More Sickening News Out Of Benghazi

Even as a media critic who is used to the routine bias that comes out of the mainstream media, the lack of coverage of Benghazi has been alarming. But thankfully Fox News is reporting the story. From “Exclusive: Classified cable warned consulate couldn’t withstand ‘coordinated attack‘”:

The U.S. Mission in Benghazi convened an “em…

  1. Brian Watt

    The American people have a right to know whether their president is responsible for the death of an American ambassador and three other Americans.

    The American people have a right to know whether this administration placed politics over the lives of these brave men. 

    The American people have a right to know whether their president is a lying coward.

    We already know the mainstream media are.

  2. Kate Logsdon

    To quote a well known children’s book – “and the MSM whispers ‘hush’

  3. Schrodinger

    Interesting twist on Benghazi from American Thinker:

    As was noted on AT recently, a retired State Department Foreign Service Officer said: “Our Benghazi facility was a half-baked operation. It was not a consulate. It was a ‘facility’ with an ambiguous purpose, at least as far as the unclassified world is concerned.”

    If it was not a consulate, then it was not sovereign United States territory. This fact has important legal consequences — as was only just touched upon (at ~13:00, but pick up at ~10:00 for full context) by Newt Gingrich on Fox News in his appearance on Greta Van Susteren’s Oct. 30 show (caution: auto-play).

    One of these consequences may be that the United States had no “legal” authority under international law unilaterally to violate sovereign Libyan airspace by sending in a military force or by engaging attackers with U.S. aircraft, irrespective of the fact that U.S. citizens, including an ambassador, were the ones being attacked.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/11/about_that_facility.html#ixzz2Aymoz0Bt

  4. Brian Watt
    Schrodinger’s Cat: Interesting twist on Benghazi from American Thinker:

    As was noted on AT recently, a retired State Department Foreign Service Officer said: “Our Benghazi facility was a half-baked operation. It was not a consulate. It was a ‘facility’ with an ambiguous purpose, at least as far as the unclassified world is concerned.”

    The U.S. Mission in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” less than a month before the assault that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, because Al Qaeda had training camps in Benghazi and the consulate could not defend against a “coordinated attack,” according to a classified cable reviewed by Fox News.

    It seems to me that any country that permits al Qaeda training camps within their borders is a legitimate target. An American diplomatic mission was permitted to reside in Libya by the new Libyan government. The question is whether al Qaeda was permitted as well since there are reports that al Qaeda flags flew over some government buildings. If an American administration places a diplomatic mission within a country, no matter how meager, no matter whether an embassy is established, it still has an obligation and duty to protect that mission.

  5. ConservativeWanderer

    With any luck, this will blow up over the weekend just in time for the Monday and Tuesday evening newscasts on the leftymedia.

  6. Mel Foil

    The mainstream press has priorities. Ignoring terrorism threats and leaving ambassadors to fend for themselves (and die) is bad, sure it’s bad, but Mitt Romney would like to send abortion availability decisions back to the states, even the dumb religious states, and he’d like to bring private-sector competition into health, education. That’s super evil.

  7. The King Prawn

    benghazi.jpg

    Really says it all I think.

  8. M1919A4

    The YouTube aspect of the tragedy is one of its most unsettling.  Hillary Clinton’s promising the father of one of the slain SEALs that she would “prosecute” the maker of the video, when she knew at the time that the attack was a carefully orchestrated small unit assault and there was NO demonstration at Benghazi, followed by his subsequent arrest by California authorities, is a plain and true use of the criminal law to further a political agenda.  

    It is as reprehensible as Fast and Furious or any other of this administration’s lawless misconduct (such as telling businesses to ignore the layoff notice law and the executive order granting “dream” status to the children of illegal aliens).  

    And, even more frightening, nobody in the pubic news business (the Tank Corps) or the Commentariat to my knowledge, except for the perspicacious here at Ricochet.com, has taken up the issue.

  9. paulebe

    King Prawn:  Immediately shared on my facebook feed.  

    At what point does this seep into the minds of our population outside of those of us on the right (as M1919A4 asks above)?  

    Is our country too dumbed down to care?

  10. Astonishing

    Worry not.

    Everyone one with the faintest interest understands what’s going on.

    The truth will come out–the truth is coming out–no less quickly than it would have if the liberal media were responsibly pursuing the story.

    It’s actually better that the liberal media are ignoring this story: they can’t spin what they don’t report. 

  11. Zavedomo

    “It is extremely difficult for me to understand…”

    Well, all of us know that the above is just a verbal flourish… We understand this perfectly well…

  12. Crow
    Schrodinger’s Cat: Interesting twist on Benghazi from American Thinker:

    ….

    One of these consequences may be that the United States had no “legal” authority under international law unilaterally to violate sovereign Libyan airspace by sending in a military force or by engaging attackers with U.S. aircraft, irrespective of the fact that U.S. citizens, including an ambassador, were the ones being attacked.

    We didn’t need to invade the country to stop this attack from being successful. Without backup, a few well trained men manned a machine gun and killed in the neighborhood of 60 belligerent terrorists. 

    The insertion of a small Special Operations force (Delta or SEALs–or even a larger one of Rangers) would have been sufficient to break up the battle long enough to get our people to safety.

    And if greater force was needed, and air support was required, there are ways of providing that support such that by the time the Libyan government knew what was happening the action would have been over.

    Lastly, the government there owes its existence to an Allied intervention–they don’t exactly have a strong leg to stand on if they were to complain about violating their airspace.

