In the discussion thread: Behind The-Benghazi Talking Points: Petraeus’ Revenge [View all]
Response to kpete (Original post)
Sat May 11, 2013, 04:29 PM
JDPriestly (57,936 posts)
9. This is what I have been wondering from the beginning.
Remember, Fox News suggested to Petraeus that they would help him run for president.
The CIA was in Benghazi but did not respond to the attack soon enough. If there is a scandal, that is it.
From Empty Wheel:
They might have also said, “since February, people tied to CIA’s mission have twice been harassed by militia members, suggesting our OpSec was so bad they knew we were in Benghazi.”
And when CIA’s talking points said,
The crowd almost certainly was a mix of individuals from across many sectors of Libyan society. That being said, we do know that extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.
They might also have said that the “trusted” militia, February 17 Brigade, trained by David Petraeus’ CIA, whose career legacy is based on false claims of successfully training locals, appears to have allowed the attack to happen (and, critically, delayed CIA guards from heading to the State mission to help).
Note that Congressman Frank Wolf is just now showing some interest in why CIA’s vetting of the militia central to the mission’s defense was so bad. Maybe if CIA had included that detail in their self-serving initial talking points, Congress would have turned to this issue more quickly, particularly since we’re currently training more potentially suspect militias in Syria.
And that is the crux of the matter, Petraeus's strategy of paying off bad guys to be bad for us and not against us does not work. It was doomed from the start.
The CIA was in Benghazi. Why were the ambassadors meeting in Benghazi instead of in Tripoli? Was there something shady going on? Did it have to do with Syria? Egypt? What was is?
And what is our involvement if any in Syria. Extremists of any religion are trouble. Who are the rebels in Syria? And what is really going on in Libya today? Could we end up with a problem worse than Gaddhafi who was so vain and crazy and self-centered that he almost handled himself?
Somehow, the idea that Petraeus is behind the whole failed program makes a lot of sense to me. Look how well things are going in Afghanistan and Iraq where his strategy and leadership were key.
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
|Dawson Leery||May 2013||#1|
|Wounded Bear||May 2013||#4|
This is what I have been wondering from the beginning.
Please login to view edit histories.