bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Forum Index bumrejects.myfreeforum.org
Open discussion on just about any topic
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Libya
Page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 17, 18, 19  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> In the News National and International
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Should the U.S. participate in military actions in Libya?
(A) Only if UN Security Council authorizes.
12%
 12%  [ 1 ]
(B) Only if Arab League members support.
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
(C) Only if US Congress approves.
12%
 12%  [ 1 ]
(D) By Presidential Executive Order.
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
All of the above (A - D)
37%
 37%  [ 3 ]
No.
25%
 25%  [ 2 ]
Other; see comments below.
12%
 12%  [ 1 ]
Total Votes : 8

Author Message
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.






Posted:     Post subject:

Back to top
tsiya



Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 4017
Location: Cabbage Hammock

PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2013 5:46 pm    Post subject:  Reply with quote

ABC News: Obama Admin Scrubbed Terror References In Benghazi Talking Points


***UPDATE: Here are the 12 talking point revisions. Keep in mind the Obama Administration has repeatedly denied making these revisions and denied straight through to Sept 19 that there was any evidence of a terror attack.

It looks as though after eight long months, the wheels might have finally come off the Obama Administration's coverup of the September 11th anniversary attacks in Libya. To justify lies told for over a week about a spontaneous protest, the White House has consistently insisted they had relied on CIA talking points that only the intelligence community had drafted and revised.

Standing on the shoulders of the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes, ABC News's Jonathan Karl has obtained 12 different versions of these now-infamous CIA talking points, and what he found proves beyond any doubt that the White House and State Department not only knew from the beginning that al-Qaeda was involved in the attack, but that the administration (mostly State) removed all "references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack."

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's State Department apparently did most of the editing. In his Good Morning America report Friday morning, Karl said that emails have been read that to him…
...that show that many of these changes were directed by Hillary Clinton spokesperson at the State Department, Victoria Nuland. In one email she said that information about CIA warnings 'could be used by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that…'
After that email all of those references were deleted.

The most damning part of Karl's report, though, is this quote he references from White House spokesman Jay Carney from November 28, 2012:

The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.

Karl now has proof that what Carney told White House reporters is a bald-faced lie. Whether Carney knew it was a lie or not is one thing, but that it was a lie is now no longer in question.
After Karl's report exploded online this morning, ABC News reporter Steven Portnoy tweeted, "Today's [White House] briefing will be one to watch. Emails make it clear WH was fully aware of CIA/FBI's belief #Benghazi was an attack involving AQ."

Thus far the media has been laughably reluctant to not only push for the truth on Libya but also to do anything that might damage the White House politically.

Let's see if a red-hot smoking gun is enough to finally change that.



LINKS AT SITE

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peac...+May+10%2C+2013&utm_term=More
_________________
Bob

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bieramar



Joined: 19 Nov 2010
Posts: 4441
Location: Taylor Ranch, NM

PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2013 6:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The following makes the most sense of anything I've read since 9/12/12. Click the URL at the end for hyperlinks to the referenced articles.
                              ++++

An alternative explanation for the Benghazi talking points: Bureaucratic knife fight

by Fact Checker Glenn Kessler
The Washington Post  
05/10/2013

From time to time, the Fact Checker writes an analytic look at news events, based on his three decades of experience covering diplomacy and politics, rather than a traditional fact check. This is one of those columns.
 
There have been many questions raised about the development of the administration's talking points in the aftermath of the attack on Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead, including the U.S. ambassador.

There have been allegations that the administration deliberately covered up the fact that this was a terrorist attack. We have noted before, in our extensive timeline of Benghazi statements, how long it took the president to concede that point in the midst of his reelection campaign.
 
But with the release of 12 versions of the talking points Friday by ABC News, perhaps there is an alternative explanation: This basically was a bureaucratic knife fight, pitting the State Department against the CIA.

In other words, the final version of the talking points may have been so wan because officials simply deleted everything that upset the two sides. So they were left with nothing.

Let's examine the evidence for a bureaucratic explanation.