  13. Jude

    Excellent point by Schrodinger’s Cat and more than adequate rebuttals from Brian Watt and Crow’s Nest. I wonder if the legal issue of sovereign status was the point on which the president’s cowardly decision turned. It somehow seems to be in keeping with his character. This is the kind of thing that happens when the President of the United States doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism. A foreign army that had already attacked the US was openly present in Libya and was in the act of attacking American citizens and the very agent of the President. No matter how you parse it, that it didn’t trigger an armed response is indicative of a malaise in the oval office that we haven’t seen in over 30 years.

  14. liberal jim

    Yes-Obama got people killed and lied about it, Yes-Hillary was directly involved in it and lied.  The people directly responsible were the terrorists.  If you are looking for the American who is most to blame, he is dead.  If Stevens was aware of and concerned with security and was not getting the support he wanted from DC he could have resigned or given one interview to one journalist stating these facts and he either would have been relieved or the situation would have dramatically changed.  All evidence points to the fact that Stevens was aware of the poor security situation, was not getting the support and kept his mouth shut.  As head of mission he had a duty to do otherwise. 

  15. Devereaux
    Jude: Excellent point by Schrodinger’s Cat and more than adequate rebuttals from Brian Watt and Crow’s Nest. I wonder if the legal issue of sovereign status was the point on which the president’s cowardly decision turned. It somehow seems to be in keeping with his character. This is the kind of thing that happens when the President of the United States doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism. A foreign army that had already attacked the US was openly present in Libya and was in the act of attacking American citizens and the very agent of the President. No matter how you parse it, that it didn’t trigger an armed response is indicative of a malaise in the oval office that we haven’t seen in over 30 years. · 32 minutes ago

    Yessss! If you don’t believe in the country, you sure aren’t going to do anything to protect its interests.

    Let’s remember – we didn’t have the “legal right” to invade the Barbary Coast – but we did. TO PROTECT OUR PEOPLE. And they weren’t even IN the country, but sailing in waters NEAR the country.

  16. Astonishing
    liberal jim:  . . .If you are looking for the American who is most to blame, he is dead.  If Stevens was aware of and concerned with security and was not getting the support he wanted from DC he could have resigned or given one interview to one journalist stating these facts and he either would have been relieved or the situation would have dramatically changed.  All evidence points to the fact that Stevens was aware of the poor security situation, was not getting the support and kept his mouth shut.  As head of mission he had a duty to do otherwise. 

    What shameful nonsense! Stevens did his duty. He asked for help through the chain of command, but when help was refused, he did not abandon his post and run away.  He remained at his post in the face of danger.  What you’ve written slanders a courageous man who gave his life in service of his country.

  17. She

    Previous comment on this matter incorporated by reference in deference to the 200 word limit. (See Comment #3).

    The issue of whether it was ‘legal’ to ‘invade’ Libya in order to rescue those under extreme duress there is irrelevant.

    The point of this story is the utterly determined, reckless, disregard of the leaked cable, which cable prefigured and foreshadowed this catastrophe in some detail.  

    It is hard to see how much more clear the folks in Benghazi could have been.  It’s hard to see how much further up the food chain they could have gone in asking for help.  Apparently this cable went directly to the office of the Secretary of State.

    Were the people who wrote this memo correct (as they seem to have been), the outcome was inevitable.

    Had the people who received the memo (and the other warning signs BEFORE September 11) done something about them, we would not now be arguing about whether or not it’s ‘legal’ to fly into Libyan air space, whether or not someone should have done something during those final, terrible, seven hours,  and four Americans would most likely not be dead.

    That is the real scandal.  

  18. KC Mulville

    On the (I hope) unlikely possibility that Obama refused to attack on the grounds that it had no authority under international law …it’s nauseating.

    Obama shows such blatant disregard for American law (Defense of Marriage, Immigration, etc.) such that he simply won’t enforce laws he politically disagrees with. It would be stunning if he were to use international law as his excuse for why he didn’t want to rescue our people.

  19. liberal jim
    Astonishing

    liberal jim:  . . . 

    What shameful nonsense! Stevens did his duty. He asked for help through the chain of command, but when help was refused, he did not abandon his post and run away.  He remained at his post in the face of danger.  What you’ve written slanders a courageous man who gave his life in service of his country. · 23 minutes ago

    If he had gotten half his post killed and was still alive what would you be saying?  He had a duty to protect not only himself, but those who work with him and his refusal to take a forceful stand against political bureaucrats in DC cost him and some of them their lives.   If he carries no burden of blame neither does anyone above him.  

  20. Astonishing
    liberal jim

    Astonishing

    liberal jim:  . . . 

    What shameful nonsense! Stevens did his duty. He asked for help through the chain of command, but when help was refused, he did not abandon his post and run away.   . . . What you’ve written slanders a courageous man who gave his life in service of his country.

    If he had gotten half his post killed and was still alive what would you be saying?  He had a duty to protect . . . those who work with him and his refusal to take a forceful stand against political bureaucrats in DC cost him and some of them their lives.   If he carries no burden of blame neither does anyone above him. 

    Stevens did not get anyone killed. 

    He aksed for help from his superiors, which is exactly what he was supposed to do. He knew he was in danger, but he didn’t run away.

    Stevens did his duty, courageously.

    If his superiors, including Clinton and Obama,  had done their duty, he would probabaly still be alive.

    Your logic would blame a platoon leader for not cowardly abandoning his post  whenever he disagreed with his general’s orders.

    You have no understanding of duty, honor, courage.

Want to comment on stories like these? Become a member today!

You'll have access to:

  • All Ricochet articles, posts and podcasts.
  • The conversation amongst our members.
  • The opportunity share your Ricochet experiences.

Join Today!

Already a Member? Sign In