Posted on 05/11/2013 11:01:44 AM PDT by jpsb
Thoughts on Benghazi from a long time Freeper.
The Big Picture
Obama is almost certainly deep in debt to the Saudis. The Saudis are battling Iran for control of the Middle East, North Africa. So we are backing the Saudis against Iran, Al Quida and other militant Shiite groups. Why we care about the Saudis, other than oil, is a mystery to me, but we have been backing the Saudis long before Obama took office. (It should be noted that were the Saudis to stop accepting US dollars for oil, the world would have little use for US dollars. )
What is Missing From This Picture.
Now here is where things get confusing. Who would want to kill Ambassador Stevens? Stevens was our point man in helping Libya over throw Gaddafi, surely that earned him a great deal of good will with local militia. Also it has been reliably reported that Stevens was arming rebels in Syria. Should Syria fall it opens the door to the Muslim Brotherhood. Bad for the USA and bad for Israel. But who in Benghazi would want him dead? Whoever is responsible for the attack must have had a great deal of influence, since the militia guarding him abandoned him and the militia manning the check points allowed the attackers freedom of movement. Pulling that attack off requires a great deal of planning and cooperations amongst several different militia groups. I have also read that the mortar fire at the annex was very accurate which indicates planning. I am still curious about why the mortar stopped after killing the two navy seals? Perhaps the story about illuminating the mortar position via laser is true.
Some claim the idea was not to kill him but to kidnap him. If so why attack the annex after Stevens was known to be dead? Were there a lot of arms at the annex? Was it the same attackers that killed Stevens that attacked the annex? Something is missing from this story that would explain the nights events. I have watched just about everyone dance around the question of why our consulate and annex were attacked and why our ambassador was murdered.
Questions That Need an Answer
After 911 is was SOP for the Bush administration to go on heightened security on the anniversary of 911, why in the world would we not be on heightened security? Someone had to reverse the Bush policy on 911. Who and why?
I would also like a “who and why” on over all security at Benghazi after repeated warning and requests.
Most of all I want a “who and why” on why no military action was undertaken. No one knew how long the firefight at the annex would last so why was no action taken? To me that is the “off with their head” question.
I don't need a why on the cover up, that is perfectly clear, but I would like a “who” or more correctly lots of whos. Did Susan Rice know the “talking points” were BS? We at FR knew it, did she? Clearly Hillary knew and Obama must have know too. Did Jay Carry know he was lying to the American people?
And lastly why has it been American policy ever since Bush 1 to carry water for the Saudis? There is lots of oil in this world. We don't need Saudi oil we need a sane energy policy of Drill Baby Drill.
Feel free to add to this list of questions if you think I've missed some. Also feel free to try and answer some if you are knowledgeable.
See: “Kissenger, Petrodollar” for all the reasons you’ll need.
You are probably right but that policy needs a rethinking badly.
This video, which includes some of the Seal Team VI families at the National Press Club Conference last Thursday, exposes Barry and his goons just as much as the Benghazi hearing. The reprehensible actions of this Regime sickens me, how about you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqtJrJ40Cio
According to Elijah Cummings, death is just a part of life. That’s his take on tragic and needless deaths in Benghazi. I assume Cummings thinks the six million Jews murdered in the Holocaust were just a part of life as well?
When the day comes, and there are many who believe it’s in the works, that the Petrodollar is no longer required to purchase oil, life as we have enjoyed it for so long will be kaputski.
What gets me the most angry is that no military action was undertaken to help our people at the annex. No one even thought about mounting up. That is unforgivable.
Apparently, the Joint Chiefs went to bed like Barry, the King.
I think the media would like to white wash this as a clerical snafu in talking points, some clerk in a rush to get out for a smoke break.
In this case the crime is worse than the coverup. The crime was no assistance was rendored or even readied/staged during a 7-9 hour attack.
As to why we carter to the Saudi’s, they are the cornerstone of the US Dollars change status in the Middle East. If the government wants to keep churning out worthless dollars they need the Saudi’s. With the emergence of the BRIC’s, we need the Saudi’s all the more.
Why was Stevens in Benghazi?
Why was the Turkish Ambassador in Benghazi?
Thanks for the post, learn something interesting everyday!
