The Truth About Benghazi

[punked]

Using your logic, Bush can blame Democrats for gutting funding for intelligence, especially human intelligence. Democrats slashed intelligence funding the years preceding 911. So they're to blame, right punked?

Do you even research your claims? Here from 1997-1998 the intel budget went GUESS WHAT?? UPPPP

https://www.cia.gov/...8/ps032098.html

We don't know about 1999-2004 because in those years Tenet refused to release the intelligence budgets for the remainder of his tenure. Although I see you are talking out of your butt again and you forget who was in congress from 1994-2006. I will quote Tenet from another report here though. The 9/11 report.

"Between 1999 and 2001, our human agent base against the terrorist target grew by over 50 percent,"

BTW the years before 9/11 the REPUBLICANS WERE THE ONES IN CONGRESS!!!!!!!!!!! Slashing budgets Shady. Seriously how lost are you?

So you want me to blame Clinton for Republicans slashing budgets while he is increasing the Intel on terrorism? I am no longer sure you even know how to read Shady.

Edited January 29, 2013 by punked

[GostHacked]

Please keep reading because I am noticing you are cherry picking the report. I know you want to create your own reality but that just isn't the way these things work. As for the report being damning, no more damning then the report on how Bush let 3000 Americans die on American soil. I don't know what to tell you we all knew their were failures just none of those failures are what you claimed they were.

You posted the report, I went through some of it, I took out the important points relevant to this conversation.

Instead of citing "Fox New" articles full of half truths if you really care how about you read the state report.

So when I posted important points from the report you wanted me to read, (not wanting to use half truths) you accuse me of cherry picking?? When this report really mirrors much of the stuff already talked about in this thread and now proven true, you accuse me of cherry picking?? You also told me to wait for the facts and looks like the facts of this state department report is saying a lot (I admit not all) of what we already knew and had already discussed for pages and you accuse me of cherry picking??

Laughable.

[Michael Hardner]

I've posted the short youtube clip about Bohner admitting to the gun running but he would not go further into it.

http://www.foxnews.c...ck-sources-say/

The CIA were told to stand down. This information came out sopn after the attack, so was not brought to light because of any hearing.

Not only did those cables get answered, they were answered with a huge NO.

**This was during the attacks I might add where the requests for extra security were answered with a no.

"Sources say"... ok. Well, these sources didn't tell the Republicans and it wasn't brought forward at the hearing then.

Sources say that sources say things.

[GostHacked]

"Sources say"... ok. Well, these sources didn't tell the Republicans and it wasn't brought forward at the hearing then.

Sources say that sources say things.

The state department document Punked linked indicated that all that is very much true.

But I will say I do have a problem with 'anon sources' or 'some government officials say' ect ect .. I don't like that either. So why does the media keep using it as fact and why do people keep believing them?

Edited January 29, 2013 by GostHacked

[punked]

The state department document Punked linked indicated that all that is very much true.

It is the report although it did not back up that Fox news claim at all. I don't know where you are getting that from.

[GostHacked]

It is the report although it did not back up that Fox news claim at all. I don't know where you are getting that from.

So we had discussed about the level of security at the 'consulate' and I made the claim that I do not think there ever was a consulate. Foxnews, CNN ect along with that state department document all said it was a CIA operation and a CIA outpost, confirming what I had thought.

So we have waited for this one fact to be confirmed.

Fact : There was no consulate in Benghazi. Only a CIA annex.

Good thing we waited for the facts!!

[Michael Hardner]

The state department document Punked linked indicated that all that is very much true.

But I will say I do have a problem with 'anon sources' or 'some government officials say' ect ect .. I don't like that either. So why does the media keep using it as fact and why do people keep believing them?

Forgive me if I'm not eager to spend more than a minute or two on yet another wild goose chase through a 39 page document - it's no fault of yours. But I looked for 'stand down' and 'cable' and saw nothing to support these assertions in Punked's link.

I really have little patience for these types of discussions, though, because they are so arcane that one almost needs to be obsessive/unhinged in order to get through them. What does that tell you ?

[punked]

So we had discussed about the level of security at the 'consulate' and I made the claim that I do not think there ever was a consulate. Foxnews, CNN ect along with that state department document all said it was a CIA operation and a CIA outpost, confirming what I had thought.

So we have waited for this one fact to be confirmed.

Fact : There was no consulate in Benghazi. Only a CIA annex.

Good thing we waited for the facts!!

Sigh................

For the last time. There were two locations a Consulate and a CIA annex. We knew about this the day after the attack. The two locations are a mile away from one another and are in fact two separate locations.

Again I know this confuses you because I keep trying to explain it. There was the consulate and another location which was the CIA annex. As you can see on the map above they are not the same location. You need to stop commenting on this because you have no idea what you are talking about.

Edited January 29, 2013 by punked

[GostHacked]

Sigh................

For the last time. There were two locations a Consulate and a CIA annex. We knew about this the day after the attack. The two locations are a mile away from one another and are in fact two separate locations.

Yes we were told there were two separate locations. However your article indicated that there was no consulate which I had suspected pages back.

One more time, page 14-15 of the state departments document.

In December 2011, the Under Secretary for Management approved a one-year continuation of the U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi, which was never a consulate and never formally notified to the Libyan government.

That one year continuation would bring us up to Dec 2012. If you don't agree there was no consulate then that would go against the facts of this report.

Since this attack was reported to be on the consulate that did not exist, what does that tell us about the rest of the details that were first brought to light??

[GostHacked]

Forgive me if I'm not eager to spend more than a minute or two on yet another wild goose chase through a 39 page document - it's no fault of yours. But I looked for 'stand down' and 'cable' and saw nothing to support these assertions in Punked's link.

I know looking for a simple term like 'stand down' wont get you anything. But search again using 'requests' and you will find the information. Also you wasted lest time posting your reply than doing a basic search through the document.

I really have little patience for these types of discussions, though, because they are so arcane that one almost needs to be obsessive/unhinged in order to get through them. What does that tell you ?

It tells me you should not waste time responding to this thread if you think it's a waste of time. Stifling debate is not what a forum facilitator should be doing. If you have little patience, move on.

[punked]

Yes we were told there were two separate locations. However your article indicated that there was no consulate which I had suspected pages back.

One more time, page 14-15 of the state departments document.

That one year continuation would bring us up to Dec 2012. If you don't agree there was no consulate then that would go against the facts of this report.

Since this attack was reported to be on the consulate that did not exist, what does that tell us about the rest of the details that were first brought to light??

You are right in that formally it wasn't a Consulate it was a Special Mission which did everything a Consulate does but was only approved on a year by year bases. To have a formal consulate the US would have had to agree with a government (which when this place was set up didn't exist) to have a presence over a time period of more then a year. You are right this wasn't a Consulate because of the time period it was set up for and because there was no Libyan government to approve it when it was opened. It was instead a special mission that did everything a Consulate does. This is why their was not more security funding put into it because America was looking to close it down at years end. That does not make you right it makes you prove you don't understand what happened.

Here is a whole paper on why the Consulate was a "Special mission". Have fun reading some more to educate yourself on why you are wrong.

http://grberridge.diplomacy.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/A-weak-diplomatic-hybrid.pdf

Edited January 29, 2013 by punked

[Michael Hardner]

It tells me you should not waste time responding to this thread if you think it's a waste of time. Stifling debate is not what a forum facilitator should be doing. If you have little patience, move on.

I'm not stifling anything - if you can find somebody to dance with you, go ahead. I prefer the waltz over the bird dance myself.

So I did look at the document and there wasn't anything in there that was particularly damning. There was a dialogue between the office and Washington and a failure in the end, but without context there`s not much more we can say. Further to that, since there was indeed a dialogue the assertion that requests were `ignored` is proven false. They were responded to, considered and entertained hence not ignored.

[Shady]

Do you even research your claims? Here from 1997-1998 the intel budget went GUESS WHAT?? UPPPP

Why are you cherrypicking that specific year? Why don't you do a little research into when Democrats had control of congress? Democrats gutted the intelligence budget in the early to mid 1990s.

[punked]

Why are you cherrypicking that specific year? Why don't you do a little research into when Democrats had control of congress? Democrats gutted the intelligence budget in the early to mid 1990s.

So now because Democrats cut Budgets 11 years before 9/11 after the cold war ended and they weren't spending on hunting communists it is somehow their fault? When they cut budgets terrorism wasn't even on the Intel radar Shady. You are schizophrenic!

""CUT BUDGETS! ANY CUTS IN BUDGETS CAUSE TERRORIST ATTACKS! THE GDP DROP BECAUSE OF BUDGET CUTS! OBAMA'S FAULT! CUT THE BUDGET MORE!"