First, some important context: Although the ambassador was killed, the Benghazi "consulate" was not a consulate at all but basically a secret CIA operation which included an effort to round up shoulder-launched missiles. In fact, only seven of the 30 Americans evacuated from Benghazi had any connection to the State Department; the rest were affiliated with the CIA.

The official reports, such as the one from the Accountability Review Board and the Senate Homeland Security Committee report, essentially dance around that uncomfortable fact:

1.    "In December 2011, the Under Secretary for Management approved a one-year continuation of the U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi, which was never a consulate and never formally notified to the Libyan government." ~ (ARB)

2.     "The attacks in Benghazi occurred at two different locations: a Department of State "Temporary Mission Facility" and an Annex facility ("Annex") approximately a mile away used by another agency of the United States Government." ~ (Senate report)

So, from the State Department perspective, this was an attack on a CIA facility, perhaps by the very people who the CIA was battling, and the ambassador tragically was in the wrong place at the wrong time. But, for obvious reasons, the administration could not publicly admit it was a secret CIA operation.

The talking points were originally developed by the CIA at the request of a member of the House Intelligence Committee. Interestingly, all of the versions are consistent on one point - that the attacks were "spontaneously inspired by protests at the U.S. embassy in Cairo," a fact later deemed to be incorrect.

The talking points through Friday begin to become rather fulsome, at which point there is sharp push-back from the State Department.

Let's look at the version as of 5:09 p.m. on Sept 14, a Friday, and see the red flags for State:
- The talking points refer to a "direct assault against the U.S. consulate."
- The CIA says it "warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy."
- The CIA says it "has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists in Benghazi and eastern Libya." It cites "at least five other attacks" against foreign interests and says it "cannot rule out the individuals had previously surveilled [sic] the U.S. facilities."

The clear implication is that State screwed up, even though internally, it was known that this was a CIA operation. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland especially objects to the reference to previous warnings, saying it "could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings."

Moreover, Nuland had been constrained from saying much about the attack at her daily press briefings, so she was unsure why the agency would suddenly give so much information to members of Congress.

After the CIA makes minor changes, such as deleting a reference to the militant group Ansar al-Sharia, Nuland responds, "These changes don't resolve all of my issues or those of my buildings leadership."  At that point, a White House official weighs in and writes in an e-mail:
"We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don't want to undermine the FBI investigation.  We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting."
 
The final version of the talking points shows what happened: Just about everything was cut, leaving virtually nothing. The reference to "consulate" was also deleted, replaced by "diplomatic post."

From a bureaucratic perspective, it may have seemed like the best possible solution at the time. From a political perspective, it turned out to be a disaster.

For reasons unknown, the White House sent U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on five Sunday shows with those talking points - and the rest is history. The talking points were so weak that Rice instantly raised suspicions that the administration was hiding something important. (She instantly earned Pinocchios.) She also repeatedly referenced the supposed impact of an anti-Islam video, which was never a part of the talking points.

Further investigation may make the bureaucratic explanation moot. But, in Washington, one should never underestimate the importance of internal conflict between agencies.
                       ++++

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blo...-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_blog.html

                        ====

Boehner yesterday requested that the White House order the release of ALL e-mail and cable message traffic between and within bureaus and agencies - a transparency which I support 100% (with the exception of deleting some specific names, as was done in the Wikileaks releases).

The bureaucratic turf wars and CYA efforts need always to be investigated and exposed, with the culprits punished as appropriate.

The political fallout is just part of the game, and will undoubtedly be brought up again when Clinton runs for President. As to any political fallout for the current administration there really isn't any, except possibly for Committee members facing re-election in 2014.

The most important aspect that I'm interested in is corrective measures for the future in regard to CIA, State and DoD personnel, and it already appears that they are already being implemented.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
tsiya



Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 4017
Location: Cabbage Hammock

PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2013 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


_________________
Bob

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
tsiya



Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 4017
Location: Cabbage Hammock

PostPosted: Sat May 11, 2013 10:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Benghazi e-mails show clash between State Department, CIA



New details from administration e-mails about last year’s attacks on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, demonstrate that an intense bureaucratic clash took place between the State Department and the CIA over which agency would get to tell the story of how the tragedy unfolded.

