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.

 

Ret. Lt. Col.:His Sources Say Obama Was in the Room Watching Benghazi Attack

page: 2
27
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   
And the elephant in the room appears!!!!




posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Well I have some inside source ( very trusted ones in fact ) at the North Pole that have informed me through secure channels that all involved with this smushsmorshin in Benghazi are all on the naughty list.
However "they" were unable at this time to disclose any names or addresses do to HIPPA regulations. One source quoted a Santa J. Claus "Because of there being on the naughty list this year does not guarantee a spot on it next year as we are experiencing naughty list over crowding"



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by Vitruvian

Originally posted by TheLonewolf
I can say I have inside sources too. Until you or this retired guy provide any plausible, tangible proof of any of this garbage, it is nothing but speculation and conjecture. You politicos really need to find something else to talk about. You ALL act like a bunch of high school children with this s**t.



Originally posted by buster2010
Where is his sources backing these allegations up? What are his sources names? Till he has hard proof it's just a story he made up.


To both deniers of the truth.........

He (the Lt. Col.) isn't the only source for that information. There's at least 7 others that I have seen and heard of in the past several days on many TV shows and on several talk radio shows. These sources are all former CIA or Intel operatives and/or military personnel whose word is impeccable .

BTW - BHO is going to have to fess up on this - you know? Too many people in the Chain of Command know he was there - besides the fact of so many people were in that very same room at the same time as he.

Sorry to disappoint you in such a way as this but there's no use denying it OK?
edit on 28-10-2012 by Vitruvian because: txt


You have no idea if he is telling the truth or not. The president doesn't report to him so how does he even know where Obama was at.


Because everyone who has served at that level in the military knows that "flash" traffic of that import goes straight to the top. When they said the messages were "lost" among the emails, the administration is lying as a flash message halts all other traffic.

Of course, if he bothered to attend his daily security briefs, he would have seen this coming.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
@Wrabbit

Yes, I blame them all, Reps n Dems alike, everyone who supported it and continue to lie about it. They're all liars and they all have this blood on their hands.
The insinuation is there that Romney wouldn't have let this happen!
Of course he would have. And he'd be lying his face off right now too.This is a direct result of the same policies carried out under Pres after Pres after Pres after Pres, no matter whose uniform they're wearing.
I get your point that the boss gets to eat it, I can agree with that.
But Jesus, quit trying to make the others out as if they're any different. They're not. They're all lying, war-mongering, war-profiteering, double crossing, double dealing, don't-give-a-#-about-us, just-give-us-your-money-and-children-thanks scumbags.
They're still talking about doing the same thing in Syria, backing the same groups, which are the same groups 'the war on terror' is supposedly about.
Like WTF?!?
edit on 28-10-2012 by curiouscanadian777 because: correction



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Nota Bene
I didn't realize (forgot actually) that parts of the content of this thread/topic was covered earlier - My apologies to the OP of this thread--->MUST WATCH: Retired Lt. Col. and Special Operations Planner for 15 years, Obama ordered no response
edit on 28-10-2012 by Vitruvian because: txt



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by curiouscanadian777
@Wrabbit

Yes, I blame them all, Reps n Dems alike, everyone who supported it and continue to lie about it. They're all liars and they all have this blood on their hands.
The insinuation is there that Romney wouldn't have let this happen!
Of course he would have. This is a direct result of the same policies carried out under Pres after Pres after Pres after Pres, no matter whose uniform they're wearing.
I get your point that the boss gets to eat it, I can agree with that.
But Jesus, quit trying to make the others out as if they're any different. They're not. They're all lying, war-mongering, war-profiteering, double crossing, double dealing, don't-give-a-#-about-us, just-give-us-your-money-and-children-thanks scumbags.
They're still talking about doing the same thing in Syria, backing the same groups, which are the same groups 'the war on terror' is supposedly about.
Like WTF?!?

you hit the nail squarley on the head..good post



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by curiouscanadian777
@Wrabbit

