HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » ONE simple fact: Benghazi...

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 11:19 AM

ONE simple fact: Benghazi was a covert CIA op under direction of Gen. Petraeus.

Last edited Thu Oct 22, 2015, 04:45 PM - Edit history (1)

Republicans have known from early on that ANY WH administration would be reticent in revealing a covert operation and have taken great advantage to deflect the blame onto State Dept.

Benghazi was a covert CIA operation under the direction of Gen. Petraeus who had dozens of his agents and operatives on the ground there before, during, and after the attack.

Republicans have known this since early on - they count on their dumbed down voter base believing the professional propaganda media that know exactly how to misdirect public anger and M$M's apathy for the truth.

WSJ/Nov2012:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204712904578092853621061838

DailyMail/Nov2012:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2226821/CIA-admits-role-US-consulate-attack-Benghazi.html#ixzz3pJTTNiEl

64 replies, 3775 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 64 replies Author Time Post
Reply ONE simple fact: Benghazi was a covert CIA op under direction of Gen. Petraeus. (Original post)
blm Oct 2015 OP
sandyshoes17 Oct 2015 #1
kelliekat44 Oct 2015 #28
Angry Dragon Oct 2015 #32
blm Oct 2015 #55
blm Oct 2015 #42
tularetom Oct 2015 #2
blm Oct 2015 #3
starroute Oct 2015 #5
blm Oct 2015 #6
Ichingcarpenter Oct 2015 #7
blm Oct 2015 #8
Ichingcarpenter Oct 2015 #9
blm Oct 2015 #11
H2O Man Oct 2015 #12
blm Oct 2015 #13
H2O Man Oct 2015 #14
mmonk Oct 2015 #26
erronis Oct 2015 #25
blm Oct 2015 #33
SoLeftIAmRight Oct 2015 #4
H2O Man Oct 2015 #10
TwilightGardener Oct 2015 #15
blm Oct 2015 #16
TwilightGardener Oct 2015 #17
bvar22 Oct 2015 #18
Comrade Grumpy Oct 2015 #19
blm Oct 2015 #21
Comrade Grumpy Oct 2015 #20
Spitfire of ATJ Oct 2015 #22
blm Oct 2015 #23
Spitfire of ATJ Oct 2015 #29
blm Oct 2015 #34
Spitfire of ATJ Oct 2015 #39
blm Oct 2015 #41
Octafish Oct 2015 #24
blm Oct 2015 #38
kentuck Oct 2015 #27
blm Oct 2015 #31
kentuck Oct 2015 #49
blm Oct 2015 #52
joshcryer Oct 2015 #30
blm Oct 2015 #36
riderinthestorm Oct 2015 #35
MinM Oct 2015 #37
AngryAmish Oct 2015 #40
Myrina Oct 2015 #43
blm Oct 2015 #44
Myrina Oct 2015 #45
blm Oct 2015 #47
ronnie624 Oct 2015 #58
blm Oct 2015 #62
WillyT Oct 2015 #46
seafan Oct 2015 #48
blm Oct 2015 #63
jamzrockz Oct 2015 #50
blm Oct 2015 #51
jamzrockz Oct 2015 #53
blm Oct 2015 #57
riderinthestorm Oct 2015 #54
librechik Oct 2015 #56
spanone Oct 2015 #59
blm Oct 2015 #61
ucrdem Oct 2015 #60
Electric Monk Oct 2015 #64

Response to blm (Original post)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 11:28 AM

1. I agree

I've been thinking this for a long time. And Patreus resigning right before testifying, the whole thing stunk to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sandyshoes17 (Reply #1)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 02:06 PM

28. Is there a way for Hillary to trip them up and make them reveal that it was a CIA op that went bad?

 

Then the Committee will be guilty of revealing state secrets>

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelliekat44 (Reply #28)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 02:25 PM

32. at the very beginning The Tortoise revealed that there was a CIA presence there

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #32)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 11:05 AM

55. Yet NONE of that comes out at these bullshit 'hearings'.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelliekat44 (Reply #28)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 03:35 PM

42. I think it possible that both sides could be trying to lay that bait

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 11:34 AM

2. This isn't your fault but I hate it when a link directs me to an article behind a paywall

Especially when it's the Wall Street F'ing Journal.

