Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2012 09:06 pm
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently announced that she promises a thorough and open investigation of the Islamist attack on the American consulate in Benghazi ...but the results of the Department's investigation will not be available until the end of this year or the beginning of the next.

Surprise, surprise.

Let's see...

Based on the evidence thus far, the construction of a reasonable theory that the Administration deliberately mischaracterized the attack that left four Americans dead so as to avoid having reality rain on the president's Osama is Dead victory lap at the Democrat Convention in Charlotte, and possibly affecting his re-election bid, but the government's investigation into the matter will not conclude until after the election.

Nothing suspicious there.

Meanwhile the FBI agents assigned to Eric Holder's Justice Department investigation finally made a brief visit to the site this week; three weeks after the attack. The reason cited for the delay, "security concerns."

Sadly, the Administration seems to have been far less concerned about the security of the consulate and our ambassador, despite strong indications that they had warnings before 9/11/12.

Just imagine how the broadcast networks and elite press would have already concluded a cover-up was perpetrated and howling for a Special Prosecutor if the president on 9/11/12 was a Republican.

As one conservator blogger noted after last night dismal performance by the president: Chance of a unilateral, heavily armed strike on someone in Libya before the next debate just increase by 70,000%

Lo and behold, the NY Times reports this morning that the US is preparing for such an attack:

Quote:
The United States is laying the groundwork for operations to kill or capture militants implicated in the deadly attack on a diplomatic mission in Libya, senior military and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday, as the weak Libyan government appears unable to arrest or even question fighters involved in the assault.

The top-secret Joint Special Operations Command is compiling so-called target packages of detailed information about the suspects, the officials said. Working with the Pentagon and the C.I.A., the command is preparing the dossiers as the first step in anticipation of possible orders from President Obama to take action against those determined to have played a role in the attack on a diplomatic mission in the eastern city of Benghazi that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three colleagues three weeks ago.
(emphasis added)

Oh and look at that, the activity is top-secret, but the NY Times knows about it. Can this have been leaked by an Administrative official in an effort to make Obama look good and help his re-election prospects?

Gee, where have I heard such allegations before?

Oh yeah, it involved the leaking of top-secret information concerning the Osama raid, the president's Predator drone hit list and computer virus attack on Iranian nuclear reactors, and it came from Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein, among others.

Not to worry though, the Justice Department is conducting a thorough investigation with two Federal Prosecutors at its head. Of course one is a donor to the Obama campaign, but hey, nothing to see there.

And of course although the investigation has been ongoing for months, the results cannot possibly be expected before Election Day.

This all sounds like it’s from the pages of a Brad Thor or Vince Flynn novel.

There is reason to believe that the Administration knew within 24 hours of the Benghazi attacks that it was a pre-planned, major effort by terrorists associated with al-Qaeda, and yet for two weeks insisted it was simply part of a spontaneous reaction to an obscure anti-Muslim YouTube video. They even trotted out the US Ambassador to the UN to all five of the Sunday News Shows to tell us that it was "in fact" a spontaneous reaction to the 12 minute video virtually no one in the Middle East has seen.

The MSM devoted more ink and air-time condemning Romney's statement on the US Embassy in Egypt's embarrassing apology than they have on what even CNN is now describing as a cover-up.

Disgraceful.


  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 23 • Views: 19,140 • Replies: 489

 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Oct, 2012 03:05 pm
And not a one reply.

Curious.

The Obama Administration is counting on the same response from the MSM, and they've not been disappointed.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  2  
Reply Sun 7 Oct, 2012 04:46 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Reading that was like wading through mud, Finn. Wink
JTT
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 7 Oct, 2012 07:54 pm
@msolga,
Quote:
Reading that was like wading through mud, Finn.


Reading about the evil the US has done or seeks to do is always like wading thru mud, MsO. It's a morass so deep and so perfidious that few are willing to try.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Oct, 2012 08:01 pm
@JTT,
Ah, I was just responding in kind to Finn, JTT.
And it felt pretty good! Wink Razz
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Oct, 2012 08:24 pm
@msolga,
Good, MsO. Finn can't be reminded too often.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  3  
Reply Sun 7 Oct, 2012 09:02 pm
@msolga,
You really hold a grudge, don't you.

The trouble is that what I wrote, whether or not you agree with it, in no way way required the slogging effort of communicating with you.

But you get to say it does, and no doubt like minded fools will agree.

JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 7 Oct, 2012 09:06 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
You really hold a grudge, don't you.


What is it, Finn, that makes it impossible for y'all to see just what stunning hypocrites you are?