That clash played out in the development of administration talking points that have been at the center of the controversy over the handling of the incident, according to the e-mails that came to light Friday.

Over the five days between the attacks and the now-infamous Sunday show appearance by U.N. Ambassador Susan E. Rice, senior officials from the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department argued over how much information to disclose about the assault in which four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, were killed.

That internal debate and the changes it produced in the Obama administration’s immediate account of the attack have revived Benghazi as a political issue in Washington six months after the presidential election in which it played a prominent role. Friday’s revelations — ABC News published 12 versions of the talking points — produced the latest round of Benghazi post-mortems in the eight months since the attacks. Senior administration officials said in a briefing for reporters that none of Obama’s political advisers were involved in discussions around the original talking points, only national security staff officials.

According to various drafts of the talking points, shaped before the final editing by the White House and other agencies, State Department officials raised concerns that the CIA-drafted version could be used by members of Congress to criticize diplomatic security preparedness in Benghazi.

One U.S. intelligence official familiar with the talking points’ drafting said: “The changes don’t reflect a turf battle. They were attempts to find the appropriate level of detail for unclassified, preliminary talking points that could be used by members of Congress to address a fluid situation.”

One version of the talking points, drafted by the CIA, noted that unknown gunmen had carried out at least five recent attacks in and around Benghazi against “foreign interests.” The final version, however, did not include those warnings after Victoria Nuland, the State Department’s chief spokesperson at the time, protested in e-mails to White House national security staff and other agencies involved in editing the talking points.

CIA officials said in the weeks after the Benghazi attack that Ansar al-Sharia, a group affiliated with al-Qaeda, was not mentioned in the final talking points because the information was classified — even though the early versions made public this week showed that the agency initially intended to name the group.

During the 2012 presidential campaign, Republican nominee Mitt Romney accused thwe White House of downplaying the attackers’ links to Ansar al-Sharia for political reasons given Obama’s campaign argument that he had severely weakened the terrorist group.

Reports about the e-mails surfaced two days after three State Department officials appeared before Congress on Wednesday and criticized administration actions before, during and after the September assaults.

The most memorable testimony came from Gregory B. Hicks, who was deputy ambassador at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli at the time of the attack. Hicks and the others questioned why the Benghazi facility had not been made more secure before the attack and why the Pentagon did not send air or ground support once the attack began. Hicks also testified that he was criticized for raising the questions and was effectively demoted as a result — allegations that the State Department denied.

On Thursday, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) called on the White House to make public e-mails and other information about the talking points that are among tens of thousands of pages of documents the administration turned over to lawmakers months ago. White House officials continue to assert that they have provided all the information congressional leaders have asked for.

White House officials have said previously they made only one change to the CIA-drafted talking points, changing U.S. “consulate” to “diplomatic post” in the final version.

But White House officials were directly involved in developing the talking points through discussions with the CIA, the State Department, the FBI, the Justice Department, and elements of the Pentagon.

Behind the scenes, as a then-close presidential campaign entered its final stretch, State Department officials found themselves at a disadvantage in debating the CIA, whose deputy director, Mike Morrell, took charge of organizing days of internal agency discussions into a coherent set of talking points for members of Congress.

For one, State Department officials could not disclose that one of the two U.S. sites attacked in Benghazi was run by the CIA because of its secret designation.

CIA operations in the area included disarming militias, including ones affiliated with Islamist extremist groups, several months after the U.S. military role in toppling Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi. Virtually every U.S. official assigned to Benghazi was based in the CIA annex — where the agency, not the State Department, was in charge of security.

The State Department was also chiefly responsible, along with the White House, for describing the events surrounding the deadly attacks publicly.

In addition to the State Department, the FBI and the Justice Department also objected to the CIA’s inclusion of Ansar al-Sharia in the talking points because it could have harmed the nascent investigation, senior administration officials said Friday.

In a statement, Jen Psaki, the State Department’s chief spokesperson, said Friday that the department first reviewed the talking points on the evening of Sept. 14, two days before Rice delivered them on a series of talk shows. She said Nuland raised two concerns. “First that the points went further in assigning responsibility than preliminary assessments suggested and there was concern about preserving the integrity of the investigation,” Psaki said. “Second, that the points were inconsistent with the public language the administration had used to date — meaning members of Congress would be providing more guidance to the public than the administration.”

In November, both Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. and former CIA director David H. Petraeus briefed the intelligence committees about the talking points. After that testimony, DNI spokesman Shawn Turner told reporters that the intelligence community was solely responsible for “substantive” changes in the talking points.

A bipartisan report on Benghazi released by the Senate homeland security committee in December said that a senior CIA analyst had advocated including the al-Qaeda reference.

But Clapper, CIA, FBI and State Department counterterrorism officials told the committee that “changes characterizing the attacks as ‘demonstrations’ and removing references to al-Qaeda or its affiliates were made within the CIA and the” intelligence community.

“They also testified,” the Senate report said, “that no changes were made for political reasons, that there was no attempt to mislead the American people about what happened in Benghazi and that the only change made by the White House was to change a reference of ‘consulate’ to ‘mission.’ ”

Secretary of State John F. Kerry, who has been traveling outside the country this week, said Friday that Benghazi was a “tragedy. But I hate to see it turned into a pure, prolonged, political process that really doesn’t tell us anything new about the facts.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/pol...e2-b94c-b684dda07add_story_1.html
_________________
Bob

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
tsiya



Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 4017
Location: Cabbage Hammock

PostPosted: Mon May 13, 2013 1:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Judge Jeanine "Fact Blasts" Hillary & Obama Administration on Benghazi Attack - 5-11-13

http://youtu.be/urkBqOoL3n4

_________________
Bob

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bieramar



Joined: 19 Nov 2010
Posts: 4441
Location: Taylor Ranch, NM

PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2013 1:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The after the attack "talking points" back and forth between the CIA, Dept. of State and Congress is now of record in excruciating detail - turf wars, CYA, blame, etc.

Following is a detailed analysis of Obama's comments on the 9/11/12 attack on the Benghazi facilities, and the media's publication of them, from 9/12/12 until the election:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blo...11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.htmll
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
tsiya



Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 4017
Location: Cabbage Hammock

PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2013 5:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Desperation in the Benghazi Coverup


A congressional select committee could offer immunity to the CIA’s dispersed, intimidated survivors.

You can always tell the depth of an event’s illegality by the measures people take to cover it up. By that measure, the conduct of President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and David Petraeus leading up to the terrorist attack that killed four Americans on 9/11 2012 must be must be so sufficiently wrongful that, if revealed, they could lead to the president’s impeachment.

How else can we gauge what is apparently the most energetic coverup in modern history?  We know, from several sources, that the survivors of the attack — not on the consulate, but on the CIA annex — number a few dozen or more. We also know from those sources that almost all of their names have been concealed from Congress in the course of the coverup.

Those sources also reveal that the CIA has required those survivors to sign confidentiality agreements binding them to never disclose what they were doing in the days or months leading up to the 9/11-12 attack.  Keep in mind that good old Joe Wilson — the former ambassador sent to Niger by the CIA to “learn” what Iraq had done to acquire uranium — wasn’t required to sign any confidentiality agreement, hence his ability to become a Democratic political attack dog instantly after Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage leaked his wife’s CIA employment to reporter Robert Novak.

The Joe Wilson episode and the CIA requirement imposed on the Benghazi survivors is entirely consistent with the political conduct we’ve seen from the CIA in the past dozen years.

And it gets worse. Last week, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) disclosed that the CIA’s involvement in covering up the Benghazi scandal goes much further. He said that the CIA was not only requiring the Benghazi survivors to change their names, it is also spreading them around the country in a CIA version of a witness protection program. In this case, the witnesses are being protected from ever telling the truth to the media or testifying before Congress.
We now also know that the CIA’s Benghazi veterans are being required to submit to monthly polygraph tests to check on their behavior: they are being required to answer if they’ve leaked to Congress or the press every time they are polygraphed.  

