You are now conflating issues.
You lied about what you were questioning. You said you weren't questioning Obama's actions before the attack, but you clearly already had.
I speculated as to why you lied about it. If you have a different reason for lying, tell us. That you lied is not in question.
Pretty much. If someone with an obvious motive to exaggerate starts asserting some version of events at the the top of their lungs, the logical reaction is to subject those claims to a great deal of scrutiny.
If you think that reaction is not logical, I have a wonderful bundle of mortgages to sell you.
I'm just asking questions, but the only conclusion that can be drawn is what I already believe.
Classic trooferspeak.
I'm not pushing for cover up. I suggested it looks to be either a cover up or a failure to act. The road to truth would be fine.
Are the actions of the president prior to the attack relevant? If there were two attacks on the conulate 6 months prior to the incident I would say yes. If there were requests by the ambassador for additional military or security support and they weren't addressed I would say yes.
Sure. That makes your lying about questioning it all the more hilarious.
How have you eliminated other possibilities?
It is possible that there was no failure to act, nor a coverup. They told the truth and acted pretty much appropriately.
Libya was not viewed as overly dangerous before the attack, especially in that area. We saved their asses from getting butchered, and the majority of them knew that, and liked the ambassador to boot.
Seems like you are applying 20/20 hindsight.
I'm not saying your conclusions are illogical on their face. I just want a bit more evidence, and better do entation than Fox's anonymous "sources" before really trying to draw a conclusion.
Look, Obama obviously wanted the ambassador he appointed to die two months before the election.
It's what Muslims do.
I'm still trying to figure out what team red is hoping for here.
Here is the info that I have taken to form my opinion:
1) Consulate attacked twice in last 6 months prior to the incident
2) Request for additional security from the ambassador not answered
3) Mention of terror the day after but in questionable context (I'll give the president the benefit of the doubt)
4) Quick jump to the video as the cause, mentioned repeatedly by Obama, Biden, Rice, Carney & Clinton. This narrative continuing for weeks.
5) Evidence that there was actual video of the incident while it was going on
6) Acknowledgement that Drones were overhead that I would assume would also provide video.
7) Word from Libya that this was terrorism and coordinated almost immediately after the fact
8) Detaining of one suspect that has been caught to this point and then not getting access to question him. Access only coming after Lindsy Graham sends request to Tunisia. Shouldn't the president have done that?
9) Not getting to the scene of the attack because it was too dangerous only to learn that CNN not only went into the consulate but picked up the ambassador's journal. Fox was also there.
Which of these points is a lie?
lol heritage.org mail list
Youtube has search. I'm not on any mailing list
lol searching for conspiracy videos
didn't she state that her statement was based on information at hand and that it could change if/when more info came out? Consider the CIA provided talking points for the initia information release. Therfore the Administration followed the CIA's lead? Are we implying the CIA is in on the lie/cover up?
Sorry, bags... It didn't stick. Nobody gives a about this so called "scandal".
It was a CIA Operation
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2066651.htmlJust being reported on Huffington Post, several of the SEALS at Benghazi were actually contractors working for the CIA and several news outlets were aware of this. The information was embargoed, presumably to allow the CIA time to clear out any assets and salvage what information it could from the operation.
Short story is THAT is why the administration was less that forthcoming and willing to allow people to think it was just an angry mob. This was apparently a group of militants who know EXACTLY what they were after when the attacked the Consulate
C.I.A. Played Major Role Fighting Militants in Libya Attack
Security officers from the C.I.A. played a pivotal role in combating militants who attacked the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, deploying a rescue party from a secret base in the city, sending reinforcements from Tripoli, and organizing an armed Libyan military convoy to escort the surviving Americans to hastily chartered planes that whisked them out of the country, senior intelligence officials said Thursday.
The account given by the senior officials, who did not want to be identified, provided the most detailed description to date of the C.I.A.'s role in Benghazi, a covert presence that appears to have been much more significant than publicly disclosed.
Within 25 minutes of being alerted to the attack against the diplomatic mission, half a dozen C.I.A. officers raced there from their base about a mile away, enlisting the help of a handful of Libyan militia fighters as they went. Arriving at the mission about 25 minutes after that, the C.I.A. officers joined State Department security agents in a futile search through heavy smoke and enemy fire for Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens before evacuating the mission's personnel to the apparent safety of their base, which American officials have called an annex to the mission. Mr. Stevens was one of four Americans killed in the attack.
A four-hour lull in the fighting beginning shortly after midnight seemed to suggest that the worst was over. An unarmed military drone that the C.I.A. took control of to map possible escape routes relayed reassuring images to Tripoli and Washington. But just before dawn, and soon after a C.I.A.-led team of reinforcements, including two military commandos, arrived from Tripoli, a brief but deadly mortar attack surprised the Americans. Two of the C.I.A. security officers who were defending the base from a rooftop were killed.
"The officers on the ground in Benghazi responded to the situation on the night of 11 and 12 September as quickly and as effectively as possible," one of the senior intelligence officials told reporters.
Thursday's briefing for reporters was intended to refute reports, including one by Fox News last Friday, that the C.I.A.'s chain of command had blocked the officers on the ground from responding to the mission's calls for help.
"There were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support," the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of continuing investigations by the State Department and the F.B.I.
At a time when the cir stances surrounding the attack on the Benghazi compound have emerged as a major political issue, with Republicans criticizing the Obama administration's handling of the episode, the senior official also sought to rebut reports that C.I.A. requests for support from the Pentagon that night had gone unheeded.
In fact, the official said, the military diverted a Predator drone from a reconnaissance mission in Darnah, 90 miles away, in time to oversee the mission's evacuation. The two commandos, based at the embassy in Tripoli, joined the reinforcements. And a military transport plane flew the wounded Americans and Mr. Stevens's body out of Libya.
