MUST WATCH: Retired Lt. Col. and Special Operations Planner for 15 years, Obama ordered no response.

reply to post by PaperbackWriter

It has been covered in the MSM (other than Fox!) and it has been found in testimony by the Secretary of Defense.

Try this post, and if you have time, read the thread

ETA it....CBS News

Two and a half hours after the attack began, an unarmed predator drone was diverted from a surveillance mission over another part of Libya to the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. That, plus a second unarmed drone dispatched four hours and 15 minutes later, were the only U.S. military forces sent to the scene of the attack. Commandos were dispatched from Europe to an air field in Sigonella, Sicily, but by the time they got there the attack in Benghazi was over.

If you will not believe anything that any news organization says, oh well. Some of us at least want to find out what we can about this disaster.

News channels are starting to tell the story. GMA and Face the Nation are telling both sides and allowing for both side to speak on Benghazi. This is big. Now I hope some won't discredit GMA and Face the Nation. I havent watched these shows in a long time and am surprised at what I am seeing. The Iowa paper came out in support of Mitt Romney, something they havent done in what, 40 years?
What do you all think.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by PaperbackWriter

 

It was officially described as a 'mission' that we had there.

Regardless of the terminology, it was attacked, flash messages went out from there alerting important US govt departments that the attack was occurring and our Ambassador along with three others were killed by terrorists.

Oh yeah, important to remember, the US govt diverted a drone to the area to watch the attack in real time, then relieved the drone with another when the first was low on fuel. Other than that, they did nothing.

edit on 28-10-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

Yes, it was attacked, but if it wasn't a real consulate, but essentially a CIA base, that would put a whole new complexion on the issue. Given the way that information on this whole matter is still so murky, it wouldn't surprise me if this were the case.

If this was, indeed, just some CIA gun-running clown show, then there is going to be a lot less sympathy for the victims, as it will be understood that these were casualties of war -- gun-running spooks to be precise. It may still be portrayed by some as incompetence on the Obama administration, but more to the point, it will just show what business-as-usual US foreign policy is: handing out weapons to groups of dubious agendas. Clearly we handed out weapons to folks in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as money. We hand out weapons to Israel and Egypt too. This has been going on for decades; it is not like Obama has started something new here, but of course the right-wingers will attempt to make hay of this particular case because they really don't like Obama for some reason (hint: Col. Wilkerson called it out recently).

reply to post by butcherguy


Its happening ButcherGuy. Everyone is starting to cover it and not only one sided. Going to turn on MSNBC, ugh, and see what they have to say

Gonna watch abc now. Will let you know how it is covered.

Originally posted by PaperbackWriter
It probably won't matter or get traction on this thread either if I post this link.

www.democraticunderground.com...

Third times the charm?

If there was no consulate in Benghazi, then what?
Could it be it was only a storefront CIA post>
Former Navy Seals usually get hired as mercenaries to places like Libya to protect American
Oil interests.

This whole Benghazi story is being spun by both parties for political gain.
If not invented out of whole cloth in the first place as media propaganda to insure we
maintain control of Libya.

Well, I defiantly agree with you last point. I think it's likely this whole issue will just be dropped if Romney wins as it will no longer be needed.

Now, as for your information-Interesting. I thought they are reopened the consulate though?

Actually Stevens was playing CIA agent in Benghazi, just like he did a year ago when he organized militants to bring Gaddafi down. Their relationship was different this time. Stevens was in Benghazi arranging for an arms shipment to Turkey. While Stevens was in Benghazi the ship Intisaar´(victory), with 400 tons of cargo which included ´SAM-7 surface-to air anti aircraft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades (RPG`s), sailed from Benghazi to Iskenderun, Hatay province, Turkey, a stone’s throw from Syria.

My problem with all of this is we are just getting rumors and unverified information but, this would not surprise me as both candidates openly discussed arming Syrian rebels during the last debate. The question is: Would the CIA abandon them there to hide their arms deal? Turkish diplomats were being hosted in Libya at this time as well which would lead some credence to the idea there was an arms deal going down. the other rumored story actually says the CIA denied the help request through their chain of command. If that is true, Why did they essentially liquidate their personal? Everyone is so focused on Obama here they have forgotten the CIA is accused of everything from killing Kennedy to selling dope. If there is a conspiracy to be had here it's with the CIA.