Would it be possible to paraphrase/summarize a bit more of the article for those of us who don't want to give them any $?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #2)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 11:41 AM

3. Sorry - it wasn't behind a paywall when I posted it previously.

It basically reports that Gen. Petraeus had dozens of agents and operatives on the ground in Benghazi and that his absence at the receiving of coffins was worth noting.



Me: There were more CIA operatives on the ground in Benghazi than there were State Dept personnel and GOP intel committee members have known this all along, with GOP congress knowing full well before they got on TV and started lying about it in hopes of carrying Romney into the WH.


Me: The State Dept was doing what EVERY State Dept has done, and that is provide cover for CIA when it decides cover is needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #2)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 11:57 AM

5. There's a simple way to get around the WSJ paywall

If you go to the link as posted and then google on the headline, you will get a page of google results from which you can get to the full article. This also works with some other paywalled news sites -- I assume the reason is that they depend on google to drive traffic to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to starroute (Reply #5)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 12:02 PM

6. Daily Mail picked up on WSJ report:


The CIA was operating a covert mission in the U.S. consulate in Libya when it came under attack by al Qaeda-linked militants on September 11, intelligent chiefs have admitted.

Four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed in the six-hour, commando-style attack on the US Mission in the Libyan city, for which al-Qaeda and Islamist militia Ansar al-Sharia have been blamed.

The CIA made the revelation as it laid bare the heroic rescue by a handful of its agents in which they fought off wave after wave of mortar and rocket attacks with just their handguns as they sought to infiltrate the compound and shepherd its American staff to safety.

A timeline, released by the agency, has blown open the dramatic sequence of events, revealing for the first time that of the 30 American officials evacuated from the country following the deadly attack, just seven worked for the State Department.
>>>>>>

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2226821/CIA-admits-role-US-consulate-attack-Benghazi.html#ixzz3pJTTNiEl

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #2)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 12:05 PM

7. Here's some links with info

And according to Paula Broadwell, the mistress of David Petraeus when he was CIA director, the CIA may have provided an impetus for the attack by holding prisoners: "Now I don't know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex 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."

'At its heart a CIA operation'
In November The Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. mission in Benghazi "was at its heart a CIA operation."


much more

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-secret-cia-mission-in-benghazi-2013-5?IR=T

Petraeus' Role In Drafting Benghazi Talking Points Raises Questions

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/david-petraeus-benghazi/

Maybe Petraeus’ Plea Deal Is More Interesting to the Benghazi Report than Hillary’s Emails?

https://www.emptywheel.net/2015/03/05/maybe-petraeus-plea-deal-is-more-interesting-to-the-benghazi-report-than-hillarys-emails/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #7)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 12:08 PM

8. Notice the absence of broadcast 'news' networks who ignored these facts

and this entire aspect of the Benghazi issue, including alleged 'left leaning' networks like MSNBC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #8)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 12:13 PM

9. I called it a CIA clustefuck from the beginning

in fact the whole middle east game they have been playing
is a clusterfuck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #9)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 12:15 PM

11. Remember to thank our BFEE overlords for over 5 decades of Mideast madness.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #9)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 12:20 PM

12. Yep.

I think that was apparent to anyone familiar with the CIA - Dept of State.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #12)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 12:23 PM

13. And also know State cannot publicly admit it concedes to CIA on these matters

as a matter of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #13)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 12:25 PM

14. Right.

And, as a matter of federal law. The republicans are attempting to force Ms. Clinton to mistakenly do something akin to the "Plame scandal."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #14)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 02:00 PM

26. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #7)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 01:59 PM

25. Aren't most State Department operations really just fronts?

They are a convenient way to inject operatives into seemingly innocuous roles - trade reps, etc.

Same as other countries do to the US and others.

