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

Originally posted by butcherguy

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.

yes...state dept. personal leave their bunkered embassies all the time, all around the world...that's what they do. the people that did this are part of a movement that DO NOT WANT PEACE, they want instability and fear....period.

Originally posted by MrInquisitive

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.

Oh, tbh, I thought you were talking about my 2nd post being to short and what not, not the OP. I would agree that ATS does require a short summary about any video posted but in this case the OP felt his title was his summary. As far as this thread being overlooked I can assure it hasn't and the Mods have definitely read it. So they choose to take no action.

And I don't claim I was in military intelligence I was in military intelligence from September 2001 - October 2005. Yes, this is the internet where anyone can be anything but if you paid attention to any of my posts in this thread it would be clear I have an understanding of the intel world. I could post my DD 214 which states my rate in the USN, CTO, but I'm not about to post my personal information to prove you wrong.

So are you brushing aside everything the caller stated in the Rush video totally ignoring all the important and very detailed information?

reply to post by antonia

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

You should touch base with a whole lot of news organizations about this. Like CNN, NPR, CBS, NBC..... They have been and some still are calling it a consulate. Stupid journalists don't know how to do their homework, I guess.

Originally posted by butcherguy

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.

Yeah, State Department ex-seals apparently worked and "lived" there. And yes, I am quite aware that CIA personnel go to other countries under the rubric of the State Dept. But this post of yours has me wondering what your point is.

A poster to this thread brought this angle up, suggesting the possibility that this S.D. station was in fact just a CIA base with a S.D. cover, and that this base was essentially running guns to various M.E. militant groups in Libya, Syria and possibly elsewhere. This would possibly explain the low security, the possible lack of quick response and the continued murkiness in the details of this whole matter. And frankly, this is the most reasonable explanation I have read/heard anywhere on this matter so far.

Anybody remember the CIA arrested in Pakistan, who killed a couple of Pakistan Intel. agents? The WH was rather unforthcoming in how it handled that incident too, and retro-actively gave the guy diplomatic status.

Originally posted by jimmyx

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

If you listened to the video you would understand real quick it's not about Rush but about the caller and his insider information that neither you or Rush were or are privy too until now.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by antonia

 

Stupid journalists don't know how to do their homework, I guess.

No, they don't I won't argue with that. The State department listed no consulate in that city and this would explain the lack of security. They may be calling it that to cover the gun running op.

Originally posted by KeliOnyx

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.

No, in other words the Caller is telling you how the system of communication works and that it is impossible for the POTUS and Washington DC to claim they didn't know about the attack when it was happening in real time. There is a system in already in place to for urgent message/intelligence to be sent and received. During the seven hour battle there was most definitely a call for help from those who were on the ground (the deceased CIA agents) during the fight but it was ignored and or denied.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by antonia

 

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

You should touch base with a whole lot of news organizations about this. Like CNN, NPR, CBS, NBC..... They have been and some still are calling it a consulate. Stupid journalists don't know how to do their homework, I guess.

Stupid/lazy/in-the-pocket-of-government journalists having been doing this same thing for a long time, since at least the Gulf of Tonkin incident, but it has gotten worse since the Reagan administration.

They're not protecting Obama because he is the left's darling. They are protecting the sausage factory that is and has been US foreign policy for the past couple of centuries -- but which has gotten ever more heinous since WWII.

Originally posted by jimmyx

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

All of your points are blatantly false - RL is an American hero........and guess what? When its all over soon for BHO guess who gets much of the credit for bringing a traitor and a dictator to his knees..........you got it - the inimitable

Rush Limbaugh - the "Voice of America"

reply to post by Vitruvian

All of your points are blatantly false - RL is an American hero........and guess what? When its all over soon for BHO guess who gets much of the credit for bringing a traitor and a dictator to his knees..........you got it - the inimitable
Rush Limbaugh - the "Voice of America"

Really this is your American hero? You can do so much better.

Originally posted by antonia

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.

edit on 28-10-2012 by antonia because: added a thought

edit on 28-10-2012 by antonia because: opps

I'm pretty sure it was and still is a consulate. The actual US Embassy is located in Tripoli but there are usually branches of said consulate spread out through a country to provide better support to citizens. The US Embassy in Tripoli was small to begin with and fairly new.

