Still No Conspiracy In Benghazi

The following image and caption were found within social media and publicly posted as if it were not only important but also as if it were a battle-cry for political unity.  Unfortunately, to be a cause for political unity in this fashion, would equate to requiring the specific party’s tag line to read “The Party of Deception”.  The United States political division system seems to foster, or at the very least promote, attaching yourself to a party before truth.

The next time you hear someone say ‘Hillary 2016’, show them this. Ambassador Stevens was tortured, raped, cattle prodded and burned, FOR 7 HOURS, while Hillary and Obama ignored his cries. What difference does it make? — with NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams. (By – Leslie Couch Goss)

I wonder about the previous caption’s meaning or intention by asserting “ignored his cries”?  It is as if the caption, or poster of the caption, is still insinuating some kind of conspiracy even though a conspiracy theory involving the administration has been totally and repetitively debunked (and proven to have been developed with a hyperbolic insinuation from Fox news).  Both Rachel Maddow, a serious news anchor, and John Stewart, a comedian, have discussed details and inapt conspiracy theories regarding Benghazi.  In other words: I wonder how somebody’s simple mind could possibly think  to associate 2016 with this as if it were synonymous like peanut butter and jelly?  It really expresses the level of things which people force themselves to believe when all evidence proves otherwise but yet repetition of a lie has trained their minds.  Could you imagine being somebody, who so lacked the ability to critically think, that you would believe there was some kind of Benghazi cover-up conspiracy?  That would be an embarrassing part of existence as a human being to spread such idiocy as if it were a truth.

The diplomatic attacks on Benghazi were just that: “attacks”.  It was not a conspiracy within our own ranks.  There were no unified administration “cover-up” attempts discovered.  The only portion of the entire situation which deserves consideration as a conspiracy is the portion concerning Fox News and Jennifer Griffin (the author of an October 26, 2012 article concerning Benghazi).  In an article published on the assertion is made by “sources”, which still seem to be secret except to Fox News, that calls for back up were denied.  We might call this suspect and deserving of investigation.  However, with Fox News’ repetitive, well known, and deserved untrustworthy cry wolf first policies in something ineptly called journalism, we must be suspicious of Fox News first.  As early as November 01, 2012 Eli Lake, authored an informative article with The Daily Beast which challenged Fox News’ claims by any critical thinking standard.  Considering the real fact that the State Department didn’t request military back up, there is absolutely no cause to believe that there was an administration conspiracy in Benghazi.  It is simply an unjustified, and quite childish assertion.   Military back-up was not requested and therefore, the executive administration did not become involved until hours after the events unfolded.  If you really want the President and Hillary Clinton to be negatively associated with Benghazi, please don’t worry, you only have to lie or be misleading to spread such rumors.  The option is yours, however, those involved in the latter type of propaganda should stop being angry when their intellects are challenged.

So where should we go from here?  I opine that we should stop purposefully being misleading. Further, stop attempting to associate ourselves with political parties before truth and focus on truthful open discourse solutions to problems.  If you receive undeniable evidence from trusted and reliable sources that the things you are saying are untrue, then stop saying those things.

If we want to have real discussions about the events in Benghazi, let us start with how tragic it was that somebody had to die horrifically.  Then maybe we could move the conversation towards a solution which is not from a punitive mindset but from a causal point of view.  Maybe… just maybe… this violence could have something to do with the United States having more than 660 military bases in more than 38 countries, as listed in the Department of Defense 2010 report.  If you agree that our expanding empire could be a causal effect, we could discuss how to correct that situation.  If you do not agree in that being a causal effect, please tell to me your idea of a causal effect and a proposed solution.  To the converse, if you can only come to a punitive thought such as: ‘We should just bomb the shit outta them…’; Then I assume that children are more socially apt than you.

Society should develop and advance.  Those using punishment, insinuations, and vague hyperbolic feigned drama to resist change will be laughed at or blamed for the future to come.

To the Stevens: I am so sorry for the political attachments of your relative’s tragic end.

Cited Sources:

  1. Steve A
    August 6, 2013 at 2:12 am

    Verify Nation need helps with their verifying. That’s not a picture of Stevens.

    • September 7, 2013 at 7:15 am

      We make no claim that it is a picture of Mr. Stevens. The photo and caption are circulating in the format posted and we herein discount the validity of the caption. The inaccurate photo with the caption only serves to solidify our point in the article.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: