the Secretary of State. They didn't personally deny any requests.

            This narrative is just some ridiculous thing the right-wing media has concocted to stir people up.

            Neither Obama nor Clinton is responsible for any attacks on the embassy. And whether or not extra security would have stopped it is debatable. It's also true that funding for that request was put in front of a Republican congress and was DENIED.

            Congress passes bills, not the executive branch.

    4. Kathleen Cochran profile image81
      Kathleen Cochranposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      All of your premises have been proven to be false.  Not some.  All.  No incident since Vietnam has been investigation more, and the evidence negates all your claims.

      1. tsadjatko profile image61
        tsadjatkoposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        So then why didn’t You cite even one premise with proof it has been proven wrong - i’ll tell you why, you can’t and as usual you make a blanket statement and never provide proof - now that I’ve called you out on your comment you will disappear as usual ... all we’ll hear is crickets.

        1. crankalicious profile image92
          crankaliciousposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          There's no point because you won't accept the evidence or just call it fake news or whatever you decide. There's no point because you live in an alternate reality. But here you go...

          https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/us/p … ghazi.html

          Here's one among many sentences that blows up your entire theory:

          "The report, which included perhaps the most exhaustive chronology of the attacks to date, did not dispute that United States military forces stationed in Europe could not have reached Benghazi in time to rescue the personnel who died."

          So, to rephrase - no matter what anyone did in terms of sending help, the forces could not have reached Benghazi in time.

          But here's the thing - I don't think you care about the facts. You just care about your narrative, that Clinton and Obama are responsible and intentionally caused the people in Benghazi to be murdered.

          1. tsadjatko profile image61
            tsadjatkoposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            I give facts to support everything I say, actually I need not even express my opinion when the facts speak for themselves but you and she never back up anything you say with facts, just innuendo and then you attack the messenger of the facts - you are so transparent.

            1. crankalicious profile image92
              crankaliciousposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              Project much? Show me anywhere you have provided facts. I gave you a link that's as factual as it gets. I'll provide it again. I suggest you read it since it refutes what you said.  Also, this is a fact:

              "The report, which included perhaps the most exhaustive chronology of the attacks to date, did not dispute that United States military forces stationed in Europe could not have reached Benghazi in time to rescue the personnel who died."

              Here's the link again to refute your statement that no facts have been provided:

              https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/us/p … ghazi.html

              You seem very confused by the definition of a fact, which probably explains why you take the positions that you do.

              1. tsadjatko profile image61
                tsadjatkoposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                Cochran said all Ralph’s premises have been proven wrong but she can’t provide even one proof - doesn’t even try to.

                Ralph's Premises are:

                Six years ago, the US Embassy in Libya was attacked by terrorists.  President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were notified as well as Special Ops groups around the region.  US Military contractors battled the attackers for 13 hours - lives were lost in the battle. 

                Please show me where your article proves those premises false.

                The President refused to send help.  Hillary Clinton refused to send help. 

                Please show me where your article proves those premises false.

                Special Operators were told to stand down. 

                Please show me where your article proves that premise false.

                This kind of cowardice by the Obama Administration was shocking and still echoes in the hearts and minds of millions of Americans.

                Your article doesn’t show that premise false either.

                What's even worse is that the survivors were all forced to sign NDA's on the events of that night.

                Another premise your article does not prove false.

                It seems that protecting an Administration was much more important than admitting the truth. 

                That is an opinion, not a premise but most would have to agree with it.

                The United States Special Mission Compound in Benghazi, Libya, served as the hub for a CIA program to arm rebels battling against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. 

                Where does your article prove that false?

                So as usual you are either on another planet or are oblivious to the actual premises Cochran said have all been proven false, because they haven’t and you hide behind an article that doesn’t prove any of Ralph’s premises to be false - it is nothing but a red herring in relation to Cochran’s comment about what Ralph said - and I’m not surprised because obviously you didn’t even check to see what Ralph’s premises were or you’d have known you’re comparing apples to oranges.

                It appears Cochran is smarter than u my friend, at least she didn’t make a fool of herself trying to prove premises are false with an article that doesn't come near that but actually proves Ralph’s premises are true. Lol

                1. tsadjatko profile image61
                  tsadjatkoposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  18 hours and counting, listen for the crickets.

                  Of course you have nothing to say because everything YOU said about me has just been proven false and a made up attack on me to excuse Cochran for her usual false hit and run comment. The real truth is you are both phonies, never have the courage to admit you are wrong (god forbid apologize) and instead make up excuses for yourselves that any rational person can tear apart as I just did.

                  Oh, i’m Sure you have another made up excuse for not replying other than you are ambarrassed, were made a fool of, are intellectually dishonest, but feel free to pick one of these... the crickets are waiting.

  2. IslandBites profile image86
    IslandBitesposted 5 months ago

    Ugh.

    neutral

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)