Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 56

Thread: Benghazi attack and coverup

  1. #21
    You're ahead of me Jean. Been too busy with my fervent campaign to re-elect Barrack Obama to follow any connection to equipment.

    Actually I havent chased the stories about the real reason we were in Benghazi at all yet... there's enough rampant idiocy in the way our guys died and the subsequent coverup to hang those involved, so the cloak and dagger stuff about the real purpose is yet another angle on the sordid tale. Cant opine on it at this point... but it probably has a bearing on why the administration was so amazingly uninterested in saving the lives of our personnel. Something real weird there.
    -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup. --

  2. #22
    If you are more interested in getting free birth control
    than the murder of 4 Americans in Benghazi....
    YOU MIGHT BE A LIBERAL!

    Really, it is surprising to me just how many in my wife's family (DIDs all) who could care less about Benghazi!

    And that is what is wrong with the left....no interest in anything that does not touch them directly.

    Like many in my wife's family, even obamacare is a non issue, until the point arrives they are affected.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by robjones View Post
    Been too busy with my fervent campaign to re-elect Barrack Obama
    Yes I saw you whipping up the vote. Without you insisting that there was a real fear of Romney getting in, who knows how many people might not have bothered to get to the polls?

    Personally I'm grieved. I forecast an Obama win months ago and didn't put any money on it. See. There's always someone worse off than yourself.

  4. #24
    Watching a guy in another forum that seems to always be on exactly the same track as the White House when it comes to propaganda. If I'm a betting man, he's a paid social media bozo. He isnt smart, just says whatever line the administration is pushing that day, even if it conflicts with posts he himself has made in the very same thread before the story morphed into a new one.

    His current line is that the CIA is totally at fault for Benghazi fiasco. Had nothing to do with the White House or the State Dept. It's total horse shit, cause there are way the hell too many loose ends left. Here's my answer to him in that forum:

    Quote Originally Posted by robjones
    Nothing above gets the guys above the CIA off the hook {the president, SecDef, etc}, nor the State Dept.

    -1- The Secretary of Defense has already stated that he was personally in the loop on the decision not to send relief during the attack. We have all seen him say it on national TV.

    -2- The President also stated that he issued a directive to save them. How does THAT fit into the rather obvious fact no such attempt happened?

    -3- If the CIA is at fault, why did Hillary already attempt to take blame? Secretary of State is a cabinet level position, not a CIA employee.

    -4- We already have sworn testimony that the State Dept turned down repeated requests for security beforehand too. That doesn't exactly nail the CIA for the lack of existing security. The requests in the emails from the ambassador went to the State Dept. Are those emails fake?

    -5- And none of that explains why the president and his crew chose to lie thru their teeth for a few weeks.

    Much as some would love to see those responsible absolved, making General Petraeus the scapegoat doesn't begin to fit the facts.
    -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup. --

  5. #25
    Just come across this piece by Samuel F. Hart, a retired U.S. ambassador who lives in Jacksonville, Florida, which looks to me like a sober assessment. I won't quote it all because of copyright issues, but the core facts he knows and some informed guesses are:

    Although all of our embassies have armed Marine security guards to protect classified materials inside embassy facilities, many of our consulates, which are outside the capital city, do not. In both cases, it is the obligation of the host government to protect diplomatic facilities and personnel from harm. In most circumstances, host governments would consider it a breach of their sovereignty for armed foreigners to be deployed on their soil. We would never allow such an arrangement in the U.S., and and such matters are based on reciprocity.


    It is not uncommon for ambassadors to have armed escorts when they are moving about in the course of carrying out their duties. Normally their escorts are also host country nationals. In the somewhat special case of Libya, Stevens was apparently traveling with two armed American bodyguards on his trip to Benghazi. The two American bodyguards and another officer from Benghazi died with Stevens in the attack on the consulate compound.


    What was the nature of the Benghazi consulate? We have not been told. But it was mainly, if not completely, a CIA outpost tasked with keeping tabs on the mixed assortment of political and military forces operating in the area. We also have not been told why Stevens risked going into a violent and dangerous situation, of which he was well aware. Tripoli was safe. Benghazi was dangerous. My guess was that he decided that the mission was important enough that the risk was justified. ...


    The question of whether the tragedy could have been prevented is legitimate. A rush to judgment before the facts are in is not. Much has been made of the confusion about what actually happened on the ground in Benghazi. The State Department and the White House certainly do not get high marks for the way they handled inquiries. That said, allegations in Congress and on Fox News that a massive coverup was attempted make no sense, and the record does not support the charge. A coverup would serve no useful purpose for the administration.



