April 30, 201412 yr So we are getting closer to finding out who did the lies on TV. Seems it is a SR WH aid to Obama. Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ?video? explanation | Fox News I guess Obama is very glad the Clippers are in the news right now.
April 30, 201412 yr Author Eventually its going to come down on Hillary and how the CIA was funneling weapons from Turkey to Libya to Syria. Like the Reagan days.
May 1, 201412 yr A recap: - The CIA had an operational presence in Benghazi a couple of blocks away from the 'consulate' with over 40 people. They were likely transferring arms, through Turkey, to Syrian rebels (who are likely associated with Al Quada). - The ambassador, Stevens, had had dinner with a representative from Turkey the night of the attack. Related to the above? Uncertain, but possible. - There is an attack, that is an attack from the beginning (no protest preamble) on the consulate. Stevens is dragged out and killed in a horrific manner. - The attack is likely monitored in real time throughout the US State department and military channels. There was no doubt what was going on - in real time. - Former SEALS attached to the CIA operation take action attempt to establish a defense and provide cover for evacuation of their personnel. - A rescue team from Libya - made up a few Marines and a friendly militia does not realize the number to be evacuated and fights off the attack over a period of hours. - No other US forces are scrambled to respond to an attack on a US installation. - The CIA and WH work out a knowingly untrue cover story. This obscures the CIA operation and provides political cover so that is not a domestic political issue and does require a response - a political messy activity with an upcoming election. - Four Americans are killed. Others (number unknown) are seriously wounded. - A video is blamed. Politics, lies, clandestine operations...business as usual in some ways. But what of the broader impacts? Such as: - Who did this? Unknown officially. A guess may be Syrian forces. Obviously, Syria would have a beef about someone supporting the 'rebels' in their civil war. And someone in the attacking group was good with a mortar. Not your normal skill for a rag-tag terrorists. If it was Syria what would have been or should have been our response? No good answer here. Was it former Libyan regular forces who were loyal to Qaddaffi? They would have a beef with the US. Even if it was someone else any military response was still not a good 'political' answer since any military response before November would be problematic. So the response to the attack - none. - Is the US in a weaker position with the lack of a response? This was a coordinated and sustained attack on a US installation. A very rare event. It seems the attackers were a) successful and b) not made to pay for their actions. Does this endanger Americans around the world since those responsibility have not been held accountable? It is these types of much broader issues as to why this event does 'matter'. Its far more that a political witch hunt as characterized by the administration. The facts of what happened and our lack of response has serious implications
May 1, 201412 yr A recap: - The CIA had an operational presence in Benghazi a couple of blocks away from the 'consulate' with over 40 people. They were likely transferring arms, through Turkey, to Syrian rebels (who are likely associated with Al Quada). - The ambassador, Stevens, had had dinner with a representative from Turkey the night of the attack. Related to the above? Uncertain, but possible. - There is an attack, that is an attack from the beginning (no protest preamble) on the consulate. Stevens is dragged out and killed in a horrific manner. - The attack is likely monitored in real time throughout the US State department and military channels. There was no doubt what was going on - in real time. - Former SEALS attached to the CIA operation take action attempt to establish a defense and provide cover for evacuation of their personnel. - A rescue team from Libya - made up a few Marines and a friendly militia does not realize the number to be evacuated and fights off the attack over a period of hours. - No other US forces are scrambled to respond to an attack on a US installation. - The CIA and WH work out a knowingly untrue cover story. This obscures the CIA operation and provides political cover so that is not a domestic political issue and does require a response - a political messy activity with an upcoming election. - Four Americans are killed. Others (number unknown) are seriously wounded. - A video is blamed. Politics, lies, clandestine operations...business as usual in some ways. But what of the broader impacts? Such as: - Who did this? Unknown officially. A guess may be Syrian forces. Obviously, Syria would have a beef about someone supporting the 'rebels' in their civil war. And someone in the attacking group was good with a mortar. Not your normal skill for a rag-tag terrorists. If it was Syria what would have been or should have been our response? No good answer here. Was it former Libyan regular forces who were loyal to Qaddaffi? They would have a beef with the US. Even if it was someone else any military response was still not a good 'political' answer since any military response before November would be problematic. So the response to the attack - none. - Is the US in a weaker position with the lack of a response? This was a coordinated and sustained attack on a US installation. A very rare event. It seems the attackers were a) successful and b) not made to pay for their actions. Does this endanger Americans around the world since those responsibility have not been held accountable? It is these types of much broader issues as to why this event does 'matter'. Its far more that a political witch hunt as characterized by the administration. The facts of what happened and our lack of response has serious implications Bout sums it up!
May 1, 201412 yr The speech writer will take the fall, but the crickets in here are LOUD..... What do you want to hear people say?
May 2, 201412 yr What do you want to hear people say? Admit that this white house is the biggest fraud ever....and that they must have a different definition of "transparency" than the one that appears in the dictionary. That we as a country are now more concerned with what Kim K. and Kanye wear, and what Donald Sterling says, than we are about the preservation of our Republic.
May 2, 201412 yr Author What do you want to hear people say? Hang Hillary. Sorry but she is a very evil evil person.
May 2, 201412 yr Author Missing from much of the coverage of yesterday’s revelations that Senior White House adviser Ben Rhodes coordinated an effort to obfuscate the truth behind the Sept 11 2012 terror attacks in Benghazi was a key detail about the insidious relationship between politics and media in Washington. The brother of Ben Rhodes is David Rhodes, president of CBS News. Fair and balanced, at least by liberal standards I guess.
May 2, 201412 yr Correction to previous post. Who did this? It seems that it was known almost immediately exactly who did this. Ansar al-Saria in Benghazi. The name is used by militant groups through the middle east almost like a franchise name. When the Lybians said they through Quaddaffi loyalist did this the State department indicated no - it was the local Ansar al-Saria group. This was on September 12th. State Dept. Al Sharia Email, May 1, 2014 The email is entitled “Libya update from Beth Jones. ” Jones was then-Assistant Secretary of State to Hillary Clinton. According to the email, Jones spoke to Libya’s Ambassador at 9:45am on Sept. 12, 2012 following the attacks. “When [the Libyan Ambassador] said his government suspected that former Qaddafi regime elements carried out the attacks, I told him the group that conducted the attacks—Ansar Al Sharia—is affiliated with Islamic extremists,” Jones reports in the email. And when did this group arise? Ansar al-Sharia (Benghazi) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Ansar al-Sharia was formed during the Libyan Civil War and rose to prominence after the killing of Muammar Gaddafi. Made up of former rebels from the Abu Obayda Bin Aljarah Brigade, Malik Brigade and February 17th Martyrs Brigade and many more,[4] the Salafist militia initially made their name by posting videos of themselves fighting in the Battle of Sirte.[6] So the group here were the very people that the administration supported during the war on Gaddafi. Without authorization from Congress the US military supported NATO bombings that helped this group form. Then it turned on those who aided it. Death of the War Powers Act? - The Washington Post This week, the War Powers Act confronts its moment of truth. Friday will mark the 60th day since President Obama told Congress of his Libyan campaign. According to the act, that declaration started a 60-day clock: If Obama fails to obtain congressional support for his decision within this time limit, he has only one option — end American involvement within the following 30 days. Obama has not only failed but he hasn’t even tried — leaving it to Sen. Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, to call for a “specific resolution that would give [the president] authority.” Neither the president nor the Democratic congressional leadership has shown any interest. They have been sleep-walking their way to Day 60. Basically the administration abused the War Powers act in 2011 to ensure it helped bring down Gaddaffi. This lead to the rise of a militant group inside Libya to fill the void. This group then attacked the power that helped it to power. Basically the monster turned on creator as in Frankenstein.
May 2, 201412 yr Basically the administration abused the War Powers act in 2011 to ensure it helped bring down Gaddaffi. This lead to the rise of a militant group inside Libya to fill the void. This group then attacked the power that helped it to power. Basically the monster turned on creator as in Frankenstein. NY Times on this: From December 28, 2013: A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times The United States waded deeply into post-Qaddafi Libya, hoping to build a beachhead against extremists, especially Al Qaeda. It believed it could draw a bright line between friends and enemies in Libya. But it ultimately lost its ambassador in an attack that involved both avowed opponents of the West and fighters belonging to militias that the Americans had taken for allies. ... Months of investigation by The New York Times...turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. Note that NY Times has these fact correct. The people we helped were the attackers. It did not take months of investigation to determine this. The State Department, CIA and military knew it in real time or close to real time. From the Wiki above: Witnesses said they saw vehicles with the group's logo at the scene of the assault and that fighters there acknowledged at the time that they belonged to Ansar al-Sharia. So the terrorist of 2012 were the rebels of 2011. And everyone knew it from the start. This explains the need for the video cover story. If and when it became known (and it clearly has not been well propagated now that it is clearly known) that it was groups who were supported by the administration that attacked there would need to a 'plausible story' as to why this event would occur. After all, it could not be that the administration was wrong to engage in NATO actions without Congressional approval in 2011. So it must be...they are mad about a video. So what is the next line in the NY Times article above? And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam. So the NY Times towed the line last year in this article. It used the video cover as it was probably originally designed for. The full talking point is - "Yes, it was our 'friends' of 2011 who did this. But they were driven by that video. " I think the video blame was originally created to create the narrative on why 'friends' would attack. But since no one publicly fingered the actual group by the weekend and the generic 'terrorist' term was in play they just let the video/demonstration narrative go without explaining that they knew who did it and that those forces were a group that the administration helped create and bring to power. This NYT article of December 2013 is the first time I have seen the tying together of the local group AND the video story together. A question is still why did this group attack? What was their purpose - the video story is completely bogus. There was a material goal to organize and sustain such an aggressive attack. What was it? And have we sought justice? Has the message been sent around the world that we will not tolerate attacks like this? It still appears - no. That creates a dangerous situation for Americans around the world. The reason for not responding before November of 2012 is quite obvious. Starting a military campaign in a country we just helped 'liberate' would be a messy narrative. But it seems that payback was not done at all. It is not a good message for others who intend to do harm to Americans.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.