HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The Benghazi Questions No...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 04:41 PM

The Benghazi Questions No One Is Asking




The CIA is just one of 17 agencies and organizations that make up the U.S. Intelligence Community. Charged with collecting information that reveals the plans, intentions and capabilities of our adversaries, agency analysis provides insight, warning and opportunity to the decision-makers charged with protecting America. The Benghazi debacle falls squarely in the lap of the CIA.




Is it a matter of honor?



The idea that Ambassador Susan Rice should become the object of such harsh criticism for the Benghazi foul-up is asinine. She is neither responsible for the conclusions posited by Intelligence, nor the security of our Embassies. Benghazi was an Intelligence failure, specifically CIA. General Petraeus was the Director of the CIA and should therefore be accountable for the agencies missteps, not Susan Rice. The idea that General Petraeus, as a matter of honor, resigned because of an extramarital affair strikes me as ridiculous. He was no longer in the military and the affair ended months before he was installed as Director of the CIA. Clearly, General Petraeus felt his honor was in tact as long as his affair was a secret.



Frankly, I think revelations about the affair served as a timely cover for General Petraeus to resign in the wake of the Benghazi screw-up that should have pointed directly to him. It’s a distraction. Benghazi isn’t just about sullying the foreign policy record of President Obama, it’s also about preserving the legacy of a storied Four-Star General. And who better to defend his legacy than a war victim who has been dubbed a war hero? The Benghazi attack should call into question the competence of General Petraeus. That isn’t to suggest that he was not a transformative military man, but military men execute orders. Is it possible that as a Director of an Intelligence organization, he simply wasn’t as effective and percipient as we would expect? How is it that during such a catastrophic CIA failure, he has completely escaped scrutiny?



Was the Benghazi attack spontaneous or planned?



A Defense Department official testified that:

“...there was no actionable intelligence that Benghazi was going to be attacked on 9/11."


While, CIA’s acting director, Michael Morell, testified that

“Benghazi agents never requested Europe-based special operations teams, specialized Marine platoons, or armed drones on the night of the attack.”


According to Rep. King, a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, General Petraeus contradicted his original testimony. In his original testimony (September 14), Petraeus had focused almost exclusively on the YouTube video as the prime motivator for the attack. In later testimony (November 18), Petraeus told the committee that he knew "almost immediately" that the attack was the work of an al-Qaeda affiliated militia called Ansar al Sharia and that the "overwhelming amount of evidence said this was a terror attack."

Now, I’m not Sherlock Holmes, but if it was a “planned attack”, how was a covert operation caught totally off-guard? The fact that it was, lends credibility to the argument that it was a spontaneous attack. And if General Petraeus knew “immediately” that the attacks were the work of an Al Qaeda affiliate, why didn’t he say so? And since he failed to, why, like Ambassador Rice isn’t he being lambasted for misleading Congress?





http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com/2012/11/the-benghazi-questions-no-one-is-asking.html

19 replies, 2320 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 19 replies Author Time Post
Reply The Benghazi Questions No One Is Asking (Original post)
Segami Nov 2012 OP
ProudProgressiveNow Nov 2012 #1
dipsydoodle Nov 2012 #2
jeff47 Nov 2012 #3
rhett o rick Nov 2012 #4
jeff47 Nov 2012 #5
leveymg Nov 2012 #8
jeff47 Nov 2012 #10
leveymg Nov 2012 #11
jeff47 Nov 2012 #12
rhett o rick Nov 2012 #13
jeff47 Nov 2012 #14
x2 vancouverite Nov 2012 #6
leveymg Nov 2012 #7
robinlynne Nov 2012 #9
creon Nov 2012 #17
marshall Nov 2012 #15
leveymg Nov 2012 #19
creon Nov 2012 #16
riderinthestorm Nov 2012 #18

Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 04:41 PM

1. K&R nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 04:48 PM

2. Benghazi agents never requested .....

That is not true. It is on record that two were killed on their way to help from elsewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 04:51 PM

3. The resignation was not about honor.

You can't hide an affair and retain a security clearance.

And you can't be CIA director without a security clearance.

Before you ask, how'd Bill Clinton get away with it? He didn't have a security clearance. He was security clearance. The entire security clearance process was handed to the Executive branch by Congress, basically saying "you've got access, Mr. President. And you figure out how to delegate that to others". So the President has access to all classified information, even if he's in prison for espionage. (One assumes Congress would impeach long before the prison term started, but they are not required to do so)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 06:56 PM

4. It's possible that the President decided that the Gen could keep his clearance in spite of

his affair. I cant believe that this affair was a surprise to our intelligence community. I bet there is a lot of hanky-panky that is overlooked.

Honor or not, I believe the General's decision was because of Benghazi, the failed October surprise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 07:14 PM

5. Can't really do that.

Other people who already lost clearances or will lose them in the future would cause legal trouble.

I believe the General's decision was because of Benghazi, the failed October surprise.

Why would this be an "October surprise" for the administration? It was an attempt to harm the administration. But it was the administration that said "we'll let you resign".

Or do you mean Patreus conspired with the Republicans?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 08:28 PM

8. BS. Affairs are as common at the Agency as trenchcoats. Patreaus' departure had to do with policy.

Please see below for what that policy is really about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #8)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 08:42 PM

10. This based on your years of working at the CIA, or "something you heard"? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 08:53 PM

11. Do you work for the Agency, Jeff? Did you ever?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:37 PM

12. Do you seriously think people who could answer yes would do so on the Internet?

And were you hoping that I'd notice you dodged my question?

So, your assertion that affairs happen all the time at the CIA and it's no big deal....where'd that come from?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #5)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:25 AM

13. Other people? What other people? Are going to challenge a decision by the president? Not likely.

I believe that the intelligence organizations know about a lot of shit. But why ruin the life of a useful general. But if that general starts plotting against the President, time to lose him.

I believe it entirely possible that the general (having presidential aspirations) would conspire with other Republicans, to embarrass the president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #13)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:13 AM

14. If you lose your career over something that doesn't end someone else's career

you're going to file a lawsuit. You don't have anything to lose, and lots to gain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 07:16 PM

6. Except for the Wingnuts

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 08:26 PM

7. The Benghazi Question is what the Hell Amb. Stevens and the oversized CIA station were doing there?

The answer: Looted Libyan antiaircraft missiles and Jihadis going to Syria. Thousands of them. Blowback was inevitable.

There's a reason war hawks and neocons on neither party want you to ask that question, and are doing everything they can to obscure the issue and the answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #7)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 08:35 PM

9. bingo. on your question. (I know nothing about the response. )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #7)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:56 PM

17. yes

That is an excellent question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:30 AM

15. Why was Rice chosen to make the morning show circuit?

Has anyone asked why she was picked to deliver the message?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marshall (Reply #15)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:03 PM

19. Clinton had ordered a DOS press blackout, after concerns were raised re: conflicting accounts

from the Department's own spokespersons. So, they had to look outside DOS for a spokesperson. Rice probably volunteered, and put her own assertive spin on things. She probably should have been more ambiguous, but that's not her style.

Anyway, what she said really isn't the issue. It's what's not been said about what the Ambassador and oversized CIA station were doing in Benghazi -- circumstances strongly indicate arms and Jihadis to Syria -- that is the topic that really needs to be addressed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:54 PM

16. yes

This is in the lap of the CIA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:03 PM

18. A big K&R from me. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread