Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 25, 2014, 04:27:24 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83029 Posts in 2258 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Benghazi and related matters
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8 Print
Author Topic: Benghazi and related matters  (Read 19235 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« on: November 21, 2012, 11:20:46 AM »

Much of this affair (double entendre intended) defies the existing categories of this forum.  It is not Libya, but Libya is relevant.  It is not Intel Matters, but intel issues are relevant.  Apart from and in addition to the titilating qualities, it does seem an insight into how things sometimes work behind the curtain.   Anyway, herewith a thread dedicated to the Petraeus affair from this point forward (previous posts on all this can be found in the Libya thread):

Turning Brass Into Gold
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: November 20, 2012 219 Comments
The New York Times
 
The flesh is weak but the spirit of commerce is willing.

The sexy part of Washington’s newest sex scandal has waned. The crass part is cranking up.

As The Times’s Scott Shane writes: “The major players have hired high-profile, high-priced representatives to manage the fallout, watch for legal trouble, police the press and massage damaged reputations.”

And, no doubt, pave the way for future book deals, cushy jobs and TV apologias in honeyed light with Diane Sawyer and Barbara Walters.

The tears and lip gloss started flowing Tuesday at a press conference at the Ritz-Carlton here featuring a distraught twin, a befuddled press corps and Gloria Allred, the feminist avenger last seen tormenting Herman Cain over sexual harassment charges.

One minute you’re the Boy Scout C.I.A. chief, or the Dudley Do-Right general poised to be the next Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. The next you’re in trouble with your wife, your career is a late-night chew toy and you’re headed to Allred’s Wikipedia page to join such headlines as: “Gloria Allred: Tiger Woods’s True Opponent?,” “Roman Polanski Hit by Fresh Sex Allegations,” “Gloria Allred Seeks Rush Limbaugh Prosecution,” “Porn Star Says Representative Weiner Asked Her to Lie,” and “Attorney Gloria Allred Now Connected to Causeway Cannibal Case.”

The news conference with Allred and her latest curvy client, Natalie Khawam, Jill Kelley’s identical saturnine twin, was so weird it was hard to figure out if it was real, a Bravo pilot or a Lifetime Christmas movie in search of a good miracle.

“My sister Jill and I aren’t just twins, we’re best friends, literally inseparable,” said Khawam, wearing a demure navy dress and navy suede 4-inch heels with gold trim. She continued: “We played varsity tennis together. She played net and I served.” (Don’t you have to alternate?)

With tears streaming down her cheeks, she went on: “We also played softball together. She was the catcher and I pitched. We love to cook together. I usually bake and she sautés. We used to study together. I loved math. She loved science, and she excelled in chemistry. We love to play piano and play chess.”

It was not clear why the twin, described by Allred as “a whistle-blower attorney,” was oversharing and then withholding. The two women called a press conference to not comment on the scandal that is the only reason anyone turned up at the press conference.

The soap opera Stephen Colbert calls “General’s Hospital” was sparked by Kelley, who got an F.B.I. friend in Tampa to pursue an investigation of Paula Broadwell’s taunting, jealous, anonymous e-mails, and who sent thousands of pages of e-mails herself to Gen. John Allen — a handful of which were sexually explicit enough to hold up his promotion.

Natalie had a cameo role, voguing with the generals and their wives, and persuading “King David” Petraeus and General Allen, the top NATO commander in Afghanistan, to write letters in a bruising custody case as she fought her ex-husband — a honcho in the Iraq occupation — over their baby son.

Reporters, trying to fathom why they were there, asked Khawam and Allred a plethora of questions. But it seems that Natalie, who gingerly entered arm-in-arm with Gloria, just wanted everyone to know that she has filed an appeal to try to reverse a decision giving sole custody to her ex, after a D.C. judge deemed that Natalie had lodged “sensational accusations” against her former husband and was “a psychologically unstable person.”

In the “Military-Adulterous Complex,” as Time called it, the twin sisters and Broadwell were not shy about using their access to top generals to advance their own agendas.

Adam Victor, C.E.O. of TransGas Development Systems in New York, told reporters that Kelley — who swanned around Tampa and the MacDill Air Force Base, home to Centcom, as a trompe l’oeil diplomat for South Korea — had offered to set up a natural gas deal in South Korea in return for an $80 million commission.

“Kelley made it clear to me that General Petraeus put her in this position and that’s why she was able to have access to such senior levels that they were essentially doing a favor for General Petraeus,” Victor, who balked at the ludicrous $80 million, told ABC News’s Brian Ross.

Ross also reported that Broadwell grabbed the brass ring, starring in an infomercial for a company trying to gain military contracts for “strange-looking lightweight machine guns.”

“Watchdog groups say the use of Broadwell was a brilliant move by a company seeking an edge in Washington,” Ross said.

The military might want to have its future stars read Jane Austen as well as Grant and Rommel. “Pride and Prejudice” is full of warnings about the dangers of young ladies with exuberant, flirtatious, “unguarded and imprudent” manners visiting military regiments and preening in “all the glories of the camp.”

Such folly and vanity, the ever wise Elizabeth Bennet cautioned, can lead to censure and disgrace.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2013, 10:59:51 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 158


« Reply #1 on: November 21, 2012, 01:02:15 PM »

Start it with Maureen Dowdy, great.  sad

Two more naval officers were relieved this week, a Captain and a Commander, due to misconduct.  It is beginning to suggest a "rot" at the upper levels of the military.
Of course, this has always been present in all forces, but never really mentioned or acted upon so publicly.

I have to wonder what is bringing this to the forefront now.  It seems that with all the publicity, there must be ulterior motives at work.
Logged

PPulatie
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #2 on: November 21, 2012, 02:40:46 PM »

Someone else with a strong background in these things recently made a very similar comment to me.  With that in mind, I have added to the name of this thread.


As far as Dowd goes , , ,  cheesy , , , I actually thought some of her comments here actually captured the circus/farce aspects of what this matter looks to become in the hands of the Pravdas, Gloria Alred, and others of that ilk.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2012, 02:42:50 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #3 on: November 29, 2012, 11:58:02 AM »

Forwarded to me by an unreliable source; many specious comments herein, but some worthy questions are raised as well , , ,

Administration is engaged in a massive cover-up
 
- Doug Hagmann (Bio and Archives)  Thursday, November 29, 2012
(31) Comments | Print friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

857

This is part one of a multi-part interview with a government insider intimately familiar with the events that took place in Benghazi. In this part, he provides important background, and explains this administration is engaged in a massive cover-up.

DH: It’s been a while since we’ve discussed Benghazi. What have you heard lately?
II: Before I answer that, I want to get a few things off my chest. Every politician, whether it’s a congressman senator, diplomat, or their spokespeople and the media are lying to the American public every time they call the location of the attack a consulate. It was not. There was absolutely no diplomatic consulate in Benghazi. None. Words are important here. They can create a wrong image, an incorrect picture of what was really going on. The property where our Ambassador and other Americans were murdered was a rented villa consisting of a primary residence with a couple of outbuildings behind the actual house. The reason they’re still calling it a consulate is to subtly divert any questions about our activities there.
DH: Let’s go over this again; exactly what was taking place at Benghazi?