Like seriously 9/11 happened AFTER REPUBLICANS AND CLINTON INCREASED Intel spending and directed more resources then ever at terrorism Shady. That is well documented and I cited that in this thread quoting the 9/11 report and the head of the CIA at the time. Sorry you know nothing but you don't get to rewrite history because of that.

Edited January 31, 2013 by punked

[GostHacked]

Benghazi survivors were (?) told, pressured into signing non disclosure agreement.

[Shady]

Yep. They've been "inaccessible" to the media for the whole time. How convenient.

[GostHacked]

We hear more closed items like this in an administration that proclaimed that it would be the most open and transparent government that the USA had ever seen. Obfuscation, misdirection, attacking whistle blowers, encroaching police state, rampant unaccountable spying in it's citizens, fascist relationship between state and corporation, QE unlimited for Wall Street. .....

I am still under the notion that there was a lot more about this than Obama, Clinton et all were leading on.

Clinton bowed out, took a fall. As I speculate with Patreaus. His bit about an affair is bunk and really a non-issue. Presidents can have an affairs. Hillary knows about that stuff.

Some of the key players simply managed to find a way out of the spotlight which allowed the story to be buried. But blame the media for it as well as they no longer can ask the tough questions. They risk losing their job if they get too close to the truth.

[GostHacked]

FBI Fail.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/31/politics/benghazi-investigation-suspect/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

"One of the pertinent questions today is why we have not captured or killed the terrorist who committed these attacks?" Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told reporters. "News out today that CNN was able to go in and talk to one of the suspected terrorists, how come the military hasn't been able to get after them and capture or kill the people? How come the FBI isn't doing this and yet CNN is?"

What is funny is that CNN's Rick Bergman back in the day was able to interview Osama Bin Laden face to face while the FBI/CIA ect ect could not.

[dre]

http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/01/exclusive-dozens-of-cia-operatives-on-the-ground-during-benghazi-attack/

Apparently the CIA had dozens of operatives in Benghazi when the attacks took place, and is taking unprecidented steps to silence them.

It would be interesting to know what was going on in the CIA annex during that time. It seems plausible to me, that the attacks were an attempt to free prisoners in a secret CIA torture prison as alledged by Patraeus's girlfriend.

Days after Petraeus' resignation stunned Washington, information continues to emerge. Among other things, a video has surfaced of a speech by Petraeus' paramour in which she suggested the Libya attack was targeting a secret prison at the Benghazi consulate annex, raising unverified concerns about possible security leaks.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/12/us/petraeus-cia-resignation

In any case its pretty clear that what was being "covered up" in benghazi was definately not the fact that terrorists were involved in the raid... what is being covered up is what was going on inside the CIA annex of that embassy.

Edited August 3, 2013 by Charles Anthony
merged OP titled "CIA Benghazi Coverup"

[sharkman]

Most of this is not news but it's interesting that a) almost one year after the fact CNN is reporting this and b)the focus is not the outrageous mishandling and denials by the administration for the resulting deaths although they had plenty of time to send aid, but to blame the CIA. Meanwhile, the administration seems to have a handle on things this time and is temporarily closing embassies, etc., across the globe. Which is the whirlwind you reap when you let an ambassador get killed the previous year.

Edited August 2, 2013 by sharkman

[Demosthenes26]

The optimum word is unverified. Which a polite way of saying baseless. We really have no way know what was going on at that time. I suppose anything was possibly going on at that time. so why not accuse them of something more ridiculous like Breeding Nazi zombie supersoldiers.

[dre]

The optimum word is unverified. Which a polite way of saying baseless. We really have no way know what was going on at that time. I suppose anything was possibly going on at that time. so why not accuse them of something more ridiculous like Breeding Nazi zombie supersoldiers.

Not baseless... This comes from sources inside the CIA, and is corroberated by someone with intimate access to Patraeus.

[Demosthenes26]

Not baseless... This comes from sources inside the CIA, and is corroberated by someone with intimate access to Patraeus.

From who inside? And a video from someone who he had an affair with is hardly evidence.

[Demosthenes26]

FYI none of your links go to this supposed video or mention these supposed prisoners. If you would please provide so I can properly critic your conspiracy theory.

Edited August 2, 2013 by Demosthenes26

[DogOnPorch]

He never backs up his conspiracy theories. Good luck...and welcome to MLW.