Very few of the "operational" diplomats are overseas in order to rubber-stamp agreements or appear in photo-ops. All real diplomatic stuff happens in the nations' capitals (or in their subterranean vaults.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to erronis (Reply #25)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 02:26 PM

33. Truth being that all 4 men killed knew they were acting with/for CIA.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 11:49 AM

4. YEY YES YES

 

...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 12:13 PM

10. Recommended.

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 12:25 PM

15. Well, assuming it was a big gun-running operation, did the State Dept. know about it?

Did DoD? Who in the administration knew about it, and APPROVED of it? Did the President give his approval? Because remember, Obama picks out his own targets on Terror Tuesdays, why wouldn't he know what the CIA was up to in Libya?...see, this is why nobody wants to dig deeper, neither R or D.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #15)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 12:34 PM

16. I'm with David Talbot - No prez has crossed 'Deep State' since Kennedy.

It all seems so easy to those of us safe and nowhere NEAR the arena.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #16)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 12:38 PM

17. I'd like a REAL investigation. Because something illegal/unethical may have occurred.

Remember General "All-In" was saying a couple months ago that we ought to arm AQ-affiliated fighters in Syria because they're effective fighters? If that's indicative of how he thinks (and yes, the SUUURGE was us paying off AQ sympathizers), then I'd really like to know what we were doing in Libya and Syria. I hope the President wasn't involved in any bad decisions, but I'd still like to know the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 12:43 PM

18. "This is blowback from CIA Bullshit run from a backwater embassy."

My immediate response upon hearing the news of an "embassy" attack in Benghazi.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 12:54 PM

19. That secret CIA operation is the real Benghazi scandal.

 

It probably got our ambassador killed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #19)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 01:44 PM

21. Yes - further proof that GOP has NO INTEREST in the truth about Benghazi.

None.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)


Response to blm (Original post)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 01:53 PM

22. They keep repeating that it was an "embassy" too.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #22)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 01:57 PM

23. consulate with an annex being used by CIA just doesn't fit the GOP's storyline

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #23)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 02:18 PM

29. It was the size of a mini-mall too.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #29)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 02:39 PM

34. Gowdy wants America to believe that Blumenthal is more relevant than Petraeus'

substantial role on the ground in Benghazi, before, during, and after the attack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #34)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 03:30 PM

39. He wants to prove there was a political motive to cover it up prior to the election....

 

Because Obama was running on having just won the War ON Terriers.

Can't do that if there are still terriers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #39)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 03:33 PM

41. LOLOLOLOL!!!!

The mic HAS been dropped.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 01:58 PM

24. Petraeus' game was to make more war a go-go.

Did an end run around the commander-in-chief to do it, the GOP mission accomplished, failing for the sake of wars without end for profits without cease.



The Why Behind the Benghazi Attack

The story behind the Benghazi attack was not the political cover-up that the Right has pushed, but rather how the U.S. consulate had grown into a CIA base, making it an inviting target for militants. The primary security failure was in not anticipating the danger, writes ex-CIA analyst Melvin A. Goodman.

By Melvin A. Goodman
ConsortiumNews, November 4, 2012

Nearly two months ago, on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, a group of militants attacked the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, killing the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans.

The Romney campaign has accused the Obama administration with a cover-up of the details of the attack, and various pundits have sown great confusion over a tragic event that points to a failure of intelligence analysis and operational tradecraft at the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency.

The unwillingness of the White House’s senior adviser on counter-terrorism, John Brennan, to play a public role in the aftermath of this tragedy left the Obama administration without an authoritative voice on the event.

It’s now apparent that the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was no ordinary consulate; in fact, it probably was no consulate at all. The consulate’s primary mission was to provide an intelligence platform that would allow the CIA to maintain an operational and analytical role in eastern Libya.

The region is home to myriad militant and terrorist organizations that threaten Western interests in North Africa and, more importantly, the creation of a stable state in Libya. In other words, the consulate was the diplomatic cover for an intelligence platform and whatever diplomatic functions took place in Benghazi also served as cover for an important CIA base. Both the State Department and the CIA share responsibility for seriously underestimating the security threat in Libya, particularly in Benghazi.

Any CIA component in the Middle East or North Africa is a likely target of the wrath of militant and terrorist organizations because of the Agency’s key role in the global war on terror waged by the Bush administration and the increasingly widespread covert campaign of drone aircraft of the Obama administration.