II: As I said, the place where the attack happened is one of the largest, one of the most active CIA operation centers in North Africa, if not in the entire Middle East. It was not a diplomatic station. It was a planning and operations center, a logistics hub for weapons and arms being funneled out of Libya. Unlike the embassy in Tripoli, there was limited security in Benghazi. Why? So the operation did not draw attention to what was going on there.
DH: So in reality there were no actual security issues?
II: Oh yes, there were, in Tripoli. Diplomatic cables show that. But it was for the embassy in Tripoli, the Ambassador and the diplomatic staff in general, not specifically for the Benghazi location for two reasons. First, the Benghazi location was a CIA operation, not a diplomatic one. Visible security at that location would draw unwanted attention there. They had to blend in. Remember, the villa was located in a somewhat residential area, sort of like the suburbs. Secondly, additional manpower was not needed there, at this CIA center, as the operation was already winding down.
DH: I know you’ve gone over this before, but let’s get into the specifics of the operation at Benghazi.
II: Good, I want to be clear. After Gaddafi was taken out, there was the matter of his weapons and arms that were hidden all over Libya, including chemical weapons - gas weapons. According to Obama and Hillary Clinton, we were in Libya to collect and destroy these weapons to make for a ‘safer’ Libya. That’s what they were telling the American public. That’s not really what was going on, though, and it seems like all of the other nations except the average American knew it. Anyway, you can find pictures and videos of weapons caches being destroyed, but that is strictly for the public’s consumption.
What was really happening, before Gaddafi’s body was even cold, is that we had people locating caches of weapons, separating the working from those that weren’t, and making a big show of destroying the weapons, but only the weapons that were useless. The working weapons were being given to Islamic terrorists. They were being funneled through Libya, crisscrossing Libya on a Muslim Brotherhood managed strategic supply route. In fact, Michael Reagan called it the modern day equivalent of the Ho Chi Minh Trail in a recent article he wrote, and he is correct.
The entire arms and weapons running operation was headquartered in Benghazi, The weapons were actually being shipped out of Libya from the port city of Dernah, located about a hundred miles east of Benghazi. That was the ‘choke point’ of the weapons being shipped out. Remember the Lusitania? Think in those terms, ships carrying weapons hid among ‘humanitarian aid.’ By the time of the attacks, an estimated 30-40 million pounds of arms were already transported out of Libya.
From there, the weapons were being sent to staging areas in Turkey near the Syrian border, for use by the Free Syrian Army and other ragtag terrorist groups to fight against Assad. The objective was and still is to destabilize the Assad government.
Why Syria, why not Iran?
II: It’s both, but Syria is the primary target here for this operation. First, look at the bigger picture, look at the so-called “Arab Spring.” Who benefits and by default, who doesn’t? Who is the architect for what’s going on throughout the Middle East and North Africa? Whose agenda is being implemented? To specifically address Benghazi, though, look at the bigger picture here and what is trying to be accomplished.
The Obama administration is playing the role of Saudi Arabia’s private army. I think if Americans knew this, they would be outraged. Our service men and women are being sold out as mercenaries for the wants and desires of the Royal family, for the Saudi’s interests. It’s about religious dominance and oil. Who is really benefitting from, say, what’s going on in Egypt? Mubarek is out, and the Muslim Brotherhood is in. Who does that benefit? Saudi Arabia.
Look at what we see happening in Egypt. Destabilization. Do you think the Russians want that? Hell no. Syria is Russia’s red line in the sand, as you earlier wrote. If Syria is lost to the Muslim Brotherhood by the actions of Obama, Hillary Clinton and others in this administration, what happens? Well, it will have an adverse impact on Russia from a military standpoint. They will likely lose access to their Mediterranean deep water port in Syria, which is Tartus.
But think further - three dimensionally. Russia is still the world’s largest oil producer, and that’s Russia’s primary source of income. Then there’s Turkey, adjacent to Syria. A large amount of Russian oil and gas, consumed by the West, flows through Turkey, which is also a player in this operation.
So, the destabilization of Syria which is exactly what Obama and Clinton are trying to do, presents a direct military and economic threat to Russia. Assad at least has kept things in check in Syria. Can you imagine Assad being replaced by someone like Morsi? That would strike at the very heart of Russia’s economic health and military capabilities. Think of what’s at stake here. Do Americans want a regional war? World War III? Has Obama or Clinton asked the American people if this is what they want?
Make no mistake, we are doing the bidding for Saudi Arabia. The U.S., NATO and other allies are engaged in a proxy war with Iran and Russia.
What about Assad’s war crimes?
Assad is no angel, but don’t be fooled by the death toll attributed to him. Now this is important. Remember the first Gulf War? In the run up to Desert Storm, a young woman testified before the Human Rights Caucus - she only testified under her first name, which was Nayirah. Remember that she testified that Iraqi soldiers were taking infants from incubators in Kuwait, leaving them to die? Her testimony was supposedly confirmed by Amnesty International. Her testimony went viral, and every war hawk in the U.S. government cited her testimony, saying we needed to right the wrongs, the inhumanity. It was all one big lie!
After Desert Storm, it was revealed that Nayirah’s last name was Al-Sabah, and she was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. Her testimony was part of a publicity campaign organized by Citizens for a Free Kuwait, which was run by Hill & Knowlton, a PR firm out of New York. People must learn the back story.
So we see a body count attributed to Assad. Who’s doing the killing, Assad’s people? Maybe at times, but the Free Syrian Army and other groups are doing most of the slaughter. It’s one huge ‘false flag’ operation and the media is selling it hard. And Americans are buying it, just like the testimony of the girl from Kuwait.
It’s one big lie being told by Obama, Clinton, Rice, and others. Many Americans are buying the lie, and the media is selling the lie. The people behind this are laughing at us. Don’t you get it? They’re laughing at us.
And do you want to know what’s at stake? Four Americans were killed in Benghazi. Forty thousand have been killed so far in Syria. Tens of thousands of Syrian people have become refugees. Why? For what? To advance the agenda of Saudi Arabia. For oil.
You know, the so-called right wing establishment were all up in arms about Obama’s submissive bow to the Saudi King. Where are they now? Where’s the outrage that the body count will be much greater than Forty thousand? It is anticipated that if the Obama plan succeeds, not only will America be committed to yet another war, but the body count could be as high as FOUR MILLION. Christians, among others, will be slaughtered. This could trigger a third world war, it’s that serious.
What are Russia and Iran doing? Certainly, they must be fighting back.
Benghazi was a strike against us, the Obama-Clinton agenda. A visible strike, and I’ll explain more about this shortly, because there are events I will point out that will put it all into perspective. But think of it this way. How did we successfully collapse the Soviet Union? I mean, what was the last straw? We attacked their currency - the Ruble. They’re still stinging from that, and Putin was in the KGB at the time. Do you think he forgot about that?
So, how do, or will Russia and Iran strike back if Obama and Clinton continue this insanity? Militarily? Possibly in regional conflicts, but to take us out, to stop us, what is the one area where we are very vulnerable? It’s our economy - our dollar. What’s our dollar tied to? Not gold or silver anymore, and some say it’s not tied to anything. Well, that’s not quite correct. It’s tied to OIL. The free-flow of oil.
Oil transactions everywhere in the world, including Russia and China, are made with U.S. dollars. We buy their oil with our dollars, and they return with those same paper dollars and employ Americans by buying our goods and services. As Michael Reagan wrote: “[t]his system is also crucial to the security of our diplomatic and legal infrastructure, which is ultimately backed by our military. It’s the core of our foreign policy.” He also wrote that “any attack on the free flow of oil is an attack on the dollar. Any attack on the dollar is an attack on our ability to project power and protect Western democracies, economies, and ideals. God have mercy on us all if that attack is successful!”
Tomorrow Part II
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/51346
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #4 on: November 29, 2012, 06:05:08 PM »

Anything from Doug Hagmann should be taken with a 50 pound bag of rock salt, IMHO.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #5 on: November 29, 2012, 07:30:16 PM »

Care to flesh that out GM?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #6 on: November 29, 2012, 07:42:03 PM »

I heard today that Rice was the one responsible for passing on the Sudanese offer years ago to hand over Bin Laden.  Is this accurate?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #7 on: November 29, 2012, 07:46:57 PM »

Care to flesh that out GM?

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2005/04/21

Zarqawi's Nuclear Threat
Host: George Noory
Guests: Douglas Hagmann, Jon Rappoport 
During the middle two hours, Douglas Hagmann of the Northeast Intelligence Network discussed reports that say al Qaeda terrorist Abu Mousab al Zarqawi has obtained a nuclear device and/or is preparing radiological 'dirty bombs' (made by mixing radioactive material with conventional explosives) for a strike against the United States.

Hagmann believes the U.S. government has released this latest information to prepare its citizens for the next "inevitable" attack. According to Hagmann, Zarqawi may have as many as 20 suitcase nukes (with a 1-to-10 kiloton yield), some of which may already be in America. State sponsorship could also be involved, Hagmann explained, with Iran, China, and Russia contributing in some way to al Qaeda's nuclear capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate Russia is, in fact, missing dozens of suitcase nukes, he said.

Hagmann also pointed out that Zarqawi was stopped at a military checkpoint several months ago, but was not recognized. This was confirmed by government officials off-the-record, he claims. Hagmann noted Zarqawi has not been heard from since the Iraqi elections, and could be somewhere in North America. Despite not knowing Zarqawi's whereabouts, Hagmann believes the U.S. led war on terror has "dented the major leadership of al Qaeda," and will eventually find its founder -- Osama bin Laden.

It's my understanding that prior to 9/11, Hagmann was focused on UFO and Bigfoot investigations.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #8 on: November 30, 2012, 12:03:35 PM »

I heard today that Rice was the one responsible for passing on the Sudanese offer years ago to hand over Bin Laden.  Is this accurate?

I would think the timing on that is close.  Possible that she would be advising on that decision and that we will never know.  Maybe she advised yes on the aspirin factory bombing.  Did they intend to hit him then or was that really the distraction alleged from the Monica Lewinsky story? I Haven't read any Clinton staff autobiographies.  My interests lie more with non-fiction.  )
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #9 on: December 03, 2012, 10:11:17 AM »

"At an interagency teleconference in late April [1994], Susan Rice, a rising star on the NSC who worked under Richard Clarke, stunned a few of the officials present when she asked, “If we use the word ‘genocide’ and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November [congressional] election?”

 - 'Bystanders to Genocide', by Samantha Power, Sept 2001, Atlantic Magazine
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/09/bystanders-to-genocide/304571/
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #10 on: December 04, 2012, 04:34:24 AM »

Put on this thread because Benghazi appears to be the impetus for the report, though it is more general about US diplomatic security globally:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42834.pdf
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #11 on: December 05, 2012, 10:01:51 AM »

  By Robert D. Kaplan
Chief Geopolitical Analyst
 
Now everyone knows that CIA Director David Petraeus was unfaithful to his wife and that former top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan Gen. Stanley McChrystal made improper remarks to a journalist. Therefore, these two Army generals were removed from their jobs -- Petraeus recently and McChrystal two years ago -- and publicly humiliated.
 
Let me add some perspective regarding the careers of these two men.
 
In December 2006, just before Petraeus took command of all U.S. forces in Iraq and when McChrystal was in charge of counterterrorism there, Baghdad was sustaining 140 suicide bombs per month, with dozens killed in many attacks. In December 2007, largely because of the efforts of both men, that figure was reduced to five per month. The civilian lives saved as a consequence numbered in the thousands or tens of thousands per year. That's real humanitarianism -- unlike the faux humanitarianism often heard at international meetings.
 