Absolutely amazing!!
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Oct, 2012 09:07 pm
And so this thread has engendered an idiotic tit for tat reply by a fool and an incoherent rant by a jackass.

No reason to discuss the Benghazi cover-up, or is it that the Obama Administration hasn't dispensed with their talking points on the subject?

Was there an e-mail I missed that warned the Useful Idiots not to respond?

Cowards.
parados
 
  5  
Reply Sun 7 Oct, 2012 09:47 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently announced that she promises a thorough and open investigation of the Islamist attack on the American consulate in Benghazi ...but the results of the Department's investigation will not be available until the end of this year or the beginning of the next.

Surprise, surprise.

Yeah... you would think the FBI could do a complete investigation in a foreign country in less than 2 months and complete a final report for release to the public. What's wrong with them?

They are obviously incompetent. Heck, even though McVeigh was arrested only days after the Oklahoma City bombing it still took the FBI months to conduct their investigation. So incompetent.

You would think they could be faster in a foreign country.


Quote:

Disgraceful.




Yeah. That pretty much describes your petty post Finn. No rational person expects the FBI to complete any investigation of a major attack in less than 2 months.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  4  
Reply Tue 9 Oct, 2012 07:26 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
And so this thread has engendered an idiotic tit for tat reply by a fool and an incoherent rant by a jackass.


What kind of person would start such a thread?
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Oct, 2012 07:23 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
This thread started as an incoherent rant by a jackass, Finn.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Oct, 2012 08:08 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Really, Finn, why do you start these threads. You know that all you`re doing is illustrating that there isn`t a US administration that is anywhere close to being honest. For dog`s sake they are all a bunch of war criminals - terrorists so what do you expect (qm)
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  3  
Reply Wed 10 Oct, 2012 04:33 am
I think a concise summary of the article, or of the position the article represents, would be that the administration was asked for help with security by the embassy several times, failed to respond, and now that the embassy has been attacked have sought to escape responsibility by mischaracterizing the nature of the attack.
InfraBlue
 
  3  
Reply Wed 10 Oct, 2012 12:54 pm
How, exactly, did the Administration mischaracterize the attack?

Reports from the very next day quote US officials stating that the attack was not prompted by the film, and that it had appeared to be pre-planned.

Five days after the attack Ambassador Susan Rice said that spontaneous demonstrations in Benghazi were co-opted by the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks.

From what I gather, US security officer, Eric Nordstrom complained in an interview with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that his requests for additional security went unheeded. He stated that the State Department had decided to require that five diplomatic security agents be posted at the Benghazi mission, but that it usually only had three or four.

The Times had reported that there were four American and three Libyan guards at the mission when the attacks began.

Also, there are no records of Ambassador Stevens himself requesting additional security detail.
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Thu 11 Oct, 2012 03:30 am
@InfraBlue,
This is typical unthinking Finn, he criticises Obama for the attack on the Libyan embassy, but gives Bush a free pass for failing to stop 9/11 despite being warned of the significant threat Al Qaida posed by the outgoing Clinton administration.

This is Finn at his most hypocritical.
revelette
 
  2  
Reply Thu 11 Oct, 2012 09:09 am
Letting us in on a secret

Quote:
When House Republicans called a hearing in the middle of their long recess, you knew it would be something big, and indeed it was: They accidentally blew the CIA’s cover.

The purpose of Wednesday’s hearing of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee was to examine security lapses that led to the killing in Benghazi last month of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three others. But in doing so, the lawmakers reminded us why “congressional intelligence” is an oxymoron.

Through their outbursts, cryptic language and boneheaded questioning of State Department officials, the committee members left little doubt that one of the two compounds at which the Americans were killed, described by the administration as a “consulate” and a nearby “annex,” was a CIA base. They did this, helpfully, in a televised public hearing.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) was the first to unmask the spooks. “Point of order! Point of order!” he called out as a State Department security official, seated in front of an aerial photo of the U.S. facilities in Benghazi, described the chaotic night of the attack. “We’re getting into classified issues that deal with sources and methods that would be totally inappropriate in an open forum such as this.”

A State Department official assured him that the material was “entirely unclassified” and that the photo was from a commercial satellite. “I totally object to the use of that photo,” Chaffetz continued. He went on to say that “I was told specifically while I was in Libya I could not and should not ever talk about what you’re showing here today.”

Now that Chaffetz had alerted potential bad guys that something valuable was in the photo, the chairman, Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), attempted to lock the barn door through which the horse had just bolted. “I would direct that that chart be taken down,” he said, although it already had been on C-SPAN. “In this hearing room, we’re not going to point out details of what may still in fact be a facility of the United States government or more facilities.”

