ADMINISTRATIVE COUP: Did Someone in the Intelligence and Defense Community Vote Early on 9/11/2012?

page: 1
6

log in

join

posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   
First, let me say I don't actually believe this.....yet.


But since this is a conspiracy board and I'm posting this in Skunk Works, I thought it would be interesting to have a discussion about the possibilities.


Let's begin with this:




Intelligence and Special Operations forces are furious and frustrated at how President Obama and those in positions of authority have exploited their service for political advantage. Countless leaks, interviews and decisions by the Obama Administration and other government officials have undermined the success of our Intelligence and Special Operations forces and put future missions and personnel at risk.

The unwarranted and dangerous public disclosure of Special Forces Operations is so serious -- that for the first time ever -- former operators have agreed to risk their reputations and go 'on the record' in a special documentary titled "Dishonorable Disclosures." Its goal is to educate America about serious breaches of security and prevent them from ever happening again.





I could spend the next several hours posting how caustic the relationship is between Obama and the defense and intelligence community.

In fact, the more I consider this issue, the more serious it plainly appears.

Read, for example, this description:




Obama’s power grab at the Pentagon

President Barack Obama’s decision last week to cut the defense budget by $487 billion over the next 10 years was met with cries of derision from his critics (“inexcusable,” said GOP front-runner Mitt Romney) and shrugs of acceptance from his supporters. The reduction’s two headlines: 1. One hundred thousand troops are being chopped from the Marine Corps and Army; 2. The entire U.S. foreign policy focus will begin to shift from the Near East to the Far East (anxieties about China having replaced—or at least settled alongside—our permanently ingrained fears of Middle Eastern terror). The cuts themselves, though, are less significant as fiscal policy than as a statement about President Obama’s relationship with the Pentagon: Barack is taking it over.

That President Obama wasn’t really in charge of the Defense Department might come as something of a shock. He is, after all, the commander in chief. But considering the size of the nation’s defense apparatus, it shouldn’t. The Pentagon has become the 51st state—America’s largest bureaucracy, employing three times more people than the population of Vermont and Wyoming combined. Its capital is the Five-Sided Puzzle Palace, as my journalist friends fondly call it, where 23,000 work daily. Its other residents are the 3.2 million military, intelligence and civilian personnel who live inside its borderless confines around the globe. And since the attacks of September 11th, the influence of the Pentagon’s constituency has grown exponentially, its budget increasing from $295 billion to $549 billion, sucking up some 54 percent of federal tax dollars.

...

The Pentagon’s unprecedented power and influence turned it into a fierce rival of the White House. And so when President Obama crossed the Potomac last Friday Thursday, he was on a mission to reclaim enemy territory. In an unusual move, he made the budget announcement from within the Pentagon itself. It was something of a triumph that he chose to do it there. Upon arriving in Washington three years ago, Obama had a very different reception from the brass. The building was populated by Republicans. The last three defense secretaries had been with the GOP, and the rank and file were still supporters of the previous administration. They were heavily invested in the Iraq War—a war Obama had called “dumb.” At one of his first meetings in the Pentagon in January 2009, as I recount in my new book The Operators, he met General Stanley McChrystal, who would later confide to his staff that Obama appeared “uncomfortable.” A senior official at the meeting described the president as “intimidated by the crowd.” Months after the meeting, the Pentagon’s leadership would take advantage of this perceived weakness, pushing the president to escalate the war in Afghanistan and tripling the scope of the conflict.

The tension between the president and his generals reached its climax in June 2010 in the weeks after I published a Rolling Stone story exposing the contempt the military leadership had for their civilian counterparts. The president fired McChrystal and replaced him with General David Petraeus (tying Petraeus to the fate of the doomed mission, an association that Petraeus had wanted to avoid, according to McChrystal). Within the next year, Defense Secretary Robert Gates would retire as well (but not before Obama twice overruled his advice—on Libya and the Bin Laden raid) and was replaced by Democratic ally Leon Panetta. Petraeus came home from Kabul in June 2011, and was quickly defrocked and installed at the CIA (preventing the popular general’s potential and oft-rumored run for the presidency, another outcome the White House wanted to avoid). When Petraeus pushed to move troops to eastern Afghanistan, rather than bringing them home, Obama overruled him, prompting General John Allen (the man there now) to admit the president was no longer following the military’s advice. Either by accident or by design, the young president had neutered his formidable opposition. The celebrity generals were gone, a friendly Defense Secretary was in and a string of what were perceived as foreign policy successes had been accomplished.

There were other signs of the president’s new confidence. Tucked into Obama’s defense strategy—which he unveiled the same day as the cuts–was another not-so-subtle rebuke of the military’s much beloved counterinsurgency doctrine, which accounted for much of the $1.2 trillion poured into Iraq and Afghanistan. The new defense strategy called for “limited counterinsurgency”—a concept akin to being “slightly pregnant,” as Wired’s Spencer Ackerman observed. Keeping a reduced counterinsurgency initiative was a sop to the brass who had built their careers on the past decade of war, but not a convincing one. It was a stronger signal that the true lesson of the past decade was to not get involved in nation building debacles. “For the Army’s four stars to suggest Americans should treat the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan as a rich source of lessons for future war is tantamount to insisting the 1915 Gallipoli Campaign or the 1920 Sunday shoot-up of Irish civilians by British Soldiers at Croke Park in Dublin were successes,” retired Colonel Douglas Macgregor told me in an email. “A smaller defense budget is not only inevitable; it’s a national economic necessity.” There’s even a possibility that President Obama might double the size of the cuts, taking out a total of $1 trillion. It seems he’s no longer intimidated by the crowd.

Now that the White House has the political power to control its military moves, the question is: Can the administration pull it off in 2012 and beyond?



Maybe the answer is no....


So now we come to the Bengazi situation, arriving as an early October Surprise on September 11, 2012...

Most puzzling is the reason why Obama and his administration peddled the YouTube and spontaneous demonstration story from the very start, and then for more than two weeks afterwards???

So let's look at this carefully:




What They Said, Before and After the Attack in Libya


Tuesday, about 6 a.m., before the attack in Benghazi (all times Eastern)
Statement From the U.S. Embassy in Cairo

The embassy released this statement, apparently referring to a provocative anti-Islam video, in an effort to cool tensions in the area. The statement came before protests on the American embassy in Cairo and the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi.



The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.


The attack in Benghazi occurred in the evening on Tuesday, Libya time — about midafternoon on the East Coast in the United States.

Tuesday, about 6:30 p.m.
In Twitter Message, U.S. Embassy Stands by Statement

The American embassy in Cairo sends a message on Twitter that it "still stands" by their initial statement. The message was later deleted.



This morning's condemnation (issued before protest began) still stands. As does our condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy


Tuesday, 10:08 p.m.
Clinton Confirms Death of One American in Libya

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton initially announced that one American had been killed in the attack in Libya.



I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today. As we work to secure our personnel and facilities, we have confirmed that one of our State Department officers was killed. We are heartbroken by this terrible loss. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and those who have suffered in this attack.

This evening, I called Libyan President Magariaf to coordinate additional support to protect Americans in Libya. President Magariaf expressed his condemnation and condolences and pledged his government’s full cooperation.

Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.

In light of the events of today, the United States government is working with partner countries around the world to protect our personnel, our missions, and American citizens worldwide.


Tuesday, 10:10 p.m.
Politico Reports Obama Administration Disavows Embassy Statement

Politico cites an "administration official", who said:



The statement by Embassy Cairo was not cleared by Washington and does not reflect the views of the United States government.


Tuesday, 10:24 p.m.
Romney Criticizes Administration's Response

Romney's comment, apparently referring to the embassy statement, was sent to The New York Times about 10:10 p.m., originally embargoed until midnight. The embargo was lifted at 10:24 p.m.



I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.


Wednesday, 12:09 a.m.
Obama Spokesman Responds to Romney's Statement

Statement from Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, in an email to reporters.



We are shocked that, at a time when the United States of America isconfronting the tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya,Governor Romney would choose to launch a political attack.



Wednesday, 7:22 a.m.
President Confirms Death of the Ambassador and Three Others

President Obama released this statement, and also held a press conference Wednesday morning. Mrs. Clinton made a separate televised statement.



I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America's commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.

I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.

...




Hang with me on this one....There's more to consider...

Obama said during the second Presidential Debate:




“So as soon as we found out that the Benghazi Consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team, and I gave them three instructions. Number one, beef up our security and — and — and procedures not just in Libya but every embassy and consulate in the region. Number two, investigate exactly what happened, regardless of where the facts lead us, to make sure that folks are held accountable and it doesn’t happen again. And number three, we are going to find out who did this, and we are going to hunt them down, because one of the things that I’ve said throughout my presidency is when folks mess with Americans, we go after them”



Of course, it now appears none of this is true. As one commentator put it:



So there was no actual meeting of the National Security Council at which everyone could share information and get on the same page? (David Axelrod has refused to say.) It doesn’t sound like it.

www.washingtonpost.com...




Moreover, we now know CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say



www.foxnews.com

Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that three urgent requests from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. Consulate and subsequent attack nearly seven hours later were denied by officials in the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

Former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were part of a small team who were at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. Consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When they heard the shots fired, they radioed to inform their higher-ups to tell them what they were hearing. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. An hour later, they called again to headquarters and were again told to "stand down."


Now, really think about that!!!


This starts to smell like someone in the CIA WANTED these attacks to succeed.


So maybe the reason Obama and others within his administration seemed so clueless is because they WERE clueless about what was happening. Someone may have not only been keeping the president in the dark, they may have actively engaged in deceiving the president with conflicting information!

Remember this from above:



Tuesday, about 6 a.m., before the attack in Benghazi (all times Eastern)
Statement From the U.S. Embassy in Cairo

The embassy released this statement, apparently referring to a provocative anti-Islam video, in an effort to cool tensions in the area. The statement came before protests on the American embassy in Cairo and the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi.



The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.



