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.

 

Geraldo joins Rice..."We Have To Stop Politicizing" Benghazi Raid

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


The same Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer that was on Alex Jones?





posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Taking Obama's credibility, merits, abilities into consideration and purposely excluding the Benghazi episode, as Geraldo recommends, until after the election is like...

Considering Richard Nixon's record, abilities, and acheivements... excluding Watergate. For if we exclude Watergate... Nixon was actually a pretty good President.

Benghazi and Watergate are all about trust... you lose the trust, you lose it all.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Oh noes he was on the Alex Jones show! I guess we'll disregard his impressive military career....

en.wikipedia.org...

Anthony Shaffer (intelligence officer)

General Anthony Shaffer (born 1962) is a U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel who gained fame for his claims about mishandled intelligence before the September 11 attacks and for the censoring of his book, Operation Dark Heart.

Shaffer enlisted in the Ohio Army National Guard in 1980 and graduated from Officer Candidate School in 1982. He received his B.A. in political science and environmental studies from Wright State University in 1986 and was a member of the WSU national championship Mock Trial team that defeated Northwestern University in front of the Iowa Supreme Court that same year.


General Shaffer is now currently serving as Assistant Chief of Staff in Afghanistan, General Shaffer was awarded the Bronze Star for the first of his two combat tours to Afghanistan. He was credited for conducting highly complex operational support to NSA, and for playing a critical role in breaking the back of a Taliban counteroffensive in afghanistan.

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



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
what did obama gain ?

how far down the rabbit hole to you have to go to spin this one ?

star gate ?



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 


You do know he doesn't have a security clearence anymore its been that way for years. He said he heard from someone else that Obama blah blah blah. It is all secound hand information from someone that is no longer in the TS loop.

youtu.be...

Video where he states he no longer has clearence.
edit on 27-10-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by badgerprints
 


So what you are saying is these are not his buddies in a traditional sense of the word but because you are so angry you used that rhetoric to insight further anger with people on here. It is an opinion you hold that you feel others should as well.


Now that I understand I will not bother you any further I just think it is important to stick to facts. I am not really sure how the conversation turned from what Geraldo said to what you are saying but I have seen a lot of misplaced rage lately because of the elections.

Hopefully once the elections are over news will go back to reporting instead of inciting.


YES.
'Buddies' was used as rhetoric to focus on the fact that Obama sees his reputation in Libya as being more important than American lives.

His motives regarding Libya and how he is perceived there are the issues as is the fact that his administration continues to lie,evade questions and put off attempts to get to the bottom of things.

Rage is a good description but it is not misplaced in the least.

The election may be a part of why he didn't help the people on the ground in Libya. I attribute it to his agenda and don't see this issue going away after the elections.

Don't worry about bothering me.
Discourse, even angry discourse is better than pretending we don't have enough information to question things.
Or to suggest that a dirty politician is acting like a dirty politician.

Why is Geraldo trying to downplay this?
Dunno. Maybe it's the same reason that 90 percent of this country's media is avoiding this like the plague and half of the posters here on ATS are downplaying it like they have money riding on the outcome.

I have no problem being the angry extremist that says everything out loud.
I don't mind bruising peoples delicate sensibilities about the sitting president's actions.
Why is it that so many people want to bury this and make nice?
Even conspiracy theorists are shushing and frowning about this.
Shaking their heads and looking at the ground.
Just the facts. Don't talk too loud. No sudden moves.

Why should I make nice?

I didn't sit by and watch my command center drone feed for seven hours, while my countrymen fought for their lives and died wondering why the most "Powerful President in History" denied their requests for help.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


Gain? I think he lost plenty but maybe its not all about Obama. Maybe ambassador Stevens wasn't supposed to be killed that night but kidnapped and kept alive. Maybe something went wrong or maybe it all went according to plan. Bottom line is this attack was no surprise to the White House, Intel community, Military, and to anyone else privy to classified information.

Facts are the consulate was attacked twice prior to September 11, 2012. Ambassador Stevens was targeted for 9/11's anniversary by militants via their Facebook page over the summer. Libya has militants everywhere since the 2011 civil war. Libya's gov't is weak and corrupted and so was the security they provided. The consulate requested security but the US denied them.

The White House was well aware of the attack that night in Benghazi. It lasted SEVEN HOURS. Wanna find out how the White House was aware of the attack in real time?