Now let me add some perspective on three other Army generals, who had clean public records and thus were never humiliated to nearly the same extent by the media: Tommy Franks, Ricardo Sanchez and George Casey. According to Thomas E. Ricks' new book, The Generals: American Military Command from World War II to Today, among other sources, Franks did not plan sufficiently for the post-invasion stabilization of Iraq, Sanchez allowed an insurgency to start and mushroom there and Casey allowed that insurgency to continue without taking creative countermeasures. Franks and Sanchez were arguably guilty of incompetence according to Ricks and others, and Casey was by almost all accounts a mediocrity in over his head as commander in Baghdad. The 140 suicide bombs per month in Baghdad with which Petraeus and McChrystal had to contend were the product of the failed generalships of Franks, Sanchez and Casey.
 
Petraeus, by contrast, conceived (with help from the Marines) of an alternative kind of war (counterinsurgency), implemented it in the midst of an ongoing conflict and taught his army how to employ it. In the process, he made better use of McChrystal's skills than had previous American commanders. As a consequence, with the arguable exceptions of generals Matthew Ridgway in Korea and Creighton Abrams in Vietnam, Petraeus ranks as perhaps the greatest American Army general since George Marshall and Dwight Eisenhower in World War II.
 
The result: Petraeus was brought down by what, according to the New York Times, might well have been an invasion of privacy by the FBI, even as McChrystal had his reputation irreparably damaged by an aggressive Rolling Stone reporter.
 
In other words, we erect gods and we get -- sorry -- human beings. Not only that, we get human beings under severe stress who are, by nature of their chemistry and circumstances, imperfect.
 
Let's examine the stress that Petraeus and McChrystal were under in the course of their careers. Whereas the Greatest Generation was on the whole deployed in a war theater for less than three years, Petraeus and McChrystal were deployed longer in a cumulative sense: almost half a decade when you include visits to the region, in addition to their deployments. Moreover, because they were deployed in Muslim countries, they had no access to even an occasional glass of beer on base. Eisenhower spent the war in London allegedly with a mistress -- his chauffeur and secretary, Kay Summersby. That was not frowned upon.
 
What should concern us regarding Petraeus was the possibility of a security breach; his private life should be, well, private -- the Army code of conduct notwithstanding. What should have outraged us about the McChrystal affair was the very fact of the removal of a brilliant commander because he had dropped his guard with a reporter from a left-wing journal.
 
Here's when you should ask, What would Abraham Lincoln have done? When told that Gen. Ulysses S. Grant drank alcohol to excess, Lincoln remarked: "Find out what Grant drinks and send a barrel of it to my other generals." Lincoln was not interested in personal foibles in this case; he was only interested in winning a war. Our leaders and public should be, too. Gen. George McClellan was disloyal to Lincoln, but Lincoln might have forgiven McClellan even that if the general could have fought better than he did.
 
History is replete with the imperfections of great and extremely competent men. Richard Nixon made derogatory remarks about blacks and Jews; he was also a brilliant strategist who reopened America's relations with communist China, leveraged that relationship to counter the Soviet Union and re-established relations with Egypt and Syria after saving Israel with arms deliveries during the Yom Kippur War. Jimmy Carter, by contrast, was a morally perfect man. He was also the president under whose watch Nicaragua and Ethiopia were substantially lost to the West -- with eventual catastrophic consequences for human rights in the case of Ethiopia. Also under Carter's watch the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, and a U. S. military operation in Iran went down in failure. The late Richard Holbrooke could be on a personal level extremely unpleasant, as I myself experienced close-up. He was also a brilliant diplomat who ended a war in the Balkans.
 
The issue here is not personalities. It is power. In a world of power and geopolitics, the best practitioners -- whether a Petraeus or a McChrystal or a Nixon or a Holbrooke -- are men who can get things done. Men who can get things done have the ability to take over a room, to force all the attention on themselves, give orders and have them actually carried out. And the orders they give are creative, morally based and well thought-through.
 
My purpose here is not to justify what Petraeus and McChrystal did. I am only saying that if the United States is to perform credibly as a great power it does not have the luxury to be ruled by the sensationalist standards of the media, in which incidents involving personal shortcomings are turned into soap operas. In such cases, assuming the person is not a serial offender in a way that impairs his professional competence, the country must forgive in order to allow its most able agents of authority to get on with the job.
 
Geopolitics -- the battle of space and power -- focuses on impersonal forces like geography, demography, economics and technology. But the actors in all cases are individuals. Individuals do matter. The Iraq War may well have been a mistake, but it was a mistake made worse by bad generalship and made better later on by good generalship -- that of Petraeus and McChrystal.
 
Be careful about demanding moral perfection from our leaders, civilian and military. In our personal lives we may be governed by a private morality in which someone like Petraeus can be found wanting. But in the public life of a nation, leaders must be judged by what they accomplish on behalf of the citizenry as a whole: that is, what they accomplish for the greater good. Geopolitics is a world governed by a morality of public results rather than a morality of private intentions. For if it is moral perfection that you want, you'll often get mediocrity and occasional incompetence as a result.


Read more: On Geopolitical Generals | Stratfor
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #12 on: December 05, 2012, 11:14:54 AM »

Tuesday, September 18, just a week after the attack and two days after Rice’s appearance, on the "Late Show With David Letterman."

LETTERMAN: Now, I don’t understand, um, the ambassador to Libya killed in an attack on the consulate in Benghazi. Is this an act of war? Are we at war now? What happens here?

OBAMA: Here's what happened. ... You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character who -- who made an extremely offensive video directed at -- at Mohammed and Islam --

LETTERMAN: Making fun of the Prophet Mohammed.

OBAMA: Making fun of the Prophet Mohammed. And so, this caused great offense in much of the Muslim world. But what also happened, extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the one, the consulate in Libya.

(Quotes from RCP: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/30/what_the_president_said_about_benghazi_116299.html)
--------------

That makes two people, high up, who knew better, intentionally misleading the American people, for purely political purposes, not fit to be American Secretary of State - or any other high office.

Don't tell me what she said falsely on 5 talk shows didn't come directly from the White House.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #13 on: December 05, 2012, 11:18:34 AM »

And, unlike Rice, whom Baraq said could not be held accountable because she wasn't informed rolleyes  THE PRESIDENT cannot say he was out of the loop!
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #14 on: December 11, 2012, 10:36:42 AM »

The Other Susan Rice File How to embrace psychotic murderers and alienate a continent.
By BRET STEPHENS
 
The trouble with a newspaper column lies in the word limit. Last week, I wrote about some of Susan Rice's diplomatic misadventures in Africa during her years in the Clinton administration: Rwanda, Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of Congo. But there wasn't enough space to get to them all.

And Sierra Leone deserves a column of its own.

On June 8, 1999, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Ms. Rice, then the assistant secretary of state for African affairs, delivered testimony on a range of issues, and little Sierra Leone was high on the list. An elected civilian government led by a former British barrister named Ahmad Kabbah had been under siege for years by a rebel group known as the Revolutionary United Front, led by a Libyan-trained guerrilla named Foday Sankoh. Events were coming to a head.

Even by the standards of Africa in the 1990s, the RUF set a high bar for brutality. Its soldiers were mostly children, abducted from their parents, fed on a diet of cocaine and speed. Its funding came from blood diamonds. It was internationally famous for chopping off the limbs of its victims. Its military campaigns bore such names as "Operation No Living Thing."

In January 1999, six months before Ms. Rice's Senate testimony, the RUF laid siege to the capital city of Freetown. "The RUF burned down houses with their occupants still inside, hacked off limbs, gouged out eyes with knives, raped children, and gunned down scores of people in the street," wrote Ryan Lizza in the New Republic. "In three weeks, the RUF killed some 6,000 people, mostly civilians."

What to do with a group like this? The Clinton administration had an idea. Initiate a peace process.

It didn't seem to matter that Sankoh was demonstrably evil and probably psychotic. It didn't seem to matter, either, that he had violated previous agreements to end the war. "If you treat Sankoh like a statesman, he'll be one," was the operative theory at the State Department, according to one congressional staffer cited by Mr. Lizza. Instead of treating Sankoh as part of the problem, if not the problem itself, State would treat him as part of the solution. An RUF representative was invited to Washington for talks. Jesse Jackson was appointed to the position of President Clinton's special envoy.

It would be tempting to blame Rev. Jackson for the debacle that would soon follow. But as Ms. Rice was keen to insist in her Senate testimony that June, it was the Africa hands at the State Department who were doing most of the heavy lifting.

"It's been through active U.S. diplomacy behind the scenes," she explained. "It hasn't gotten a great deal of press coverage, that we and others saw the rebels and the government of Sierra Leone come to the negotiating table just a couple of weeks ago, in the context of a negotiated cease-fire, in which the United States played an important role."

A month later, Ms. Rice got her wish with the signing of the Lomé Peace Accord. It was an extraordinary document. In the name of reconciliation, RUF fighters were given amnesty. Sankoh was made Sierra Leone's vice president. To sweeten the deal, he was also put in charge of the commission overseeing the country's diamond trade. All this was foisted on President Kabbah.

In September 1999, Ms. Rice praised the "hands-on efforts" of Rev. Jackson, U.S. Ambassador Joe Melrose "and many others" for helping bring about the Lomé agreement.

For months thereafter, Ms. Rice cheered the accords at every opportunity. Rev. Jackson, she said, had "played a particularly valuable role," as had Howard Jeter, her deputy at State. In a Feb. 16, 2000, Q&A session with African journalists, she defended Sankoh's participation in the government, noting that "there are many instances where peace agreements around the world have contemplated rebel movements converting themselves into political parties."