U.S. programs that included the use of secret prisons, extraordinary renditions, and torture and abuse involved CIA collaboration with despotic Arab regimes, including Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi. The U.S. campaign to overthrow Gaddafi didn’t clean the slate of these abuses; it merely opened up the opportunity for militants and Islamists to avenge U.S. actions over the past ten years.

At home, Americans are devoting far too much attention to whether a so-called proper level of security in Benghazi could have prevented the attack, instead of trying to learn the motives and anticipate the actions of these militant organizations.

The CIA failure to provide adequate security for its personnel stems from degradation in the operational tradecraft capabilities of the CIA since the so-called intelligence reforms that followed the 9/11 attacks. Nearly three years ago, nine CIA operatives and contractors were killed by a suicide bomber at their base in Khost in eastern Afghanistan in the deadliest attack on CIA personnel in decades.

Virtually every aspect of sound tradecraft was ignored in this episode as an unvetted Jordanian double agent was allowed to enter a sensitive CIA facility (instead of a CIA safe house), where he was met by the entire base leadership (a breach of longstanding tradecraft).

The base commander in Khost had insufficient training and experience for the posting and had been promoted regularly by the CIA’s Directorate of Operations despite having been cited in a CIA internal review on 9/11, according to the Washington Post, for failing to warn the FBI about two al-Qaeda operatives who had entered the country in 2000.

No reprimands were assessed in the aftermath of the 2009 bombing, although high-level Agency officials had to approve the assignment of the base commander as well as the entry of the Jordanian double agent onto the Agency’s most sensitive facility in eastern Afghanistan.

The security situation in Libya, particularly Benghazi, was obviously deteriorating; the consulate was a target of a bomb in June and the British consulate closed its doors in the summer, leaving the U.S. consulate as the last official foreign presence in the city.

Overall security for the consulate had been in the hands of a small British security firm that placed unarmed Libyans on the perimeter of the building complex. The CIA contributed to the problem with its reliance on Libyan militias and a new Libyan intelligence organization to maintain security for its personnel in Benghazi.

On the night of the attack, the CIA security team was slow to respond to the consulate’s call for help, spending more than 20 minutes trying to garner additional support from militias and the Libyan intelligence service that never responded.

Although nearly 30 Americans were airlifted out of Libya in less than ten hours, there is no indication that these individuals were debriefed in order to get a better understanding of the militia attacks. The lack of such essential information from those who had been under attack contributed to the confused assessments in the wake of the attacks.

There were other complications as well. Ambassador Christopher Stevens was an extremely successful and popular ambassador in Libya, but he had become too relaxed about security in a country that had become a war zone.

UN Ambassador Susan Rice was too quick to pronounce judgments on the Benghazi attack before the facts were known, which could be attributed to her interest in assuming a public role in order to buttress her case for becoming Secretary of State in a second Obama administration.

The public role belonged to Brennan, but he had previously mishandled duties in the wake of the attempt of a young Nigerian to board a commercial airliner with explosives in December 2009 as well as in the immediate aftermath of the killing of Osama bin Laden in May 2011.

The systemic failures surrounding the Nigerian bomber involved the entire intelligence community, including the CIA, the National Counter-Terrorism Center, and the National Security Agency. The Benghazi tragedy points to continued systemic failures in the intelligence community as well as within the State Department. A failure to conduct proper threat assessments will predictably lead to security failures.

The Benghazi failure is one more reminder of the unfortunate militarization of the intelligence community, particularly the CIA, in the wake of 9/11 that finds our major civilian intelligence service becoming a paramilitary center in support of the war-fighter.

Last year’s appointment of Gen. David Petraeus as CIA director; the CIA’s increased role in drone attacks in Southwest Asia, the Persian Gulf and the Horn of Africa; and the insufficient attention to providing strategic intelligence for the policy-maker have weakened the Agency’s central missions.

The success of the Bush and Obama administrations in compromising the CIA’s Office of the Inspector General has ensured that the Agency’s flaws have gone uncorrected. The politicization of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq War in 2003 was the worst intelligence scandal in the CIA’s history, but there were no penalties for those who shared CIA Director George Tenet’s willingness to make phony intelligence a “slam dunk.”

If more attention is not given to the biblical inscription at the entrance to the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, that only “the truth will set you free,” the decline of the intelligence community will continue.

Melvin A. Goodman is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and the author of the forthcoming “National Insecurity: The Costs of American Militarism” (City Lights Publishing, January 2013).

SOURCE: https://consortiumnews.com/2012/11/04/the-why-behind-the-benghazi-attack/



I question why the Honorable General CIA Doctor Director walks free while good people are in jail for exposing government corruption?

The fact this episode has only been examined as a political tool to clobber Hillary Clinton shows the corrupt nature of Corporate Owned News.

Thank goodness for DU and blm -- nothing gets under their radar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #24)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 03:15 PM

38. Salute

my friend

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 02:02 PM

27. It was more of a CIA operation than a State Department operation...

The "compound" was a CIA station, not an embassy.

Hardly ever are any of these operations made public. Unfortunately, the Republicans decided to try and make it about Hillary and her incompetence. If there is blame to go around, the CIA, with David Petraseus, would receive the lion's share.

For some reason, I find it hard to believe that the Republicans are not aware of this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #27)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 02:24 PM

31. They are, but, they have to make the narrative they adopted for political reasons

fit into the BS they have been selling their voter base.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #31)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 05:23 PM

49. Yep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #49)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 07:04 PM

52. hey, old buddy….

; )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 02:23 PM

30. That is EXACTLY what this is about, actually.

They are trying to manipulate a "gotcha." That they can't openly say anything about it is mere formality.

They think they can get Clinton to slip up, admit what it was that they already know it was, and freak out about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #30)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 02:56 PM

36. Dems are always at a disadvantage as they won't out CIA operatives while Republican

psychopaths have absolutely no boundaries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 02:42 PM

35. Yup. K&R! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 03:02 PM

37. Perhaps some crowdsourcing action on the side too ..

NPR's on the media had an interesting personal look at one of the Benghazi victims a little over a year ago. They describe Sean Smith's gaming activities as though they were just a respite from his IT duties.

My guess since reading and hearing his story is that it was more than an avocation for him. That it was actually something more like what is described in the op ..


On September 11th, 2012, gunmen attacked two American compounds in Benghazi, Libya, killing four Americans. Sean Smith, one of the four killed in the attack, was an IT manager in the real world, but online, he was Vile Rat, a hugely influential diplomat in the video game Eve Online. Alex talks to Sean's friend Alex "The Mittani" Gianturco about who Sean was both in Eve and in the real world.

http://www.onthemedia.org/story/tldr-11-rip-vile-rat/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026664037
*****
Of course all of these possibilities help to explain why the Republicans can drag these hearings out so long. They know the Democrats can't call bullsh*t without being accused of revealing State Secrets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 03:31 PM

40. They were running guns to al nusra in Syria

 

You know, al queda in Syria. They screwed al nusra somehow so alqueda send their locak goons to kill the ambassador.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 03:43 PM

43. Call me stupid, but if that's the case (and I believe it is) ...

.... why hasn't the GOP been jumping up and down about it as a means to get at POTUS - who was directly responsible for Petraeus' command (and probably his marching orders) during that time & the ultimate Boss of the CIA, rather than this BS grilling of HRC??

I'm confused. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Myrina (Reply #43)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 03:49 PM

44. They know that DEEP STATE CIA answers to no president. Making it an issue would

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #44)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 03:54 PM

45. Saving link, thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Myrina (Reply #45)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 04:46 PM

47. Once its understood it can never be un-understood.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #44)

Sat Oct 24, 2015, 11:04 AM

58. Good article.

"We all own a piece of the Republican charade, in my view, so long as we remain unwilling to look squarely at the system—including the press and the broadcasters—that puts political vandals before us as somehow credible."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ronnie624 (Reply #58)