Yes, I blame them all, Reps n Dems alike, everyone who supported it and continue to lie about it. They're all liars and they all have this blood on their hands.
The insinuation is there that Romney wouldn't have let this happen!
Of course he would have. And he'd be lying his face off right now too.This is a direct result of the same policies carried out under Pres after Pres after Pres after Pres, no matter whose uniform they're wearing.
I get your point that the boss gets to eat it, I can agree with that.
But Jesus, quit trying to make the others out as if they're any different. They're not. They're all lying, war-mongering, war-profiteering, double crossing, double dealing, don't-give-a-#-about-us, just-give-us-your-money-and-children-thanks scumbags.
They're still talking about doing the same thing in Syria, backing the same groups, which are the same groups 'the war on terror' is supposedly about.
Like WTF?!?
edit on 28-10-2012 by curiouscanadian777 because: correction

I see this a whole lot simpler than that. Prior to Libya, this was all about politics and partisanship and my guy is better than your guy. That's true whether anyone wants to admit it or not..and it still IS about as deep and meaningful as most of the bickering really is.

Now? No. I don't see partisan politics anymore. Barack Obama OR his direct subordinates...and I don't CARE which...oversaw a situation that led to the deaths of 4 Americans and the total destruction of a United States diplomatic mission in another nation. Their deaths came while they were frantically calling for help of any kind, from anywhere and were being turned down at every request, from everyone who made it.

This are the facts and THESE are not disputed that I have seen, by ANYONE. What is disputed is whether Obama was PERSONALLY a part of the chain of command that night. Well, the buck stops only one place in the United States on this kind of thing. It isn't with Congress and it SURE AS HECK is not with a mere candidate RUNNING for the office. It stops with the man IN the Office and who is directly responsible for the actions and people taking them with everything regarding Libya.


Now.. Some here think because Romney MAY have been as bad...in a totally theoretical mental play on events, we should give Obama ANOTHER 4 years. As one site rightly notes, we may very well be re-electing him just to Impeach him. IF Libya is what it appears, this is NOT POLITICAL. It's outright Criminal. Period. I'm sorry if it pisses people off that denying this killer another 4 years to murder more people comes at the price of electing Romney. However, there IS no way to put a smiley face on the deaths of those 4 brave Americans.

No way at all. ...and it IS that simple. Obama deserves nothing like re-election after the "not optimal" outcome he either DIRECTLY oversaw or was negligent in NOT directly overseeing. Either way...He broke it, HE buys it and HE can get his walking papers for it. Period.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 


Of course he would be watching it so they can see what to do about the situation. Sure there was probably info saying that the embassy was a target but every embassy is. I'm curious to get in on what military actions were taken in response to the mob/attack. I heard there were like 20 marines that died that no one cares about in the attack. I just wish the big wigs just put everything on table so we can sort it out and forgive and forget then we can morn the troubled times in a bright future. But when people threaten to bring down the white house for something that happened 40 years ago. I know this is current news but I'm making a point. I whole heartly believe a full disclosure of certain cover ups would turn this country around. I'm not saying give away all the secrets because there are scary things happening all over the world that im sure it would be in average joes best interest to not know so he isn't huddled in his tub for 50 years. It pains me to see good news stories fizzle out because no one died but then when someone does dies its headline news.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide


He is CIA and an expert in asymmetrical warfare. This, ATS, is what a psyop looks like. Welcome to the pages of history - we are witnessing an attempted coup.

~Heff
edit on 10/28/12 by Hefficide because: Added source link


I think the CIA has more to do with this than people believe.
p.washingtontimes.com...


[Thanks to intrepid investigative reporting — notably by Bret Baier and Catherine Herridge at Fox News, Aaron Klein at WND.com and Clare Lopez at RadicalIslam.org — and information developed by congressional investigators, the mystery is beginning to unravel with regard to what happened that night and the reason for the subsequent, clumsy official cover-up now known as Benghazigate.
The evidence suggests that the Obama administration has not simply been engaging, legitimating, enriching and emboldening Islamists who have taken over or are ascendant in much of the Middle East. Starting in March 2011, when American diplomat J. Christopher Stevens was designated the liaison to the “opposition” in Libya, the Obama administration has been arming them, including jihadists like Abdelhakim Belhadj, leader of the al Qaeda franchise known as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.


