Posted on 11/02/2012 12:25:14 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
WASHINGTON, Nov. 2 (UPI) -- The CIA was the real commanding agency at the attacked U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, not the State Department, senior U.S. intelligence officials said....
[BIG SNIP]
Of the more than 30 U.S. officials evacuated from Benghazi, only seven worked for the State Department, officials briefed on the intelligence told The Wall Street Journal. Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic cover, which was a principal purpose of the consulate, the Journal said.
Most public criticism for consulate security lapses has so far been directed at the State Department, not the CIA. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said last month she took responsibility for what happened.
The new information does not address the Obama administration's various depictions of whether the assault was a protest that turned violent or a planned terrorist attack. But the officials reiterated early intelligence was patchy and often contradictory. They said talking points for members of Congress and senior administration officials did not at first discuss possible links between the attackers and al-Qaida because the information was classified.
"It wasn't until after the points were used in public that people reconciled contradictory information and assessed there probably wasn't a protest around the time of the attack," a senior U.S. intelligence official said in a statement.
Congressional investigators say it appears the CIA and State Department weren't on the same page about their respective security roles at the consulate, which the Journal said raised questions about whether the Benghazi security arrangement was flawed.
(Excerpt) Read more at upi.com ...
“Congressional investigators say it appears the CIA and State Department weren’t on the same page about their respective security roles at the consulate, which the Journal said raised questions about whether the Benghazi security arrangement was flawed.”
Ya think??
““If the CIA was totally responsible for the consulate, why did the ambassador have to beg the State Dept. for more security?” - Good question.”
From the WSJ article, CIA Takes Heat for Role in Libya, those at the Benghazi consulate believed that the CIA annex was their “cavalry” but the CIA contingent at the annex didn’t know that.”
“Or so the story goes......”
Chain of Command. It would have been inappropriate for the Ambassador to address anybody other than HIS immediate boss, or an authorized by Hillary State Dept. individual.
bookmarking for further review
The amount of concocted and bizarre disinformation coming out is amazing. IMO, the purpose of a dozen different stories is to befuddle the congressional hearings and hide the truth.
This is a major cover-up with very important people behind it.
They left 27 CIA agents hung out to be kidnapped or killed. Think that one through because the CIA and its agents are.
I think we are looking at this backwards.
Let’s start with the fact that the so-called “annex” (which was not an annex of anything) was eventually reduced by precise mortar fire. Therefore, these mortars were placed, and the range and trajectory calculated, in the daytime (long before the attack on the “consulate” started).
Then, take the confusing nature of the forces attacking the “consulate” compared with the synchronized and methodical reduction of the “annex” later in the night.
I think the assault at the “consulate” was a feint, a diversion to pull security away from the “annex” (which is what happened). Stevens’ death was an accident, collateral damage once an unexpectedly intense firefight broke out, caused by the presence of an effective defense.
Eventually, the real attack on the “annex” began, and continued until it was reduced and the contents of the building referred to as the “warehouse” were removed - which was the point of the exercise.
Lastly, I wish intelligent conservatives would stop calling this a “terrorist” attack. It was nothing of the sort. It was a precise, organized, multi-company military operation, with centralized command and control, which succeeded both tactically and strategically.
My best guess about the lack of response is 1/3 fog of war, 1/3 cowardice, and 1/3 incompetence.
re: If true, this would answer my and others’ inquiry as to why these 30 or so personnel have disappeared off the face of the earth and no one has heard a peep about what happened to them or where they are.
Good question!
If the CIA was totally responsible for the consulate, why did the ambassador have to beg the State Dept. for more security?
It was not a consulate, at best it was a diplomatic mission which is not legally US sovereign territory. Perhaps Iran/Syria proxies took out this operation which reportedly was recycling Libyan arms to the Syrian rebels. Which means Iran/Syria have committed acts of aggression against the United States.
What say you Barry Obama?
Dittos
Needs to be repeated
****** “I think we are looking at this backwards.
Let’s start with the fact that the so-called “annex” (which was not an annex of anything) was eventually reduced by precise mortar fire. Therefore, these mortars were placed, and the range and trajectory calculated, in the daytime (long before the attack on the “consulate” started).
Then, take the confusing nature of the forces attacking the “consulate” compared with the synchronized and methodical reduction of the “annex” later in the night.
I think the assault at the “consulate” was a feint, a diversion to pull security away from the “annex” (which is what happened). Stevens’ death was an accident, collateral damage once an unexpectedly intense firefight broke out, caused by the presence of an effective defense.
Eventually, the real attack on the “annex” began, and continued until it was reduced and the contents of the building referred to as the “warehouse” were removed - which was the point of the exercise.
Lastly, I wish intelligent conservatives would stop calling this a “terrorist” attack. It was nothing of the sort. It was a precise, organized, multi-company military operation, with centralized command and control, which succeeded both tactically and strategically.
My best guess about the lack of response is 1/3 fog of war, 1/3 cowardice, and 1/3 incompetence.” *****
TT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.