New ObamaGate Scandal; State Department Sold Stingers to Al Queda

Originally posted by robobbob
this is an old rumor. any actual evidence yet?

Wow you sound just like Jay Carney Well were still investigating that for about 6 months. Then he changes to oh wow that thats old news. Jay is that you you sly dog????

This information surfaced shortly after the attack.
Stevens was weapons running to rebel factions
and groups for two years plus before his death.

He was doing the same thing there that
Oliver North did in Central America.

The difference is who answers the call at 2:30 am.

Stevens knew too much AND is not ever going to be
present to defend himself or answer questions
just like Vince Foster.

The liability door needed to shut and Stevens was
put on the wrong side for severasl reasons.

No liability briefcase.
Knows too much.
Failed in getting weapons back.

I always make a point never to differentiate between left vs right. In the end they all serve the same masters whether they know it or not. But something just hit me. Theres certainly a stark difference in how well the Republicans can beat down scandals or flip a bitch and have it land back on the other party. On the Democratic side they just stick there hands in their pockets with total indignation, nose up high "nuh uh, it didn't happen".

Then again maybe it was all Turd Blossom during the Bush era and if it hadn't been for him.....nah he doesn't deserve that much credit.

Originally posted by masta12d
I always make a point never to differentiate between left vs right. In the end they all serve the same masters whether they know it or not. But something just hit me. Theres certainly a stark difference in how well the Republicans can beat down scandals or flip a bitch and have it land back on the other party. On the Democratic side they just stick there hands in their pockets with total indignation, nose up high "nuh uh, it didn't happen".

Then again maybe it was all Turd Blossom during the Bush era and if it hadn't been for him.....nah he doesn't deserve that much credit.

Remember Bush Sr ran the CIA so handling scandals was nothing for him. Oddly the biggest problem for Democrats is they look down on the military so they never learn how to do all those shady deals in other countries. Though now that i think about it Clinton was pretty good he bombed countries and it didnt even make the news but he could play a sax and well was just cool lol.

Originally posted by masta12d
I always make a point never to differentiate between left vs right. In the end they all serve the same masters whether they know it or not. But something just hit me. Theres certainly a stark difference in how well the Republicans can beat down scandals or flip a bitch and have it land back on the other party. On the Democratic side they just stick there hands in their pockets with total indignation, nose up high "nuh uh, it didn't happen".

Then again maybe it was all Turd Blossom during the Bush era and if it hadn't been for him.....nah he doesn't deserve that much credit.

Remember Bush Sr ran the CIA so handling scandals was nothing for him. Oddly the biggest problem for Democrats is they look down on the military so they never learn how to do all those shady deals in other countries. Though now that i think about it Clinton was pretty good he bombed countries and it didnt even make the news but he could play a sax and well was just cool lol.

Damn, reading all of this sure makes me glad I voted for Ron Paul.

reply to post by Freenrgy2


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha funniest thing I heard on this site, I think ever.

Although I would have preferred him over anyone else running it wouldn't do any good. He'd be JFK'd before his signature dried. That's not part of the plan silly. Bad Freenrgy2, no donut!

reply to post by Freenrgy2


Or in summary: you'd have a better chance of seeing God.

reply to post by dieseldyk


If this news is true, then yes it is a big deal. And although I supported Obama over Romney, I'm for anything to bring Obama down and to keep Billary from the WH in 2016.

That said, this report is but hearsay as it it. And I would have to see a non-Fox source for corroboration before I believe it. In addition, I read the linked article and it appears to be written by a very biases source, as he calls Charlie Wilson, who was a Texas Dem. Congressman that was instrumental in getting stingers to the Afghan militants during their war with the Soviets, amateurish.

It was these missiles that allowed the Afghans to fight to a draw the Soviets, and this is believed to have been a significant factor in the fall of the Soviet Union -- which conservatives and right-wingers like to attribute solely to Ronald Reagan. Reagan also called these same Afghan militants "freedom fighters" -- something conservatives and Republicans don't bring up much any more.

Furthermore, if Charlie Wilson's actions were amateurish, what were Reagan's actions in supplying weapon parts to the Iranians in exchange for hostages, given that official US policy is to never negotiate with hostage takers, and Iran was considered an enemy at the time?

In addition, I find it very hard to believe that the US would give Stinger missiles to any ME militant group in this day and age. It's possible, but highly doubtful. It would seem the NATO-enforced no-fly zone over Libya was all that was necessary to stop Libyan air attacks; although, admittedly, perhaps before this occurred there would have been a need for surface-to-air missiles for the Libyan militants.

My point is that the writer of the article cited by the OP seems VERY biased, which leads me to be suspicious of the article's claims. Should other news sources come up with independent confirmation of this, then it is a big deal. But no bigger than a deal than the Iran-Contra affair or Bush II's failure to protect America against the 9/11 attacks. In other words right-wingers, GOP'ers and Teabaggers are still just attempting to score political points and are holding to an extreme double standard. If conservatives want to be taken seriously in their claims, then they need to hold their darling politicians to the same standard as they hold Democrats. And certainly Democrats need to do the same thing, and those not criticizing Obama for his failures and crimes are every bit as bad in this respect.

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
reply to post by dieseldyk

 

It was these missiles that allowed the Afghans to fight to a draw the Soviets, and this is believed to have been a significant factor in the fall of the Soviet Union -- which conservatives and right-wingers like to attribute solely to Ronald Reagan. Reagan also called these same Afghan militants "freedom fighters" -- something conservatives and Republicans don't bring up much any more.

the soviet union was not brought down by the us. lol wall street funded the soviet union

Originally posted by errck
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.

I had to back up and star you for the thought, and thanks.
What we're beginning to get on the side channel tubes and in the alternative media
is getting so twisted and rediculously sensational the regular peeps would NEVER
believe it. I've never seen anything like this before or even heard of it from a friend.

Half my circle of friends couldn't even believe the Watergate hearings while convened
on network TV in their faces. This stuff is so over the top so fast now, the
present MSM viewing public just can't wrap around it.

SOAP FLOPERA? Elephant Motor in the Living Room ON NITRO??
Forget "The bigger the lie, "... now it's looking like
"Stranger than Payton Place hosts the NHRA Summenationals.. on Main Street"
"Oh Allison, that's such a cute baby-- and how did you get that big fat blower
to fit in the carriage with him?"

EDIT: On a personal note, and keeping strictly to the topic, I'm not in ANY way making
light of the death of Chris Stevens and anybody else in Benghazi, au contrar.. this is so
outrageous in its basic context that the people responsible just might get away with it,
simply because the whole thing is getting unbelievable. Therein lies the terrible rub.

I posted this thread some time back...

Link

If I remember correctly, Glenn Beck brought this to light.

reply to post by JacKatMtn


Couldn't it be possible Stephens was investigating the reports of those weapons being given to Al-Queida? Ive seen speculation (I know) that he was investigating those transactions and was a few days away from doing the whole put it to paper under oath and blow the whistle type action.

Maybe the State Department was cleaning up the mess, by getting a major attack to occur on 9/11 resulting in the death of a US Ambassador while trying to blame anyone and anything under the sun in hopes traction does not occur on the missile issue?

Originally posted by TXRabbit
and nobody is questioning why such sensitive "insider" info on clandestine group's activities is being reported by MSM?

Can you say CYA?

More like CIA.

I predict that the CIA is going to make a come back stating that they aren't the rogue arm of our government, but the Obama administration is.

Obama's pissed that they didn't go along with taking the fall on Benghazi talking points, in turn the White House fires Petraeus and then tries to dig up a CIA leak through the Associated Press, and now the CIA is retaliating by pointing the finger at the State Department for this.

It sounds like the Obama administration and the CIA are at war right now.

Originally posted by Libertygal
I have stated all along it was a weapons running/clawback, and Stephens was sacrificed because it went bad and he could blow the whistle on Obama/Hillary.

Text
The idea is to get Republicans to jump the gun on Impeachment, and blow the 2014 elections. If they go after Obama at all, they should wait till after the elections. They ought not go after him at all, but instead turn the tables and do what the Dems do. Just point out that everything bad is "Dems", and run with it.


Not enough people are paying attention, if you asked most people on the street, they wouldn't know what Benghazi was about, most have never heard of it, and most don't know anything about the other "scandals" currently wracking the Whitehouse.

At this point, what difference does it make? Just some men out for a walk late one night.

Then it will be a failure, because the public will not trust the democrats.
Obama will not be impeached, all these guys end up getting out scott free. this guy has some real idiots in his administration, this all started with the secret press meetings.

this administration is proof the government has far exceeded it's power, massive overreach, and those of you that thought Obama wouldn't think of abusing the NDAA, think again, he probably already has

Originally posted by Indigo5

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...

Can you explain further? My understanding is that we're still using Qatar to help arm the Syrian rebels, which in my opinion is a huge mistake given that Hamas moved their headquarters to Qatar from Damascus after things heated up in Syria. Why are we still dealing with Qatar?

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Actually, it was a Consulate Compound. The CIA station was to the Southeast and if you get the reading through enough of the declassified/unclassified communications back and forth to Benghazi, you'll get to see it was something of an issue between "full" consulate and consulate compound. However, the first document of the bunch, establishes the ownership and intentions for the Benghazi State Department Compound.

Precisely why the State Department didn't extend security in Libya. Didn't Victoria Nuland tell them that she didn't want them to ask for additional security? Didn't she say that it was EMBARRASSING to the State Department that they had to keep asking the DOD for security back up there?

reply to post by Indigo5


Indigo, you're own extracted text says that the "Temporary Mission Facility" or "Mission Compound" belonged to the State Department. Your article claims that the "Annex" belonged to a different U.S. Agency, so the Annex might have belonged to the CIA, but either way, weren't both attacked?

reply to post by kwakakev


The only things that's news about this, is that it is in the news. Business as usual, with the full cooperation and assistance of the Main Stream Media....until lately. I won't go so far as to say anything crazy, like somehow the tornado with multiple children's deaths happened as a result of some nefarious scheme, at a very convenient and distracting time. But, I will say that I saw this morning, an interview on ABC, that was clearly green screened to make it look like an Oklahoma Congress Critter was at the scene of the devastation, along with conversational elements to indicate that it was live on scene.

Perhaps The Administration did count a bit too much on their pet media rolling over for being bugged themselves.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

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?

My theory...and that is all it is...is that the plan was to have Stevens captured, then exchanged for the Blind Sheik, in time for the election. The two marines going off script and refusing to stand down, is what blew it up. Everyone up and down the line, seemed to be on board, with the whole letting it unfold thing. If you watch the video of the guys digging Stevens out and taking him to get medical care, they did not at all seem like the typical Muslim mob, craving blood. They seemed a lot more worried about him, than anything else. I think he was more like their Ollie North, than a whistle-blower. He may have been smothered latter, after it went bad, because of what he knew. I read several accounts that reported he died of asphyxiation that was not induced by smoke or heat, in the few days that followed the actual incident, rather than wounds. But, the weapons did make it to Syria....probably before the whole thing happened.