Why is there such blatant intimidation of these people? We’ve all seen and heard the reports that the Benghazi CIA annex was the locus of a gun-running operation. If it was, the only likely recipients of the arms would be either the Syrian opposition — which is largely made up of al-Qaeda members and other Sunni jihadis — or the Turks who might have been serving as a pipeline for the arms to those same Syrian opposition guys.

In either case, the president — whose approval had to have been obtained for any such operations — would be directly implicated. He was either acting without congressional authority or in violation of laws on the books that are supposed to block those actions.
Either way Obama, Clinton, and Petraeus would be in the dock personally for having broken the law.

It would be enough to make Haldeman, Erlichman, Mitchell, and Dean green with envy. Except for the fact that nobody died in Watergate. And the fact that the other facts of the day don’t just call into question Obama’s Middle East policy: these facts demonstrate that this policy is quite bizarre.

In the past two weeks, there have been massive jailbreaks of al Qaeda members — some of them high-ranking leaders — in Iraq and Libya. In Pakistan, hundreds of Taliban jihadis, again including some Taliban leadership, escaped. There are probably about a thousand al Qaeda and Taliban thugs at large today who weren’t at large last month.

So it should come as no surprise that the State Department issued a travel advisory on Friday and  ordered our embassies in most Muslim countries closed yesterday. Al Qaeda isn’t, as Obama has told us again and again, decimated or out of action. The specific information that led to the warning and closure of 22 embassies is of a widespread al Qaeda threat that could target Americans in any of those countries on President Obama’s birthday. This is his birthday gift from the people who brought us the “Arab Spring.”

The president continues to insist that there is some bloom of democracy in the Middle East. Both he and Eric Holder have admonished the Egyptian military to include the Muslim Brotherhood in any interim government they might form. This would be, Obama and Holder insist, a more “inclusive” government for Egypt.
They obviously believe that the Muslim Brotherhood — for all its ties to terrorism, for all its doctrine of strict Sharia law — is a force for democracy rather than against it. Either they believe that, or Obama and Holder have made America into a force against freedom and democracy. At this point, there is ample reason to believe either interpretation of American policy.

As this is being written, there are no reports of any terrorist attacks on American embassies in the Middle East. But that’s just today. What does not come today may come tomorrow or the next day.

What will not come tomorrow or the next day is a change in Obama’s mind and American policy. Actually, that policy is changing and for the worse.
According to Obama’s Pentagon toadie, Chuckie Hagel, we are soon to end our drone program in Pakistan. That has always been a thorn in the side of the Pakistani government, which itself is most famous for collaborating to hide Osama bin Laden for about six years in Abbottabad. Why we should care that Pakistan disapproves is, to say the least, counter-intuitive.

But we should care that Pakistan will soon be drone-free. And, if things go as well in Afghanistan as they have in Iraq, Afghanistan will be as drone-free as Pakistan.

In the 2004 campaign, we scoffed at John Kerry’s proposal for a “terrorist overwatch” program in Afghanistan. Kerry said that we could stand off and strike when we needed to, killing terrorists at our leisure. That, of course, is too much for Obama.

He is much more concerned that the Benghazi coverup succeed than with the tiny issue of defeating al Qaeda and the rest of the Muslim terrorist groups. If the Republicans were courageous and wise, they’d establish the Benghazi select committee proposed by Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) soon after the attack.
Give it subpoena power, let it demand the testimony of the CIA’s Benghazi survivors, no matter what names they may now be living under. Grant them the power to immunize witnesses against criminal liability for prior acts. And then let the chips fall where they may.