The U.S. Embassy in Tripoli

On May 31, 2006 the United States of America and Libya exchanged diplomatic notes confirming the upgrade of the U.S. Liaison Office in Tripoli to a U.S. Embassy. This exchange of notes follows upon Secretary Rice's announcement and report to Congress on May 15 of her intent to upgrade our level of diplomatic representation with Libya. The United States withdrew its last U.S. Ambassador to Libya in 1972. All remaining U.S. government personnel were withdrawn and the embassy was shut down after a mob attacked and set fire to the U.S. Embassy on December 2, 1979. Resumption of a direct diplomatic presence occurred on February 8, 2004 with the arrival of U.S. personnel at the U.S. Interests Section in Tripoli. That mission was upgraded to a Liaison Office on June 24, 2004.

As the Secretary of State announced on May 15, 2006, “Today marks the opening of a new era in U.S.-Libya relations that will benefit Americans and Libyans alike.”

As the relationship with Libya has developed, the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli has taken on growing responsibilities. Our staffing levels, and consequently the services that we can offer, are still limited, but already we are in a position to provide certain types of assistance to U.S. citizens on commercial, consular and other matters. We encourage Americans with an interest in Libya to be in touch with the Embassy, and we pledge to be as responsive as possible as U.S.-Libyan relations progress and our resources grow.

What is a U.S. Consulate?

If you are an American citizen traveling abroad, a U.S. consulate is where you go when you need help.

Lose your passport, break a law, or have a birth or death in the family while abroad? Go to a consulate.

Need a lawyer or a doctor while overseas? Ask the consulate for a list.

If you are unlucky enough to be the victim of a crime in a foreign country, find the nearest consulate.

One of the primary jobs of American consulates is helping and protecting Americans abroad.

Each embassy has a consular section.

The United States has only one embassy and one ambassador in the capital of any foreign country, but in large countries it may have several consulates. They are typically located in the main cities of provinces or states, and each is led by a consul general.

Not far from the US consulate in Benghazi was a CIA building, an annex.

reply to post by Swills


No it was not. It was never listed on the state department website. Go look at Wikipedia, the word consulate is never used. The President nor Hillary Clinton use the word consulate to describe it, it's called a "Diplomatic mission" or a "interim facility".

www.wnd.com...

Look a picture of the thing.

In you haste to get Obama you are missing the big picture. You didn't stumble on inept security-It's a gun running op and they got hung out to dry by the CIA. That is all.

Not far from the US consulate in Benghazi was a CIA building, an annex.

Again, there was no consulate listed on the state department website. All embassies and consulates are listed. Keep trying though.

reply to post by antonia


Being that your source is World Net Daily, they definitely have an agenda but either way, we had a small Embassy already in Tripoli and since the fall of Gadaffi, courtesy of the US/NATO, it makes perfect sense the US was branching out in Libya. Call it a diplomatic mission or consulate its purpose was the same.

Now whether I am to believe WND and that Stevens was secretly meeting terrorist to arm them is another story. But then again we armed and supported the very terrorists who were the so called freedom fighters so anything is possible.

I've also read that Stevens was in Benghazi because he was going to be at an opening ceremony for a brand new school that was just built in honor of a farmer who saved the life of an American jet pilot who crashed during the 2011 civil war. We will never know what is truth and what isn't, and this does sound like a perfect cover story.

Originally posted by Swills
reply to post by antonia

 

Being that your source is World Net Daily, they definitely have an agenda but either way, we had a small Embassy already in Tripoli and since the fall of Gadaffi, courtesy of the US/NATO, it makes perfect sense the US was branching out in Libya. Call it a diplomatic mission or consulate its purpose was the same.

If it was there it would be listed on the website, it's not. Do I have to keep repeating? It's likely it was CIA station house and that is what the information posted by the person I was responding to much earlier alleges. If it was a consulate then it would have to be secured by the Marines. This would explain the lack of security.

I've also read that Stevens was in Benghazi because he was going to be an opening ceremony for a brand new school that was just built in honor of a farmer who saved the life of an American jet pilot who crashed during the 2011 civil war.

