It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nancy Pelosi-> "Benghazi, Benghazi , Benghazi, Why Aren’t We Talking About Something Else?"

page: 6
35
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2014 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
There are reasonable questions that get steamrolled in the rush to crucify:

1. Where are we in finding the bastards that actually did this to our people? What are we doing? Do we have enough assets devoted to this effort? If not, why not?

2. What changes have been made to the protocols at State to do everything we can to make sure that this doesn't happen again?

3. Have we done everything we can to address security concerns at our other diplomatic sites around the world and if not, why not?

As Wrabbit has pointed out above and before, there were abysmal failures on the security preparations for the facility. These are 1) inexcusable and 2) must be learned from and prevented in the future.

BUT ...

The wailing and gnashing of teeth over the damned video? Susan Rice's talking points three days after it happened? The damned Rhodes memo which tells us exactly what we knew a year-and-a-half ago? The silly name calling directed at Pelosi, Clinton and the President? That's mere political rancor that's being ginned up by the Republican party via Issa's committee and the RW Media. Obviously, it's quite effective.

Not even in one of these threads do I see even 1% of this rage directed at the people who actually did the crime.

Not even a tenth of the time spent investigating this by Congress has seemingly been spent on making productive recommendations or providing greater security.

When I say this is politically motivated, that is the basis of my comment.

When I say this aids and abets our enemies, well, if we're going to tear ourselves apart like this ... what's to prevent them from continuing to attempt these relatively small-scale assaults on us?

The dividends it pays relative to the risks involved for them are astounding, the resources we've flushed down the rabbit hole (sorry Wrabbit) just on Issa's Committee alone are enormous. And what have we learned?

The Obama Administration prepped Susan Rice to appear on the Sunday morning news shows. They gave her talking points.

That's valuable intel right there boy. Worth every penny. Hoo-wee!

/eyerolls like slot machine


bs, dude.

security is a no-brainer.

what "learned from?" like when the ambassador tells you he needs more security and he's a sitting duck, then gets murdered when you ignore his requests?

that kind of learning?

"politically motivated?" that's all on obama and hillary. americans were killed, meh, maybe they all were dems and it's just more under the bus for the administration.

maybe the dems should invest some time into this too, ya know, many hands make short work.




posted on May, 3 2014 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

The Cover-Up started that night but it was still running as of last night.


Republicans call it a government cover-up similar to what forced Richard Nixon to resign. Democrats call it a right-wing conspiracy theory.


The fact that's even a fair question to debate in May of 2014, is a BIG problem. Now, this is about Obama with this area of it. After the events settled, it was administrative for handling, and unless we want to say Obama runs a ship as loose as a rowboat, then things aren't done in major ways that carry risk without him or his people giving some nod. He heads the Executive Branch. It's his job, after all. It's what he's supposed to be doing. Overseeing things. It's WHAT is being nodded to which I have a big problem with...


On Friday, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa announced that he subpoenaed Secretary of State John Kerry to testify at a May 21 hearing, alleging that the State Department failed to comply with an earlier subpoena for documents. Later, House Speaker John Boehner announced a special congressional committee led by a Republican colleague would investigate the matter.
Source

Okay, this document B.S. is the undoing of more politicians, and it needs to end. Congress and the Executive Branch are * E Q U A L * branches (maybe Washington can hear that emphasis.. Someone needs to communicate it to all of them). Executive doesn't get to say 'nawww.. don't feel like it'. Unless of course, Congress wants to be wimpy and let them, but those days are closing pretty quick and I'm getting a feeling, Obama may just BE the sacrificial lamb to blame by even his own side at some point. Survival of the party will be held above any one person, and if they get creamed in the Mid Terms, so will Obama for the next two years. There has been a real war in separation of powers, atop the obvious issue, and this, right here, is one of the key points it's resting on, IMO.

There are still games being played with witnesses who may just have something to say. (So many say everyone down to the janitor stuck in a closet on 9/11 MUST be heard ..and I agree...but that just doesn't carry to this and that too has been headliner material as it's happened, repeatedly).