I get most of my info from here and drudge, when I see something interesting in either the article or the comments I google it to try and get a reliable source. I am happy you liked my thoughts, thanks.
Mainly, we have alot of money invested in Saudi Arabia. We have air bases in Saudi Arabia, we use the same military equipment (because we sell it to them). I’m sure they owe us favors and we owe them favors. I’ve no problem with being in good terms with Saudi Arabia. I would like to see the Same relationship with Jordan.
As for Benghazi, well how and when to respond to attacks is the CnC’s perogative. I feel the decision made was a calculated and cowardly political decision. I much rather it was a deer in the headlights thing cause that does rise to the level of impeachment. However, making a cold calculated decision however we may disagree with it *is not* impeachable and certainly not treasonous.
We may hate the decision, totally disagree with it, but it was Obama’s to make or to delegate.
However, lying about it (imagine that, our government lies to us), and seemingly trying to cover up and define the narrative was bad judgement. It’s political Hay for the GOP to toss around and really really does make it look like ineptitude on Obama’s part.
So bar any further revelations, Benghazi will not lead to impeachment or the ridiculous accusation of treason. It still remains though, a very poor and unpopular decision.
Does the film they show in this 3 hour 10 min youtube video show the imam praying over the body and if so does anyone know the time point in the video?
jpsb, the Bush family has been close the the Saudi leadership for decades. I believe our oil supply sources have changed significantly since the days when the Bushes first became friends with the Saudi leadership.
As for the Saudi Leadership, it hasn’t by and large been a real negative for the United States. It has been a moderating force within the Middle-East, and has even been a distinctive moderating force within Saudi Arabia itself.
In the oil cartel meetings over the decades, Saudi Arabia was the voice of reason when it came to what prices to set crude at. At times other states favored raising the prices significantly more than they were raised. Saudi Arabian leadership moderated, and we were spared even worse negative impact.
Within Saudi Arabia, the Wasabbi sect of Islam is quite anti-United States. None the less, the Saudi leadership allowed us to set up bases on it’s soil, and wage war from them.
My biggest beef with the last Bush administration was their decision to allow upwards of 30,000 Saudi young men to come to the U. S. on student visas even post 09/11/2001.
I’ve already touched on the Wasabbi sect and it’s implications. It doesn’t take a real bright person to see the negative impact 30,000 sworn enemies of the U. S. could have on our nation if they wanted to. We have already seen what nineteen could do.
We cannot keep tabs on these students. We know there is a criminal element. We know they are raised from birth hearing about the great Satan.
So for all the talk about Saudi Arabia, and it’s negative impact on the United States, at this date I would still say that our own leadership in the White House has done far more to expose our nation to danger, than the Saudi leadership has.
That’s where our focus should be.
When this Saudi leadership changes, particularly if the present royal family is replaced, a lot of folk are going to get a real eye opener concerning how moderate the present leadership there is.
Stevens was in Benghazi to negociate the opening of a new consulate/embassy according to the unclassified testimony of Hicks. Hillary claims to know nothing about arms to Syria.
Forgiven, inasmuch as your studied thoughtful approach to the facts of events in this great nation since 1993 attack on the World Trade Center (clintoon era)is excellent, and frankly— bingo on the money.
It is why we excused the actions of the majority saudi attackers on 9/11/2001, EVEN as the Saudi royal family (dear friends of the Seven Sisters of Oil, esp. the Rockefellers)continues to financially support the madrassahs and the HOLY Saudi muslim police to develop insane suicidal islamic fanatics (whose real goal is destruction of the Saudi family and a greater caliphate— as is the other operator in the area— Turdkey).
We kowtow to them because the Federal Reserve has long ago dollarized our dollar to Saudi oil, and oil in general as a result. We need to get off the TEAT.
Saving your post, as a reference piece. Deo Vindice.
Stevens was running weapons, and the Turkish Ambassador dropped by to tell him to get the hell out of there.
Next up: planes start falling out of the sky if some jihad’s demand of the day is not met.
I want to know what happened to the 20,000 surface-to-air manpads missing from the Benghazi consulate. Was this a gun-running operation? What the h*ll happened to those missiles? Do we have to wait until airplanes start falling out of the skies?
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.