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

reply to post by butcherguy


You really think the CIA is going to be giving you documents about their gun running op to Syria? Either way, it's on record who Stevens was meeting with.

www.foxnews.com...

Even you own vaunted Fox is reporting it now.

On the night of Sept. 11, in what would become his last known public meeting, Stevens met with the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, and escorted him out of the consulate front gate one hour before the assault began at approximately 9:35 p.m. local time. Read more: www.foxnews.com...

That is on record, Kinda strange the attack begins a hour after the Consul General is gone isn't it?

You'll get documents if obama is reelected as there will likely be an extensive investigation then. Either way, you calling me and shill and a flunky is rather silly considering what this would mean. It means nothing good for Obama.

reply to post by antonia

Honestly I think that we are on the same side here.

I would like nothing more than to see documents that would put all of our living Presidents, our top House and Senate leaders behind bars as the traitors that they are. I think that is what it would take to break the stranglehold that the two parties(not that they are really two) have on our country.

I am a libertarian. I support legalization of things that are unspoken at this site, even though I don't do them. I think that politics don't belong in people's bedrooms. I think that no politician should control what healthcare decisions people make. That means that I don't like either of the parties.

Surely we have some common ground here?

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by butcherguy

 

www.therightscoop.com...

Please, people on the right are already floating the theory.

And from the Washington Post'

p.washingtontimes.com...

I'm not the only one saying it. you might want to find out if it's legal because it pales the blame game you are playing now. Calling me a shill for Obama is fairly stupid as this is the kind of stuff that can get you impeached. I wouldn't be welcome as a friend in his house.

Investigative journalist Aaron Klein has reported that the “consulate in Benghazi” actually was no such thing. He observes that although administration officials have done nothing to correct that oft-repeated characterization of the facility where the murderous attack on Stevens and his colleagues was launched, they call it a “mission.” What Mr. Klein describes as a “shabby, nondescript building” that lacked any “major public security presence” was, according to an unnamed Middle Eastern security official, “routinely used by Stevens and others to coordinate with the Turkish, Saudi and Qatari governments on supporting the insurgencies in the Middle East, most prominently the rebels opposing Assad’s regime in Syria.”

We know that Stevens‘ last official act was to hold such a meeting with an unidentified “Turkish diplomat.” Presumably, the conversation involved additional arms shipments to al Qaeda and its allies in Syria. It also may have involved getting more jihadi fighters there. After all, Mr. Klein reported last month that, according to sources in Egyptian security, our ambassador was playing a “central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.”


Read more: GAFFNEY: The real reason behind Benghazigate - Washington Times p.washingtontimes.com...
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Keep buying the media's blame game story though cause this will lead you to something a lot deeper and darker than that.

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

Uh, the Washington Times and the Washington Post are two different newspapers.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

Whether you liked Bush or not, we saw none of this on his watch because these groups KNEW things would go very bad for them if they tried.

Really? You are going to claim on Bushes watch nothing happened. I understand Benghazi happened on 911 but have you already forgotten about the other 911? It is a bit early to be trying to rewrite history.

I don't recall Bush ignoring the problem, refusing to send help, and then calling it a "spontaneous protest" for days afterward.

reply to post by NavyDoc


Yea well sorry, Do you have a legit point beyond that?

Originally posted by Swills
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Just because you may have read a Tom Clancy novel doesn't mean this man is not who he says he is. Of course its real easy to say he's a fraud just to say it.

I didn't say he is a fraud - it is my OPINION that that is the most likely case - but I cannot say it as a fact.

My point is that getting it all "right" is not really a good indictor that he is who he says he is.

And until he DOES actually identify himself the ONLY accurate thing you can say about who he is is that he is an annonymous source.

But the truth is fraud or not he is absolutely right about everything he stated and I can verify it 100% because I've never read a Tom Clancy novel but I did work in military intelligence. If he's a fraud then he's one HELL of a GREAT fraud, like he must be Tom Clancy himself.

