events_sidebar_calendar_header.gif


Polar Bear Plunge Pics
CLICK ON IMAGES TO VIEW THE GALLERY

community_header.jpg
visitors_guide.jpg
annual_manual.jpg
best_of_athens.jpg

SoA_Anews_ad.jpg


 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Home / Articles / Editorial / Letters /  Letter writer doesn’t even try to answer Benghazi questions
. . . . . . .
Sunday, February 24,2013

Letter writer doesn’t even try to answer Benghazi questions

To the Editor:

Re: Grafton Conliffe's comments on my recent letter in the Messenger, I have a few questions for him:

How is it possible to imagine that Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi voluntarily in the weeks that culminated in his torture and murder Sept. 11, 2012? Even Hillary, with all her talent for profound dishonesty, did not suggest such a thing, which had she done so, would have supported her assertion of innocence in the matter.

Why is it not clear that Stevens was in Benghazi at the explicit direction of the U.S. government? Why, after repetitive, increasingly urgent dispatches from Stevens about growing chaos, violence and withdrawal by the British and the Red Cross, did our government not evacuate him, as Conliffe acknowledges to be accepted practice? Why did our government choose to be willfully blind, deaf and mute to Stevens' pleas for aid, well in advance of, and throughout the attack? Why were those in a position to help him ordered to stand down? Why did Obama and Hillary lie so remorselessly about the cause of the murders? Their aggression in covering up the true mission in Benghazi, and their dereliction of duty in protecting American personnel, suggests something they determined to conceal from the American people.

Why is the president never required to answer the first question regarding his absence from duty the night of the attack he knew was underway, the first such attack on an American ambassador in more than 30 years?

Our ambassadors are not military personnel, and the Secretary of State, under the president's direction, is responsible for their security. To blame Chris Stevens for his own torture and murder is offensive. Why does the Secretary of State get more protection driving across town in Washington, D.C. than Chris Stevens did in one of the most dangerous places in the world? Why are the 20-30 Benghazi survivors, rescued against orders by the martyred Woods, Smith, and Dougherty, hidden and silenced? Why can't we hear from them?

Mr. Conliffe, and those who share his views, please tell me why.

Carol Costanzo
Townsend Road
Athens

 

  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
REPLY TO THIS COMMENT
b

(M) I'm sure it's just a coincidence that it wasn't an issue before Obama became President. Thanks to @[114270361928171:274:Americans Against The Republican Party] for finding this.  Posted on the @[177486166274:274:Being Liberal] fan page.

 

REPLY TO THIS COMMENT

Ugh!  Ms Costanzo, since you YOURSELF have no idea why Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi, perhaps it's time to let this dead horse rest in peace rather than flog it incessantly? 


You have no idea why anything happened as it did in Benghazi.  Your questions to Grafton Conliffe are therefore speculative and irrelevant.  'Nuff!

 

REPLY TO THIS COMMENT

Perhaps Ms. Constanzo, you don't get answers because you repeat the lies that were told early on, and have since been disproven.


No one was told to stand down. Stevens we not tortured, he never fell into the attackers hands. He died from smoke inhlalation in the secured room the attackers never penetrated.


Stevens never had any contact with anyone outside Benghazi after the attack began, he was too busy trying to escape.


How was Obama absent from duty? Do you think he should micro-manage the defense from 5000 miles away? The military and CIA dispached relief personnel as soon as they received word of the attack.


Why didn't they have suffficient protection? Because republicans privatized protection of such facilities. They had a private security force, contracted through a British firm, but most of them ran off when the attack began. So much for globalizing and for privatizing what should be military functions.


Why was Stevens there? Because he was the ambassador to Libya, and the expert on the area. If he had a legation there he would visit there. No one knew the area better than he did, no one knew the risks better than he did.


As to the requests for additional security, when Stevens visited they did have all the security personnel they had asked for. It was the guards that ran away, not the personal security people. And the personal security people were not that many, but were as many as they requested. They needed more guards, preferably marine guards, but they got republican globalized privatized guards.


I suspect one platoon of marines would have stopped that attack cold. Unfortunately, the current conservative view is to reduce the military and contract out everything.

 

 

 
 
Close
Close
Close