I guess I was making my point. I am not defending or trying to say what happen or didn't happen, but that is losing sight of the bigger question in this whole fiasco. People can go back and forth all day long on the tactical decisions but the WHY question is the one everyone needs an answer to.

 

The 'whys' likely fall into all or some of the following:

 

1. Do not admit to a coordinated attack on Americans. Regardless of whether it was Al-Quada driven 'terror' or a payback for helping overthrow Qaddafi. Given the military-like proficiency the later is as possible as the former.

2. Avoid a 'Desert 1' situation where there are additional US casualties and downed equipment. Since it was a specific attack that at a minimum included a professional mortar team the possibility that the attackers may have been setting a trap and had handheld 'Manpads' would have been a concern. See #4 below.

3. Avoid a larger scale, possible international situation with lots of terrorists/attacker AND civilian non-combatant deaths.

4. Avoid exposing covert mission of the CIA annex. Clearly there was covert operation based there. Most indicate it dealt with at least tracking and recovering sensitive arms from the old regime.

5. Keep any of these or any other facts from impacting up coming election.

The correct term for Pickering's report is 'whitewash'.

Ambassador Pickering was a favorite of Bush 41.

And now it becomes a 'my sources are better than yours' argument.:idunno:

 

I do not view any of the articles or videos that I have posted as 'sources' but more analysis and framing of what is known and attempts to either a) layout the facts in a digestable manner or b) spin the stories. McCain was on target all the way back October of last year. The judges clip laid facts in a very matter of fact manner. Pickering's report is like the early 'self-report' done at Penn State. When it lacks details and specifics from key actual sources it obvious its goal was provide buffer and insulation to higher levels. Parker is a good columnist, but she is not an investigative reporter at all.

 

Sharyl Attkisson of CBS seems to be doing the best true 'investigative' reporting. And she is getting pressure from CBS to back off.

 

A press that does not do its job of digging and digging for the truth is a dangerous thing. I have always held Woodward and Bernstein (and Ben Bradley) in the highest regard for sticking with the Watergate investigation. It seems everyone wants to be sounding box without doing the legwork now-a-days (and for a long time now). The press should always be adversarial to the government, regardless of which party is in control. But they have not done for a long, long time.

Was trying to watch the hearing last week, could not find it on CNN, HLN, CNBC or MSNBC or any major network live...all were busy with Jodie Arias...only Fox was airing hearings live. I thought that was strange as I remember Watergate Hearings being on all channels of the TV (Even thought there were only about 7 channels back then). In fairness I did find MSNBC showing a few minutes of the hearings live after the Jodie Arias news died down.

 

Then I saw this today it it may be part of the reason that the major networks and cable news channels didn't carry the hearings live...

 

Wow! :isurrender::isurrender:

I do not view any of the articles or videos that I have posted as 'sources' but more analysis and framing of what is known and attempts to either a) layout the facts in a digestable manner or b) spin the stories. McCain was on target all the way back October of last year. The judges clip laid facts in a very matter of fact manner. Pickering's report is like the early 'self-report' done at Penn State. When it lacks details and specifics from key actual sources it obvious its goal was provide buffer and insulation to higher levels. Parker is a good columnist, but she is not an investigative reporter at all.

 

Sharyl Attkisson of CBS seems to be doing the best true 'investigative' reporting. And she is getting pressure from CBS to back off.

 

A press that does not do its job of digging and digging for the truth is a dangerous thing. I have always held Woodward and Bernstein (and Ben Bradley) in the highest regard for sticking with the Watergate investigation. It seems everyone wants to be sounding box without doing the legwork now-a-days (and for a long time now). The press should always be adversarial to the government, regardless of which party is in control. But they have not done for a long, long time.

 

 

As I said, "my sources are better than your sources."

I could only find that Virginia Mosley is the VP and Deputy Bureau Chief in Washington D.C. She is not the CNN president.

I could only find that Virginia Mosley is the VP and Deputy Bureau Chief in Washington D.C. She is not the CNN president.

 

Correct maybe they left Vice off of the meme when it was made...as you said she is only a Vice President of CNN...still gotta worry how much energy she would put into this story, seeing how she is the Deputy Bureau Chief for Washington DC and it would be her bureau that would be reporting, investigating and covering this story. I'm sure her husband would have a sweet job if Hillary gets elected president, no conflict for her in this story.

Correct maybe they left Vice off of the meme when it was made...as you said she is only a Vice President of CNN...still gotta worry how much energy she would put into this story, seeing how she is the Deputy Bureau Chief for Washington DC and it would be her bureau that would be reporting, investigating and covering this story. I'm sure her husband would have a sweet job if Hillary gets elected president, no conflict for her in this story.

 

I can't imagine being in their positions. That has to be awful any way you slice it.

I can't imagine being in their positions. That has to be awful any way you slice it.

Yes it would be. Because no matter what you do, your right and your wrong.