There were also Turkish diplomats going to meet with him. Turkey is being accused of allowing the U.S. to run guns to the Syrians through they country.

reply to post by Putyournamehere


Its worth listening to. Ya don't have 12min out of your day to listen?

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by Swills
reply to post by antonia

 

Being that your source is World Net Daily, they definitely have an agenda but either way, we had a small Embassy already in Tripoli and since the fall of Gadaffi, courtesy of the US/NATO, it makes perfect sense the US was branching out in Libya. Call it a diplomatic mission or consulate its purpose was the same.

If it was there it would be listed on the website, it's not. Do I have to keep repeating? It's likely it was CIA station house and that is what the information posted by the person I was responding to much earlier alleges. If it was a consulate then it would have to be secured by the Marines. This would explain the lack of security.

The reason it may not have been listed is because it was brand spanking new. There was already a CIA building near by. The seven hour long battle went from the consulate to the CIA building a few blocks away. The consulate, diplomatic mission, whatever you want to call it should have definitely been guarded by Marines or at least a private contractor firm. The consulate requested security because they were already attacked twice prior to 9/11 but were denied by the US Gov't. They weren't denied because they weren't officially listed on some website as being a consulate or what have you. They were denied for more sinister reasons.

There were also Turkish diplomats going to meet with him. Turkey is being accused of allowing the U.S. to run guns to the Syrians through they country.

Being that the US is allied with Turkey that wouldn't surprise me, especially since the US is funneling weapons to the new freedom fighters, aka terrorists, in Syria.

reply to post by Swills

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry to tell you - but you are not correct in your assessment of the situation.

I have covered some of these facts before BUT this is such an important article - from which I have made several references in the recent past - that its time to present it more fully here and now: Did the US actually have a consulate in Benghazi? Or was it only a CIA post?

According to this commenter, we had no official consulate [in Benghazi]. Therefore the State Department had no responsibility for its protection. Anyone have any information to contradict this? It does change the whole picture, doesn't it?

Quote:

"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."

thecable.foreignpolicy.com...

Don Bacon "attacking the U.S. consulate"

There is no US consulate in Benghazi,

which is why State didn't care about security and why State tried to avoid responsibility. It was a CIA operation with a dozen agents. (Ineffective, of course.) Why should State provide security for CIA? Besides, the Agency likes to keep a low profile.

The US does not have an embassy, a consulate or a diplomatic mission in Benghazi. There are none listed on this State Department list of all the US embassies and consulates in the world.
www.usembassy.gov...

On September 12, 2012, Sec State Clinton made two statements. She never used the word “consulate” to describe the place that was attacked in Benghazi she used instead the words ‘U.S. diplomatic post, compound, our buildings and our office.’
www.state.gov...
www.state.gov...

There is (and was) no US consulate in Benghazi. No consul. No consular officials. No commercial officers. No diplomats of any kind. No consulate. It was CIA.

Why was Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi? President Obama said Stevens was in volatile eastern Libya "to establish a new cultural center and modernize a hospital." Sure.

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.

I checked his link, and it's true. No US consulate is listed for Benghazi.
Thank you, GOP, for telling the whole world about our CIA operation there!
(edited to add link to the website where the comment appears)

edit on 28-10-2012 by Vitruvian because: txt

Originally posted by Swills



The reason it may not have been listed is because it was brand spanking new.

No, it would have been listed when it was opened. Consulates provide services and thus have to be listed.

There was already a CIA building near by.

Your getting closer.....

reply to post by Swills


I'm with you swills. I heard it on the radio as it was being said and was thunder struck with the info he was giving out to the public. He laid it out very well so we could all understand it. I am a nurse and know nothing about the intel world trust me. So this was laid out in such a way we could all get an idea of what happened when this flash message came across.
As he said he required an immediate response from whoever was sitting in the situation room. Once he received and acknowledged, since this involved our ambassader, it goes to the POTUS.
You should really listen everyone. Although I am not surprised of the action of our President, I am just so sorry that Americans lost their lives that night.

reply to post by Vitruvian


Yeah, we just covered this above.