Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 56

Thread: Benghazi attack and coverup

  1. #1

    Benghazi attack and coverup

    Well, we discussed the attack briefly in another thread. There are really three primary parts of this sad saga:

    -1- failure to supply adequate security beforehand
    Ambassador Stevens and others asked for beefed up security in the months and days preceding the attack. Not only were they denied, even though the UK and the Red Cross had already pulled out because of increasingly violent attacks... the US actually CUT the security personnel to a smaller number.

    -2- failure to send support when the attack happened
    There were assets that could have been sent. The president SAYS he issued a directive to do everything necessary to secure our people as soon as he was alerted. Didnt happen. We have a range of reasons why, some conflicting.

    The SecDef says HE and a couple of Generals agreed it was too dangerous and the situation too undefined to commit assets. [we had two trained operatives on site in contact and drones in the air. I dont know what more he could have asked for.] one of the generals he says agreed with him was subsequently removed/retired.

    -3- the coverup
    The administration went on a full court press after the attack trying to convince us this was just a riot that got out of hand, it was all about guys mad at a video. Since then we've seen the details they had contradicted the story they told... Bit they went out of their way to tell us a tale they knew to be wrong. Apparently the truth didnt fit the campaign narrative that the death of bin laden hopelessly crippled our enemies and the problems were solved.

    Three key players have been taken out since the attack.

    A. Rear admiral Raouette - He had a carrier strike group off the coast which could have rendered aid. Rumored he tried to disregard orders to stand down. was relieved of command.

    B. General Ham - a 4 Star, head of Africom, highest military commander in the region. His name was thrown out by Panetta as having agreed we shouldnt send help. He was removed and retired after the raid. Rumor is he tried to ignore the stand down order.

    C. Gen David Petraeus - head of the CIA. Immediately after the election but before the hearing he suddenly resigned in disgrace due to an affair. Nice timing... Supposedly his next in command will testify. Nobody believed Petraeus told men to stand down, and he said he didnt. Why is he suddenly out of the hearings? Probably wasnt agreeing to agree to the copany line at the hearings.

    Last but not least, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just happens to have a schedule conflict and wont be present for the hearings on Benghazi.

    Gee, if i didnt know how committed our admiistration is to the truth I'd think they wanted to remove and or discredit witnesses before a hearing on this. The House oversight committee needs to subpeona every one of these people before some start having unfortunate but unrelated accidents.
    -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup. --

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,772
    Quote Originally Posted by robjones View Post
    C. Gen David Petraeus - head of the CIA. Immediately after the election but before the hearing he suddenly resigned in disgrace due to an affair. Nice timing... Supposedly his next in command will testify. Nobody believed Petraeus told men to stand down, and he said he didnt. Why is he suddenly out of the hearings? Probably wasnt agreeing to agree to the copany line at the hearings.
    Sgt 'I See Nothing' Schultz is rumored to be replacing Gen David Petraeus


  3. #3
    Re: the timing of the Petraeus resignation and Hillary's prolonged absence from Washington -- too many coincidences add up to collusion. The Obama administration will do anything necessary to sandbag the Congressional hearings. Subpoenas are in order.

  4. #4
    Given the nature of his military background it just seems unlikely Petraeus is a believer in leaving men behind. He said unequivically before departing that he issued no such order. Given the time this thing lasted, theres more than "fog of war" involved.

    Panettas excuse is beyond unbelievable. We had two highly trained men on the ground that held off attackers for hours without backup. DC had a birdseye view AND onsite assets to coordinate reinforcement. Why someone at the top might not want to rescue the guys in Benghazi is a matter for conjecture, but it sure looks like that was the case.

    The fact that Petraeus added a public sex scandal to the outlying stories just guarantees more media coverage than has been given. If he testifies this scandal finally starts to make news on channels other than Fox.

    One thought: If someone tried to blackmail him into going along with a false narrative, resigning and making the affair public took away their ammo... And if thats what happened he is likely to be very less cordial than he might have been.
    -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup. --

  5. #5
    I was wondering whether the administration forced his resignation, or if, as you suggested, it might be a pre-emptive move on his part -- knowing they were going to make him the fall-guy for Benghazi. No longer part of the administration, Petraeus can testify truthfully and put the blame back on the White House, as he previously hinted in the CIA's public statement. I'd love for this part to the true. But if so, then why was his name taken off the witness list for next week's hearing? Could he not testify as a citizen, in addition to the testimony that will be offered from a substitute CIA official? After all, he has direct information on what happened in Benghazi.

  6. #6
    Not sure we'll ever know the timeline on how this affair came into play, but answers on who will testify and what they can say should become more obvious as soon as the hearings open. The official line is supposedly that his next in command will now testify, but i dont see Trey Gowdy or Darrell Issa buying that idea.
    -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup. --

  7. #7
    Hello Rob! First let me say how sad I was to read of the death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, by all accounts a good man and very popular in Libya. That made his death a particular tragedy.

    The story unfolding so far has qualities of a James Bond film. It is enough to give anyone a fit of conspiracy theory. As I piece it together, the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was not exactly sharing quarters with the CIA, but there was a CIA annex about a mile away. Apparently the embassy had its own private security staff, but there was an informal understanding that the CIA would provide back-up at need. According to the CIA, they were at the embassy with half an hour of the distress call being received. Now Fox News is reporting that the security officials on the ground say calls for help went out considerably earlier. A timeline of events has been released by the Pentagon.

    Petraeus probably kept details away from the media for a while, as he would naturally want to maintain operational security. A lot is still unclear. Was the mission attacked because the CIA had already had its cover blown? Or was the CIA presence undetected?

  8. #8
    I question why we had two embassies in a hostile country like Libya. The main embassy is in Tripoli.

    US Embassy in Tripoli

    I know that there are a lot of conflicting stories about the events and the timeline, but you can be pretty much assured that the least likely scenario is anything reported by the Obama administration. They are up to their necks in CYA follow-ups.

    If you cannot dazzle them (as in we the people) with brilliance, baffle them with bull crap.
    "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


  9. #9
    Benghazi was supposedly a consulate, not an embassy... BUT... the normal requirements for security of a consulate were not in place. There are construction requirements for such buildings that include safety features for just such instances. Had the standards for a consulate been followed, the Ambassador would likely still be alive.

    As those were not present, either they were explicitly waived by someone at the state dept (wait, was Libya considered stable enough to not need standard security measures?) OR it was NOT really a consulate at all, just some CIA building.

    There's a lot of questions to be answered on that score. If it was a consulate, who wrote off on ignoring the security protocol, and why would they do it in a country where people on the street had mortars, RPGs, and membership in groups that wanted us dead?

    If it was NOT a consulate... Why were we told it was... And what was the ambassador to Libya doing there?
    -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup. --

  10. #10
    Was the consulate in Benghazi purpose-built? It surely can't have been there long.

Page 1 of 6 123 ... 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
  •