Benghazi Attack

[Terry K]

IMO, there's a good bit to learn from many posters, but I'm in complete agreement with you regarding attitudes, name-calling and things of that nature. To me, you seem pretty reasonable whether we agree or not, so a lot can be learned from your posts as well.

Today I leave Benghazi in the hands of those that can truly debate, as I am not up to the task.

The White House is denying altering the "Intelligence" talking points, which presumably were provided to UN Ambassador Rice. If not the WH, who altered them?

"“The only edit that was made by the White House and also by the State Department was to change the word ‘consulate’ to the word ‘diplomatic facility,’ since the facility in Benghazi was not formally a consulate,” Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes told reporters aboard Air Force One."

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nationa...hUdpKpqBU3tMrM

There still is no information as to what Panetta, Obama and Biden discussed during their meeting, at the White House on Sept. 11, 2012 at 5:00 PM—just 55 minutes after the State Department notified the White House and the Pentagon that the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi was under attack.

Curious as to why members of the February 17 martyrs brigade, a radical Islamic group, were allowed to ostensibly provide security.

"Under an agreement with U.S. officials — who describe the post in Benghazi as a "special mission" and not a consulate, as it's often been called — four Feb. 17 fighters were supposed to be posted at the compound around the clock. They trained and worked closely with a rotating cast of American security personnel and slept in the sand-colored bungalow closest to the main entrance and the ambassador's residence."

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct...uards-20121011

[Creekman]

Yeah, you're right, I made that up.




Some of you should be more carefull when calling someone a liar.

Anthony Martin and The Examiner belong together. Martin has a long history of supporting the far right regardless of the facts. His opinion amounts to doodley squat in the real world. He belongs to the make it up as he goes along crowd. And you fell for his BS. Wonder why? Still smarting over your wasted vote in on 11/07/@012.

Since I understand what it feels like to be ill, I hope you feel better soon.

[zenwalk]

The White House is denying altering the "Intelligence" talking points, which presumably were provided to UN Ambassador Rice. If not the WH, who altered them?

Considering this was a CIA show ... consider also the CIA director resigned. A picture forms that the agency tasked with the nation's secret work may have had a hand in it's own analysis of events.

[Terry K]

Considering this was a CIA show ... consider also the CIA director resigned. A picture forms that the agency tasked with the nation's secret work may have had a hand in it's own analysis of events.

Typically, Intel types with super security clearances have to submit to grueling polygraph tests which pry into their personal background. As a candidate for CIA Director, Petraeus would likely have gotten such a grilling. Since the affair was prior to his appointment, it is curious that this matter did not come up in the vetting process. Was he appointed despite knowledge of the affair, was he not thoroughly investigated or was he capable of deceiving the polygraph? Something seems very fishy.

[Byng]

Typically, Intel types with super security clearances have to submit to grueling polygraph tests which pry into their personal background. As a candidate for CIA Director, Petraeus would likely have gotten such a grilling. Since the affair was prior to his appointment, it is curious that this matter did not come up in the vetting process. Was he appointed despite knowledge of the affair, was he not thoroughly investigated or was he capable of deceiving the polygraph? Something seems very fishy.

Initial reports were saying that the affair started while General Petraeus was in the military but reports from friends that have said they have talked with the General since he resigned say the affair didn't start until after he left the Army and had been working as the Director of the CIA for 2 months. But obviously there are only two people that really know.

[SoSad]

Since when is telling someone to "have a nice day, "taking a shot"?

1. I wasn't addressing you.
2. I was sorry that songforone had to take a shot like that.
3. Topic is Benghazi.

You're getting an F on moderating me, and will have to repeat the class.

How about you post something linking the CIA to this attack?

[Byng]

1. I wasn't addressing you.
2. I was sorry that songforone had to take a shot like that.
3. Topic is Benghazi.

You're getting an F on moderating me, and will have to repeat the class.

How about you post something linking the CIA to this attack?

Have a nice day!

[SoSad]

Anthony Martin and The Examiner belong together. Martin has a long history of supporting the far right regardless of the facts. His opinion amounts to doodley squat in the real world. He belongs to the make it up as he goes along crowd. And you fell for his BS. Wonder why? Still smarting over your wasted vote in on 11/07/@012.

Since I understand what it feels like to be ill, I hope you feel better soon.

I don't know much about the author. I read papers from all over the United States. In the end, I figure that something must balance out. When you are asked for links on a thread, unfortunately, you have to pick one source to draw from.

What sources do you consider to be reliable?

Thank you for the well wishes. I can barely see what I'm typing, lol.

[SoSad]

Have a nice day!

How disingenuous. songforone had a reason for posting that. You assuming that I am attacking her do not. I am against any and all posts that attack a person personally.

Now, where was I? Oh yeah, Benghazi. Why not post something linking the attack to the CIA?

[Byng]

How disingenuous. songforone had a reason for posting that. You assuming that I am attacking her do not. I am against any and all posts that attack a person personally.

Now, where was I? Oh yeah, Benghazi. Why not post something linking the attack to the CIA?

I already did:

That my friend is one of the reasons that all of the various investigations are being conducted. But what you are doing is looking for a cover-up before anyone has any knowledge of any crime.