The always colorful Webster Tarpley has a different take and since this is a conspiracy site we might as well hear it. His contention is that the CIA allowed this to happen to "carterize" Obama as the ruling elite have gotten behind Romney and hide their arms dealing. I don't know about all that, there is a rumor Romney was at the Bilderberg meeting. This claim hasn't been confirmed or denied, however, I tend to think it's false as he was on the west coast beforehand. That would be an 11 hour trip, he wouldn't have much time to do anything there.

Watching Stephanie Cutter. She's a stinker. LOL

Originally posted by loam

From day one, my own sources have asserted as much.

Well, worth listening to....

sorry, rush has no credibility to me...he's a drug addict, and a hypocrite...been married 3 times, divorced 3 times, but somehow knows women, couldn't care less about the middle class or poor people. can't formulate or defend a position when confronted in person with intelligent criticism. he's a radio jockey who gets entirely too much praise, ala howard stern. he's red meat for simple minds

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by PaperbackWriter

 

It has been covered in the MSM (other than Fox!) and it has been found in testimony by the Secretary of Defense.

Try this post, and if you have time, read the thread

ETA it....CBS News

Two and a half hours after the attack began, an unarmed predator drone was diverted from a surveillance mission over another part of Libya to the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. That, plus a second unarmed drone dispatched four hours and 15 minutes later, were the only U.S. military forces sent to the scene of the attack. Commandos were dispatched from Europe to an air field in Sigonella, Sicily, but by the time they got there the attack in Benghazi was over.

If you will not believe anything that any news organization says, oh well. Some of us at least want to find out what we can about this disaster.

edit on 28-10-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

hey, c'mon...this post is all about making obama look bad...don't go off the script....gees,...what's wrong with you?

reply to post by MrInquisitive

Yes, it was attacked, but if it wasn't a real consulate, but essentially a CIA base, that would put a whole new complexion on the issue. Given the way that information on this whole matter is still so murky, it wouldn't surprise me if this were the case.

Do you realize that there are CIA personnel at every embassy that we have?

So should we handle all terrorist attacks on our embassies this way? Since they all have CIA operatives in them?

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by MrInquisitive

 

. And the Rush corroborates his story because, of course, talk show hosts addicted to Oxycotin also know all the ins and outs of Pentagon and WH security protocols. Very compelling stuff.

I don't see a link supporting that Rush is still addicted to Oxycontin.

I guess it would be just as fair to say that President Obama still uses coc aine?

Once an addict, always an addict. Obama may have used coc aine, but non one has ever claimed he was addicted to it or had a big problem with it. The same can't be said for Rush Limbaugh, who should have been arrested for his criminal use of this prescription drug, and should now be serving time instead of miss-using the nation's airwaves.

I'll just add that there is no evidence or suggestion that Obama has a coc aine problem. Unlike our former dry-drunk president George W. Bush, who "choked on a pretzel" and may well have been still using coc aine as well, because he had a history of doing that as well. He certainly acted like he was all coked up at times, including having glassy eyes. I have never seen Obama appear like he was high. Rush Limbaugh, on the other hand, used to look like a drugged-up, bloviating sweaty pig when he was strung-out on Oxycotin and he still does, so if the shoe fits...

But how about addressing the fact that this whole thread is based on a call to a talk show, with no verification of the authenticity of the claims of the caller? The oxycotin descriptor was just gravy on top.

reply to post by jimmyx

hey, c'mon...this post is all about making obama look bad...don't go off the script....

No one needs to make him look bad.
He has that all covered on his own.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by MrInquisitive

 

Do you realize that there are CIA personnel at every embassy that we have?

So should we handle all terrorist attacks on our embassies this way? Since they all have CIA operatives in them?

That is not what was said. The argument is there was no consulate in that city and this was not an official State department post.

Originally posted by Swills
reply to post by MrInquisitive

 

Apparently it's not because the post has not been removed.

And as I've already said I can verify the Lt. Col knows exactly what he is talking about and that's becauses I too worked in military intellgence.