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


Now, I've been called a paid shill, a flunky and other things for posting this but, recall the debates. Both candidates said they would arm the Syrian rebels when asked. Why are we to assume this is not happening now? Furthermore, this "consulate" was never listed on the State Department's website. In other words, it wasn't a consulate.


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.”

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



So what was it? I think it was a CIA safe house. Stevens was CIA before he joined the State department. It is not unusual for CIA officers to have State department cover. Stevens gave arms to the Libyan rebels before he joined the SD, Now, the CIA has been accused of running weapons to the Syrian rebels through Turkey. Who did Stevens meet before he died? The Turkish Consul General, who left one hour before the attack began. Even the group implicated in the attack has CIA ties.

So what does this all mean? My contention is this: This was a CIA facility that came under attack. The CIA was running an operation to funnel guns through Libya to Turkey and finally into Syria. As I have said in another thread, this isn't about a simple blame game. It's iran-contra all over again.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 

If what you suggest is 100% accurate, which I don't agree with..but secondary to that, let's assume it was true. Then, by your estimation, there were CIA people screaming for help and anyone to keep them from being over-run and murdered. The CIA was then the organization who the State Department and White House left to die. Does that make anything better or somehow different? The motives and circumstances which led to it do nothing to change the events that occurred.

Whatever their id cards said in their wallet for agency affiliation, they were still Americans. Born and Bred. They were still serving the U.S. Government in a far off land and trusting that if things went bad, that Government would make every attempt and effort to save their lives. Might not WORK....not promises in life, but that had every good reason to EXPECT the Government would try if it came to that.

Instead...the only efforts made to save anyone in Benghazi that night literally came by violating direct orders to NOT render assistance. How incredible is that?! The only reason ANYONE from the Consulate made it to the CIA annex alive is because those couple Seals directly violated orders.


It's just too surreal to believe...it really is. There it is though, with 4 fresh graves to show the reality of it. They died...with calls for help on their lips and denials in their ears. I can't imagine a worse way to go while in service to a Government abroad. Any Government. The fact it was ours just makes it so much worse for the public face Uncle puts out for values.


edit on 28-10-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by VoidHawk

Originally posted by TheLonewolf
I can say I have inside sources too. Until you or this retired guy provide any plausible, tangible proof of any of this garbage, it is nothing but speculation and conjecture. You politicos really need to find something else to talk about. You ALL act like a bunch of high school children with this s**t.


One has to wonder why someone with opinions like yours is on a conspiracy website


So because he asks questions it means he shouldn't be on a conspiracy website? I'd say you shouldn't be on this website if you don't think people should take things(from both sides) with a grain of salt. Thats what conspiracies are all about, asking the questions and getting to the bottom of things.

Not just blindly accepting something you hear because it sides with yuor belief system.

Far too often am I seeing "Why are you even on this site?" being thrown around.

"They don't believe what I believe so they must not believe in conspiracy theories" get real.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
@Wrabbit

Good post, and yes, I get it.


I don't like it, but I get it.

Just..."If you think Obama was bad, wait 'til you get a load of me!" says Romney in the Jokers voice.

(from how it looks in Canada, [being that we're your bitch and all], Obama is scary, but Romney is terrifying.)

edit on 28-10-2012 by curiouscanadian777 because: add comment



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by antonia
 

If what you suggest is 100% accurate, which I don't agree with..but secondary to that, let's assume it was true. Then, by your estimation, there were CIA people screaming for help and anyone to keep them from being over-run and murdered. The CIA was then the organization who the State Department and White House left to die.



Nope, you need to go back and read the articles. I read that Fox article that has been posted over the last few days It says that denial came from the CIA's chain of command. I think the CIA left them there to die. Better to lose 4 than to blow the whole op in their eyes. Was it at Obama's command or their own? That's the question isn't it.


Does that make anything better or somehow different? The motives and circumstances which led to it do nothing to change the events that occurred.


Of course the motives matter, it seems most of you are just happy to get an ax to put in Obama's back. My contention is this goes way beyond simple lack of security or denial of aid. The whole picture matters not just whatever partisan bone people have to pick. You can't be impeached for being stupid but you can be impeached for running guns illegally. The CIA heads can't be punished for just being stupid but they can be punished for illegally running guns to Syrian rebels. See the point? It is to their advantage to make it about being inept or lacking security.
edit on 28-10-2012 by antonia because: opps

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



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


Nope, you need to go back and read the articles. I read that Fox article that has been posted over the last few days It says that denial came from the CIA's chain of command. I think the CIA left them there to die. Better to lose 4 than to blow the whole op in their eyes. Was it at Obama's command or their own? That's the question isn't it.


The CIA has, without the slightest bit of question or room for misunderstanding, stated they absolutely did not deny support or tell ANYONE to stand down or to stop their efforts to render aid. Now CIA may be lying..it is what the CIA is there to DO, after all. In which case, I expect Obama to have Petreaus out on his butt by the end of this week and before the election. IF...that is how it happened...

....and then I still hold Obama to account. You see, none of this matters or changes a thing. This didn't happen in the rush of 30-45 minutes and people were dizzy by events. This happened over the course of many hours. There was plenty of time...and we KNOW ..without QUESTION..the White House and State were informed in real time. Email now establishes that and takes that end of the debate out entirely.


Of course the motives matter, it seems most of you are just happy to get an ax to put in Obama's back. My contention is this goes way beyond simple lack of security or denial of aid. The whole picture matters not just whatever partisan bone people have to pick. You can't be impeached for being stupid but you can be impeached for running guns illegally. The CIA heads can't be punished for just being stupid but they can be punished for illegally running guns to Syrian rebels. See the point? It is to their advantage to make it about being inept or lacking security.


You want to get into the motives and all the back room details...and that's fine. Eventually that will all have to come out. It's details necessary to understand the event. However the only way motives CHANGE anything is if you believe there are any circumstances ..ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.. which could warrant leaving Americans in service to their Government to be murdered. IF you think there is a situation that is warranted, then motives DO matter. The whole thing matters a lot.

Otherwise? It's details....just details for context. The facts are still this. A United States Diplomatic Mission was over-run and destroyed for the first time in over 30 years. The Ambassador called for help, was denied and was murdered inside that mission. 3 more Americans died in various stages of trying to give aid and save lives...they were DIRECTLY ORDERED NOT TO GIVE. (then blamed the whole thing on a video they absolutely KNEW had nothing to do with it for over a week.....by Emails, again, we now KNOW as fact.)

Now, those are the facts..again, not even disputed. The dispute is WHO did WHAT, not WHAT actually happened. ....and in the end, as it always does...the Buck stops in ONE place. I wish it didn't. However, it does. Your guy gets his buck and his disaster, right in his lap.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   
By the way.... in general.. Enough with the "Fox News" bashing. Really. It's to everyone doing it. This IS NOT a Fox story. To those who haven't turned on a TV for a day or two....it's fast reaching ALL MEDIA and it's across the board. I have never...ever..heard the rage and fury by professional broadcasters and hosts that I have heard expressed over this. I can relate I suppose... I've never been personally furious with my own government on a level this deep before, myself.

However...anyone at THIS point still even mentioning Fox as if they are relevant to anything? well...it's displaying ignorance of the situation as it exists around us today and it's a rather profound level.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000


....and then I still hold Obama to account. You see, none of this matters or changes a thing. This didn't happen in the rush of 30-45 minutes and people were dizzy by events. This happened over the course of many hours. There was plenty of time...and we KNOW ..without QUESTION..the White House and State were informed in real time. Email now establishes that and takes that end of the debate out entirely.


What does this have to do with what I said? I did not state it makes Obama somehow not responsible. If you are seeing it in what I said it's because you wanted to.




You want to get into the motives and all the back room details...and that's fine. Eventually that will all have to come out. It's details necessary to understand the event. However the only way motives CHANGE anything is if you believe there are any circumstances ..ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.. which could warrant leaving Americans in service to their Government to be murdered. IF you think there is a situation that is warranted, then motives DO matter. The whole thing matters a lot.


I didn't say it changed anything, once again you are reading what you want into it.

.

However, it does. Your guy gets his buck and his disaster, right in his lap.


I voted for Rocky Anderson, FAIL.

And as for your Fox news bashing bit, nowhere did I bash Fox news. I mentioned the story, I did not bash the network. Try again.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
Since we are on a conspiracy website

Is it possible that these retired CIA agents, and retired Col. are making all of this "sources" bullcrap up so they can fling more mud at the Obama administration on behalf of the Republicans?

It seems very plausible considering that right wing zombies will believe almost anything that they read on blogs and that comes out of Rush Limbaugh's mouth.


I wondered the same thing especially since all these reports come from one side.If these guys are so patriotic and want the truth to come out Stand Up. Show your evidence, state your name and rank. If they are really trying to bring out the truth this should not be a problem. If I knew some information that was vital to national security as well as involved the death of Americans why would I hide and remain anonymous? Many servicemen and women have risked their lives for the truth. Why are these guys all hiding?



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 

Okay,... lets take this one step at a time.

This is what you said and what I replied to.


I read that Fox article that has been posted over the last few days It says that denial came from the CIA's chain of command. I think the CIA left them there to die.


You think the CIA left them there to die. That is what I replied to, in the context you said it in.


As for Fox news....That was made a 2nd and totally separate post, not replying to you or even mentioning anything you've said. You know I don't have qualms about making a LOOONG single post, so the fact I did break into two physical ones ought to support what I'm saying I meant. That was, as I said in it, a general statement and as such, to the thread as a whole. Many seem to be under the colorful delusion this is a Fox story when it may have STARTED that way, but it's now a Global story quickly being picked up by media organizations across the world. Sandy is this Government's saving grace...for the moment....because without that storm, this would be screaming headlines on every paper in the nation tomorrow morning.

Politics ended...TOTALLY....when that Ambassador took his last breath and it went from trashing a man to MURDERING HIM...and the 3 others who had NO reason to die that night. Now it's a Capital crime, in MY opinion....but I'd settle for felony Murder x's 3. So lets figure out who gets to stand for for the 3 murders and what is starting to sound like an assassination.


By the way.. we're a week out. There are T W O men running for President. ONLY TWO. There are a few other honorable mentioned to throw a vote on if you're there for down ticket races. However, only ONE of THOSE TWO will be 'Mr. President' on Jan. 20th, 2013. Just one. Which means, if you're down HARD on one, you are, BY DEFAULT, for the other one.

This is a 0 sum game at this stage. A true 0 sum game. So removal of one IS support of the other. Agreement isn't even necessary. End result in 8 days speaks that truth in itself.
edit on 28-10-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by antonia
 


You think the CIA left them there to die. That is what I replied to, in the context you said it in.




This is what I said




I think the CIA left them there to die. Better to lose 4 than to blow the whole op in their eyes. Was it at Obama's command or their own? That's the question isn't it.


So don't try to tell me I am somehow trying to "make it better" or "different. I provided my own analysis with what I have found out.



Which means, if you're down HARD on one, you are, BY DEFAULT, for the other one.


No, I don't like either one. You can feel however you want but I don't have to support either candidate. You are using a duality argument. You know I'm not for Romney so by default I must be for Obama. This is false. They both represent the same agenda to me and it will continue regardless of who sits in that office.


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




top topics



 
27
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join