New ObamaGate Scandal; State Department Sold Stingers to Al Queda

reply to post by Libertygal


I can definitely get on board with that, I just don't buy the current version where it was all under State dept control...

CIA has their culpability as usual, perhaps they were just not privy to the actual 9/11 take down op of Stevens?

As far as moving weapons? CIA knew and assisted in my opinion.

This is and always has been a HUGE deal, question is, will we ever find out the truth about that day?

I am pleased that some folks are still trying to keep this coverup on the Front burner..

reply to post by Malynn


I don't recall seeing the word "gate" in this thread.

I also don't think I see any lather.

Maybe it's just me...

Oh emm gee, the title. It was just me!

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by Malynn

 

I don't recall seeing the word "gate" in this thread.

edit on 21-5-2013 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)

Um, look at the thread title... just sayin.

This is great !!!!!

I remember for years are all the posts here on the conspiracy that Al-Queda works for, and is created by the U.S. Gov.

And now this comes out!!!!

I'm not surprised. Been hearing about this since 9/11. All the detractors can now eat crow

The CIA involvement with Libya was standard news on ATS when it all went down. With Hillary's smile the day Gaddafi finally fell, state involvement was clarified and the primary aims reached.

Originally posted by caladonea
reply to post by dieseldyk

 

So...in other words...this article is telling us... that the State Department provided the weapons to our enemy...that killed our people in Benghazi.

Am I understanding this correctly?

Why the American aircraft was not sent in to rescue.

They would have been shot down by the SAMs the state dept gave to Al Queda. The ensuing investigation would have led to the state dept responsible for shooting down American aircraft.

TREASON!

Well since Clinton was the head of the state department, and was from the same party as Charlie Wilson who armed the mujahideen in Afghanistan during the 80s who later formed Al queda.
'
I am noticing a trend now when a person says 'the US created Al Queda 'that is only half right which links back to the Patraes and his mistress 'scandal' because if I remember right she did say something about a 'CIA' base of operations in Libya.

gawker.com...

'Stinger's' or 'prisoners' people can be sure we are not being told the full story of Benghazi.

The DOJ on record about a 'serious' leak, Fox News being investigated, Petraeus thrown to the wolves.

Which is what the administration has done time, and time again to cover it's own duplicity.

i wonder if obama will be impeached?

thanks for posting, good read

reply to post by Libertygal

Take away their American Idol/The Voice and every other useless "fake" reality show and watch people perhaps wake up. This is nothing new in terms of people not getting informed. If it doesn't affect them, they could care less. Sad really.

Originally posted by BobM88
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Well, Wrabbit...do you suppose there were some stingers that they were after, rather than the ambassador? We ruminated on there being something there they were after that wasn't the ambassador. Perhaps this is what that was.

Well, if the Ambassador was the front man to the local Militias/Al Qaeda types, and delivering threats or whatever was being presented as the carrot/stick to get those back (BIG IF in assuming this theory is valid), then I suppose it could have provoked the Militia's enough to destroy the problem.

That would explain the timing to insuring the Ambassador was there. It doesn't explain why they shifted to attacking the CIA station after destroying the Consulate and not hitting CIA first or both at once. The sequence is what still bothers me. If the Ambassador was the target, they had his body before shifting the attack to the CIA. Odd about that.

Missiles to capture wouldn't be worth risking their annihilation for, in terms of there being some at the compound and this being a big robbery of sorts. They're very valuable...especially with a couple things the Stinger is somewhat special/unique on for capability...but not THAT special, IMO. After all, Libya had been buying top grade stuff from the E.U. for a few years before this happened. They had good equipment the rebels just captured figurative mountains of. The Stinger's capabilities aren't that much a stand out to what they already had.

Threats they took to be insults? Hmm.. THAT could provoke them enough? I dunno... It makes the theory worth considering, eh? Maybe they saw it as being pushed around in their own stronghold by someone in such a "General Custer" position for what they were willing to do in solving it?