What was more, the U.S. was even prepared to lend Sankoh a helping hand, provided he behaved himself. "Among the institutions of government that we are prepared to assist," she said, "is of coursethe Commission on Resources which Mr. Sankoh heads."

Of course.

Three months later, the RUF took 500 U.N. peacekeepers as hostages and was again threatening Freetown. Lomé had become a dead letter. The State Department sought to send Rev. Jackson again to the region, but he was so detested that his trip had to be canceled. The U.N.'s Kofi Annan begged for Britain's help. Tony Blair obliged him.

"Over a number of weeks," Mr. Blair recalls in his memoirs, British troops "did indeed sort out the RUF. . . . The RUF leader Foday Sankoh was arrested, and during the following months there was a buildup of the international presence, a collapse of the rebels and over time a program of comprehensive disarmament. . . . The country's democracy was saved."

Today Mr. Blair is a national hero in Sierra Leone. As for Ms. Rice and the administration she represented, history will deliver its own verdict.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #15 on: December 11, 2012, 02:29:46 PM »

second post:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/12/10/Benghazi-Source-Unarmed/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #16 on: December 13, 2012, 07:02:25 PM »

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/SER%20letter.pdf

"... the confirmation would be lengthy, disruptive and costly -- to you and to our pressing...priorities."

Good grief.  Sec State is in line of succession to be President.  Expect a hard question.  You have 55 Dem Senators.  There aren't 5 Republicans reasonable enough to make 60 and allow a vote on the President's nominee.  

She doesn't have an answer for why she went on 5 programs and lied to the American people.  There wasn't a protest about a film that spiraled into launching of rocket-propelled grenades.

Questions about will reveal that the President made the same lies to the American people in the same time frame.  This part of it isn't about having sensitive intelligence removed from a report.  It is about having a lie inserted to fill in for an inconvenient truth omitted.   Americans were killed by terrorists right where he was claiming one of his biggest victories.

I wrote previously that he should appoint Republican Susan Collins for the position.  She was asking some of the hard questions of Susan Rice.  If he picks Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass), Republican Scott Brown has a campaign staff all set to go.  Maybe Jon Huntsman is available.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2012, 07:06:57 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #17 on: December 13, 2012, 08:20:55 PM »

Swiftboat Kerry who threw his medals away after slandering our soldiers?  Oy fg vey.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #18 on: December 14, 2012, 05:53:08 AM »

"Good grief.  Sec State is in line of succession to be President."

The whole cabinet is. But, after the VP, it's the Speaker and Senate pro tem, then the cabinet begins.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #19 on: December 18, 2012, 11:03:11 PM »

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/terrorism/273661-benghazi-probe-faults-systemic-failures-at-state-department
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #20 on: December 19, 2012, 11:21:44 AM »


Who will be held accountable?  Low to mid level resignations for systemic failures?

“did not find reasonable cause to determine that any individual U.S. government employee breached his or her duty.”

Huh?  No one (at the top) had a duty to have our security rise above systemic failure - at our most dangerous diplomatic mission - on the anniversary of 9/11? 

"The report also confirms that there was no peaceful protest ahead of the attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, as the Obama administration initially said in the days after the attack."

Then why did they say there was?  Who decided to put out a patently false story?  If we can't hold the President accountable and if not the messenger Rice, Then whom?

The report itself http://thehill.com/images/stories/news/2012/12_december/19/arb-report-benghazi.pdf reads like a political document to me.  No one held accountable, except an unveiled attempt to blame the deceased:

"Plans for the Ambassador’s trip provided for minimal close protection security support and were not shared thoroughly with the Embassy’s country team, who were not fully aware of planned movements off compound. The Ambassador did not see a direct threat of an attack of this nature and scale on the U.S. Mission in the overall negative trendline of security incidents from spring to summer 2012. His status as the leading U.S. government advocate on Libya policy, and his expertise on Benghazi in particular, caused Washington to give unusual deference to his judgments."

The report goes on to blame the Libyans:  "Libyan response fell short in the face of a series of attacks that began with the sudden penetration of the Special Mission compound by dozens of armed attackers."

We don't know who if anyone controls Libyan forces right now, especially in Benghazi.  Who believed we could rely on Libyans for American security at a "high risk, high threat post"?
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4150


« Reply #21 on: December 19, 2012, 12:25:00 PM »

Hillary's concussion is as believable as Obama's tears.  Notice he was wiping the outside corner of his eye repeatedly.

Folks those are hollywood fake tears.  Real tears drip near the nose.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #22 on: December 20, 2012, 09:05:31 AM »

Four low level officials out, for allegedly... “husbanding resources” ... and that this culture contributed to the security deficiencies in Benghazi. According to the report, the culture at State “had the effect of conditioning a few State Department managers to favor restricting the use of resources as a general orientation.”

Instead of firing these public servants maybe we could have transferred them over to HHS, GSA or SSA.  Or to the new Pentagon where defense cuts are the order of the day, screw national security.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #23 on: December 20, 2012, 02:27:36 PM »


http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=140&load=7856
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #24 on: December 23, 2012, 02:06:45 PM »



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/22/inhofe-benghazi-cover-bigger-watergate-iran-contra/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #25 on: December 27, 2012, 02:02:35 AM »

I am completely unfamiliar with this source, but on the whole it is quite consistent with conversations I have had from people I believe to be quite informed about these things.
==================

MORE EXPLOSIVE INTEL ABOUT THE BENGHAZI ATTACK!. THE PLOT IS DEEPER AND WIDER AND IS THE WORST "SECRET" IN THE INTEL WORLD. OUR CONGRESSMEN ARE BEING LIED TO AND THEY ARE CHUMPS FOR JUST WHINING ABOUT IT.
 The hidden real truth about Benghazi: GET THESE DETAILS OUT SO THE BLIND CAN SEE THE LIGHT AND THE IGNORANT CAN SEE THE TRUTH!
 
>>CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSMEN<<<<<
 All 111th Congress Fax Numbers in one file:Excel or Ascii csv
 
http://www.conservativeusa.org/links/complete-email-fax-list/?%2Fmega-cong.htm
 A mosaic of lies
 
Here is are some of the facts... the MEDIA IS NOT TELLING YOU ABOUT....
 
According to the U.S. government, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed during a spontaneous protest at the consulate office in Benghazi by a frenzied crowd of Muslims outraged over an obscure internet video. Recently released “sensitive but not classified e-mails” from Stevens to the U.S. Department of State painted a picture of poor security for U.S. personnel and the embassy, which was obviously true but had little to do with the events of September 11, 2012. The failure to dispatch an extraction team or otherwise rescue the men during a firefight that lasted upwards of nine grueling and tortuous hours was not the result of any intelligence failure, but caused by our unwillingness to widen the conflict and expose the nature and scale of our true mission in Benghazi.
 
Based on information provided by my source and corroborated elsewhere, the official account by administration officials is a mosaic of lies that were necessary to cover the unpalatable truth of covert actions taking place in Libya, Syria, Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. The primary objective of our covert actions was to secretly arm anti-Assad “rebels” in Syria by funneling arms from Libya to Syria via Turkey, with other destinations that included Jordan and Lebanon. Regarding the threat to Stevens and the other murdered Americans, the truth will reformat the persistent question posed to government officials, from UN Ambassador Susan Rice to White House Spokesman Jay Carney and others from “how could you not have known” to “how could you have done these things?”
 
First, it is important to understand that Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Dougherty and Tyrone Woods were not killed at a consulate office in Benghazi—as there is not such office there. They died at one of the largest CIA operations centers in the Middle East, which was located in Benghazi and served as the logistics headquarters for arms and weapons being shipped out of the post-Qaddafi Libya.
 
Although the U.S. government insisted that Stevens was involved in securing and destroying the numerous caches of arms and weapons once under the control of Qaddafi, the operation was more complex than that. The visual accounts of weapons being destroyed were indeed real, but those weapons were not operational. The working weapons were actually separated and transported to holding facilities for their eventual use in Syria. Russia was fully aware of this operation and warned the U.S. not to engage in the destabilization of Syria, as doing so would endanger their national security interests. Deposing Assad, as despotic as he might be, and replacing him with a Muslim Brotherhood-led regime would likely lead to unrestrained Islamic chaos across the region.

 The Turkish warning
 
According to my source, Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 to meet with his Turkish counterpart, who reportedly warned Stevens that the operation was compromised. They met in person so that Stevens could be shown overhead satellite images, taken by the Russians, of nefarious activities taking place in Turkey. But just what were these nefarious activities?
 
It is reasonable to suspect that these activities were more dire than just your average “gun running” operation. Since the overthrow of Qaddafi, it is estimated that upwards of 40 million tons of weapons and arms were shipped out of Libya to Syria. But it was also known inside intelligence circles that Qaddafi possessed chemical weapons in addition to numerous surface-to-air missiles. Could it be that Russia obtained unmistakable surveillance footage of the anti-Assad “rebels” being shown how to load chemical payloads onto missiles inside Turkey near the border of Syria? Weapons, of course, that were shipped from Libya by the CIA in conjunction with various Muslim Brotherhood rebel groups. If so, such weapons could be used as a “false flag” type of operation—one that would be implemented to “set-up” Assad by making it appear that he was using these weapons on forces dedicated to his overthrow.
 
