Posted on 11/13/2012 9:32:23 AM PST by mojito
Most of the questions related to the Benghazi debacle are about the mechanics, both offensive and defensive. What did the White House know and when? What assets were available to the military? Did someone order a stand down, and if so, who? Why was “the video” blamed long after the administration knew the truth — and didn’t the administration know the truth from the beginning? If it didn’t, why didn’t it?
All reasonable questions, but a generally unasked one deserves attention: “Why did al-Qaeda want to kill Ambassador Chris Stevens?”
The ambassador had good relations with some of the most extreme Libyan militias, including those with al-Qaeda ties. Did he upset them with something he did, or didn’t do? Was the White House fully apprised of his connections and dealings with the militias? Was he killed because of something the administration told him to start doing or to stop doing?
There are things we know and things upon which we must speculate, including the entry of surface-to-air missiles to the Levant.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
TO BE TOLD THEY WATCHED LIVE ACTION OF THE FIRE FIGHT FOR 7 HOURS IS OUTRAGEOUS.
WHY ARE WE LETTING IT GO? Do they get a pass!!!!!!
Is there no accountability?
They did not want to kill him.
They knew that he was inside the “save haven” part of the building behind the locked steel door.
They could easily have made sure he was dead with the weaponry they were using.
“Why did al-Qaeda want to kill Ambassador Chris Stevens?”
Why not? They targeted the British ambassador a few months earlier but he was lucky to escape being killed. Why did they do that?
Ans: they’re alqaida - they’re terrorists who hate westerners & that’s what they do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.