So why exactly is obama, and a select few other guilty parties NOT in shackles on their way to a federal courthouse to be tried for treason? How far will we let these crooks in tailored suits continue to ruin our country and lead us down their corrupt path leaving nothing but dead patriots and innocent peoples scattered about like insignificant trash? Teflon Don, nothing sticks to him. He has no knowledge of anything. He's never informed and can never be held accountable. Well if he's not guilty of treason he is damn sure guilty of being under qualified and should be removed from office and sent back to Kenya

Why is it that every Bengazi "whistle blower" has a different story then the last and none of them pan out. Yet here at ATS people try to force it all in to one story. Please if the rebels had stingers then they would have been taking out Libyas low flying aircrafy by the dozens and a NATO no fly zone would never have been needed. And if you were going to covertly arm a group that you wanted nobody to know it was you, you would not use your own weapons systems. The only time you use your own weapons systems is when you are making a public statement. For example during Iran Contra selliing US arms to Iran could be done because they already had them and it could be explained however, since the US did not want anyone to know they were backing the Contras the US supplied them with weapons from anywhere but the US. When the US was covertly backing the Bosnians it was also with non US weapons. When the US was backing the Afgans against the USSR they used US weapons as a statement and it was hardly covert, it was a public statement.

reply to post by dieseldyk


As an aside....It turns out that the "consulate" that was attacked...was funded by the CIA, not State.

First, some important context: Although the ambassador was killed, the Benghazi “consulate” was not a consulate at all but basically a secret CIA operation which included an effort to round up shoulder-launched missiles. In fact, only seven of the 30 Americans evacuated from Benghazi had any connection to the State Department; the rest were affiliated with the CIA.

The official reports, such as the one from the Accountability Review Board and the Senate Homeland Security Committee report, essentially dance around that uncomfortable fact:

“In December 2011, the Under Secretary for Management approved a one-year continuation of the U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi, which was never a consulate and never formally notified to the Libyan government.” (ARB)

“The attacks in Benghazi occurred at two different locations: a Department of State ‘Temporary Mission Facility’ and an Annex facility (‘Annex’) approximately a mile away used by another agency of the United States Government.” (Senate report)

So, from the State Department perspective, this was an attack on a CIA operation, perhaps by the very people the CIA was battling, and the ambassador tragically was in the wrong place at the wrong time. But, for obvious reasons, the administration could not publicly admit that Benghazi was mostly a secret CIA effort.

LINK

I also read while researching the "GOP cut funding to diplomatic security" claim...would the funding have made a difference? The suprising answer, NO....cuz the Behngazi wasn't in the State Department budget, it was in the CIA's classified budget.

Yes we know that the CIA was collecting weapons after the overthrow, but I am not certain that those weapons originated with the USA. Where is that evidence??

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

That would explain the timing to insuring the Ambassador was there. It doesn't explain why they shifted to attacking the CIA station after destroying the Consulate and not hitting CIA first or both at once. The sequence is what still bothers me. If the Ambassador was the target, they had his body before shifting the attack to the CIA. Odd about that.

I am not sure they knew where the CIA annex/safehouse was until then. I thought I remembered reading that after the CIA/Spec ops evacuated survivors they raced back to the annex, but were likely followed...engaged in some fire on the way etc.

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, but American officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamic militants, according to United States officials and foreign diplomats.

No evidence has emerged linking the weapons provided by the Qataris during the uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi to the attack that killed four Americans at the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in September

But in the months before, the Obama administration clearly was worried about the consequences of its hidden hand in helping arm Libyan militants, concerns that have not previously been reported. The weapons and money from Qatar strengthened militant groups in Libya, allowing them to become a destabilizing force since the fall of the Qaddafi government.

l ink


And this is why we are not arming the Syrian rebels...

The US has been arming bad guys with the hope of them doing the dirty work for 50+ years.

This is not new tactic.

Originally posted by roadgravel
The US has been arming bad guys with the hope of them doing the dirty work for 50+ years.

This is not new tactic.

True but leaving a serving US Ambassador to die so as to CYA is definitely new.

reply to post by Carreau


Trading weapons and US hostage time in Iran for a presidential election isn't better either.

But then Reagan was a saint to many so that was OK.

the hole just keeps gettin' deeper and deeper..but dont worry, he'll get out.

all these 'scandals' popping up at the same time...hmmmm......there are factions within the govt, and im not talking about dem or rep, maybe the 'other' side is trying to say something?? or maybe as one 'scandal' breaks, others feel more protected and let things ..'leak'

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

Originally posted by Carreau

Originally posted by roadgravel
The US has been arming bad guys with the hope of them doing the dirty work for 50+ years.

This is not new tactic.

True but leaving a serving US Ambassador to die so as to CYA is definitely new.

And there you jump the shark.

What evidence there is, is that the Obama administration funded weapons for the Libyan revolution. No need to "provide" those weapons as every country in the middle east has weapons for sale.

And unlike past administrations...he felt compelled to "clean-up" left over weapons when it was obvious they were going into the hands of extremists after the revolution.

There is some meat there, but when you falsely try to spin it into him letting a US Ambassador die to CYS...that is without logic or evidence and reeks of pure political BS.