25-10-2015, 05:00 PM
Drew Phipps Wrote:I'm no apologist for Clinton. She was in that mess up to her neck and the truth about Benghazi has yet to be told. However, if you parse those phrases like a lawyer would, they're not strictly inconsistent. Obama speaks of the US forces and the extent of their purpose; Clinton speaks of NATO, its allies, and thier purpose.
It was NATO's planes that fired upon Ghaddafis' convoy. Ghaddafi himself was injured in a friendly fire grenade incident, captured by Libyan rebels, and apparently beaten to death. It should be known that Time magazine said that those particular rebels were in close phone contact with their leaders from their headquarters in Benghazi. http://world.time.com/2012/10/18/how-did...bad-blood/
So it would seem that the US's purpose is to enable its dangerous allies to effect "regime change" (and do the dirty work that entails) while US hands remain clean. If you put that historical fact in context, it might explain Russia's intervention in Syria, to avoid a repeat of Libya.
(I suspect that the GOP's purpose in all these investigations and hearings is too keep the issue simmering until the Democrats commit to her, then the truth about what the State Dept./CIA was doing there will finally be "leaked.")
Bengazi? Based upon what I've seen, it would appear that the CIA stopped and discredited a State Department programme to recover the weaponry distributed to overthrow Gaddafi.
"There are three sorts of conspiracy: by the people who complain, by the people who write, by the people who take action. There is nothing to fear from the first group, the two others are more dangerous; but the police have to be part of all three,"
Joseph Fouche
Joseph Fouche