The blowback by the international community would be swift and punishing, and the entirety of the civilized world would be demanding his overthrow. NATO would then be used to expedite his ouster, and Russia’s moral position within the international community would be weakened. Was the meeting held to show Stevens that the operation was compromised and that they had to stop?
 A Nation/State sponsored attack?
 
While the administration asserts that the attack in Benghazi was conducted by a group of rebels acting alone, the facts seem to indicate otherwise. The level of coordination was such that we did not deploy military assets, located just an hour or two away by air, to rescue Stevens and the others at the CIA operations center in their time of need. If, as the administration contends, that the attack was perpetuated by a group of frenzied rebels, our military could have easily handled them in short order. So why was there no rescue operation?
 
Perhaps the statements made yesterday by Leon Panetta, U.S. Secretary of Defense provides some insight if one analyzes the essence of those statements. Among other things, Panetta said that “...the basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on…” Well, it has been confirmed we did know what was taking place on the ground in Benghazi, so exactly what did Panetta mean by this statement?
 
Against the backdrop of the official story, it makes little sense. If, however, one considers the alternative, that the attack was coordinated and was a nation/state sponsored attack, then it becomes clearer. Panetta and the highest levels of this administration likely knew exactly what we were doing, and knew that the operation was compromised. They knew, or had reason to believe, that the attack was being conducted at a nation/state level in response to our covert operation in Libya and arming the anti-Assad Syrian opposition.
 
Although Russia figures prominently here, Iran now comes into focus as Russia is not likely to directly engage U.S. forces. They must, however, protect their interests. Much like we were using anti-Assad forces to advance our objectives in Syria, Russia was using Iranian-backed forces to protect theirs. It appears that the attacks were conducted or facilitated by Iranian assets—perhaps as many as three teams of assets in Benghazi.
 
As the White House and other agencies monitored intelligence in real-time, they faced a dilemma. They knew that the nation/state sponsored attack teams were lying in wait for U.S. rescue forces to arrive, which is the reason the fight did not conclusively end sooner. They did not know exactly where all of the attack teams were, but knew they were present based on signal communication intercepts. Could they risk such exposure by deploying a rescue team to Benghazi, only to end up with another Black Hawk down type scenario? In addition to that scenario, the entire operation now becomes exposed for what it is. Take another look at Panetta’s statement in that context. Does it now make more sense? Bad PR in an election year, no?
 
As daylight approached with no response from the U.S. and no aid to the Americans under fire, the attack teams had to disperse into the cover of the remaining darkness, but not before their mission was accomplished. And sadly, it was.
 Fallout
 

From the day of attack in Benghazi, Iran has been engaged in a full spectrum attack on the U.S. and NATO across the board involving embassies, bombing and even cyber attacks. All of this is the fallout from the arms and weapons smuggling operation, which was far greater than understood by the Western media.
 
Russia has now moved their contingent of S-400 missiles into much of Syria in anticipation of NATO establishing an “air cap” over Syria. A ten-mile “buffer zone” along Syria’s border has been created for Syrian refugees, but it also acts as a catalyst for the encroachment into Syrian territory. It sets the stage for further advancement and erosion of Syrian land, incrementally, of course.
 
It is also of critical importance to note that last weekend, Russia completed large-scale exercises of their Strategic Nuclear Forces under the watchful command of President Vladimir Putin. These were the first such nuclear exercises conducted since the fall of the Soviet Union.
 
To those with discernment, it is obvious that we are at the precipice of World War III. Putin himself stated as much, noting that WW III will not start in Iran but Syria, his own “red line in the sand.”
 
INFO FROM : Douglas Hagmann
 
Please contact the brave Congressman Jason Chaffetz and ask him to look at this story. I have posted there already. He is Investigating the Benghazi murders!
Logged
rickn
Newbie
*
Posts: 21


« Reply #26 on: December 27, 2012, 07:04:00 AM »

It would not surprise me that these "leaks" are still another cover story to justify the decision not to respond. 

Whether or not the Benghazi facility was a consulate or a CIA operation is irrelevant to me.  Likely, it was used as both.  After all, Benghazi is the capital of the old province of Cyrenaica.  Also, it was a center of the resistance to Qaddafi.  The two "contractors" were killed at a safe house. 

Rather than devising these convoluted explanations, Occam's Razor says that this attack was launched on 9-11-12 as part of a coordinated effort in North Africa to remind the US that despite the death of UBL, the forces of the new al Qaidas have been dispersed but not defeated.  Benghazi was an easier target than Tripoli. This contradicted Obama's message at the Pentagon that morning.  The administration's quick response turned out to be wrong.  They persisted in the false narrative mainly for political reasons and because their polls disclosed that most Americans did not view this as a major election issue.  They went too far with Rice, but she was a perfect unwitting accomplice.  By the time the story began to unravel, it did not matter any more in the election.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #27 on: December 27, 2012, 12:24:53 PM »

Interesting posts Rick and Crafty.  What we know for sure is that we will never hear the whole story through official administration channels.  Something else was going on in that facility.  The "independent" review seems to be more smoke and mirrors.  Tough talk about failure, then 4 mid-level staffers get their desks moved. 

Hillary leaves office with a 66% approval ratings, wholly unquestioned on all aspects of Benghazi.  She took responsibility, then she didn't.  The injury/illness seems like either BS or hiding something more serious (Daily Mail says it is not brain cancer even though the National Enquirer is known to check, re-check and check again before going to print: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/12/27/article-2253548-16A97F89000005DC-296_306x389.jpg).  You couldn't keep her off a plane or away from a world leader, now she has been in hiding since December 7.  Missed her testimony day, missed the State Dept Christmas party, missed the John Kerry announcement, didn't report the "fall" when it happened.  That is not how you make health rumors go away, but worked pretty well for making hearings go away.  How do you hold someone responsible for incompetence or malfeasance after they already resigned?

Politico is ready to help.  Accuse the right of hate instead of the responsible party of dodging: http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/when-will-the-right-start-hating-hillary-again-85510.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #28 on: December 27, 2012, 02:17:50 PM »

Rick:

I agree that these leaks may well be used as another form of cover up.

At the same time I think them important for what they may reveal about US policy and the actions of other players in the region, including the Russians and the Iranians as well as the US and others.

The Russians may well have informed the Iranians of the US operation.  Surely the Iranians would have been unhappy for Assad is their bastard.  It would be in Iran's effort to disrupt the arms supplies and the potential for attendant US influence.  There are plausible reports of "foreign" accents amongst the attackers on 911.  Could they have been Iranian agents, guiding/manipulating the attack?  If true, would this not be an act of war?  (Like Iranian participation in attacks on US troops in Iraq and Afpakia? but I digress , , , )

Rick, if you would like some additional background on my thoughts here please give me a call at 310-543-7521.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #29 on: December 27, 2012, 04:21:45 PM »

I am completely unfamiliar with this source, but on the whole it is quite consistent with conversations I have had from people I believe to be quite informed about these things.
==================

 
To those with discernment, it is obvious that we are at the precipice of World War III. Putin himself stated as much, noting that WW III will not start in Iran but Syria, his own “red line in the sand.”
 
INFO FROM : Douglas Hagmann
Please contact the brave Congressman Jason Chaffetz and ask him to look at this story. I have posted there already. He is Investigating the Benghazi murders!

The problem with the story is highlighted in red.


Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #30 on: December 27, 2012, 04:23:20 PM »

It would not surprise me that these "leaks" are still another cover story to justify the decision not to respond. 

Whether or not the Benghazi facility was a consulate or a CIA operation is irrelevant to me.  Likely, it was used as both.  After all, Benghazi is the capital of the old province of Cyrenaica.  Also, it was a center of the resistance to Qaddafi.  The two "contractors" were killed at a safe house. 

Rather than devising these convoluted explanations, Occam's Razor says that this attack was launched on 9-11-12 as part of a coordinated effort in North Africa to remind the US that despite the death of UBL, the forces of the new al Qaidas have been dispersed but not defeated.  Benghazi was an easier target than Tripoli. This contradicted Obama's message at the Pentagon that morning.  The administration's quick response turned out to be wrong.  They persisted in the false narrative mainly for political reasons and because their polls disclosed that most Americans did not view this as a major election issue.  They went too far with Rice, but she was a perfect unwitting accomplice.  By the time the story began to unravel, it did not matter any more in the election.

I'd tend to go with Rick on this.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #31 on: December 27, 2012, 04:55:29 PM »

GM:

Your point is acknowledged.  You have mentioned Hagman previously and I failed to note him this time around.   That said, I have other reasons for finding what he says here  plausible.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #32 on: January 23, 2013, 01:39:10 AM »

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/22/facts-and-questions-about-what-happened-in-benghazi/#ixzz2IlfGGzs2
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #33 on: January 23, 2013, 10:50:10 AM »


Very good piece. 

Link to coverage of the Clinton testimony.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-to-appear-before-congress-over-benghazi-attack/2013/01/22/3f03f8ee-64ce-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_story.html?tid=ts_carousel

  - Did she answer any of the unanswered questions?  Not really.  Did she hurt her political future with her role in this disaster?  I don't know.

From the Wash Post piece: Clinton told [Wisc. Sen. Ron] Johnson he was wrong and that he was missing the point with a narrow focus on the wording of the script Rice used. With four Americans dead, Clinton said angrily, “what difference at this point does it make?”

  - That is her full answer to the lie that a spontaneous demonstration spun out of control - that anyone who asks it is missing the point that 4 are dead? 

Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that she takes responsibility for protecting diplomats and other employees abroad. “Nobody is more committed to getting this right..."

  - But no one, in fact, was more responsible for getting it wrong.  Unless she can say her demands for more security BEFORE the attack were denied by the Commander in Chief.

"Clinton has pledged to adopt all of the 29 recommendations from the independent Accountability Review Board, which include changes to the way diplomatic facilities in dangerous areas would be built and staffed."

  - She sees herself, the one who was in of position of authority and ignored their timely pleas for help, as the reformer.  She lacks competence integrity but has plenty of fight left in her.  What is the lasting impression Democrat activists and voters take out of this? 

Aside from the security questions, why was Susan Rice chosen instead of Hillary Clinton the front person for (mis)informing the American people as we tried to understand this deadly attack against Americans serving us?  That wanted someone out of the loop, who could easily be wrong on the prepared points and say I don't know on the follow up questions.  What role did Sec. Clinton play in choosing Susan Rice as the point person, instead of choosing to inform the American people timely and openly?  A UN Ambassador to discuss a State Department security disaster??

My prediction is that next for the out-going Secretary is a rather lucrative book deal that glosses over her role in this scandal.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #34 on: January 23, 2013, 11:31:21 AM »

Paul Wolfowitz: Hillary and 'Leading From Behind'
Why did Mrs. Clinton outsource to Qatar the arming of the opposition in Libya and Syria?.
By PAUL WOLFOWITZ

Four months after terrorists in Benghazi, Libya, killed four Americans—including the popular and effective Ambassador Chris Stevens—Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will finally testify before Congress on Wednesday. The testimony should be an occasion to examine how the disaster was part of a larger failure in Libya and a still larger one in Syria that will haunt U.S. interests in the Middle East for decades.

Lawmakers will ask Mrs. Clinton why security in Benghazi was so lax on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, and why the Obama administration claimed falsely that the terrorist attack was a response to an obscure and distasteful anti-Islamic video when available evidence made clear that the attack was a well-planned operation with likely connections to al Qaeda. For months, the danger in Benghazi had been growing. The evidence included attacks on the British ambassador, the United Nations special envoy to Libya, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the U.S. Consulate itself. Even in Tripoli, Libya's capital, Islamist militias had—in broad daylight and with bulldozers—demolished a mosque that they considered heretical.

How is it that the State Department had no plans for an emergency evacuation in September, even though 18 months earlier, at the start of the Libyan revolution, it had struggled to evacuate diplomats from Tripoli using a chartered Italian ferry? Why did the U.S. Africa Command have no dedicated forces available to respond to the emergency in Benghazi, even though it had conducted extensive combat operations in Libyan airspace just a year before?

According to Vice President Joe Biden, the White House was never warned about security concerns in Libya. "Those are things that are handled by security personnel at the State Department," said White House spokesman Jay Carney. Did the State Department think it unimportant to inform the president's staff? Did it consider asking the Pentagon to have forces in place to respond to an emergency?

But there is a larger question that has bearing on U.S. policy across the region, namely: In a country with a population that is generally friendly and even grateful to Americans, how does a moderate and well-intentioned government—elected in the country's first free elections—have no effective control over powerful extremist militias?

Mrs. Clinton deserves great credit for her leadership when Moammar Gadhafi's forces threatened to overrun Benghazi in early 2011. But she also deserves to be questioned about the subsequent U.S. decision to outsource to Qatar the task of arming and organizing the Libyan opposition. Now, even though Islamist extremists failed to get the votes in last summer's elections, they have the guns and the country's strongest military organizations (which also contribute to instability elsewhere in Africa).

The broader failure in Libya results from an approach to the Middle East that an unnamed Obama administration official called "leading from behind" in a moment of off-the-record candor in 2011. That approach is having even more damaging consequences now in Syria.

The U.S. failure to provide weapons, training or even medical support to the Syrian opposition is yielding the very consequences that U.S. officials claimed would flow from outside intervention. It has helped prolong the conflict, which has now left some 60,000 dead and some two million displaced. It has also enabled extremist fighters armed by fundamentalist Persian Gulf governments, and even elements directly linked to al Qaeda, to gain a growing and perhaps dominant role in the opposition. Thus when the U.S. recognized Syria's new opposition coalition last month, it also designated one of the important new militias, the Nusrah Front, as a terrorist organization.

Even moderate Syrian opposition groups greeted this U.S. designation with disdain, reflecting the irrelevance with which America is now regarded by many Syrians. Where the Syrian opposition started out openly hostile to Russia, China and Iran, the U.S. failure to offer anything except empty rhetoric has caused deep resentment among previously friendly Syrians.


U.S. inaction may in fact have produced a situation in which a post-Assad Syria will be intensely anti-American, perhaps even dominated by extremists. The outcome that some feared would be the result of American action may instead result from American inaction.

It is perfectly understandable why the Obama administration wants to do nothing that would lead to a repetition of the invasion of Iraq. But no one is arguing for any such thing. The administration seems not to remember that the first Bush administration's failure to protect Iraqi Shiites in 1991, when their uprising was crushed by Saddam Hussein, helped lead to a second war in Iraq 12 years later. Or that an international arms embargo kept the Bosnians defenseless for three years against the Serbs and led to American military intervention in 1995, including the stationing of tens of thousands of NATO peacekeepers in the Balkans.

Policy makers should never underestimate the risks of action in the face of any armed conflict, but neither should they underestimate the risks of inaction. Refusing to give people the means to defend themselves—especially when their interests are congruent with those of the U.S.—can end up forcing America to do much more later. It can also breed lasting resentment by the people we abandon.

Although the outcome in Syria won't be known for some time, it will weigh heavily in judgments of Mrs. Clinton's tenure as secretary of state. As she leaves office, the American people deserve to know whether she supports the leading-from-behind approach that has undone some of the Libyan achievement and dangerously prolonged the war in Syria. If it is the president's policy and not hers, now is the time to voice her objections. If it is her policy, too, then it is fair to ask her to defend it and to be held accountable for its consequences.

Mr. Wolfowitz, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, has served as deputy U.S. secretary of defense and U.S. ambassador to Indonesia.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #35 on: January 24, 2013, 06:53:52 AM »

What a farce yesterday!  tongue tongue tongue


Morris gets a lot right here, but personally I would have liked to see the failure to defend our people as the center of questioning, along with what did the President know and when did he know it and WTF did he do about it?
=====================

Senators, Hillary Miss The Point At Hearing
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on January 24, 2012


During the entire farce of the Senate Hearing on Benghazi, nobody mentioned the words video or film or movie.  Or the word cover-up.  It would be like covering a moon shot without mentioning the word space.
 
Reality to the Senate:  The only reason for the hearing was to determine how the decision to cover-up the Benghazi killings by pretending it was a demonstration gone awry.  It was not to decide how to avoid these situations in the future or to ask about State Department procedures.  We just re-elected a president who won, in part, by deliberately deceiving us about a terror attack on September 11th, the eleventh anniversary of the original attack.  He pretended that the violence was connected to a video and it was not.  That is what these hearings should have been about.
 
Instead, they were about everything but.
 
It wasn't until Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-Cal) in the House hearing -- after three hours of Capitol Hill testimony -- that anyone even mentioned the film or the video.  To his credit, Rohrabacher asked the question squarely and to her discredit, Hillary ducked it.
 
When Senator Jeff Flake and John McCain got closer to the issue of the cover-up -- without addressing it directly -- Hillary flared and asked "what difference does it make?"  It makes quite a difference.  Tony Blair was forced out of office because he "sexed up" a memo about Saddam's WMD capabilities.  If President Obama blamed the attack in Libya on a film, knowing that it was not a demonstration but a planned terrorist attack and did so two months before an election, then that is an impeachable offense.  That's what difference it makes.
 
But, even within the foul lines of the soft ball questions she was asked, Hillary's replies were evasive.
 
Her best, which deserves a place in history, was when she asked if she knew of the twenty previous attacks in Benghazi she replied, "I was aware of those that were brought to my attention."
 
She said she was "not involved in the talking points" White House spokespeople used to describe the attack.  But then she admitted her staff was.  So she was involved.
 
She pleaded a lack of capability to stem the attack.  But in an age of supersonic planes, drones, and cruise missiles, can she really maintain that we had no military assets to bring to bear?  The truth is that Obama wanted to keep our footprint in Libya light so as not to evoke their - and his own - dismal memories of European and Western colonialism with a robust military presence.  It was political correctness, not a lack of military assets, which made it impossible to save our ambassador's life.
 
And then there was the phone that never rang.  Pressed by Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin on why she didn't just call the men who returned from Benghazi to find out what happened, she claimed not to want to interfere with an ongoing investigation.  Is there anyone who believes that?  Isn't it more likely that she didn't want to know the truth so that she didn't have to embarrass her president by contradicting him?
 
Why didn't she talk with the Assessment Review Board investigating the episode?  Because she had no knowledge of the security issues.  It's not her affair!  That's like a Secretary of Defense saying he didn't know about the military situation.  She's Secretary of State.  That's what her job is about.

President Obama got away with a massive cover-up pure and simple and his escape was evident in the pathetic questioning and evasive answers in the Hillary Clinton testimony.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4150


« Reply #36 on: January 24, 2013, 09:34:10 AM »

Agreed.   And this pathetic show by Republicans only convinces me more this country is doomed to have to go through some catastrophe in order to get back on the right course towards limited government, individual freedom, free markets and fiscal solvency.