I can't imagine being in their positions. That has to be awful any way you slice it.

BTW you need a new avatar, every time I see that one it looks like a glowing brain to me...lol

BTW you need a new avatar, every time I see that one it looks like a glowing brain to me...lol

 

Roc Nation!!!!!!!!!!

Why the full truth will likely not come out (at least in public)...

 

The Benghazi Affair: Uncovering the Mystery of the Benghazi CIA Annex | Global Research

 

 

"...Most of this public document carefully refrains from any discussion of the role or activities of the CIA and what bearing this had on the events of September 11-12 2012 in Benghazi. But the role of the CIA in Benghazi and its bearing on what happened there on September 11 is the crucial question that any legitimate investigation into the situation must explore.

 

...The unclassified version of the ARB Report could not mention the CIA activities. It could only discuss the role of the State Department in what happened.

 

The problem with such a restriction is that one of the US government sites in Benghazi that was attacked was a CIA facility referred to as the ‘Annex’ (hereafter CIA annex compound). The other site was allegedly a State Department administered facility referred to as the ‘Special Mission Benghazi Compound’ (hereafter special mission compound). This second compound, according to the WSJ, was actually created to provide diplomatic cover for the CIA facility.(2)

 

 

...

 

While some US Congressional Committees have been conducting investigations into what happened in Benghazi, they have agreed to discuss only the activities of the State Department in their open, public sessions, and to reserve any consideration or questions about the activities of the CIA for closed sessions of their committees, away from public view.(3)

 

...

 

The NYT acknowledges that, “From among these buildings, the C.I.A. personnel carried out their secret missions.” But then the article explains that, “The New York Times agreed to withhold locations and details of these operations at the request of Obama administration officials….”

 

 

Of the 30 or more American officials evacuated from Benghazi, only seven worked for the State Department. According to the WSJ, “Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic cover, which was a principle purpose” of the special mission compound.

 

...

 

“At the annex,” the WSJ explains, “many of the analysts and officers had what is referred to in intelligence circles as ‘light cover’ carrying U.S. diplomatic passports.”

 

 

Providing a cover for the secret operation of the CIA, however, created problems for State Department officials who felt the CIA was not “forthcoming with information,” even in the midst of the attack on the US facilities. As the WSJ notes, on September 11, 2012, “At 5:41 p.m. Eastern time, Mrs. Clinton called Mr. Petraeus. She wanted to make sure the two agencies were on the same page.”

 

...describe how quickly the CIA acted to clean out documents and equipment from the Annex. By contrast, the US government left the premises of the special mission compound unguarded and open to looters for weeks after the attack.

 

...

 

 

Keeping in mind the importance of this shipment of weapons from Benghazi to Turkey, the need to work out the details of the weapons distribution process could very well have provided the motive for Stevens to plan a visit in Benghazi during such a perilous period as the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attack on the US.

 

 

By September 11, infighting among the Muslim Brotherhood and other insurgent groups, over who would be given the weapons from the Al Entisar shipment, suggests the likelihood that Turkey’s Consul General in Benghazi and the US Ambassador needed to discuss the conflict over the weapons and the problem of how they should be moved into Syria and distributed among the insurgent groups.

 

 

In line with this reasoning, it is not surprising that Chris Stevens had a meeting with Turkey’s Consul General to Benghazi, Ali Sait Akin on September 11 at the Benghazi special mission compound.

 

 

...."

 

Emphasis added.

 

 

Much, much more detail on the Benghazi-Turkey-Syria connection at the link.

 

The other major allies (Britain, France) had pulled their diplomatic missions out of Benghazi due to the increasing violence and lawlessness. The US not only had not yet done that but was using a contractor security group, who agreed to not use guns to provide security (Blue Mountain) as the primary 'security function'. Why leave a 'diplomatic' presence there under this situation - because it was not a 'diplomatic function'. It was 'light cover' for the CIA Annex and the weapons movement.

 

Did the administration come up with the lame video/riot story? Or did the CIA? Or was it the CIA and State Department working together? Was it the best they could do to keep prying eyes off the Annex while they finished 'cleaning up' the post? Is that why the FBI took 3 weeks to get there and did not care if looters when through the primary compound day and night?

 

If so, PP92 could be absolutely right. The true truth may never come out in public. The spooks and Brennan will hang it on Petraus and keep the specifics out of public view.

I expect Hillary to run in '16. American women of both political parties are eager for a female president. Only question mark would be her health.

 

Watergate, Benghazi....who was involved with both?

 

Hilary.

 

Of course she was on the attacking side in Watergate. But she left a very unfavorable impression with her Democratic boss.

 

Politics: Watergate-era Judiciary chief of staff: Hillary Clinton fired for lies, unethical behavior | CainTV

 

"When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

 

Why?

 

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”"

Still if the Obama girls were there would a stand down order been handed down? Would more have been done?