Despite the new details, many questions surrounding the attack remain unanswered, including why the State Department did not increase security at the mission amid a stream of diplomatic and intelligence reports that indicated that the security situation in Benghazi and around Libya had deteriorated sharply since the United States reopened its embassy in Tripoli last year.
By underscoring the C.I.A.'s previously unpublicized role in mobilizing the evacuation effort, the officials seemed to be implicitly questioning the State Department's security arrangements in Benghazi, a focus of three Congressional inquiries into the attack on the mission.
The senior officials also shed new light on the C.I.A.'s role in Libya.
Within months of the start of the Libyan revolution in February 2011, the agency began building a meaningful but covert presence in Benghazi, a locus of the rebel efforts to oust the government of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.
The C.I.A.'s surveillance targets in Benghazi and eastern Libya included Ansar al-Shariah, a militia that some have blamed for the attack on the mission, as well as suspected members of Al Qaeda's affiliate in North Africa, known as Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.
American intelligence operatives also helped State Department contractors and Libyan officials in tracking shoulder-fired missiles taken from the former Libyan Army arsenals, American officials said.
The C.I.A.'s security officers played a new role on Sept. 11, carrying out an informal agreement with the mission to come to its aid in an emergency. One of the senior intelligence officials provided an hour-by-hour chronology of the agency's role during the attack.
Around 9:40 p.m. local time, the C.I.A. base received the first of several calls from the mission saying it was under attack. During the 25 minutes between the first call and when the officers rolled out the door, half a
dozen security officers were readying their gear and weapons, while the base chief called several Libyan militias, seeking fighters with heavy weaponry to defend the mission. His appeals failed.
Over the next 25 minutes, C.I.A. officers approached the walled diplomatic compound, tried to secure heavy weapons, and made their way onto the compound itself in the face of enemy fire.
At 11:11 p.m., the Predator drone arrived over the mission compound. Within 20 minutes, all United States personnel, except for Mr. Stevens, whom the American security officers could not find in the chaos, left the mission, coming under fire as they did.
The Americans retreated safely to the C.I.A. annex, where over the next 90 minutes they came under sporadic small-arms fire and rocket-propelled-grenade attacks. The State Department and C.I.A. officers returned fire and the assailants melted away.
About this same time, the reinforcements arrived at the Benghazi airport from Tripoli. Learning that the attacks at the annex had stopped, the team turned its attention to finding Mr. Stevens. But learning that he was at a Benghazi hospital, almost certainly dead, and that the security situation at the hospital was uncertain, the reinforcements headed to the annex.
They arrived shortly after 5 a.m., just before mortar rounds began to hit the annex. That attack, 11 minutes long, killed two men, whom the senior intelligence officials identified for the first time Thursday as C.I.A. security officers, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty, former members of the Navy SEALs. Until now the men had been publicly identified as State Department contract security officers.
Less than an hour later, a convoy of 50 heavily armed trucks from Libyan military intelligence arrived to help evacuate all American personnel from the annex to the Benghazi airport.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/11/02...ttack.xml?f=19
I have been checking Fox News and the Washington Times websites all day long for them to report the timeline released by the CIA.
They have not reported it.
Well, there was this where Geraldo got a case of the 'truthies'
Republicans Tip world off to covert CIA Role in Libya
Published on November 3rd, 2012
Written by: Juan
http://www.juancole.com/2012/11/repu...-in-libya.htmlThe politicization by the Republican Party of the tragic attack on the US consulate in Benghazi has been a security disaster for the United States. A do ent dump by Congressman Darrell Issa outed the iden ies of Libyans working with the US.
Now, it has come out that the annex of the Benghazi consulate was a Central Intelligence Agency HQ. Likely the consulate itself was thought safe because of the large numbers of CIA operatives at the annex, some of them with a background in military special forces. They were seen by the consulate staff as “the cavalry.”
Likewise, the reluctance to fortify the consulate may have come from fears that too much security would interfere with intelligence-gathering. State Department officials at the Beirut embassy in Lebanon have complained to me that they are virtually trapped inside the fortified complex, and can’t easily get out and mix with people, which interferes with their ability to build Lebanese contacts or do good political reporting. The CIA staff in Benghazi likely was trying to avoid a similar isolation.
- snip -
It is now clear why the Obama administration has been hampered in replying to the charges of Republican gadflies. They risked outing the CIA operations there. Obama quite admirably decided not to release information on an ongoing covert operation, even though he might, by doing so, have gained some political advantage. Certainly Karl Rove and George W. Bush would not have hesitated to out their own covert operation for political gain.
The Repugs' "bogus Iraq surge" hero Betraeus is running the CIA. Will the Repugs' fake outrage go after him, too?
Petraeus’s Quieter Style at C.I.A. Leaves Void on Libya Furor
In 14 months as C.I.A. director, David H. Petraeus has shunned the spotlight he once courted as America’s most famous general. His low-profile style has won the loyalty of the White House, easing old tensions with President Obama, and he has overcome some of the skepticism he faced from the agency’s work force, which is always wary of the military brass.
But since an attack killed four Americans seven weeks ago in Benghazi, Libya, his deliberately low profile, and the C.I.A.’s penchant for secrecy, have left a void that has been filled by a news media and Congressional furor over whether it could have been prevented. Rather than acknowledge the C.I.A.’s presence in Benghazi, Mr. Petraeus and other agency officials fought a losing battle to keep it secret, even as the events there became a point of contention in the presidential campaign.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/03/world/africa/petraeuss-lower-profile-at-cia-leaves-void-in-benghazi-furor.html?hp
Repugs' don't who or what they hurt or destroy. It's All (blind, scorched-earth) Politics, All The Time.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote