I daresay you grok that Pearl Harbour and Benghazi were events of slightly different magnitudes ? You never even once striked me as silly, and that’s high praise coming from me.
I guess I still don’t get what the presumed conspiracy is about.
I mean, let’s say that the White House knew exactly what the attack was from minute one. In fact, let’s go further and posit, hypothetically, that the demonstrations were 100% false flag and the mortar attacks were in fact the work of CIA triggermen ordered to *directly *by President Obama and paid for with naked pictures of Michelle… and then, what ? What was the dastardly plan at work there ? What monstrous, dictatorial, fascist, Nazi, Communist, eeeeevil, and even worse: un-American (!) *thing *is/was that supposed to lead to ? Who or what is the *femme *we’re supposed to *chercher *here ?
Future President Hillary Clinton ? I daresay it’s a rather fucking roundabout way of boosting her run; what with, y’know, it happening while she was supposed to be working to ensure the safety of embassy personnel.
I get the conspiracy nuttery about Pearl - it directly led to American involvement in WW2, which the public was by and large against. I also get the 9/11 conspiracy angle, for similar reasons.
Explain to me what the dastardly Benghazi conspiracy is about, conspiracy nuts. Tell me about motives first and foremost.
I don’t get the idea of a 9/11 conspiracy. I mean, if you wanted to give the U.S. a pretext for invading Iraq, there would have been much more direct ways of doing it.
As I understand it, the idea is that having diplomatic and intelligence personnel killed by a coordinated and planned attack makes the President look worse than if they had been killed by a spontaneous protest inspired by a video, and thus Obama (this being the run-up to the 2012 election) directed the talking points to support his re-election rather than to what actually happened.
I think the bases for that belief are debatable, apart from whether or not it even happened.
Oh yes, absolutely. But I can still see a tenuous, cracked link between “huge, shocking event” > “Iraq War” and how people could infer a deliberate causation link here. Nutty as it may be.
I still don’t get that. The four Americans are dead; that’s a fact. How is it worse for Obama to say we couldn’t protect them from a planned attack from an AQ affiliate using heavy weapons, than to say we couldn’t protect them from some ragtag mob upset by an internet video?
The most coherent response I’ve heard is that it counters Obama’s claim that al Qaeda was on the run, but duh, that’s why they had to attack us in a shithole like Benghazi, instead of downtown NYC. Nobody claimed that all terrorists had been eradicated worldwide.
To those who need a conspiracy, they are more PROOF!!!111
If an event begins with conflicting reports that are eventually resolved, they are a standard phenomenon of the fog of war (or whatever). However, if one needs a conspiracy, the identical conflicting reports with eventual resolution can ONLY be the results of a cabal of evildoers.
One need only start with an enemy to disparage and the conspiracies bloom like lake algae in July.
That’s what I meant in the next sentence, the bases of the conspiracy motive are questionable in and of themselves. And even if there was a clear motive for people to conspire, it does not mean that they did.
Not to mention that the right could draw on a much better response to the claim that al-Qaeda is on the run, which is: who cares how many senior al-Qaeda members you, Obama, have taken out, when the terrorist threat has metastasized into a more diffuse, leaderless form all over the world? Where, for example, people unaffiliated with al-Qaeda can attack our consulate in Benghazi?
Basically, any way you look at Benghazi, you can find some political rationale for Obama to spin it in one way or another. That’s why this whole thing is such fertile ground for conspiracy theories.
Fine. I wanted answers to what the president was doing when he got the word, so I talked to my friend Luther, Obama’s anger translator. He told me what he said to Clinton when the President handed him the phone, “What do you mean Stevens was killed? Why was that mammy-slammer in Benghazi in the first place? Didn’t he KNOW there was shit going down all over Muslimland? (And I am NOT a Muslim, y’all!) And why was he out on the street? What good did he think showing his hippie cracker ass would do, calm everybody down? Those are MY unanswered questions! Sheee-it, I’m GLAD he’s dead! Maybe that’ll teach him not to be stupid next time.”
That would only result in another brain injury for Hillary. But it would be a good excuse for her not to testify before the bipartisan Select Committee, under oath, about all things Benghazi.
The investigation is already overly partisan. What the Democrat party couldn’t control was the votes of the Democrats who voted for the resolution creating the Select Committee.
In this case, a bipartisan vote created a bipartisan select committee. If given a choice between no investigation and having an investigation, I’m in favor of having an investigation.
No investigation hasn’t been an option since the fall of 2012 when the first one took place. More accurately, when multiple investigations haven’t reached the conclusions you’ve sought, you’re in favor of investigations that reach your foregone conclusions.