Even this they couldn't even get right.   PATHETIC, huh cry
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #37 on: January 24, 2013, 10:57:23 AM »

Limited internet access for me in the mountains and I still haven't seen the video, but this event was not about congressional Republicans.  It was Hillary's opportunity to set the record straight and take specific responsibility and she declined.

Of the 24 or so new recommendations from a commission, why were none of them thought of in advance by her - and implemented in the face of known threats?  Why was no other national security agency in the loop on Benghazi security if State Dept. security was known to be absent and asleep?

That she got off easy in the hearing and that they did not circle her and destroy her as she leaves office does not mean this is over.  She survived in her mind and believes she can go on offense every time it comes up in her potential political future, but that does not change one fact of what happened on her watch.

She had 4 years to prepare for her 3am call. that she said the other guy couldn't handle.  She was the lead from behind expert on Libya touting the situation there as one of her accomplishments.  She was there when the pleas for help came in months in advance.  She knew the Ambassador personally.  She didn't set up security or backup on site, off site or anywhere else.  The call came during waking hours.  They sat there powerless.  That is not what SUPERPOWERS do.  Her itinerary show she was hanging around the White House with events and photo opps.  She must have been there when the call came in.

She was in the loop when they chose an ambitious chump to take the false story forward and answer no real questions.  She hid during the months leading up to the election and hid during the months leading up to her fall and blood clot.  Then she showed up and declares how dare you question me.

We left our best people exposed.  We won't tell you what they were up to.  We provided no security, before, during or after the attack.  We ignored pleas for help.  And we stonewalled and lied to the American people about what happened ever since. 

Condi Rice was lambasted for saying who could imagined an attack like 9/11/01.  But anyone who could not have imagined attacks on our embassies and diplomats in harms way on the anniversary of 9/11 in this part of the world in totally in denial of their very open thought process.  They blew up two African embassies under (other) Clinton.  They stormed our Tehran embassy under Carter.  They've hit us here and everywhere else.  We know the extremist groups are armed and operating in and around Benghgazi and they know we have assets there.

Hillary, you put forward a lie and had a publicity chump to do your evasion of responsibility work.  Now you say what difference does it make.  I say it makes a difference.

You say you take responsibility.  Exactly when did you do that and how?  The record now shows exactly the opposite.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4150


« Reply #38 on: January 24, 2013, 11:48:13 PM »

soloDAD (mouse) now bullies Johnson.   Why can't Repubs stand up to this?  Not even to a mouse?

Mouse:   

Are you saying the tears are fake?  Are you ?  Are you saying their fake?  Are you?  Come on, I dare you say it again. 

Me:

Talk about protecting one of your gals......The CNN gals are all the same.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/soledad-obrien-ron-johnson-hillary-clinton-benghazi-testimony_n_2541459.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&

Doug:

"That she got off easy in the hearing and that they did not circle her and destroy her as she leaves office does not mean this is over. "

Half the country agrees.   The other half doesn't care.  Hopefully Bob Grant is right and it won't be the Hill in 16.  Maybe even her own party is tired of looking the other way and defending the Clintons.

Clinton fatigue.   

Good thing no one placed a lamp within arms reach of her during this hearing....  Didn't we just hear about some BS that girls are calmer than men?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #39 on: January 25, 2013, 11:21:13 AM »

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #40 on: January 25, 2013, 04:11:42 PM »

WSJ editorial excerpt from 1/23 - (could be entitled why I like this newspaper)

"...she phoned President Obama only "later in the evening," she said. The attack in Libya began after 3 p.m. Washington time and the standoff there and at a nearby CIA annex lasted another seven hours. No military help came. Mr. Stevens and three other Americans were murdered.

Mrs. Clinton also said she wasn't responsible for the "talking points" about Benghazi given to White House briefers. She didn't walk point for the Administration on the TV shows that September Sunday because it is not her "favorite thing to do." The hearing's dramatic high point came when Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson wouldn't take this know-nothing line for an answer and pressed why it took the Administration so long to say it was a terrorist strike. "What difference, at this point, does it make?" she shot back.

Sorry, Ma'am. At this point, or at any point, it matters when Administrations mislead Americans."
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4150


« Reply #41 on: January 27, 2013, 12:37:06 AM »

http://www.dickmorris.com/

I agree with Morris here.  The hearing with Hillary should absolutely been straight and direct to the point.  forget about how to prevent this in the future.  Half the country wants to explain covering up a terrorist attack just before an election.

"what difference does it make"

The issue is not how to prevent terrorist attacks.   We already know how to do that.  The issue  is that you, madam sec of state and your appointer PRes. Obama should not cover up and deliberately lie about an attack on the US.

The question is how do we prevent people in our government from breaking the trust with Americans?

Interesting CBS will have a love fest chat with the Prez and the (ex) SoS via their 60 minutes show.   The same network whose director of production wants Obama to "bury" the GOP.

It is time Repubs have their spin correction and truth attack squads out on every network correcting the propaganda  the crap that will emanate from this meeting.

Just like Clinton did to us in the 90's.  Even the tiniest criticism of Bill would result in the Clinton hoards on every single show spinning the truth.  Stephonpolous, CArvalle, Forehead Bagella, Davis, ,DNC chair, and the rest.

We need rapid swat like response team.

« Last Edit: January 27, 2013, 07:38:18 AM by ccp » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #42 on: January 27, 2013, 12:53:25 PM »

Agreed.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #43 on: February 08, 2013, 09:06:40 AM »

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/former-special-forces-commander-dod-could-have-flown-rescue-team-tripoli-benghazi-dod
Former Special Forces Commander: DOD Could Have Flown Rescue Team From Tripoli to Benghazi; DOD: State Dept. Decided Whether and What to Fly
February 7, 2013
By Terence P. Jeffrey

 
(CNSNews.com) - Retired Army Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin--formerly commander of U.S. Special Forces Command and deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence—told CNSNews.com that, if it had been asked, the Defense Department could have sent a plane to Libya on Sept. 11, 2012, to transport a rescue team of U.S. security personnel that instead ended up taking a chartered private plane from Tripoli to Benghazi that night.
 
“There is no question that we could have moved an airplane in there and we could have also put boots on the ground at the embassy,” Gen. Boykin told CNSNews.com.
 
“State should have coordinated with DOD and said: We’ve got to have an airplane,” said Gen. Boykin. “The Department of Defense could have provided an airplane in there. All they had to do was ask.”

A Defense Department official told CNSNews.com, however, that the type of aircraft that was used that night and the decision to use it were both determinations made by the State Department. But the Defense Department official also said that DOD would not have been able to get a plane to Tripoli to fly the security team to Benghazi as quickly as the State Department’s chartered plane did.
 
According to a timeline released by the Office of Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, the chartered private plane took off from Tripoli and headed to Benghazi with the rescue team about 2 hours and 48 minutes after the terrorist attack in Benghazi started at 9:42 p.m. Libya time.
 
According to the State Department Accountability Review Board (ARB) report, the department’s temporary duty regional security officer (TDY RSO) in charge of the security detail at the department’s Benghazi mission on Sept. 11, 2012 was monitoring a security camera and saw the terrorists swarm through the front gate of the compound at the start of the attack.
 
Using his cell phone, this security officer notified the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli within three minutes. He also notified the nearby Annex operated by the CIA. Within eight minutes of the start of the attack, Amb. Chris Stevens, who was in the Benghazi compound, used a cell phone given to him by a State Department Diplomatic Security agent to talk to his deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli and tell that deputy personally that the Benghazi compound was under attack.
 
“Upon notification of the attack from the TDY RSO around 2145 local, Embassy Tripoli set up a command center and notified Washington,” said the ARB report.
 
“About 2150 local, the DCM was able to reach Ambassador Stevens, who briefly reported that the SMC [Special Mission Compound] was under attack before the call cut off.”
 
After Amb. Stevens' incomplete we-are-under-attack phone call to his deputy in Tripoli, it took almost three hours for the U.S. government to get a solitary private charter plane on the way to Benghazi--and almost four hours to get that plane landed at the Benghazi airport.
 
“Within hours,” said the ARB report, “Embassy Tripoli chartered a private airplane and deployed a seven-person security team, which included two U.S. military personnel, to Benghazi.”
 
While not stating that this plane was a private charter, the DOD's timeline specifies that it took off from Tripoli at 12:30 a.m. Libya time—or 2 hours and 48 minutes after the attack started.
 
The DOD timeline and the State Department ARB report differ on the number of people included in the security team that traveled on this chartered plane. DOD’s timeline says it was six; State’s ARB report, as quoted above, says it was seven. “12:30 am A six man security team from U.S. Embassy Tripoli, including two DoD personnel, departs for Benghazi,” says the DOD timeline.
 
Neither the DOD timeline nor the ARB report described any of the members of the security team that took that private chartered flight from Tripoli to Benghazi as State Department personnel.
 
In a Nov. 2 piece in the Washington Post, David Ignatius reported--in a timeline described to him by a “senior intelligence official”--that the security team that flew to Benghazi on that chartered plane was in fact comprised of CIA people and military personnel working with the CIA.
 
In fact, the timeline Ignatius published in the Post seems to indicate the CIA chartered the plane.
 
“1:15 a.m.: CIA reinforcements arrive on a 45-minute flight from Tripoli in a plane they've hastily chartered,” reported Ignatius. “The Tripoli team includes four GRS [CIA Global Response Staff] security officers, a CIA case officer and two U.S. military personnel on loan to the agency. They don't leave the Benghazi airport until 4:30 a.m. The delay is caused by negotiations with Libyan authorities over permission to leave the airport; obtaining vehicles; and the need to frame a clear mission plan. The first idea is to go to a Benghazi hospital to recover Stevens, who they rightly suspect is already dead. (Also killed was a State Department communication specialist.) But the hospital is surrounded by the al-Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Sharia militia that mounted the consulate attack.”
 