There are plenty of posts/threads that don't abide by the providing a summary of linked video that never get removed. Some get a little notice within them by a moderator. Given this post is fairly new, I am not surprised that it hasn't received one yet. And given the number of threads, I won't be surprised if this is never caught. My point is that good thread-posting form is to provide a short synopsis of any video link. Are you seriously challenging this point?

As for your claim that you were in military intellgence [sic], that would seem to be an unsubstantiated claim too. A guy/gal on ATS -- or anywhere else anonymously on the internet -- claiming to have been in military intelligence is no more compelling evidence than a caller to a radio/cable/internet talk show.

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by TheLieWeLive

 

This happens to be a video where Rush isn't relevant at all. The most important points are made by the caller.

The thread title explains what the caller has to say. But most important are the details of why he believes this is true.

I understand now you can't see the video, but I strongly suggest you get to a place where you can watch it. In my opinion, it's that important.

SO in other words he wasn't there and didn't really know anything but we are supposed to waste time listening to what he thinks happened. That would be like listening to Todd Akin teach sexual education.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by MrInquisitive

 

Yes, it was attacked, but if it wasn't a real consulate, but essentially a CIA base, that would put a whole new complexion on the issue. Given the way that information on this whole matter is still so murky, it wouldn't surprise me if this were the case.

Do you realize that there are CIA personnel at every embassy that we have?

So should we handle all terrorist attacks on our embassies this way? Since they all have CIA operatives in them?

Yes, I figure CIA personnel are at most or all US emabssies. Do you realize that this was not an embassy, but a consulate? Now there are reports that this was only a "diplomatic mission" (as in a place), not even a consulate.

So this wasn't an embassy. Likely it was some kind of CIA base. It is still not clear just how it was protected anyhow. But my point is that if it turns out that this "State Dept. facility" was no more than a CIA base for moving weapons to groups in Libya and/or Syria, then the amount of indignation about some CIA folks getting caught with their pants down will be diminished in comparison. And it will also show how the US is essentially the weapons dealer of the world, doling them out to dodgy proxy groups throughout the world. This would not look good in general, although I have no doubt that the right-wing noise machine will attempt to make it look like it is only the policy of our commie-pinko/Islamofascist/socialist/anti-colonialist/America-hating, African-American, Democratic president.

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by MrInquisitive

 

Do you realize that there are CIA personnel at every embassy that we have?

So should we handle all terrorist attacks on our embassies this way? Since they all have CIA operatives in them?

That is not what was said. The argument is there was no consulate in that city and this was not an official State department post.

But State Department personnel lived and worked at this US mission?

Sounds like the State Department has a little issue with where they have their people living and working. Or maybe with their terminology.

reply to post by MrInquisitive

Yes, I am aware of what they are calling it now.

Anyone think that maybe the administration decided to stop referring to it as a consulate for a reason.
It took them two weeks to 'figure out' that there wasn't a demonstration there and that the attack wasn't because of a video.

Originally posted by butcherguy


Sounds like the State Department has a little issue with where they have their people living and working. Or maybe with their terminology.

Stevens was CIA before working for the SoS, he was surrounded by CIA, even the people who attacked them can be connected to the CIA. You aren't getting the angle the poster was showing-The contention is that it wasn't a SoS mission post at all. He is saying it was a CIA arms running mission and this would explain why they did not aid them.

Anyone think that maybe the administration decided to stop referring to it as a consulate for a reason.

No, the point is it never was a consulate nor was it called one before this.

Originally posted by rollsthepaul
Benghazi was payback time for Stevens, who procured the 9 Megaton nuclear bomb, that was detonated on the ocean floor March 11, 2011, near Japan. Stevens was no ambassador but rather a gunrunner for the CIA. It appears that Obama was told that Stevens was going to be taken out and so he ordered his people to stand down. I believe Hillary was as much the mark as Stevens because she took the fall for Obama's decision. It is no wonder she is resigning as SOS. She plans to become president in 2016 and needs no more roles as scapegoat, before then.

You really need to provide a facetiousness alert when making posts like this. Some people don't get sarcasm. And if you're not being facetious, then man, oh man!

For the record, I can buy the CIA gun-running stuff, but the rest is...uh...a bit much to swallow.