The FBI spent a matter of hours. Not what they needed. Hours on site. Hell, by THAT TIME the U.S. very easily could have secured a couple blocks in a country not officially hostile to us in Government, within flight range of some of the most critical US bases in the region. Naww...nothing to see here. Move along now...hours to get the T-shirt saying they did show up. City cops spend longer on street killings than they spent at the scene of a total breakdown of a complex nature.

Additionally, the attackers themselves helpfully published many many photos the following morning. Full color ones...showing many many of them, in full frontal shots that are just studio perfect ID shots ..yet..HOW long did it take anyone to identify anyone?

One of the U.S. staffers that night texted out, as it was reported, he recognized consulate guards among the attackers. The U.S. State Department demanded a local militia be used for gate and perimeter security of a US consulate...while denying Diplomatic Security support, let alone Uniformed Marines similar to the Tripoli Embassy duty.

I want to know why, for the love of God, the STATE Department was ordering the use of a Militia from the local neighborhoods in safeguarding United States officials?? Especially after they did nothing to deter, let alone stop the outright bombing of the Consulate wall, a time before the night of the final attack? This is all in the docs which cover the period before and I believe you already have copies of.



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Maybe Nancy should be talking about the Benghazi survivors...



One of the most basic unanswered questions remaining after the horrific attack in Benghazi on Sept 11, 2012 surrounds the Americans who survived that night.

About three weeks after the terror attack, a father of one of the survivors, Rex Ubben, said “people understood ‘mistakes and lack of foresight do happen,’ but, ‘to attempt to delay or cover information up, upcoming election or no, might put other people’s lives at risk and fools no one.’”

Further, he said his son David “described the violence on Sept. 11 as ‘obviously an attack and not a riot.’” But few of the other survivors have been interviewed or identified. Where are they? There have been some little-noticed, but striking allegations made surrounding the Benghazi survivors.

The question remains: Where are the Benghazi survivors?




posted on May, 3 2014 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: tsingtao

The reasoning behind this varies, but the fact is that as of August 15, Ambassador Stevens twice turned down additional security as offered by General Ham, Africa Command. After receiving the written refusal, Ham called Stevens and additional security was again turned down by the Ambassador.

military.com

huffingtonpost.com

thehill.com


edit on 23Sat, 03 May 2014 23:29:23 -050014p112014566 by Gryphon66 because: Format

edit on 23Sat, 03 May 2014 23:29:52 -050014p112014566 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

I'm certainly not arguing for a second that there is not a lot of "weird stuff" leading up to the events of 9/11/12, not the least of which is Chris Stevens turning down additional security on the same day as a meeting in which the desperate nature of security at the Benghazi compound was discussed (August 15, 2012) as I just mentioned to tsingtao.

You did direct me to that info and those are excellent questions (and are included in the question I'd like answered above "What changes have been made to the protocols at State to do everything we can to make sure that this doesn't happen again?").

But, again, the only cover up I keep hearing about is that the Obama Administration knew it was a terrorist attack and yet called it an attack by rioters from September 12 - September 20 (when Jay Carney directly acknowledged the terrorist attack).

This idea of a "cover up" and "lies" are maintained even though the President directly referred to "acts of terror" when discussing the Benghazi attacks on Sept 12 and on Sept 13, and on September 14, Secretary Clinton mentioned "an act of ugly terror" when they met the bodies at Andrews. Susan Rice did the Sunday Shows on September 16 and presented the points that the CIA had prepared for her, and even though she didn't mention terrorism she did say "Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we'll have to determine."



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Wow ,how they protest,how they dodge,how stupid they are to believe we can't see the obvious BS.
edit on 3-5-2014 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 11:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tsingtao

The reasoning behind this varies, but the fact is that as of August 15, Ambassador Stevens twice turned down additional security as offered by General Ham, Africa Command. After receiving the written refusal, Ham called Stevens and additional security was again turned down by the Ambassador.

military.com

huffingtonpost.com

thehill.com



And the "reasons" for that could be he didn't want to jeopardize exposure of an arms transfer.

And he was probably not acting on his own either.

He was under orders from the White House/State Department IMO.




posted on May, 3 2014 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


This idea of a "cover up" and "lies" are maintained even though the President directly referred to "acts of terror" when discussing the Benghazi attacks on Sept 12 and on Sept 13, and on September 14, Secretary Clinton mentioned "an act of ugly terror" when they met the bodies at Andrews.


Actually they *indirectly referred* to "acts of terror".

And then why did they continue the Lie about the "video" ???

Some videos are in a post here... www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 11:40 PM
link   
quote

"Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) called the revelation “odd.”

“That is odd to me because Stevens requested from the State Department additional security four times, and there was an 18-person special forces security team headed by Lt. Col. Wood that Gen. Ham signed off on that the State Department said no to,” he told McClatchy."

unquote,,

So it was a Inter Branch Pissing Match???
u know cause its there secret, thier assets.

probably.





Read more: thehill.com...
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 12:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

Actually they *indirectly referred* to "acts of terror".



Obama, September 12, 2012: (Addressing the deaths in Benghazi, White House Rose Garden)

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

Obama, September 13, 2012: (Addressing Campaign Rally, Golden, Colorado)

"So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America."

Clinton, September 14, 2012: (Speaking at the Memorial Service at Andrews)

"The president of the Palestinian Authority who worked closely with Chris when he served in Jerusalem sent me a letter remembering his energy and integrity and deploring, and I quote, “an act of ugly terror.”"

Susan Rice, September 16, 2012 (Appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation")

"BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with him [Mohamed Magariaf] that al Qaeda had some part in this?

SUSAN RICE: Well, we'll have to find out that out. I mean I think it's clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we'll have to determine."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Xuenchen, These are responses of people who are at worst "hedging their bets" ... they for some reason obviously did not want to red-line the terrorist aspect early on ... but they didn't deny it, and they didn't lie about it. At least not in any reading I can give of the statements made.

Pretty direct references there.
edit on 0Sun, 04 May 2014 00:18:07 -050014p122014566 by Gryphon66 because: Section break.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

maybe the White House, thinks it was RUSSIA, behind the sudden orders too move insugents,on the Embassy.

which im sure the NSA has a copy of somewhere.
opps

"justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."
edit on 5/4/2014 by BobAthome because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 12:20 AM
link   
a reply to: BobAthome

u know Russia and Egypt used too be pretty buddy, buddy.
but that was long ago, in a land far away.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

There is another part to that September 16th statement. Here is what preceded that:


Sept. 16:
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice tells Bob Schieffer on CBS' "Face the Nation" that there is no information that suggests the attack was preplanned.

"We'll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions," Rice said. "But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy ... sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that -- in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that its pun from there into something much, much more violent. ... We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned."

and on security requests...


Oct. 5:
CBS News' Sharyl Attkisson reports Lt. Colonel Andy Wood, who headed the Site Security Team in Libya, said U.S. diplomatic personnel in Libya repeatedly requested increased security, but the State Department in Washington DC denied those requests.

Wood said his team and a six-member mobile security deployment team were pulled from Libya in August, and that two other MSD's also left between February and August.

CBS Timeline On Benghazi Response



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 03:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

1. Right. I haven't said anywhere along the line that the Administration didn't offer the rioters/video up as an explanation, merely, that the President, Clinton and Rice ALL simultaneously referenced acts of terror beginning on September 12, or, allowed for the possibility that al Qaeda or another such group was involved (Rice on the 16th).

2. Right. Wood and his team were pulled out by August. Check. August 15, Ambassador Stevens is offered additional security by General Ham after a meeting that discusses the sad state of security at the compound. Stevens refuses by wire. Ham calls Stevens and makes the offer again; Stevens refuses again.

