The Truth About Benghazi

[dre]

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

Its not my theory... I never wrote that piece, nor did I masquerade as Paula Broadwell and claim I had knowledge that the CIA Annex there was being used as a prison.

But it seems pretty clear that the fact that terrorists were involved was NOT what the administration and the CIA were trying to cover up here. The CIA and the administration does not want people to know what it was doing there.

[Topaz]

US radio host mike Savage feels the same way that there's a cover-up and that the latest in terrorist alert that came out yesterday , is just another way of changing the channel. He also feels those Seals that killed Osama, were also killed by the US, just like the two FBI agents , just happen to fall out of a helitoper connected to the Boston terrorists. It seems one can trust any government nowa days.

[Demosthenes26]

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.

Really? Cause its seems pretty clear

Here that you were insinuating such here

[Demosthenes26]

Its not my theory... I never wrote that piece, nor did I masquerade as Paula Broadwell and claim I had knowledge that the CIA Annex there was being used as a prison.

But it seems pretty clear that the fact that terrorists were involved was NOT what the administration and the CIA were trying to cover up here. The CIA and the administration does not want people to know what it was doing there.

No but you did reference it to support your argument. And you have still yet to provide either a link to the video or the article you referenced.

How is it now clear that terrorists involved were not what the CIA was trying to cover up? And is it not the nature of a secret organization to not want people knowing what its doing?

[GostHacked]

No but you did reference it to support your argument. And you have still yet to provide either a link to the video or the article you referenced.

Someone can post something and not actually believe what the post is about.

10 Posts in and yer postin like a pro!

How is it now clear that terrorists involved were not what the CIA was trying to cover up? And is it not the nature of a secret organization to not want people knowing what its doing?

Start here, then go do some work yourself

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/21697-the-truth-about-benghazi/

[sharkman]

US radio host mike Savage feels the same way that there's a cover-up and that the latest in terrorist alert that came out yesterday , is just another way of changing the channel. He also feels those Seals that killed Osama, were also killed by the US, just like the two FBI agents , just happen to fall out of a helitoper connected to the Boston terrorists. It seems one can trust any government nowa days.

Topaz, what are you doing listening to a hard right conservative talk show? Don't go all wobbly so easily! It doesn't take a radio host to figure out why Obama was avoiding Benghazi like the plague.

[dre]

No but you did reference it to support your argument. And you have still yet to provide either a link to the video or the article you referenced.

How is it now clear that terrorists involved were not what the CIA was trying to cover up? And is it not the nature of a secret organization to not want people knowing what its doing?

There was a link to the article in my post, and I never referenced any video. Both my quotes included links to the pages where I got them from.

[jacee]

What Paula Broadwell said:

"Now, I dont know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually, um, had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner and they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So thats still being vetted.

The challenging thing for General Petraeus is that in his new position, hes not allowed to communicate with the press. So hes known all of this they had correspondence with the CIA station chief in, in Libya. Within 24 hours they kind of knew what was happening."

What the CIA said

The CIA is flatly denying this. CIA adamant that Broadwell claims about agency holding prisoners at Benghazi are not true, The Posts Greg Miller tweeted. Fox News cites a single anonymous source saying that the CIA annex had prisoners at the time, and multiple intelligence sources as saying that the annex had at different times held prisoners.

[kimmy]

So, Shady was urging us to watch the CNN special report about Benghazi tonight.

I didn't, but I assume Shady did. Did they have anything interesting to say?

-k

[Shady]

So, Shady was urging us to watch the CNN special report about Benghazi tonight.I didn't, but I assume Shady did. Did they have anything interesting to say?-k

They did kimmy. I'll issue a report sometime soon.

[cybercoma]

They did kimmy. I'll issue a report as soon as conservative bloggers tell me my opinion.

FTFY

[sharkman]

I take it you have no opinion on it yet either?

[cybercoma]

I didn't watch it because 1) I don't have cable, and 2) I couldn't possibly care less about Benghazi.