    ---------- Post added at 23:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 22:18 PM ----------

    Then we have the assessment by Melvin A. Goodman, former Senior Analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency and now a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and the author of the forthcoming National Insecurity: The Costs of American Militarism (City Lights Publishing, January 2013). The Why Behind the Benghazi Attack. In a highly intelligent piece, he blames just about everyone, including the British (the security firm this time). A sample:


    The region is home to myriad militant and terrorist organizations that threaten Western interests in North Africa and, more importantly, the creation of a stable state in Libya. In other words, the consulate was the diplomatic cover for an intelligence platform and whatever diplomatic functions took place in Benghazi also served as cover for an important CIA base. Both the State Department and the CIA share responsibility for seriously underestimating the security threat in Libya, particularly in Benghazi.

    Any CIA component in the Middle East or North Africa is a likely target of the wrath of militant and terrorist organizations because of the Agency’s key role in the global war on terror waged by the Bush administration and the increasingly widespread covert campaign of drone aircraft of the Obama administration.


  6. #26
    The part that is not so sober is, "allegations in Congress and on Fox News that a massive coverup was attempted make no sense, and the record does not support the charge. A coverup would serve no useful purpose for the administration."

    The real question is, "what prompted the Obama team to concoct an irrational story about a non-existent protest about a video trailer and then stick to it for two weeks when all of the facts showed otherwise?" THAT served no useful purpose for the administration. They would have been better off saying, "we don't know, but we are trying to find out." The natural instinct for Chicago politicians to try to lie their way out of a situation appears to have prevailed. I grew up in Chicago, where politics is best described as, "Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see."

    I can believe that Benghazi is a volatile area. I can believe that there was an attack related to 9/11. I can believe that the attack may have been related to the CIA base. I can believe that the Brits lefts a stockpile of tons of weapons and ammo. I can believe that the consulate may have been filtering weapons to Syrian rebels. What I cannot believe is the BS story that we were told by the White House.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  7. #27
    Jean - There's a big hole in that article....
    It is not uncommon for ambassadors to have armed escorts when they are moving about in the course of carrying out their duties. Normally their escorts are also host country nationals. In the somewhat special case of Libya, Stevens was apparently traveling with two armed American bodyguards on his trip to Benghazi. The two American bodyguards and another officer from Benghazi died with Stevens in the attack on the consulate compound.
    The two "bodyguards" were NOT bodyguards... the were US ex SEAL team members, and they werent travelling with him.

    They were CIA operatives. One was stationed at the CIA compound a mile away and as trained, went toward the sound of the guns when the attack hit. The other was in Tripoli when the attack began, and did the same thing.

    Though initially characterized by the state dept as having been his guard, subsequent disclosures forced the administration to walk that claim back. Stevens was a sitting duck.

    The two mentioned were in Libya on missions that did not include guarding Stevens and never saw him during the fight. He went missing in the first hour at the consulate before they arrived, and he wasnt found until the fire died down and Libyans took him to the hospital.

    The third man was recovered at the consulate and taken back {dead} when they failed to find Stevens, and the two SEALs died on a rooftop of the CIA building when a mortar hit about 6+ hours into the attack.
    -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup. --

  8. #28
    Looks like you have got a better grip on the timetable and personnel than me Rob. Only a couple of points. According to stories circulating, the mission personnel had fruitlessly requested a greater police presence to cover the ambassador's visit. (That would spread the word that he was arriving.) The people at the CIA annex did not get to the consulate immediately the call came for help. They delayed 20 minutes in a fruitless attempt to get back-up (including heavier weaponry) from the local militia. As you say - Stevens was a sitting duck.

    ---------- Post added at 09:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:01 AM ----------

    @ TopDogger

    As I understand it, Petraeus received word from locals that it looked like the attack on the consulate had been planned, but initially chose to lay emphasis instead on the protests about the video trailer, presumably to maintain CIA operational security. The administration followed suit. I agree that this was pretty pointless and just likely to misfire badly as facts emerged.

  9. #29
    I suspect Petraeus is "falling on his sword" to protect a bone-headed story concocted by the White House. Yeah, Petraeus would have been fully aware of a CIA operation, if one was in the works. I an not sure that it was, because that is the typical "USA is always at fault" logic that appears to drive Obummer. However, cover stories are supposed to be plausible, and the video protester story was not. The fact that the White House stuck to an obviously implausible story for two weeks is what drew more attention to it. Either someone is lying or the CIA is now taking stupid pills in the morning. Me thinks the former rather than the latter is more plausible.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  10. #30
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,772
    EXCLUSIVE: Petraeus mistress may have revealed classified information at Denver speech on real reason for Libya attack

    Broadwell went on to explain more sensitive details from the Benghazi attacks, particularly concerning what the real cause might have been.

    “Now, I don't know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually, um, had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner and they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So that's still being vetted.”

    Read more: EXCLUSIVE: Petraeus mistress may have revealed classified information at Denver speech on real reason for Libya attack | Fox News

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •