In response to:

Benghazi Denial Syndrome: Clinical or Cynical

Kachina27284 Wrote: Dec 03, 2012 11:50 AM
This is all well and good, but it does not address the one important issue in Benghazi. What were Stevens and the others (CIA, State) doing in Benghazi? Why was Stevens in a non-consulate in an unsecured Benghazi on 9/11? Why was he meeting with the Turkish ambassador in Benghazi, not at the heavily-secured embassy in Tripoli? Why did he travel to Benghazi on 9/11 with only a couple of security guards, if he had made an issue of lack of security there previously? Why were his requests for more security denied? Get these answers and you know why the smoke screen of thepast two months has been laid-down by the administration and his propaganda media.
Moonbat Exterminator Wrote: Dec 03, 2012 12:54 PM
Stevens was being set up. The plan was to kidnap him, then after the election trade his freedom for the release of the blind sheik. The planners failed to take into account that two ex-Seals would ignore orders to stand down, thwarting the plan. In the confusion, Stevens and three others died. It began as a CIA plot that went down in flames and was transformed into an incompetent CYA operation.

To a large group of Americans, the Benghazi story looks simple. Only the fog of politics and the media’s protection of the president obscure an ugly narrative.  This article is long because the extent of denial, dissembling, and delusion is hard to describe briefly.

It’s possible, though unlikely, there are reasonable explanations for the administration’s policies leading to September 11, for the command decisions made that night, and for the government’s still-shifting stories since about all that happened.

It’s not possible there’s an honorable explanation for the national media’s dismissive refusal to press...