A thought on the lack of outrage/action over Benghazi

In a way, the modern world seems to hearken a return to the 'old world' of the 19th Century, when life was cheaper.

Think about it:

The Benghazi thing goes down in Libya. An ambassador, aide, and two SEALs are KIA by an organized terrorist group. Twenty years ago this would have been a MAJOR deal sparking a MAJOR response. Why not now?

It's 2012. We've been at War against these people for 11 years. We've invaded Iraq, invaded Afghanistan, watched a major attack destroy skyscrapers in NYC, had a terrorist shoot up Fort Hood, and we've suffered thousands of casualties dead and mutilated over the last decade.

My kids have grown up in a country at war- they've known nothing else. The concept of America at peace is completely foreign to them outside of history texts.

So in light of all that, the lack of outrage (and a harsh response) over Benghazi is completely understandable, if not excusable. The right is up in arms, the left are a bunch of lying scumbellies (like usual), but they are getting away with it because we as a people are so inured to never-ending warfare and death that the loss of four people in an Arab country is nothing- not even headline news.

Discuss, hosers.

 

It would make this administration look (even more) shitty. Therefore, it's not a subject for discussion in polite(ly deceitful) company.

 

I chalk it up to the reality based community not being interested in provably false conspiracy theories. The latest one being peddled by Fox is that Patraus began his affair a year ago to cover up "the Benghazi incident"... Which happened much, much less than a year ago. Sorry, but there is no there there.

 

Funny, because nobody else seems to be advocating that. The consensus seems to be that it's too convoluted for Obama's people to have the intelligence/imagination to come up with. So as usual, you are out to fucking lunch. Take off your tinfoil hat, assbag.

 

I forget who, but someone posted a long list of embassy attacks over the last decade, and it was the first I'd heard of most of them. By comparison, this one is getting a lot more attention, albeit mostly from righties desperate to blame the president.

At the same time, compare the public response to the Cole bombing back in the 90's, or even the embassy attacks back then. It seems that historically, the response is almost always muted when the attacks are overseas.

 

I've seen FOX talking about some folks still not having power.... or is this something worse? Or just unfounded rumours of something worse?

 

So Fox hasn't had people on peddling that latest conspiracy theory? Sorry, but they have and, yes, such conspiracy nonsense makes most normal people just say "they're wackos" and dismiss the whole thing. As rightly they should.

Someone is "out to lunch" here but it sure as fuck isn't me.

The other popular conspiracy about this among the right is that Patraeus is secretly a leftist and conspired to have an affair to aid "the liberal decimation of our defense budget!" No really, they're really saying this shit.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...rass-benghazi-cover-up-agenda-to-gut-military
http://godfatherpolitics.com/8015/petraeus-benghazi-and-the-naked-cover-up/

 

Those are all popular right wing conspiracy theories which win nuts, just like yourself, have been recently spreading on web forums and on the right wing blogosphere. Look, I understand you don't like getting linked to the nutjobs on your own side but it is inevitable and proper that you should be. Sleep with pigs, smell like pigs, so you should thinking about finding a new place to sleep.

 

An American died in the middle east?

Who cares?

 

It's a terrorist attack for sure just like a dozen other such which occurred in recent years. None of those other dozen mattered to Fox at all until there was a black Democrat in office then suddenly they declared it the biggest more horrible thing ever and that it would be "OBAMA'S WATERGATE!!!!!111!!1!1ONE!11"

I think that, more than anything, explains why no one who isn't a wing nut has gotten worked up about it. Sure, do the regular post action review to see what could have been changed to improve security but the Republican attempts to politicize this were so obvious and so contrary to the facts that no one gives them any credence and rightly so.

 

Don't just tell us dummies, get it the fuck out there, go viral on Youtube or something.

 

Fuck, since the beginning of the Administration the Executive has been conspiring to smuggle guns into Mexico to destabilize the government there. And the only logical answer for why they are doing it is to undermine the Bill of Rights. When's the last time you saw anything about it somewhere other than Fox?

Down the Memory Hole!

 

There is Volpone showing, once again, there is no conspiracy too stupid or absurd for the right wing not to believe.

 

People are spoon-fed information from the press, which has given up any pretense of objective reporting and has essentially become the propaganda wing of the Democrat party. Anything that makes a Democrat look bad is ignored, or if it can't be ignored then it's played down to make it seem inconsequential.

