Benghazi For Dummies.

“From a comparative perspective, the United States is unusual, if not unique, in its lack of restraints on freedom of expression. It is also unusual in the range and effectiveness of the methods employed to restrain freedom of thought….In a society where the voice of the people is heard, elite groups must ensure that voice says the right things.” –Noam Chomsky, 1986

It does not matter where you stand, opinion-wise, on this particular event. Unless you are a Libyan, one of the four people killed, a part of the CIA or the State Department, then accept that you have been given fragmented media-orchestrated information, and likely not enough information to form an inoculated opinion on the matter.

Especially if you are watching either CNN or Fox News.

Be that as it may, I have made a solid attempt to gather information across various sources in order to paint a quasi-comprehensive picture as to what led up to and elicited the attack on September 11^th, 2012. You can decide after you read whether or not you want to blame Hillary, bureaucratic failure at all levels, or the Illuminati…

I mean, I personally blame the Islamic Militants who set fire to the consulate and attacked the CIA annex with mortar rounds, also if you want to get really existential, Reagan totally “started it” like 30 years ago. Also, I blame the media for taking everything and making it worse – as is tradition.

To understand Benghazi, we have to journey back to the 80’s. While Def Leppard was pouring some sugar on me and Jane Fonda rocked the screen in terrycloth sweatbands and neoprene onesies, the U.S. was entering some cavernous military confrontation with Libya. Tensions had initiated its route to ascension in 1969, when Muhammar Gadaffi deposed King Idris in a coup d’état, and proceeded to nationalize Libya’s oil industry. Libya had been exporting 3 millions of barrels of oils per day, which was benefitting the wealthy ruling class and US Oil Interests, but had left the rest of the nation lacking equity. By nationalizing the Oil Industry, Gadaffi barred America from drilling for money…I mean oil…on Libyan soil.

For brevity’s sake, let’s say Regan was ticked off by losing his Oil claims in Libya. Even more so, it was starting to look like Libya, Egypt, Sudan, and Tunisia were about to form a super cool merged state, and the US felt like the only kid in the class who didn’t get invited to the birthday party. Plus, Libya occupied Chad, a country not a person, and another International oil source. In this confrontation known as the “Toyota War”, the French saved the day at the final hour by providing Chadian forces with Toyota pickups equipped with guided missiles to fight off Gaddafi’s troops.

Redefining “Monster Truck Rallies” in a deadly way

Once again, Regan felt left out of Le French Fun, so he fed the flames by paying Hissène Habré $32 million dollars and gifting him with some Stinger anti-aircraft missiles in order to overthrow Gadaffi. Keep in mind, Hissène Habré was found guilty in 2016 for human-rights abuses, including rape, sexual slavery, and ordering the killing of 40,000 people. I’ll let you form your own opinion on Regan paying this guy 32 mil. and considering him a better ruler than Gadaffi.

Please see: Monopoly on Violence

Anyways, now we’re right about at the point in 1982 where the U.S. instituted a unilateral embargo against Libya, and then pressed forward with two Gadaffi assassination attempts in 1984. Things don’t get extra heated, though, until 1986, when Libya bombed a Berlin nightclub, killing 3 (2 Americans) and injuring 230. Ten days later, Regan retaliated, against the advisement of the UN, by bombing Tripoli and Benghazi, killing 40 people. The United Nations condemned the US attack as a “dastardly, blatant and unprovoked act of aggression”.

But at least it didn’t make Regan look “soft on terror” – which seems to be the most publicly condemnable stance a politician could take. People like to feel safe, and nothing makes them feel more safe than knowing their leader is willing to kill dozens of people, civilians or not, in response to any threat.

Despite the media claiming that Regan’s bombing sent Gadaffi cowering with his tail between his legs, the bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi actually set off a string of retaliation. In Beirut, 2 British and 1 American were killed, 1 poor journalist named Paul Appleby was killed in Jerusalem, and then Alec Collett was hung, with footage of his body dangling from a rope sent to the USA. In December 1988, Pan-Am flight 103 was bombed over Scotland, killing 270.

US kills people = justified. Any other country kills anyone = terrorism.

Monopoly On Violence = Legitimate use of force by people in power.

Semantics = critical.

By 1992, Libya had taken a stance of total International Isolation. It had been embargoed, sanctioned against, and given the preverbal middle finger by every major power, and this lasted until 2003. Call it a change of heart, but Libya decided to renounce terrorism, ditch it’s WMD plans, and offer payment for victim’s families. All was on its way to restitution, including a 2008 official return to diplomatic relations with Libya overseen by George Bush.

The US and Libya experienced a brief period of peace, which ended in 2011 with the start of the 2011 First Libyan Civil War. Uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt intended to “reclaim Libya from the world’s longest-ruling autocrat” shook the foundation of the country. A National Transitional Council was established in Benghazi to usurp Gadaffi, and that is precisely when America wanted back in on the action, to, you know, perpetuate peace, by killing anyone who appeared as opposition…which involved an airstrike responsible for killing Gadaffi’s son, a man not considered part of the Libyan government, as well as three of Gadaffi’s grandchildren – whose ages ranged between 12 months and 4 years old.

Let the record show, even Russia condemned this attack…

And thus the stage was set for the events on September 11^th, 2012

The takeaway from all the prior should be the following:

US tensions with Libya began long, long ago, primarily over Oil and United States startling propensity for policing foreign affairs, hidden beneath the guise of “peace making”
The US had displayed patterns of cooperating with governments only when it benefitted them, and opposing governments whose interests countered their own. During the Libyan civil war, many believed that the U.S. and other Western Powers were using these uprisings as an opportunity to loot Libyan resources.
With U.S. backed forces, Libyan rebels killed Gadaffi and ended his 42-year reign, creating a “power vacuum” that led to further difficulties and unrest in Libya.

Now, we flash forward to the infamous Benghazi attacks. At 9:42 on September 11^th, 2012, Islamic militants set fire to the U.S. mission in Benghazi. In the ensuing bedlam, American security forces lost track of ambassador Chris Stevens, and Diplomat Sean Smith, who both later died of smoke inhalation. American personnel absconded to a nearby CIA annex, with attackers in pursuit. Militants struck the location with mortar rounds, and two Navy-seals-turned-CIA security contractors, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, were killed.

But wait, where do Hill-dog and O-Breezy fit in?

…And thus, the eruption of discontent over this event, and my rebuttal, is outlined as follows:

State Department failed, and Hillary = State Department. Her fault. Murderous concubine.

For this, semantics are going to play another vital role. The location of the attack was neither an Embassy nor an official Consulate. It existed as a ‘Mission’, which means that it existed outside the frays of the normal departmental budgetary process apportioning security funding and personnel. To put it more heartbreakingly blunt: this place was at the bottom of the entire state department’s priority list. To make it worse, two different bureaus within the state dept. had authority over this mission, but failed to work together. In addition, a budget passed by Republican congress cut Embassy security funding by hundreds of millions, which means that for the “mission”, even less financial prioritization was in existence.

As for the decries against Hillary being in charge of the State Department, it needs to be acknowledged that the State Department consists of over 400 people, and it is likely that the role of managing this microscopic mission was delegated down the food chain. Certainly, the hindsight is 20/20 that there should have been more security, more funding, but in reality these lack of resources do not lie on the head of HRC. It was a full-scale oversight on behalf of the entire state department, as well as critical “known gaps” in the CIA’s understanding of extremist militias in Libya.

I suppose I’ll end this point by saying: If you have never been the head of an entire state department, and wouldn’t even know which way was up if you were to be put in charge of it, then perhaps condemning Hillary for this highly complex incident is what one would call “reaching” for ammunition.

Woah! Why didn’t Killary send in more American troops to help these guys??

The U.S. military did not have reinforcements in range of Benghazi. A bi-partisan investigation conducted by Senate Intelligence Agency found “No U.S. military resources in position to intervene on short order to help defend either the diplomatic outpost or the CIA annex.” Which, was an oversight on behalf of the Secretary of the Department of Defense, not Hillary. In addition, even if there had been reinforcements positioned near-by, the series of events, specifically the burning of the building and smoke-inhalation, occurred so quickly that there “was not enough time for U.S. military assets to have made a difference” (Internal Review, State Department).

No funding for defense (courtesy of the Republican Budget) + No troops positioned nearby (courtesy of the DoD) + Angry Libyans (courtesy of 30+ years of bullshit) = Let’s Blame Hillary?

Crooked Hillary and Obama lied to those families!!!

Was everyone entirely honest following the tragic events at Benghazi? No. Was everyone outright lying to cover their asses? In varying degrees. Was everyone also working with scattered information while the media regurgitated misinformation before anyone had even really gotten the bottom of what occurred? Resounding yes.

In the initial moments following the attacks, it was believed that the impromptu protest erupted over a low-budget anti-Islam video entitled the “Innocence of Muslims”. At the time, this had been the intelligence community’s most accurate assumption as to what prompted the attacks. It had been the CIA, not the white house, that had eradicated reference to terrorism from early talking points, because they had yet to discern what had truly happened, and did not want to throw the nation into a needless frenzy. It took a week for officials to declare it a terrorist attack, but by that time, the media had already had its field day blaming the video, and Hillary had already apologized to the families and promised to arrest the creator of the video.

As it was later discovered in Hillary’s emails, two days after the attack Hillary was informed that the siege had been set up by Al-Shariah, and may not have been a spontaneous response to the insulting video. To this she responded to “get this around ASAP.” So, Hillary was down to spill some truth, but as this was a critical election year, the Obama administration did not want it to appear as though Obama was “soft on terror”. So his campaign advisors slightly tweaked the semantics of the narrative in his usage of “act of terror” instead of “terrorist attack”, and intelligence officials still claim that the video played an indirect role on the attack.

Well those guys died on Hillary’s watch, and she’s the only one whose let American consulates get attacked

I’m going to go over a series of other attacks that occurred under George W. Bush’s reign that did not receive the complete and total outrage that accompanied Benghazi.

1/22/02. Calcutta, India

Gunmen with Harkat-ul-Jihad al Islami attacked American Cultural Center, which houses a library, Embassy public affair office, and a press section, killing 4 constable security guards, 1 private security guard, and injuring 20 people. None of them were American, though, so it doesn’t matter I guess (total sarcasm)…..even though it was an American Property with an allotted budget 20 times that of the “mission” in Benghazi.

6/14/02. Karachi, Pakistan

Suicide bomber connected with Al-Quada attacks U.S. consulate, killing 12 people, and injuring 51. They were all Pakistani’s, but the message was definitely sent: Fuck America.

10/12/02. Denposaur, Indonesia

U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of string of ‘Bali Bombings’. There were no US fatalities, but 202 people were killed – 88 Australians, 38 Indonesians, and people from over 20 different nationalities. A further 209 people were injured. No Americans were killed, but if you really are one of those people with the ‘#Alllivesmatter’ shirt on, then you better be upset over this and demand George Bush move to action. (He didn’t)

5/12/03. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Armed Al-Quada terrorists storm diplomatic compound, killing 36 people, including 9 Americans. George Bush actually addressed this, and people were amply upset, but no conspiracy theories emerged and this wasn’t held against the Republican party for the next 13 years.

7/30/04. Tashkent, Uzbekistan

Suicide bomber from Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks U.S. embassy, killing two Uzbek security guards.

12/6/04. Jeddah Saudi Arabia

Militants attack U.S. Consolate with explosives and machine guns, killing 4 security guards, and 9 staff.

3/2/06. Karachi, Pakistan (again)

You’d think after the last attack that the Karachi Consulate would be guarded by the equivalent of the great wall of China, but as the last attack only resulted in loss of Pakistani lives, no outrage-prompted security measures were taken, and a suicide bomber killed 4 people – including U.S. diplomat David Foy. But as there were no publicized emails about it….well, you get the idea.

Crossing The Logical Finish Line

The point of all that is to say that if consulates are considered to be “American Soil”, then all of these attacks were terrorist attacks against America on Bush and then Secretary of State, Colin Powell’s watch. Granted, a majority of those deaths were not Americans, but then again neither were the people shot up in France that we were all up in arms about, nor the people in Germany. But the common theme here is that if you are brown, in the eyes of the Western World, your life is of significantly less value… unless you are providing a service. I’m sorry, this is just the major takeaway I have decided upon after researching all this for the past several weeks.

As for Hillary Clinton, she’s a human being and by no means infallible. I understand by this logic that you can say that Donald Trump is a human being and is granted leniency as well in his infallibility, but the amount of hands that would raise to being personally victimized by Donald Trump would be much greater than those that have been personally victimized by Clinton. She may be a member of departments and governments that have oppressed, but she did not personally kill or hurt anyone. Donald has personally sexually harassed, robbed, and insulted countless persons.

Hillary is a human being. Donald is a human paraquat.

So, go to the voting booth and do whatever you want, but just don’t you dare use Benghazi as a reason to not vote for Hillary, because an innate distaste for pantsuits would be a more valid argument.