But that would take courage, a part of which is the willingness to take political risk. Which, in the case of this House, is damned unlikely to do anything of the sort.


http://spectator.org/archives/201...5/desperation-in-the-benghazi-co/
_________________
Bob

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bieramar



Joined: 19 Nov 2010
Posts: 4441
Location: Taylor Ranch, NM

PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 1:43 pm    Post subject: Event vs. after action taking points on politics and coverup Reply with quote

Repeating my continuing opinion, I'm much more interested in the tactical confrontations - what happened and any corrective actions, including punishment of anyone at fault - than in the political crap and coverups. Both are needed, but the former is much more important for our future security.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politic...zi-book-fred-burton-samuel-m-katz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
tsiya



Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 4017
Location: Cabbage Hammock

PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 2:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not me, I want the evil bastards impeached, and hung!
_________________
Bob

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
tsiya



Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 4017
Location: Cabbage Hammock

PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2013 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Benghazi Was About 400 Surface-to-Air-Missiles Stolen by 'Some Very Ugly People,' DiGenova Says

Former U.S. Attorney Joe DiGenova, who now represents one of the Benghazi whistleblowers, told a Washington radio station Monday that the real scandal in Benghazi is the theft of 400 surface-to-air missiles by some "very ugly people." The Obama administration fears those missiles will be used to shoot down an airplane or blow up one of our embassies, he said.

Speaking to WMAL on Monday morning, DiGenova blasted President Obama for revealing, at his Friday news conference, the existence of a sealed indictment against a Benghazi suspect or suspects.

Then DiGenova added this bombshell:

"We had troops ready to deploy in Croatia to go (to Benghazi) that night of Sept. 11, 2012 to rescue Americans. We have learned that one of the reasons the administration is so deeply concerned -- we have been told there were 400 surface-to-air missiles stolen, and that they are on or about in the hands of many people, and that the biggest fear in the U.S. intelligence community is that one of these missiles will be used to shoot down an airliner."

DiGenvoa said the information came to him as a result of his legal representation of Benghazi whistleblower Mark Thompson.

"This information comes from former intelligence officials who stay in constant contact with people in the special ops and intelligence community. And it is pretty clear that the biggest concern right now are the 400 missiles which have been diverted in Libya and have gotten into the hands of some very ugly people. And they worried specifically, according to theses sources, about an attempt to shoot down an airliner."


DiGenova says he doesn't know if the missiles were physically at the CIA annex on the night of Sept. 12 -- "but it is clear that the annex was somehow involved in the process of the distribution of those missiles." The CIA annex in Benghazi apparently was gathering the Libyan missiles to be sent to an unknown destination.

Why did the Obama administration delay the entry of FBI investigators into Benghazi after four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed that night? DiGenova was asked.

"Because it happened before an election," he replied.

DiGenova said the theft of the missiles continues to have a ripple effect: "This is why we shut down the 19 embassies recently. They were afriad that there was going to be a missile attack on one of the embassies. Remember, you can take a shoulder held missile and shoot it into an embassy, not just into the sky.

"What happened is, the reason they lied, about -- in other words, remember the famous demonstration, and the phony video and all of that? That's what this was all about. That's why they're so worried. That's why they have lied repeatedly about what happened in Benghazi. Because they are now responsible for all of the stepchildren of violence that happens as a result of this. This is a very serious manner. And when you compound it with the flippancy of the president of the United States who talks about a sealed indictment to cover his fanny -- to make it look like he's doing something when in fact he has done nothing -- we have reached a level of cynicism on the part of this president that is staggering."

DiGenova says former U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice was sent out to lie on five Sunday talk shows, blaming the attack on an obscure anti-Muslim video, to cover up the real scandal involving the stolen missiles.

DiGenova said in revealing the existence of the indictment, the president "did jeopardize the lives of people who may be trying to find some people on the ground in Libya, and I assume that we do have somebody there trying to find some people, although with this president, you never know -- because as you know, he doesn't want to capture people, he wants to kill them, because if he captures them, he either has to try them -- which is very hard to do -- or put 'em in Gitmo, which he will not do."


http://www.cnsnews.com/news/artic...ays#sthash.PSvSGbIK.y1v0n8jD.dpuf


_________________
Bob

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> In the News National and International All times are GMT
Page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 17, 18, 19  Next
Page 18 of 19

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum