HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Did Obama say that Al Que... » Reply #6

Response to juajen (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:59 PM

6. He


said they were dismantled in Afghanistan. The major threat was the Taliban now. The whole problem with this is the CIA. The Republicans are trying to blame the White house for what happened in Libya. They are still trying to find a scandal that would stick.

Now Lindsey Graham is accusing President Obama covering up the involvement of Al Qaieda for political purposes. Petraeus is now feeding this. THe bottom line is the Administration got information from the CIA.

Now lets use logic here. In essence, the people trying to create a scandal, are claiming Al Qaieda was involved because of something that happened in other places such as Germany and the attack on a British envoy, days ago.

The main office for the U.S. Embassy is in Tripoli. Benghazi is further away where you have different militias. There was also an CIA annex attached to Benghazi. This is clear evidence, this was an CIA operation. You know why, Stephens main office was not in Benghazi but Tripoli. Chris Stephens position was the Head Diplomatic official in Libya. He was the ambassador to Libya. If he was the Top official in Libya, the he was the Top U.S. Authority in Libya and also responsible for U.S. interests. He is also responsible for requesting security.

This goes back to the CNN corespondent getting hold of Stephen's Diary in Benghazi before the FBI arrived. THe claim by the Republicans is Stephen's requested more security, but was that for Tripoli or Benghazi where he knew it was still hostile? You can put two and two together. Stephen's was killed along with three other persons, the government characterize as Navy Seals. It is apparent to me, these men also has some connections to the Intelligence community also or was working with the CIA. There is more information too, that they are leaving out. The President of Libya reported at first there was a crowd and the attackers were connected to Ghaddaffi Loyalists. It was FOX News that began reporting early on about Al Qaieda involvement. They started planting the seed and claimed there wasn't a crowd.

There was also a report from an eyewitness from the media. His report differ from Petraeus's characterization. The eye witness also mentioned 20 young men that was yelling about the film just before the attack. Then there was a Libyan security truck that pulled up and men carried out the attack. Think about it. So for some reason, the Repukes want it to be Al Qaieda. Then take a look at the CIA involvement under Petraeus. Connect it to the Libyan's official's early statement and then retracting some of it. I also think the Intelligence agencies are too cozy with rightwing Republicans.

Just ask one question, the senators or Congress should be asking and you might open it up. How did a CNN correspondent get access to Stephens Diary at the consulate in Benghazi, immediately before the FBI arrived? Remember this, The CIA was on the scene all the time. That means they had control of the crime scene. So how did she breech the crime scene and manage to remove evidence. The focus should be on Petraeus and the CIA and what they were doing in Benghazi.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Please login to view edit histories.