May still be a facility? The plot thickened — and Chaffetz gave more hints. “I believe that the markings on that map were terribly inappropriate,” he said, adding that “the activities there could cost lives.”

In their questioning and in the public testimony they invited, the lawmakers managed to disclose, without ever mentioning Langley directly, that there was a seven-member “rapid response force” in the compound the State Department was calling an annex. One of the State Department security officials was forced to acknowledge that “not necessarily all of the security people” at the Benghazi compounds “fell under my direct operational control.”

And whose control might they have fallen under? Well, presumably it’s the “other government agency” or “other government entity” the lawmakers and witnesses referred to; Issa informed the public that this agency was not the FBI.

Other government agency,” or “OGA,” is a common euphemism in Washington for the CIA. This “other government agency,” the lawmakers’ questioning further revealed, was in possession of a video of the attack but wasn’t releasing it because it was undergoing “an investigative process.”

Or maybe they were referring to the Department of Agriculture.

That the Benghazi compound had included a large CIA presence had been reported but not confirmed. The New York Times, for example, had reported that among those evacuated were “about a dozen CIA operatives and contractors.” The paper, like The Washington Post, withheld locations and details of the facilities at the administration’s request.

But on Wednesday, the withholding was on hold.

The Republican lawmakers, in their outbursts, alternated between scolding the State Department officials for hiding behind classified material and blaming them for disclosing information that should have been classified. But the lawmakers created the situation by ordering a public hearing on a matter that belonged behind closed doors.

Republicans were aiming to embarrass the Obama administration over State Department security lapses. But they inadvertently caused a different picture to emerge than the one that has been publicly known: that the victims may have been let down not by the State Department but by the CIA. If the CIA was playing such a major role in these events, which was the unmistakable impression left by Wednesday’s hearing, having a televised probe of the matter was absurd.

The chairman, attempting to close his can of worms, finally suggested that “the entire committee have a classified briefing as to any and all other assets that were not drawn upon but could have been drawn upon” in Benghazi.

Good idea. Too bad he didn’t think of that before putting the CIA on C-SPAN.


0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2012 08:50 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

This is typical unthinking Finn, he criticises Obama for the attack on the Libyan embassy, but gives Bush a free pass for failing to stop 9/11 despite being warned of the significant threat Al Qaida posed by the outgoing Clinton administration.

This is Finn at his most hypocritical.


First of all how I may or may not have reacted to any actual or imagined transgression of the Bush Administration, in no way excuses the conduct of the Obama Administrations as respects this issue.

Secondly how do you know that I gave the Bush Administration a "free pass" on anything?

Finally, please provide us with the evidence that the outgoing Clinton Administration provided the Bush Administration with an actionable warning remotely specific to what happened on 9/11.

Telling the incoming administration that al-Qaeda were really bad guys and had it out for us, wouldn't be of much help in preventing 9/11, and if the Clinton Administration had actionable intelligence, why didn't they act on it. Was it obtained on the day the Clintons left the White House?

You may recall that the Saudis offered bin-Laden to the Clinton Administration and they declined.

Yours is nothing but obfuscation, attempted misdirection, and personal attack.

If you acknowledge the Administration's muck up and cover up, then get on board. If you think the Obama Administration is entirely blameless as regards Benghazi then offer up a defense. If you won't or can't do either than kindly shut the **** up.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2012 08:54 pm
@maxdancona,
Are you offended that anyone would dare challenge the conduct of the Obama Administration?

Do you find it unseemly that someone might question the Administration's manipulation of the truth when we all need to thank God for Obama Slayer of Osama?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2012 09:09 pm
@Brandon9000,
Indeed.

Originally the reason for dissembling seemed to be associated with the Obama campaign's heavy reliance on the Obama Killed Osama theme (with the implication that Obama has rid America of the threat of al-Qaeda and other assorts Islamist terrorists).

I still think that played some role in the cover-up, but as the facts have been developing, your assessment is far more likely to be the case.

Disgracefully, the reasons circle back to politics, with the requests for increased security being turned down for political reasons.

The Obama Campaign (Read: The Obama Administration) is desperate to prevent the full story coming out until after the election, and they may very well have their way because the MSM refuses to meet their obligation to the American people...to the point where the new NY Times Public Editor has chastised her paper for hiding reportage on the story to page 6.

 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Benghazi Boogaloo
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/24/2019 at 07:40:11