Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Benghazi, Resignations, Coverups: What really happened before, during and after the attack?

page: 3
26
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by spinalremain
Reply to post by beezzer
 


Incompetant leadership?

If you're referring to the president, it would be wise to at the very least present evidence as to his fault.

As of now, all the right's crying about Benghazi have not revealed one single piece of evidence which paints Obama as having done anything wrong. You're all searching and upset, but this is exactly like the birther stuff only there are 4 dead Americans.

Until you know that Obama had done something wrong, you shouldn't blame him for anything. Hating a man and always looking to implicate him sans evidence is nothing more than a witch hunt.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 




The Obfuscator In Chief implicates himself. There is no evidence? How do we get to that evidence??? This stinks to high heaven and you know it. Everything is rainbows and butterflies in Obamaland... BS




posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Reply to Six6Six


Most democrats want to cover this up. The so-called news outlets don't even want to talk about it, but they know it is news worthy and with the hearings coming up, they have no choice. But they will definitely put a spin on it in favor for Obama.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by MsAphrodite

Originally posted by spinalremain
Reply to post by beezzer
 


Incompetant leadership?

If you're referring to the president, it would be wise to at the very least present evidence as to his fault.

As of now, all the right's crying about Benghazi have not revealed one single piece of evidence which paints Obama as having done anything wrong. You're all searching and upset, but this is exactly like the birther stuff only there are 4 dead Americans.

Until you know that Obama had done something wrong, you shouldn't blame him for anything. Hating a man and always looking to implicate him sans evidence is nothing more than a witch hunt.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 




The Obfuscator In Chief implicates himself. There is no evidence? How do we get to that evidence??? This stinks to high heaven and you know it. Everything is rainbows and butterflies in Obamaland... BS


Come on now, you know Obama has all his little media outlets ready to save him. He dreams of rainbows and butterflies, but there are none in sight



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
The General was set up as a punishment for threatening to tell the truth. If he speaks anymore of the truth he will be assassinated by Bill Clintons boys, The Presidents own hit squad. If I was Obama I would be watching my own back with most of the high ranking military and Secret Service boys really pissed off at me. The military needs to ass stomp these guys and set America back right.

Here is the Secret group exposed that has been enforcing the Presidents of the past and present. They are from every aspect of the services. I would not doubt it that these were some of the clowns that died that day in Libya.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Patriotsrevenge
The General was set up as a punishment for threatening to tell the truth. If he speaks anymore of the truth he will be assassinated by Bill Clintons boys, The Presidents own hit squad. If I was Obama I would be watching my own back with most of the high ranking military and Secret Service boys really pissed off at me. The military needs to ass stomp these guys and set America back right.

Here is the Secret group exposed that has been enforcing the Presidents of the past and present. They are from every aspect of the services. I would not doubt it that these were some of the clowns that died that day in Libya.

www.youtube.com...



Not sure about the video yet. My children are around and it says it is uncensored, so I will have to view it later. I do worry for anyone who knows what really happened in Banghazi.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Patriotsrevenge
The General was set up as a punishment for threatening to tell the truth. If he speaks anymore of the truth he will be assassinated by Bill Clintons boys, The Presidents own hit squad.


Wouldn't that be the most obvious assassination in the history of this country? That would spell doom for Obama if he was to go that route.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   
There is a lot of good stuff on this thread (the video on page one not included) but I haven't heard a good explanation yet.

For what it is worth, here is my basic theory.

#1. This was a covert USA operation that was supplying arms to the Libyan activists (who we consider to be the good guys here.) It was being lead by Christopher Stephens (of course a CIA operative) under the supervision of CIA Director Petraeus.

#2. The mission backfired horribly. (Think: "Fast and Furious" here. We know this type of thing can happen. We trusted the wrong contacts, or someone double crossed us.)

#3. The main screw up was Petraeus, who was probably "unavailable" at the time of the assault, because he was with his mistress -- just bad timing.

#4. Obama naturally didn't want to make things worse by overriding his main guy for this (Petraeus) and Obama ordered a temporary stand-down until they could find Petraeus. That was a mistake on the part of Obama, for sure.

#5. When they finally found Petraeus, the battle was over. Stephens, and others, were dead. Too late.

#6. Obama can't really talk about it at all even if he wants to, because it is all highly classified. The cover story was that stupid Anti-Muslim film story. A pretty poor cover story that required a lot of work to maintain, and has eventually been abandoned. But what can Obama do? He needs to keep this story quiet for national security. Plus, of course, there is the election....

In summary, there were two big failures here:

The main failure is Petraeus, who is a lot less of a hero than we all thought he was. He was cheating on his wife at the wrong moment in time, out of communication, while his guys were dying for their country in Libya.

Obama's mistake is that he was too far out of the loop to feel comfortable about assuming command for the mission, at that critical time when Petraeus was unavailable. It was a lesser mistake, and somewhat understandable. (Petraeus was running complex operation, and Obama didn't want to muddle things up.)

Everyone said someone needed to be fired for this. I guess that person was Petraeus, and probably for good cause if the above (pure speculation) is actually true. If you look at the info, it all adds up this way to me, including Obama making Petraeus publicly humiliate himself. Obama and others are probably pretty angry at Petraeus -- he had to go.

Is any of the above possible?



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Axial Leader
 


It could definitely be true. I would assume there are many scenarios. At the end of the day innocent people were killed and lies were rampant.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Axial Leader
Is any of the above possible?


It reads like laughably ridiculous pro-Obama fan fiction where you try to pin all the blame on Petraeus.

Do you really think there is ever a time where people don't know where the director of the CIA is and can't get him on the phone? In 2012 it would require a David Copperfield style magic trick to pull it off for a few hours.

Shagging his biographer was probably one of the smoothest 'covert operations' he could possibly have tried to pull off. She had to work with him closely for a relatively long time. He'd be going about his normal routine and she'd be tagging along all the time because of her job. So he didn't have to run off and hide in a submarine near Antarctica so nobody could find him just to have an affair. All he had to do was close and lock his office door so people would have to knock first, or other similar 'undercover maneuvers.'

...

The ordinary story, the simplest explanation is the hardest one for Obama fans to believe:

It was Obama's call to make, and he didn't make it and the clock ran out. Shot clock violation.

He didn't want a gunship to mow down a bunch of civilians just before the election. He was concerned about the election impact. He wanted more info. He wanted to be sure. He was exhausted from a long campaign and couldn't make up his mind in the few hours he had to make it.

I think the question of civilian involvement was definitely on his mind because why else insist on civilian involvement in the press for weeks afterward? At the time, he couldn't figure out whether there were or were no a lot of civilians nearby, so later even when he knows there weren't, it was part of his excuse making as he felt guilty over letting his people die and losing an Ambassador.

From what else has come out, it also sounds like they may have had a problem with people butting heads getting in the way of the right thing happening in time.

It sounds like maybe Obama and his people took offense to the military demanding action when the President wanted to wait and see, and got sidetracked with the pissing contest bull# that ensued while the clock was running out. Then it was all over and they began to realize how bad they had screwed up.

When the Masters of the Universe screw up, people want to invent a big crazy reasons why the Masters of the Universe did what they did. They aren't so big and powerful that they can't screw up. They're people and they can screw up just like the rest of us because they ultimately aren't that different.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11andrew34

Originally posted by Axial Leader
Is any of the above possible?

It reads like laughably ridiculous pro-Obama fan fiction where you try to pin all the blame on Petraeus.


Hey - hey buddy. It is just a theory. No need to start getting aggressive.

The one thing I can't figure out is why Petraeus would admit to having an affair? What's with that? Why did he feel so compelled to volunteer this dirty little (and unnecessary) info as part of his resignation?

The only answer I can think of is that he knew his cheating was going to come out: he was with his mistress during this critical time. Petraeus is doing damage control. Or maybe he is consumed with guilt. Or maybe it was something Obama insisted he say to the world, as a weird type of punishment.

As for being able to find the CIA director at all times (as you suggest) -- maybe the government wasn't keeping as close tabs on him as you think they should have been. Maybe they sent a car to his house -- but he wasn't there? I can see it. After all, he's got a mistress. He was sneaking around. Perhaps he wasn't where he was suppose to be.

That kind of stuff happens. Perhaps "love" was clouding his decision making process?

Anyway, I think you are focusing too hard on Obama as an evil mastermind. It was probably Petraeus at fault, and not so much Obama. That makes more sense to me. We have hard evidence of Petraeus lack of fidelity, but nothing on Obama at this time. It is the only theory I have seen that is realistic and supports all the facts.

EDIT: BTW, I agree that Obama is not blameless here. The shot clock ran out, as you say. He probably should have taken some action. He had the ultimate power to do that, but failed.


edit on 10-11-2012 by Axial Leader because: See above.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Axial Leader
 

I don't believe for an instant that Petraeus was unavailable. Assume, however, that he was. (And how long would he be unavailable, 5 hours? Not bad for an old guy.) What prevented the dispatch of a Special Forces, or any other military force from flying in there and getting everybody out? Petraeus wasn't needed for that.

Besides, Obama could have called up any of Petraeus' deputies and said "This is the President. Do X, Y, and Z, and don't wait for your boss."



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Obama said during the presidential debate that it was all his fault in the end. Because he was responsible for his staff. I can't believe he said it, but he did. I also believe it was Obama who screwed up, got scared, couldn't decide, whatever he was thinking it just wasn't quick enough.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Axial Leader
 

Besides, Obama could have called up any of Petraeus' deputies and said "This is the President. Do X, Y, and Z, and don't wait for your boss."


Yup. That's true. Good point.

Maybe we will be learning more in the next week or two, and we can regroup under another thread to discuss this further.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Axial Leader

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Axial Leader
 

Besides, Obama could have called up any of Petraeus' deputies and said "This is the President. Do X, Y, and Z, and don't wait for your boss."


Yup. That's true. Good point.

Maybe we will be learning more in the next week or two, and we can regroup under another thread to discuss this further.


Another thread??? Just kidding. I hope we will learn more coming up and maybe we can see who has the closest scenario. I'm just not sure about whether it will be the truth coming out of their mouths or just more lies.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Im going to say it straight up fools. 1st was a consulute not a embassy. not an ambassetor but a cia agent w alot around him . only 2 killed worked for usa other 2 were 2 ex navy seals that just happened to show up and help out,on contact to someone else. they managed to kill over 60 attackers before a mortar took them out and they save over 20. there were over 150 attackers and there sure wasnt ever a protest. you people are pissing me off with your stupidity. and striaght up you fools that dibunking anrt going to win anything by being the fool.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Larry Kudlow and guest went thru the same key relevations guys hit on the nose...the guest also said a bombshell.
Patreuos was not under oath during the first hearing, but would have been during the second. He resigned because he knows of top secret CIA mission to send operatives to Syria...while staged in Bengazi "Annex".
They all agree to keep this hush hush at all costs...including sacking a five star General.
This is the guests theory...sorry didn't note name. The last 10 minutes of Kudlow Report CNBC Friday.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   
For the "lowdown before the showdown" on Benghazi-Ghate! written by a well placed and highly regarded blogger whose sources are well grounded.
Look Here ---> washin gtonsblog.com

This is the most concise report I have seen to date giving links and sources that are complete and well documented. Well worth the effort.

Why Did CIA Director Petraeus Suddenly Resign … And Why Was the U.S. Ambassador to Libya Murdered?
EXCERPTS

The Deeper Questions Behind the Ambassador’s Murder … and the CIA Boss’ Sudden Resignation
While the GOP is attacking (and Dems defending) the Obama administration in connection with the murder of the U.S. ambassador to Libya, there is a deeper story.
Sure, it is stunning that the State Department never requested backup or that people such as Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer allege that President Obama personally watched in real time the attacks as they occurred via video feeds from drones flying over the Benghazi consulate.
But these claims only can be assessed – and the whole confusing mess only makes sense – if the deeper underlying story is first exposed.



Many Syrian Terrorists Come from Libya
The U.S. supported opposition which overthrew Libya’s Gadaffi was largely comprised of Al Qaeda terrorists.
According to a 2007 report by West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center’s center, the Libyan city of Benghazi was one of Al Qaeda’s main headquarters – and bases for sending Al Qaeda fighters into Iraq – prior to the overthrow of Gaddafi:

Al Qaeda is now largely in control of Libya. Indeed, Al Qaeda flags were flown over the Benghazi courthouse once Gaddafi was toppled.
(Incidentally, Gaddafi was on the verge of invading Benghazi in 2011, 4 years after the West Point report cited Benghazi as a hotbed of Al Qaeda terrorists. Gaddafi claimed – rightly it turns out – that Benghazi was an Al Qaeda stronghold and a main source of the Libyan rebellion. But NATO planes stopped him, and protected Benghazi.)
CNN, the Telegraph, the Washington Times, and many other mainstream sources confirm that Al Qaeda terrorists from Libya have since flooded into Syria to fight the Assad regime.

edit on 11-11-2012 by gmonundercover because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   
rely to post by gmonundercover
 

Case solved...Al Qayeda 1, CIA (Patreas) zero.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by chapterhouse
Im going to say it straight up fools. 1st was a consulute not a embassy. not an ambassetor but a cia agent w alot around him . only 2 killed worked for usa other 2 were 2 ex navy seals that just happened to show up and help out,on contact to someone else. they managed to kill over 60 attackers before a mortar took them out and they save over 20. there were over 150 attackers and there sure wasnt ever a protest. you people are pissing me off with your stupidity. and striaght up you fools that dibunking anrt going to win anything by being the fool.


Fools? At least us fools can spell better than you. The rest of your post is .... nah, I will leave it at that.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Six6Six
 


you are so right.
Hey! didya hear? Selena Gomez and Justin Beiber have broken up!!!!!!!





new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join