Sat Oct 24, 2015, 11:35 AM

62. Abso-fvcking-lutely!!!!!

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 03:56 PM

46. K & R !!!

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 05:11 PM

48. On Benghazi, just as Seymour Hersh wrote in 2014

From Seymour Hersh in April 2014, in a post I put together on October 3:

The full extent of US co-operation with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar in assisting the rebel opposition in Syria has yet to come to light. The Obama administration has never publicly admitted to its role in creating what the CIA calls a ‘rat line’, a back channel highway into Syria. The rat line, authorised in early 2012, was used to funnel weapons and ammunition from Libya via southern Turkey and across the Syrian border to the opposition. Many of those in Syria who ultimately received the weapons were jihadists, some of them affiliated with al-Qaida. (The DNI spokesperson said: ‘The idea that the United States was providing weapons from Libya to anyone is false.’)

In January, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report on the assault by a local militia in September 2012 on the American consulate and a nearby undercover CIA facility in Benghazi, which resulted in the death of the US ambassador, Christopher Stevens, and three others. The report’s criticism of the State Department for not providing adequate security at the consulate, and of the intelligence community for not alerting the US military to the presence of a CIA outpost in the area, received front-page coverage and revived animosities in Washington, with Republicans accusing Obama and Hillary Clinton of a cover-up. A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn’t always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer. (A spokesperson for Petraeus denied the operation ever took place.)


The annex didn’t tell the whole story of what happened in Benghazi before the attack, nor did it explain why the American consulate was attacked. ‘The consulate’s only mission was to provide cover for the moving of arms,’ the former intelligence official, who has read the annex, said. ‘It had no real political role.’

Washington abruptly ended the CIA’s role in the transfer of arms from Libya after the attack on the consulate, but the rat line kept going. ‘The United States was no longer in control of what the Turks were relaying to the jihadists,’ the former intelligence official said. Within weeks, as many as forty portable surface-to-air missile launchers, commonly known as manpads, were in the hands of Syrian rebels.


Barring a major change in policy by Obama, Turkey’s meddling in the Syrian civil war is likely to go on. ‘I asked my colleagues if there was any way to stop Erdoğan’s continued support for the rebels, especially now that it’s going so wrong,’ the former intelligence official told me. ‘The answer was: “We’re screwed.” We could go public if it was somebody other than Erdoğan, but Turkey is a special case. They’re a Nato ally. The Turks don’t trust the West. They can’t live with us if we take any active role against Turkish interests. If we went public with what we know about Erdoğan’s role with the gas, it’d be disastrous. The Turks would say: “We hate you for telling us what we can and can’t do.”’



CIA Takes Heat for Role in Libya, WSJ, Nov. 1, 2012 9:05 p.m. ET

When the bodies of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans killed in Benghazi, Libya, arrived at Andrews Air Force Base after the Sept. 11 attack, they were greeted by the president, the vice president and the secretaries of state and defense. Conspicuously absent was CIA Director David Petraeus.

Officials close to Mr. Petraeus say he stayed away in an effort to conceal the agency's role in collecting intelligence and providing security in Benghazi. Two of the four men who died that day, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were former Navy SEAL commandos who were publicly identified as State Department contract security officers, but who actually worked as Central Intelligence Agency contractors, U.S. officials say.

The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation, according to officials briefed on the intelligence. Of the more than 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi following the deadly assault, only seven worked for the State Department. Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic cover, which was a principal purpose of the consulate, these officials said.


The coordinated attacks stirred up a political hornet's nest over whether the administration provided adequate security and whether it was forthcoming with its assessment of what happened. In the election season, that cast a shadow over the Obama administration's foreign policy record.



Well, THAT seems to be a calculated strategy by those who wanted to torpedo Obama, no? Seymour Hersh warned about that as well.


More from the WSJ:

Nearly eight weeks after the attacks, a complete accounting hasn't emerged in public view. The brunt of the public criticism for security lapses has so far been directed at the State Department, rather than the CIA, which, by design, operates largely in the shadows. Critics in Congress say the CIA has used secrecy in part to shield itself from blame—a charge officials close to the agency deny.