(Like the State Department's ARB report, Ignatius's timeline indicates there were seven people on the chartered plane that flew from Tripoli to Benghazi--not the six claimed in the DOD timeline.)
 
According to descriptions of the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist event published in the State Department ARB report, as well as in a report published by the Senate Homeland Security Committee report, and in a CIA timeline provided by a senior intelligence official, the U.S. personnel in Benghazi were targeted by a series of attacks that occurred at the State Department’s compound, at the CIA Annex, and on the road between the compound and the Annex. This first phase of attacks continued from 9:42 p.m. to about 1:00 a.m.—a span of almost three hours and twenty minutes.
 
The timeline published by David Ignatius in the Post says: “The attacks stop at 1:01 a.m., and some assume the fight is over.”
 
But it was not. About 4 hours and 15 minutes later, the terrorists struck again.
 
“The seven-person response team from Embassy Tripoli arrived in Benghazi to lend support,” said the ARB report. “It arrived at the Annex about 0500 local. Less than fifteen minutes later, the Annex came under mortar and RPG attack, with five mortar rounds impacting close together in under 90 seconds. Three rounds hit the roof of an Annex building, killing security officers Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. The attack also severely injured one ARSO [State Department regional security officer] and one Annex security team member.”
 
Amb. Stevens and State Department Information Management Officer Sean Smith had died during the first phase of the attacks, at the State Department compound, in a building torched by the terrorists. The State Department security officers and CIA personnel had recovered Smith’s body from that building, but had not found Amb. Stevens before they were forced--by the threat of being overwhelmed by the attacking terrorists--to retreat under fire to the CIA Annex.
 
At 11:10 p.m. Libya time, which was about 20 minutes before the U.S. personnel were forced to retreat to from the State Department mission to the CIA Annex, an unarmed DOD drone arrived in the skies over Benghazi to monitor the events as they unfolded. U.S. Africa Command had redirected the drone to Benghazi at 9:59 p.m.  About seven hours later, at 5:00 a.m., another drone sent by DOD replaced this first one.
 
“9:59 pm An unarmed, unmanned, surveillance aircraft is directed to reposition overhead the Benghazi facility,” said the DOD timeline.
 
“11:10 pm The diverted surveillance aircraft arrives on station over the Benghazi facility,” said the DOD timeline.
 
“5:00 am A second, unmanned, unarmed surveillance aircraft is directed to relieve the initial asset still over Benghazi,” said the DOD timeline.
 
These unarmed drones could watch and show administration officials back in Washington what was happening in Benghazi, but they could do no more than that.
 
“There is no question that we could have moved an airplane in there and we could have also put boots on the ground at the embassy,” Gen. Boykin told CNSNews.com. “But just dealing with the aircraft issue, we could have moved a military plane in there, picked those people up, moved them to Benghazi. And, in fact, we could’ve gotten people moved by helicopter, launched them out of the Sixth Fleet or the naval base in Rota, Spain.”
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #44 on: February 08, 2013, 09:10:29 AM »

second post:

Yesterday's testimony revealed that the after being informed of the attacks (about one hour into them) the President made no phone calls whatsoever to find out what was being done.  

Ditto Hillary.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/7/panetta-no-time-military-response-benghazi-attack/

edited to add:  Also, apparently it was known to Panetta et al that night that is was not disgruntled movie critics who were at work.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2013, 10:05:15 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #45 on: February 08, 2013, 09:46:50 AM »

second post:

Yesterday's testimony revealed that the after being informed of the attacks (about one hour into them) the President made no phone calls whatsoever to find out what was being done.  

Ditto Hillary.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/7/panetta-no-time-military-response-benghazi-attack/

Remember how BoooOOOoooosh finishing reading to children on 9/11 was terrible, while the same voices are silent now.

Was it a Choom gang reunion night? Maybe Buraq wanted to be well rested for Vegas.

My money says Hillary was deep inside a bottle of vodka at that time, but what does it matter?
« Last Edit: February 08, 2013, 12:32:54 PM by G M » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #46 on: February 08, 2013, 12:30:27 PM »

Update: Are they denying this in the WSJ post today on the Syria thread?

Mind boggling that the President and Secretary of State were in the White House that day and not involved. Didn't get informed at the start and didn't check back later.  Same guy cut his golf short to "direct" the bin laden kill operation.  The photo in this case, 9/11/12, was from a routine military meeting, not a crisis response room.  

What was Ambassador Stevens doing there, at that house?  Who was he meeting with?  What were the topics and results of those meetings?  We didn't have an embassy or real consulate with security there.  Something was going on that was pressing.  We get denial, a story about a video, and screamed at: "what difference does it make now?"

We know Benghazi was the ship-from place for weapons to rebels in Syria, as reported in the Times of London:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/middleeast/article3537770.ece
(quoted below)

With ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, the NY Times reports. (further below)

If we were involved in that supply line, perhaps our top officials were advised to distance themselves from knowledge or involvement with the operation, kept their distance, told people with no authority to act to "handle it", they did nothing and four are dead.  

If we were secretly helping supply arms to rebels in Syria, why is that wrong?  

Cheating on Putin.  The alleged operation was allegedly going on in direct defiance to our peace through disarmament partner, Vladimir Putin, former Lt. Col. of the KGB.

-------------------------------------
Times of London report:  (link above)

    A Libyan ship carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria since the uprising began has docked in Turkey and most of its cargo is making its way to rebels on the front lines, The Times has learnt.

    Among more than 400 tonnes of cargo the vessel was carrying were SAM 7 surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), which Syrian sources said could be a game-changer for the rebels.

    “This is the largest single delivery of assistance to the rebel fighting units we have received,” said Abu Muhammed, a member of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), who helped to move the shipment from warehouses to the border. “These are things that could change the tide — if they are used correctly.”

    The Times was shown the Libyan ship, the Intisaar or the Victory, in the Turkish port of Iskenderun and papers stamped by the port authority by the ship’s captain, Omar Mousaeeb, a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organisation called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support, which is supporting the Syrian uprising. …

    Rebel commanders interviewed by the Times said that organisers of the ship conferred with their Libyan counterparts to ensure that the cargo would be split evenly within various Free Syrian Army (FSA) units. But when the ship arrived, the consignment was registered to individuals from the Turkish IHH group, a charity with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
--------------------------------------
NYTimes:  C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/middleeast/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html?_r=0

    A Libyan ship carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria since the uprising began has docked in Turkey and most of its cargo is making its way to rebels on the front lines, The Times has learnt.

    Among more than 400 tonnes of cargo the vessel was carrying were SAM 7 surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), which Syrian sources said could be a game-changer for the rebels.

    “This is the largest single delivery of assistance to the rebel fighting units we have received,” said Abu Muhammed, a member of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), who helped to move the shipment from warehouses to the border. “These are things that could change the tide — if they are used correctly.”

    The Times was shown the Libyan ship, the Intisaar or the Victory, in the Turkish port of Iskenderun and papers stamped by the port authority by the ship’s captain, Omar Mousaeeb, a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organisation called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support, which is supporting the Syrian uprising. …

    Rebel commanders interviewed by the Times said that organisers of the ship conferred with their Libyan counterparts to ensure that the cargo would be split evenly within various Free Syrian Army (FSA) units. But when the ship arrived, the consignment was registered to individuals from the Turkish IHH group, a charity with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2013, 12:41:43 PM by DougMacG » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #47 on: February 08, 2013, 12:49:09 PM »

Obama skips intel briefing after 9/11/12 attacks and murder of US diplomats, goes to Vegas fundraising party instead

Washington Post  September 13: http://www.washingtonpost.com/marc-a-thiessen/2011/02/24/ABwzFYN_page.html

How long had it been since President Obama attended his daily intelligence meeting in the lead-up to the Sept. 11 attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Egypt and Libya? After all, our adversaries are known to use the anniversary of 9/11 to target the United States.

According to the public schedule of the president, the last time the Obama attended his daily intelligence meeting was Sept. 5 — a week before Islamist radicals stormed our embassy in Cairo and terrorists killed our ambassador to Tripoli. The president was scheduled to hold the intelligence meeting at 10:50 a.m. Wednesday, the day after the attacks, but it was canceled so that he could comfort grieving employees at the State Department — as well he should. But instead of rescheduling the intelligence briefing for later in the day, Obama apparently chose to skip it altogether and attend a Las Vegas fundraiser for his re-election campaign. One day after a terrorist attack.

When I asked National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor if the president had attended any meetings to discuss the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) since Sept. 5, he repeatedly refused to answer. He noted that Obama had attended a principals meeting of the National Security Council on Sept. 10 and reiterated that he reads the PDB.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #48 on: February 08, 2013, 01:37:04 PM »

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/panetta-and-joint-chiefs-chair-obama-talked-them-only-once-night-benghazi-attack
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #49 on: February 08, 2013, 03:08:55 PM »

Continuing today's conversation on this thread:



A few months after this forum (and me in particular  cheesy ) Glenn Beck and Sen. Rand Paul start catching up

http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/02/08/beck-panetta-testimony-was-cover-for-obama/?utm_source=Daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2013-02-08_198663&utm_content=5054942&utm_term=_198663_198671
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!