Bombshell Testamony by CIA about Benghazi !!

Former CIA deputy director Michael Morell made statements in front of Congress that he thought it was appropriate to *exclude* the fact that the State Department got warnings from the CIA.

Point:

He effectively insinuated he was protecting Hillary !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now it's out in the open.

We as a nation were hoodwinked by our most trusted leadership.

In his opening statement during highly anticipated testimony Wednesday on Benghazi, former CIA deputy director Michael Morell claimed to be an intelligence professional who was willing to lay out the facts -- no matter how damaging.

"I take very seriously the allegations about how the CIA in general and about how I in particular handled the analysis and the talking points," Morell told the House Intelligence Committee, in his first public testimony on the Benghazi attacks. "The ethical code under which intelligence officers carry out their responsibilities calls for total objectivity.".......


"You take out everything that is even related to warnings and a bunch of other stuff too,” Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, said. "To me it seems like you are more interested in protecting the State Department than the State Department is, and more interested in protecting the FBI than the FBI."

In his defense, Morell responded: "I simply saw this as a way for CIA to pound its chest and say, ‘look, we warned’; therefore laying all the blame on the State Department. I did not think that appropriate."

Oh I'm *Sure* he takes it all "Seriously" LOL


Ex-CIA boss Morell gives unorthodox reasons for omitting key Benghazi details

W-o-W !!

reply to post by xuenchen

He effectively insinuated he was protecting Hillary !!!!!!!!!!!!! -

That has been on going since the current administration was elected.

Everyone covering up for it's failing.

All the 'presidents' men.

A phrase coined decades ago.

reply to post by xuenchen

Morell further discredited a highly touted December New York Times piece that "turned up no evidence that al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault."

"The analysts said from the get-go that Al Qaeda was involved in this attack from the get-go," Morell said.

So, let's hear the apologists counter that public admission.

reply to post by xuenchen


The bombshell is not the coverup or the death of the ambassador, the bombshell which is yet to be dropped are the very real secret operations behind the whole thing involving the 3 letter agency and operatives, the reasons that no one will reveal only time will , don't look for anyone to come forward before a panel to tell that , the focus is on the cover up but that's not the meat of the issue, there is no doubt that there was a cover up, it doesn't take a lot of thinking to come to that conclusion nor a lot of thought to conclude there is a bigger reason than is being revealed as to the true reasons why the consulate was attacked.

reply to post by neo96

Yes, how much less Nixon did in comparison.
It is astonishing to me that we have the MSM refusing to push these many things, which are worse than anything that Nixon did.

phinubian
reply to post by xuenchen

 

The bombshell is not the coverup or the death of the ambassador, the bombshell which is yet to be dropped are the very real secret operations behind the whole thing involving the 3 letter agency and operatives, the reasons that no one will reveal only time will , don't look for anyone to come forward before a panel to tell that , the focus is on the cover up but that's not the meat of the issue, there is no doubt that there was a cover up, it doesn't take a lot of thinking to come to that conclusion nor a lot of thought to conclude there is a bigger reason than is being revealed as to the true reasons why the consulate was attacked.

edit on 4-4-2014 by phinubian because: (no reason given)

Can't wait !!!

It'll be hot.

greencmp
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Morell further discredited a highly touted December New York Times piece that "turned up no evidence that al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault."

"The analysts said from the get-go that Al Qaeda was involved in this attack from the get-go," Morell said.

So, let's hear the apologists counter that public admission.

Possible excuse...
Uhhh, that's a different Al Qaeda than we were talking about.
Or something to that effect.

reply to post by xuenchen


Funny, as this basically confirms what has been stated by many people that don't have their cranium inserted into 0bama rectum.


We all knew this, just like testimony the other day in regards to the IRS not "targeting" conservative groups, but using "inappropriate guidelines" to delay/deny/withhold things.

butcherguy
reply to post by neo96

 

Yes, how much less Nixon did in comparison.
It is astonishing to me that we have the MSM refusing to push these many things, which are worse than anything that Nixon did.

Yeah it is astonishing.

Morell further discredited a highly touted December New York Times piece that "turned up no evidence that al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault."

"The analysts said from the get-go that Al Qaeda was involved in this attack from the get-go," Morell said.

reply to post by greencmp

So, let's hear the apologists counter that public admission.

No wonder the Administration was squirming and twisting and deflecting.

The answers are coming out now.



But it was the VIDEO !!!!

Guess Who Refused to Call Benghazi an ‘Act of Terror’ Following the Attack

butcherguy

greencmp
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Morell further discredited a highly touted December New York Times piece that "turned up no evidence that al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault."

"The analysts said from the get-go that Al Qaeda was involved in this attack from the get-go," Morell said.

So, let's hear the apologists counter that public admission.

Possible excuse...
Uhhh, that's a different Al Qaeda than we were talking about.
Or something to that effect.

Ha ha, almost spit my coffee out on that one. "Different Al Qaeda" indeed.

Reminds me of an article I read in a mag long ago telling guys that no matter what your wife catches you doing keep denying it. Even if she's looking right at you, deny it! Eventually the problem will go away.

Guess they read the same article.

Having followed the entire issue of Benghazi from the first day, the following can be stated:

The reality is that no one wants to take responsibility and there is a cover up going on. The people who actually killed the ambassador will never see a court room, or tell their tale as to why. Those who are covering this up do not want this to be in the eye of the public, do not want to have it shown the light of day, and would prefer it to remain a secret to go to the grave.

If I were to say what all will happen, then if they do go after the person who killed the ambassador, that person will never make it to trial, will end up dead and buried, and the public will ultimately be left holding a bag full of questions to which there will be no answers. And until a good 20 years have passed, the information will probably be sealed in a vault with a large top secret and classified stamped on it.

Obama had to know even though he side-stepped.

Barack Obama Wouldn't Call Benghazi Terrorism in Unaired 60 Minutes Clip




WH Asked Why Obama Admin Said Benghazi Wasn't Terrorism For So Many Days?




Benghazi Timeline - The long road from "spontaneous protest" to premeditated terrorist attack

reply to post by xuenchen

That is the core of the apple that the public should be trying to get at, the only problem is security classification of those operations will make it virtually impossible to turn those stones of truth over so the public can see them, most panels and investigations on the hill that occur we all know are nothing more than theater .

phinubian
reply to post by xuenchen

 

The bombshell is not the coverup or the death of the ambassador, the bombshell which is yet to be dropped are the very real secret operations behind the whole thing involving the 3 letter agency and operatives, the reasons that no one will reveal only time will , don't look for anyone to come forward before a panel to tell that , the focus is on the cover up but that's not the meat of the issue, there is no doubt that there was a cover up, it doesn't take a lot of thinking to come to that conclusion nor a lot of thought to conclude there is a bigger reason than is being revealed as to the true reasons why the consulate was attacked.

edit on 4-4-2014 by phinubian because: (no reason given)

Thank you for being one of the first to say it. As far as I'm concerned an admission of protecting Hilary is a distraction from the real sinister actions. This is soft porn at best, I want the XXX rating. Come'on Mr Alphabet man, give us the real goods!

Oh and here is the appointed scapegoat with all the wisdom of the edited talking points....

Susan Rice on Benghazi Libya: Not pre planned

Transcript:

0:00
that the US ambassador to the UN Susan Rice and
0:03
said that this was not pre-planned he I wanted to play that for you to get your
0:07
reaction here #
0:08
the best information in the best assessment we have today
0:12
is that in fact this was not a preplanned premeditated
0:17
attack as a chair in the House Intelligence Committee do believe our
0:22
I'll a naturally we're not I disagree with her clearly

xuenchen

Point:

He effectively insinuated he was protecting Hillary !!!!!!!!!!!!!

No...you are insinuating he was "protecting Hillary"...right there...you just wrote it?

"I simply saw this as a way for CIA to pound its chest and say, ‘look, we warned’; therefore laying all the blame on the State Department. I did not think that appropriate."

He is correct. The CIA has thousands of "analysts"...in some corner office of the CIA at this moment there is some analyst issuing a warning about the President's toilet paper being at risk of being poisoned.

A litany of unsubstantiated prior warnings that "an embassy might be attacked" is not revelation or "intelligence" and when included in an analysis briefing is BS. It is CIA reaching hard to absolve themselves of intelligence failure. That nonsense was rightly removed.

reply to post by xuenchen


Benghazi was a CIA weapons smuggling operation...
So I wouldn't put too much into what the CIA has to say about it.

Actually the REAL issue in his statements is: why did he ignore exterior data? He stated they were using ONLY in-house analysts instead of those who had as was said "Boots on the ground" Seems like Johnson and Vietnam on a global scale and just as much of a failed idea to protect lies,especially with THESE key stone cops of foreign policy.

reply to post by xuenchen


Nice One
Why where there 33 Assets on the ground again?

S&F