And:



The attack in Benghazi occurred in the evening on Tuesday, Libya time — about midafternoon on the East Coast in the United States.

Tuesday, about 6:30 p.m.
In Twitter Message, U.S. Embassy Stands by Statement

The American embassy in Cairo sends a message on Twitter that it "still stands" by their initial statement. The message was later deleted.



This morning's condemnation (issued before protest began) still stands. As does our condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy



Then remember what later happened:



Tuesday, 10:10 p.m.
Politico Reports Obama Administration Disavows Embassy Statement

Politico cites an "administration official", who said:



The statement by Embassy Cairo was not cleared by Washington and does not reflect the views of the United States government.



Interesting denial, wouldn't you say???

I could go on, but you get the point...

Looks like someone, or some people, in the intelligence and defense communities wanted to PUSH Obama out of a chance for a second term.


What do you all have under your tinfoil hats???


edit on 26-10-2012 by loam because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Sounds plausible.....emmm nope.

The president said he told the security staff those 3 things. All which were false. So he lied to the country.. in a national debate. He is part of this mess.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by LeoStarchild
 


Oh, I agree he lied. Absolutely. No question.

But perhaps the lies and cover-up were meant to hide the fact that Obama lost control of the military/intelligence apparatus.


What could be more damning than that for a re-election weeks away?


Spooky thought.
edit on 26-10-2012 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Btw, I'll post this interesting report:

edit on 26-10-2012 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by LeoStarchild
 


Oh, I agree he lied. Absolutely. No question.

But perhaps the lies and cover-up were meant to hide the fact that Obama lost control of the military/intelligence apparatus.


What could be more damning than that for a re-election weeks away?


Spooky thought.
edit on 26-10-2012 by loam because: (no reason given)


I dont think its spooky .. if he did lose control, all that means is hes gone. Prepare for a Romney presidency.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by LeoStarchild
 


Well, notwithstanding my general opposition to Obama and crew, I don't think it's healthy to approve of the military or intelligence community taking matters into their own hands.


Regardless of who is in the WH, that possibility should strike real fear in the hearts of every American.
edit on 27-10-2012 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by LeoStarchild
 


Well, notwithstanding my general opposition to Obama and crew, I don't think it's healthy to approve of the military or intelligence community taking matters into their own hands.


Regardless of who is in the WH, that possibility should strike real fear in the hearts of every American.
edit on 27-10-2012 by loam because: (no reason given)


They are Oath keepers and to defend the constitution from foreign or domestic enemy's, regardless who that/those person(s) shall be.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by LeoStarchild
 


Well, notwithstanding my general opposition to Obama and crew, I don't think it's healthy to approve of the military or intelligence community taking matters into their own hands.


Regardless of who is in the WH, that possibility should strike real fear in the hearts of every American.
edit on 27-10-2012 by loam because: (no reason given)


I only say that because hey.. Obama has no clue what hes doing. They should have said F it and sent people in, considering Lord Obama said no. Hes an amateur and they know it. This is why he is the true scapegoat in this matter.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by mytheroy
They are Oath keepers and to defend the constitution from foreign or domestic enemy's, regardless who that/those person(s) shall be.


But execution of that charge requires that it be conducted in the light of day. Otherwise we are no different than any other Banana Republic in history.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by LeoStarchild
 



Originally posted by LeoStarchild
...Lord Obama said no....


It's not exactly clear he was the one who said 'no' yet. But clearly someone with authority did who claimed it was on his behalf.

Back to my theory...He got clocked from within.





Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus

Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”

So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.

It would have been a presidential decision. There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and why—and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations—did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?



Speaking of Petraeus, you might want to look at the relationship he's had with the President.

It was even rumored that Romeny would select him as his running mate.

Just Google "Obama" and "Petraeus" and look at the interesting press stories covering their conflicts over the past two years.

More food for thought.
edit on 27-10-2012 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 12:44 AM
link   
487 biion over ten years is not that much.

48.7 billion a year in reductions? We are spending almost a trillion a year.

Sorry folks but the Pentagon does run this country.

As conspiracy theorists i would expect each and every one of you to know this.

The military industrial complex runs the show. Why do you think that we are spending a trillion a year on the first place.

We are spending way too much on "security".

I think that 10 percent of that should be split up amongst the states for road repair.

Another 10 percent for other infrastructure projects. Every year for the rest of the years. Jobs would be transformed from military to infrastructure. A nice little trickle down effect would take place. Money going into the hands of Americans. Not foreign foreigners.

But that will not happen. Unless the Pres wants to go down in history like JFK.

edit on 27-10-2012 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by mytheroy
They are Oath keepers and to defend the constitution from foreign or domestic enemy's, regardless who that/those person(s) shall be.


But execution of that charge requires that it be conducted in the light of day. Otherwise we are no different than any other Banana Republic in history.


I give ya that....but since when do they play fair?



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 04:31 AM
link   
There is a dark war inside the apparatus of the US Intelligence. Two or more factions...

But they are only puppets. Is interesting to know who are the Masters and why this war....
S&F loam.





new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join