Rush military caller says that Obama ordered no response to Benghazi attack



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by Swills
 


You do know he doesn't have a security clearence anymore its been that way for years. He said he heard from someone else that Obama blah blah blah. It is all secound hand information from someone that is no longer in the TS loop.

youtu.be...

Video where he states he no longer has clearence.
edit on 27-10-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)


What ever you say dude. You clearly know everything, even more than the Lt.Col



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by badgerprints
 


I disagree with most of what you said. I do not think Geraldo downplayed anything but instead he was making sense and actually time lining events.

I would be very appreciative of having just the facts they are very hard to come by. When opinions and wild accusations enter the fray the truth is harder to come by.

I think Geraldo did a good job of not adding to the rhetoric and unsubstantiated rumors.
Just the facts I like that.

edit on 27-10-2012 by Grimpachi because: spelling



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by badgerprints
 





I didn't sit by and watch my command center drone feed for seven hours, while my countrymen fought for their lives and died wondering why the most "Powerful President in History" denied their requests for help.


That is a heart-breaker.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 


You seem to think Lt.Col is a super special rank. I am guessing you were never in the Army.

It is amazing how fast threads go off topic. Like I said I agree with Geraldo on this once you start time lining things it becomes clearer.
edit on 27-10-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by Rezlooper
 


Exactly. Something that is undecided and will come to no facts or truth being disclosed before the election should not be politicized for use to decide anything in said election. One candidate has not been convicted of anything and no one knows what the other candidate would have done if he had been in office in the same exact circumstance.It's a wash, a distraction, and a waste of everyone's time speculating. So why use it?


Facts or truth? There's been enough evidence already to show a cover up and it shouldn't be buried until after an election to protect his job when he may have even done something criminal. Once again, voters have a right to know now and base their decision who to vote for on what they perceive is the truth!



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by Swills
 


You seem to think Lt.Col is a super special rank. I am guessing you were never in the Army.

It is amazing how fast threads go off topic. Like I said I agree with Geraldo on this once you start time lining things it becomes clearer.
edit on 27-10-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)


Now you're putting him down based on his rank? You're a special one aren't you? And no, I wasn't in the Army and that's because I joined the Navy.

And you are the one who started it with trying to put him down because he was a guest on the Alex Jones show

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



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 


Did you even read the whole Huffington Post article?


There was no sign of a spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam's Prophet Muhammad. But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound.




One of the consulate's private Libyan guards said masked militants grabbed him and beat him, one of them calling him "an infidel protecting infidels who insulted the prophet."

The witness accounts gathered by The Associated Press give a from-the-ground perspective for the sharply partisan debate in the U.S. over the attack that left U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead. They corroborate the conclusion largely reached by American officials that it was a planned militant assault. But they also suggest the militants may have used the film controversy as a cover for the attack.



A day after the Benghazi attack, an unidentified Ansar al-Shariah spokesman said the militia was not involved "as an organization" – leaving open the possibility members were involved. He praised the attack as a popular "uprising" sparked by the anti-Islam film, further propagating the image of a mob attack against the consulate.

So far, the attackers' motives can only be speculated at.

Yasser el-Sirri, a former Egyptian militant who runs the Islamic Observation Center in London closely tracking jihadi groups, said the attack "had nothing to do with the film but it was a coincidence that served the (militants') purpose."



The news trickled out slowly the night of the attack, with initial reports overshadowed by the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo by protesters angry over the film. It was only the next morning that Stevens' death was confirmed.

On the day of the attack and the next day, The Associated Press referred to it as a mob attack, based on Libyan officials' comment that there was a significant unarmed protest at the time. In reporting the following days, AP referred to it as an "armed attack" and detailed its organized nature.

The past week, the AP has gathered accounts from five witnesses, including one of the embassy guards and several people living next door to the consulate compound who were present when the militants first moved in. Most spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals for talking about the attack.

The neighbors all described the militants setting up checkpoints around the compound at about 8 p.m. The State Department's timeline says the attack itself began at around 9:40 p.m.

Khaled al-Haddar, a lawyer who passed by the scene as he headed to his nearby home, said he saw the fighters gathering a few youths from among passers-by and urged them to chant against the film.

"I am certain they had planned to do something like this, I don't know if it was hours or days, but it was definitely planned," said al-Haddar. "From the way they set up the checkpoints and gathered people, it was very professional."

The guard said he saw no protesters. He heard a few shouts of "God is great," then a barrage of automatic weapons fire and rocket-propelled grenades began, along with barrages from heavy machine guns mounted on trucks.



The effectiveness of the roadblocks was later revealed in the State Department's account of the evacuation. It described how the rescue force came under heavy fire and grenade attacks as they tried to leave the consulate area.

They evacuated staffers to a security compound across town, where they continued to come under fire. A precision mortar hit the compound's building at 4 a.m., killing two other Americans.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 



But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound.


OMG are you kidding me? That's not a protest that's a quick diversion manipulating kids. You know, a distraction before they attack. Good lord.... Wanna know what a real Libya protest is then click HERE

From one of you own quotes...


The guard said he saw no protesters. He heard a few shouts of "God is great," then a barrage of automatic weapons fire and rocket-propelled grenades began, along with barrages from heavy machine guns mounted on trucks.


I mean seriously, who read what again?

Wait a minute, are you one of the few people left who think there was an actual protest outside the consulate that night?
edit on 28-10-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rezlooper
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


Geraldo argued that this shouldn't be talked about until after the election, despite all the mounting evidence that there is a cover up going on. The voters have a right to know all the truth to this prior to the election.

Obama was supplying arms to these jihadists, first in Libya and now in Syria. This link is a good story about it and shows why he sat back and did nothing for the 7 hour period, tried to convince us it was because of a video, and now has his loyal followers claiming that republicans are trying to politicize it. I'm sure this story has already been posted somewhere but I thought it fits here again.

Arms flow to Syria may be behind Benghazi cover up


Fast and Furious ----Part 2

[To be continued....]



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 


First of all, I'm not claiming there was a protest only that there was intelligence stating such...in the beginning... you know before any investigation.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by badgerprints

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by badgerprints
 


So what you are saying is these are not his buddies in a traditional sense of the word but because you are so angry you used that rhetoric to insight further anger with people on here. It is an opinion you hold that you feel others should as well.


Now that I understand I will not bother you any further I just think it is important to stick to facts. I am not really sure how the conversation turned from what Geraldo said to what you are saying but I have seen a lot of misplaced rage lately because of the elections.

Hopefully once the elections are over news will go back to reporting instead of inciting.


YES.
'Buddies' was used as rhetoric to focus on the fact that Obama sees his reputation in Libya as being more important than American lives.

His motives regarding Libya and how he is perceived there are the issues as is the fact that his administration continues to lie,evade questions and put off attempts to get to the bottom of things.

Rage is a good description but it is not misplaced in the least.

The election may be a part of why he didn't help the people on the ground in Libya. I attribute it to his agenda and don't see this issue going away after the elections.

Don't worry about bothering me.
Discourse, even angry discourse is better than pretending we don't have enough information to question things.
Or to suggest that a dirty politician is acting like a dirty politician.

Why is Geraldo trying to downplay this?
Dunno. Maybe it's the same reason that 90 percent of this country's media is avoiding this like the plague and half of the posters here on ATS are downplaying it like they have money riding on the outcome.

I have no problem being the angry extremist that says everything out loud.
I don't mind bruising peoples delicate sensibilities about the sitting president's actions.
Why is it that so many people want to bury this and make nice?
Even conspiracy theorists are shushing and frowning about this.
Shaking their heads and looking at the ground.
Just the facts. Don't talk too loud. No sudden moves.

Why should I make nice?

I didn't sit by and watch my command center drone feed for seven hours, while my countrymen fought for their lives and died wondering why the most "Powerful President in History" denied their requests for help.




I applaud you my friend ~~~



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Intelligence may have reported it and where do you think that intelligence came from? Either the drones or the CIA agents. But then again surveillance tapes and video from the drone show no protest. So a group of 20 kids yelling something doesn't really qualify as a protest.
edit on 28-10-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by badgerprints
 

kudos and well said.
i'm going out on a limb here cause you didn't say so but sometimes ya just don't have to ... so, Thank You for your service

[and if i'm wrong, thank you anyway for sharing]
... some of us do share your rage even though the POTUS and his ilk crack jokes and pretend it's no big deal.




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join