[GostHacked]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57575892/thousands-of-libyan-missiles-from-qaddafi-era-missing-in-action/

The U.S. has been unable to secure thousands of potentially dangerous shoulder-fired missiles known as "MANPADS" that were leftover from the Qaddafi regime in Libya, CBS News has learned.

MANPADS stands for "Man-portable air-defense systems." According to a well-placed source, hundreds of the missiles have been tracked as having gone to Al Qaeda Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), an Algeria-based Sunni Muslim terrorist group fighting for control in Mali.

"I would imagine they're trying to get their hands on as many weapons such as MANPADS as they can," says CBS News national security consultant Juan Zarate. "It's a danger both to the military conflict underway in Mali and a real threat to civilian aircraft if, in fact, terrorists have their hands on these MANPADS."

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-secret-cia-mission-in-benghazi-2013-5#ixzz2XXEEXzVg

Among the questions are whether CIA missteps contributed to the security failure in Benghazi and, more importantly, whether the Agency's Benghazi operation had anything to do with reported heavy weapons shipments from the local port to Syrian rebels.

In short, the CIA operation is the most intriguing thing about Benghazi.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/55350

Why is getting the status and inventory of Libya’s weapons recovery program so critical? Because arms from Libya have shown up in Syria. As the Wall Street Journal reported: “The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation,” and the State Department presence in Benghazi “provided diplomatic cover” to conceal weapon transfers from Libya to Syria.

Is that why all my Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests regarding Ambassador Christopher Stevens meeting with Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin before he was murdered have been denied?

Don’t think the terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty and Sean Smith as Watergate, think bigger, think Iran Contra.

“What difference does it make?” shrieked Hillary Clinton, regarding the Benghazi terrorist attack, during her testimony before the Foreign Relations committee. A big one.

Gunrunning from Libya into Syria is a violation of international law. Furthermore, one has to ask how arming rebels in Syria would serve America’s interests because it doesn’t. Just like it didn’t serve America’s interest in Egypt or Libya where the Muslim Brotherhood has steadily gotten or is gaining power. Arms running would also explain why the Obama-Clinton regime gave “stand-down” orders and denied providing any help to Americans in peril. Do not be deceived by the administration’s cover story, parroted by the mainstream press, that there was no time to send help to Benghazi, instead, as reported here, by not providing help or options—the Obama-Clinton regime guaranteed a bad outcome that could have spread throughout the region.

[cybercoma]

So I take it this CNN broadcast didn't rip on Obama enough because Shady hasn't reported on it yet.

[GostHacked]

I should watch that CNN bit and see how much they actually get right. To me they really wanted to keep something under wraps, and this gun running thing seems to be the thing they are covering up.

Now weather deliberate or by 'oh crap', we are seeing weapons from Libya turn up in other conflict zones. One in particular , Syria.

[PIK]

US radio host mike Savage feels the same way that there's a cover-up and that the latest in terrorist alert that came out yesterday , is just another way of changing the channel. He also feels those Seals that killed Osama, were also killed by the US, just like the two FBI agents , just happen to fall out of a helitoper connected to the Boston terrorists. It seems one can trust any government nowa days.

Funny stuffs happens. look at the dudley geo case, alot of people plus the shooter died accidently before the case came up.

Edited August 19, 2013 by PIK

[GostHacked]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/23/team-involved-in-tracking-benghazi-suspects-pulling-out-sources-say/

The team hunting down the people involved in the Benghazi attack is being pulled... permanently.

Two weeks after the Obama administration announced charges against suspects in the Benghazi attack, a large portion of the U.S. team that hunted the suspects and trained Libyans to help capture or kill them is leaving Libya permanently.

....

"We put American special operations in harm's way to develop a picture of these suspects and to seek justice and instead of acting, we stalled. We just let it slip and pass us by and now it's going to be much more difficult," one source said, citing 1,200 prisoners escaping two weeks ago. "It's already blowing up. Daily assassinations, bi-weekly prison escapes, we waited way too long."

A nice political hot potatoe!

[sharkman]

Here's just an observation on Obama and Benghazi. His administration kept saying how important it was to allow more time for the investigation to run its course. Month after month dragged by with little change and a year after the attack members of congress were saying witnesses of the attack still hadn't been heard.

Compare that to Syria's use of chemical weapons, something far worse. Is he insisting on more time for the UN investigation team? Is he suggesting that the matter must be studied and given breathing room? Is he reluctant to do anything seen as hasty? No, of course not. When he wants something done, he knows how to rush things along. It's obvious in spite of all his words, the 4 americans and a consulate didn't matter to him.

[GostHacked]

Sharkman, then it seems kind of hard to imagine him really giving a damn about civilians in Syria if he does not really care about the servicemen and women that die under his watch.

[sharkman]

Really, I'm not sure what is driving him. He is an idealist, so it could be that mass murder by way of WMD's must be stopped, and Benghazi just doesn't add up to that. I'm sure there are a dozen other theories involving oil, muslims, Israel and Russia, but whatever it is it's kind of funny to see him desperately trying to build a "coalition of the willing" to do something he no doubt feels is beneath him, a military response.

[bleeding heart]

Really, I'm not sure what is driving him. He is an idealist, so it could be that mass murder by way of WMD's must be stopped, and Benghazi just doesn't add up to that.

Benghazi or no, I'd be extremely cautious about this sort of Noble Leader hypothesizing in any case. (Poor Salman Rushdie and Christopher Hitchens tried, at different times, to pull this hero-worship with the smarmy little Tony Blair. And Hitchens pretty much grew moist for Paul Wolfowitz's "humanitarianism," Indonesia evidently an irritating side-issue.)

It's not that men like Obama (or Blair, or Bush, or Harper) aren't or can't be basically decent men; it's that foreign policy, up to and including military action, is a complex, institutional matter, in which there are usually--maybe always--venal and ugly interests at play, even if good intentions are present as well.

The idea that noble leaders sit around and plot goodness--and then make it happen--seems pretty implausible. So much so that I think the onus to demonstrate it is on those making the claim (not that you were, Sharkman...I'm speaking generally); far moreso than on those critical of it.

Edited August 30, 2013 by bleeding heart

[sharkman]

I'm not making claims on his motivation, just throwing spitballs at the wall. He is an idealist, but past that I have no clue what's driving him to respond with weapons.

[bleeding heart]

I'm not making claims on his motivation, just throwing spitballs at the wall. He is an idealist, but past that I have no clue what's driving him to respond with weapons.

I know. I was speaking in more general terms, as I think political hero worship is a real and genuine human weakness, more common than cancer and arguably as dangerous. (Certainly less intelligent.) But I mentioned that you were making no such claims.

[kimmy]

Given the timing of this, I can't help wondering if this sudden interest in military action in Syria is a result of domestic political factors. Two possibilities that come to mind are:

-the NSA controversy. A war would take that out of the news. It would also make it harder for people to criticize the NSA without having their patriotism questioned.

-as leverage in debt ceiling negotiations. ("Our sons and daughters are serving our country in the Middle East and they need the tools to do their job!")

Some politicians from both parties are banding together to say "wait a minute, what's the point of doing this, anyway?" and I wish them the best of luck. What can actually be accomplished by military intervention in Syria? What's the ultimate payoff: an Egypt type situation where either a brutal regime wins or Islamist forces win? What's so great about either outcome that America ought to be investing its resources? Intervening is a no-win situation... no desirable outcome is likely and criticism and controversy is guaranteed. Who, other than Raytheon has anything to gain from US military action in Syria?

The other question to be asked is why can't countries in the Arab world take the lead on this? Why aren't Turkey and Jordan and Iran the ones who should be putting an end to the carnage in their own back yard? The Arab world continually howls that they want America to stop interfering in their affairs, yet when something like this happens everybody looks to the United States to make things right. It doesn't make sense. I hope that America lets them pound each other to ash to let them see what a world without American intervention looks like.

-k