If Benghazi happened in 2006, every media outlet would've been unanimously screaming bloody murder and demanding independent hearings to understand why the government failed to protect its ambassador and servicemen. Bush would've been criticized to no end, and the story would've been the lead for weeks. And if Bush tried lying in the same way the Obama administration has been, people would've been calling for impeachment for good reason.

Under Obama, the media flat out refused to even report the incident, apart from a passing "oh, this happened, what a shame" reference. Now that the election is over it's being reported a little more freely, but you can guarantee Benghazi will be spun by the media into something that doesn't make Obama look bad in even the slightest way. Even though Obama flat out bold-faced lied to the American people about the incident. No one will ask Obama a single tough question, and any hearings on Benghazi will be exercises in shuffling blame to anybody but Obama.

Benghazi isn't Watergate, it's far, far, far worse of a situation. And sadly Obama will come out looking squeaky clean thanks to acquiescent Republican opposition and liberals in the media circling the wagons around the guy.

I'm also go go ahead and predict that Petraeus will stick to his September 13th story of how it was a video that caused the attack, so as to avoid the inevitable character assassination that comes with defying the Democrat party.

 

The donkey/elephant wars are but a tired distraction, a soap opera embraced by partisans. A market to be exploited.

 

I posted it. During the Bush admin, there was an embassy attack about once a year. Usually a lone gunman or suicide bomber, but also a few organized attacks.

Where was the outrage from the right? Where were the conspiracy theories? Were where the anguished cries of "remember so and so!!!" after each attack?

Nowhere. Because nobody gave a shit then, and nobody gives a shit now, except as a way to attack the President.

 

There were numerous embassy attacks during the Bush administration. Nobody noticed or cared.

Of course, given how Bush has been wiped from the history books, and everything everywhere is Obama's fault, it's not surprising that suddenly embassy attacks are a big deal to you guys.

 

Wait it gets worse.....

The attack may have been in response to our CIA capturing Libyans and interrogating them.

 

At least 52 dead, hundreds injured.

But most of them were brown, so who gives a shit, right?

 

There is a big difference.

In this attack the attack took seven hours. During that seven hours the people under attack were screaming for help. THEY WERE REFUSED HELP. Now everyone is running claiming they weren't the ones who said no and in fact no one asked for help. Bull-fucking-shit!

The two SEALS who died? They disobeyed direct orders from their superiors in the CIA and went to rescue the Ambassador and the other guy. They too were begging for support. Support that wasn't given to them.

A lot of bad can be said about Bush but no one in their right mind can think Bush or anyone in his administration would have withheld help during a seven hour attack.

 

How 'bout Darfur?
Lotta unheard screaming for help the under his watch.

 

Darfur wasn't American citizens and it would have been impossible to help in such a situation even if we wanted to because of the size of the massacre. You'd have to roll an army in there and I'd be willing to bet anything you'd be at the front of the line bitching about it.

 

As long as you continue to accept the Fox News version of events, there's no point debating with you.

 

Oh, that's right, nevermind.

Really?
The alternate timeline gambit?
So 2004.

 

That not just coming from FOX. Perhaps you should start paying attention instead.

 

Who's it coming from, then?

Because I haven't heard a source that the attack on the Embassy lasted 9 hours. The attacks between the embassy and annex occurred over that time period, but that's 2 separate attacks, the later being as much a mortar shelling as a mob attack (as in the first). The mortar shelling is what killed the two security officers/CIA contractors.

This goes to show the 'it was all a protest' line was a cover story, but the question is whether or not it was a cover story for the political implications of the attack or to reveal the CIA annex was conducting operations and interrogating prisoners. I'd say probably both.

However, as stated, there's been a large number of attacks on US embassies in the last decade. That fact by itself indicates it was probably more than just a political coverup.

The Pentagon dispatched an unarmed drone to overfly the compound within two hours, and the CIA annex security forces teamed up with Libyan security within 4 hours. Woods and Doherty had already been to the embassy at that point, but were unable to recover the ambassador.

It's a significant event, and certainly should leave the Obama administration with egg on their face, but its hardly the impeachable they are all traitors and despots moment the right wing is shaking the stick for.

 

You don't know much about 19th century (or any other) history if you are seriously comparing then to now.

 

You are fucking batshit crazy. Like hands down, no joking. Watergate was an attempt to undermine the Democratic process by wiretapping the opposing party, Benghazi is just an embassy attack. That you would even attempt to compare the two shows how warped your reality is.