Our musings are moot. There will be a Special Investigation. It's going to be all Benghazi all the time at least until after November.

The heck with Kerry and memos in the basement. Subpoena the President and be done with it.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


Our musings are moot. There will be a Special Investigation. It's going to be all Benghazi all the time at least until after November.


Good. There absolutely needs to be. We should never stand for that level of bad happening with the level of nonsense and crap that has followed this case. If you look at that CBS timeline I posted, it saves a lot of time in hunting down misc stuff, as they include full quotes and statements from people starting the day after and running to very recently.

The witnesses availability and intimidation reports have continued, as that indicates and links back to origins for, until recently.

Also.. Rice DID NOT "allow for Al Qaeda" on the 16th, and there is a video to go along with that statement that gives it proper context. She was asked and all but led into the question about Al Qaeda, when in reality, Al Qaeda itself was never part of this and they KNEW IT at that point. They had claims of responsibility from who did do it almost immediately.

Then, yeah, add those talking points showing she was directed into that line of remarks, with the emails backing, and the testimony supporting THAT..and we have a major problem of out right lies, deceit and the level of disinformation through SUBTLE manipulation I expect to see in war zones, overseas...not against US in our OWN nation.

I applaud and eagerly welcome special investigations. It's about time someone who isn't directly a party with everything to lose or gain by the outcome isn't the one directing the investigation. That USED to be absurd to even suggest....now we're suggested as absurd to question it being done.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 06:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

(respectfully snipped)

It's going to be all Benghazi all the time at least until after November.



As it should be; especially, considering that if it weren't for the upcoming 2012 election, we probably wouldn't be discussing it now! Let it be an issue all the way up to, and including, the next election!

It absolutely should be an election issue, now! The White House made it an ELECTION ISSUE!

The WH didn't want to deal with it then, so let them deal with it now (now, that it is so much bigger an issue)!
edit on 4-5-2014 by SourGrapes because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-5-2014 by SourGrapes because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 06:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66



Pretty direct references there.


On "paper".

But the videos make a different interpretation.

The "body" language, the "emphasis".



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

As much as Ms. Pelosi or any other politician may wish or desire that the Benghazi story somehow dies..., or find the Benghazi story to be in some way annoying and inconvenient...,this Benghazi story is Not going away until the following questions are answered by President Obama and the Administration to the complete satisfaction of the American People.

1. What did President Obama know?
2. When did the President know it?
3. What orders did the President give?
4. What orders did the President Not give?
5. What was the President's rationale for said orders or no orders?
6. Was the narrative given to the American People truthful and completely consistent with what the President and The White House told the American People?
7. Did the 2012 Presidential Election have any influence on what the President did or did not order?
8. Did the 2012 Presidential election influence what was told or not told to the American People?
9. Was the narrative told to the American People based on facts as they knew them at the time?
9. Were the American People given a false narrative as to what really happened?
10. Was there a cover-up of Truth, Reality and Facts?

What makes this story and subsequent cover-up different than other cover-ups (i.e. Nixon) is quite profound...
4 Americans died that day, and that is what makes getting answers and getting to the truth paramount to anything else.

Somebody made decisions, and mistakes, and that somebody must be held responsible and accountable for their actions, inactions, and decisions.
edit on 4-5-2014 by rickynews because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Not one additional fact has been presented here that belies the claim that the continuing Benghazi frenzy is anything more than dirty partisan politics.

More government is just fine and dandy as long as it's more Republican government? Suddenly, these Congressional Republicans are trustworthy and only have the best interests of the American people at heart? They're only looking for the truth after all, right?

Yeah ... no.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
You make a very good point here.
There are next to zero politicians in WashingtonDC that have our best interests at heart.
But who would we have do the investigation?
Eric Holder?


edit on bu312014-05-04T12:20:23-05:0012America/ChicagoSun, 04 May 2014 12:20:23 -050012u14 by butcherguy because: spelling



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join