If you really are listening to what General Petraeus is saying, he is giving his own personal opinion on the subject on one hand and then the evidence he really had on the other.

Petraeus said that from the minute he was alerted to the attack he felt that it was a terrorist attack because of the presence of heavy weapons that one would not normally associate with a demonstration. And I think most people would agree with that. But it was still a personal opinion and not a fact.

The facts were, as conflicting as they were, which is always the case with an attack like this, is because of other demonstrations going on across the Arab World it was initially thought that this one might have started as the same thing, and either been hijacked/utilised by a terror group as cover and that would make sense to. So Petraeus put out the evidence that he actually had in hand rather that his own personal opinion/Gut feeling.

Now the one question I have on this is the length of time that it took for a Pertraios personal opinion coupled with the emerging facts coming in to merge into one and be the true story. And that without a doubt took longer than it should have took, but a non-political, unbiased and informed mind should be able to work out for themselves why it took so long.

The answer of course is we were buying time for everyone to establish what the hell was going on in Benghazi in the first place and what the hell was Ambassador Stevens involvement in it and why was he there? So it was convenient (and this is just my guess, personal opinion) for the video story to be the focus while our Intelligence agencies sorted out for everybody, that may or may not have known what was going on in Benghazi from an American standpoint.

It became quickly evident that the American Consulate had been vacated sometime previously, was not manned by the State Department and was being used for covert operations by the CIA. That brings up the question of what was Ambassador Stevens doing there and what was his involvement with what the CIA were doing in Benghazi that required/warranted him to be so exposed in Benghazi period but on the anniversary of 9/11 in particular.

We then made the decision for the Covert agents at the CIA Annex to break cover to be utilized as a CIF force to go to the Consulate to repel that attack and defend those there in general but the Ambassador in particular which they successfully did but unfortunately the Ambassador died of smoke inhalation in the process and we all know what happened after that in that they repelled further attacks at the Annex repelled those and successfully evacuated everybody to the airport and out of Benghazi.

Those on the right for purely political reasons sensing blood in the water (political blood) in the lead up to an election played political football with dead Americans even though they knew that the actual circumstances in Benghazi were not as they were portraying them at all because this was not an attack on an American Consulate it was an attack on a CIA Safe House that was being used covertly by the CIA for whatever they were doing there.

So initially it was the fog of war and the confusion that goes with that but once the Video story was out there (and this is only my guess/opinion) it became convenient to hold on to that story, even after it became pretty obvious that it might not be true while the various departments in general and the CIA in particular decided how best to deal with the aftermath of being caught in Benghazi with their pants down and then exposed to the world with their pants down with what ever it was they were actually doing their in the first place.

But there is no cover-up and I appreciate how you personally love cover-ups until an actual crime has been committed. And with so many people involved there is no way Benghazi will be covered up. It might be cleaned up and sanitised a bit for public consumption but you will get to know enough to be satisfied that this was just one big mess and just a poop-happens event when you don't follow the rules.

[SoSad]

I already did:

That my friend is one of the reasons that all of the various investigations are being conducted. But what you are doing is looking for a cover-up before anyone has any knowledge of any crime.

I am not looking for a cover-up. You're mistaken. I just want the truth or whatever we can know about the truth.

[Mom49of4]

I am not looking for a cover-up. You're mistaken. I just want the truth or whatever we can know about the truth.

As do many of us. I heard an interesting discussion on the radio this a.m. and hope to find the transcript later.

[Byng]

I am not looking for a cover-up. You're mistaken. I just want the truth or whatever we can know about the truth.

Sorry, you asked me to link the attack to the CIA, and my answer was that I already did!

[SoSad]

As do many of us. I heard an interesting discussion on the radio this a.m. and hope to find the transcript later.

Wow, they're releasing the transcript? That should be interesting and tell us a lot about how this has been reported.

[Byng]

As do many of us. I heard an interesting discussion on the radio this a.m. and hope to find the transcript later.

Do you remember the station, Mom..........was it an American source?

[reg_indy]

So at this point the discussion/scandal revolves aRound who gave Susan Rice her talking points? Or is there more to it?

[soulflower]

So at this point the discussion/scandal revolves aRound who gave Susan Rice her talking points? Or is there more to it?

Congress knows the answers to all those questions. This is the biggest non-scandal since the Lewinsky thing...

[Byng]

So at this point the discussion/scandal revolves aRound who gave Susan Rice her talking points? Or is there more to it?

Will you be shocked to find out that politicians on 'both' sides were playing politics in the run up to the election? I won't! That's what politicians do.

We know the Republicans were, without one iota of doubt, why wouldn't we think that the Democrats were too?

What I would suggest is happening now is that the Republicans are so upset about the fact that a much better Candidate for President in Obama, than they put up in Romney, and a much better political strategist, beat them hands down, at their own game and they are smarting, big time and out for revenge. Nothing more, nothing less.

[soulflower]

The Republicans have been playing politics with Libya from the start

[Byng]

The Republicans have been playing politics with Libya from the start

Agreed! I just wouldn't be surprised if it came out that the Democrats played a little politics of their own but just played it better. IMHO that is what this Republican onslaught on the Administration is all about. Nothing more, nothing less.