Tom Clancy worked closely with US military and intelligence to get his stories "right" - you should try reading them some time.

reply to post by NavyDoc


Is taking things out of context the norm for you?

reply to post by butcherguy


Ever feel like we are a test ground to see what the public will buy into? Someone is floating some interesting test balloons here.

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by Swills

 

Why you keep arguing mute points, such as if it really was a consulate or not,

Of course it's important. What the place was indicates who ran it, who was responsible for securing and most importantly-Why it wasn't secured. If was simply a CIA post then it does explain the lack of security. They wouldn't want it to be conspicuous. My whole point is this media blame game is simply a cover for a CIA operation, that is all. As for my comments on what a terrorist would do, think about it-What was attacked next? The CIA annex. The group accused of doing it has CIA connections. These aren't benign connections.

And the CIC of both State and the CIA is?

Originally posted by Swills

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.

This is all quite true, as anyone in the military who has dealt with such traffic can tell you. That the administration did not see the traffic as it was "buried in all of the emails" is a boldfaced lie. "Flash" traffic halts all other traffic. You cannot avoid a flash message if you are awake.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Is taking things out of context the norm for you?

You compared Bush on that 9/11 to Obama on this 9/11. I clarified the situation.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by butcherguy

 

Ever feel like we are a test ground to see what the public will buy into? Someone is floating some interesting test balloons here.

What exactly are you accusing me of? Do you seriously think Obama is hiring me to go out and say the Cia was running a arms deal to Syrian rebels linked to AQ under his watch?

I mean really, that is actually pretty laughable that he would pay me to accuse him of something that could be a crime.

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Yea well sorry, Do you have a legit point beyond that?

I'm saying that, if you do not even know who the players are...

Originally posted by NavyDoc


I'm saying that, if you do not even know who the players are...

I read both of those papers, I got the names mixed up in my mind. Stuff happens, either way the article is there. you can read it or you can ignore it. Your call.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Swills
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Just because you may have read a Tom Clancy novel doesn't mean this man is not who he says he is. Of course its real easy to say he's a fraud just to say it.

I didn't say he is a fraud - it is my OPINION that that is the most likely case - but I cannot say it as a fact.

My point is that getting it all "right" is not really a good indictor that he is who he says he is.

And until he DOES actually identify himself the ONLY accurate thing you can say about who he is is that he is an annonymous source.

But the truth is fraud or not he is absolutely right about everything he stated and I can verify it 100% because I've never read a Tom Clancy novel but I did work in military intelligence. If he's a fraud then he's one HELL of a GREAT fraud, like he must be Tom Clancy himself.

Tom Clancy worked closely with US military and intelligence to get his stories "right" - you should try reading them some time.

edit on 28-10-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

No he didn't. He was an insurance salesman without a clearance and had never worn the uniform in his life. He is a techno-geek who said he has read all of Jane's cover to cover and his information was cool when it came out, very technically accurate as he devoured all of the public domain information, but he had no "inside scoop" and nobody was feeding this insurance salesman classified information.

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by NavyDoc


I'm saying that, if you do not even know who the players are...

I read both of those papers, I got the names mixed up in my mind. Stuff happens, either way the article is there. you can read it or you can ignore it. Your call.

Meh. Just keeping things straight.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Is taking things out of context the norm for you?

You compared Bush on that 9/11 to Obama on this 9/11. I clarified the situation.

I think you just had an episode of cognitive dissonance because the person I responded to said there was never an attack on Bushes watch which I clarified for him. It was all in the post you commented on.

psychology.about.com...

Originally posted by MrInquisitive


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.

That's exactly right. 99% of anonymous/pseudonymous posters on ATS make up their credentials as needed. They should be treated as bull# unless verified.

#denyignorance

Originally posted by Grimpachi

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Is taking things out of context the norm for you?

You compared Bush on that 9/11 to Obama on this 9/11. I clarified the situation.

I think you just had an episode of cognitive dissonance because the person I responded to said there was never an attack on Bushes watch which I clarified for him. It was all in the post you commented on.

psychology.about.com...

Having re-read the exchange, I think you are correct.

My apologies for the error.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


Can you please verify your statistic with a credible link, thank you.