This account of the CIA presence in Benghazi sheds new light on the events, and how the essentially covert nature of the U.S. operations there created confusion. Congressional investigators say it appears that the CIA and State Department weren't on the same page about their respective roles on security, underlining the rift between agencies over taking responsibility and raising questions about whether the security arrangement in Benghazi was flawed.

The CIA's secret role helps explain why security appeared inadequate at the U.S. diplomatic facility. State Department officials believed that responsibility was set to be shouldered in part by CIA personnel in the city through a series of secret agreements that even some officials in Washington didn't know about.

It also explains why the consulate was abandoned to looters for weeks afterward while U.S. efforts focused on securing the more important CIA quarters. Officials say it is unclear whether the militants knew about the CIA presence or stumbled upon the facility by following Americans there after the attack on the consulate.


The spy agency was the first to set up shop. It began building up its presence there soon after the Libyan revolution started in February 2011. The uprising overturned what had been a tight working relationship between the Gadhafi regime's spy services and the Americans, creating a gap that the CIA presence sought to fill, officials said.

The CIA worked from a compound publicly referred to as the "annex," which was given a State Department office name to disguise its purpose. The agency focused on countering proliferation and terrorist threats, said an American security contractor who has worked closely with CIA, the Pentagon and State. A main concern was the spread of weapons and militant influences throughout the region, including in Mali, Somalia and Syria, this person said.

Libyan officials say they were kept in the dark about what the CIA was doing in Benghazi.


This whole sordid story is also described here:

Benghazi consulate that came under attack by Al Qaeda militants was being used for CIA operations, 2 December 2012 (From the UK, of course.)


This whole nest of traitorous snakes needs to be flushed out. General 'Betrayus' was a highly accurate characterization, way back when.

Incalculable opportunities to make the world a more humane place, and they have repeatedly been forfeited by those at the pinnacle of power.


Thanks for helping get the word out, blm.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seafan (Reply #48)

Sat Oct 24, 2015, 01:12 PM

63. Hey, seaman……. long time.

Too long. ; )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 05:32 PM

50. But why won't the administration

 

just throw the CIA under the boss? Maybe supporting the rebels very early on in the war is something that doesn't jive with the narrative of "we are only sending them non lethal arms"

Regardless, the buck stops with the president. The Libyan war is on him and Hillary and say they would have gotten off easy if this is all the grieve they got from destroying Libya and handing that country over to terrorists and starting a big war in Syria

This issue has been brought up by at least one republican and Clinton seems to deny knowing anything about weapon running to Syria.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jamzrockz (Reply #50)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 07:01 PM

51. LOLOL - You think a President Rand Paul would throw CIA under the bus on a matter

like this? I doubt it - he buckles under pretty quickly from all I've seen of him when the establishment powers tug at him.

I notice you like to push your Ayn Rand theories of unfettered capitalism and governance since you've been here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #51)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 08:27 PM

53. President Paul

 

Wellstone maybe? I am not even sure what I am getting at. But its not just covering for the CIA, it is more about the whole incident coming about due the illegal war they both supported in Libya. A war I don't think a President Sanders or even Paul would have signed off on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jamzrockz (Reply #53)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 01:57 PM

57. Baloney on Paul - the entire point of Deep State is that no prez actually controls

the Deep State, but, instead must employ focused diplomatic efforts to get around it. I doubt a President Paul would NOT have the character to tap a Sec of State like Kerry who is doing some really heavy lifting in various regions in order to PREVENT the war expansion goals of the powerful elites.

I think your use of Wellstone, who may have been murdered, to bolster your delusions about Rand Paul is total BULLSH!T!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Thu Oct 22, 2015, 10:57 PM

54. Pm Kick!! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 11:15 AM

56. kick for people to wake up and smell the capuccino

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Sat Oct 24, 2015, 11:10 AM

59. i assume this is why petraeus hasn't been called in front of this committee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #59)

Sat Oct 24, 2015, 11:33 AM

61. Exactly, their vote-getting storyline would be shot to pieces.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Sat Oct 24, 2015, 11:16 AM

60. .. which happened to take place on 9/11.

Coink I'm sure!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Sat Oct 31, 2015, 10:12 PM

64. k&r nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread