Posted on 11/17/2012 11:58:21 AM PST by Kaslin
In a scandal looking more and more like Fast and Furious, information is coming out revealing what may be the real reason why the Obama administration refused to provide military support to save Americans in Benghazi. Obama was terrified the public would find out that American weapons had been given to Libyan terrorists, who then used them against Americans in the attack.
Glenn Beck reported that Glen Doherty, the former Navy Seal who was killed alongside Ambassador Christopher Stevens, told ABC News that he was looking for weapons in Libya. Middle East expert Barry Rubin has said U.S. intelligence confirms that Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi to negotiate for the return of an American weapons' system. Beck suspects that due to the lack of military security around Stevens, he was a CIA operative sent to bring back the wayward weapons, not just a diplomat. The terrorists may have even attacked the embassy in order to seize the American weapons stored there from the rebel-arming program.
There is ample evidence backing this up. In March 2011, Obama signed a secret presidential finding authorizing covert help for the rebels in Libya. Although it did not appear to provide weapons, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has suggested that a U.N. resolution embargoing arms shipments to Libya only applies to weapons going to the Libyan government. In an interview with Diane Sawyer, Obama tellingly declined to say whether he would arm the Libyan insurgents.
Political analysts are calling Benghazigate a worse presidential scandal than Watergate, because four Americans lost their lives. The cover-up is so vast it seems like there are new astonishing details breaking every day. Yet until the salacious sex scandal with General Petraeus came out, the scandal and cover-up was not receiving anywhere near the attention that Watergate did.
The sudden resignation of respected General David Petraeus a week before he was scheduled to testify to Congress about Benghazigate is the most bizarre aspect of the scandal. Conservatives were flabbergasted when Petraeus defended the administration shortly after the attack, repeating what U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice had said on television about a video being responsible for the attack. Some suspect that Petraeus provided the defense as a last-ditch effort to save his job. It did not work, since he was forced to resign shortly afterwards over an extramarital affair with his biographer. This was strange, since President Clinton survived an extramarital affair that took place within the White House.
Petraeus allowed his biographer access to his personal email, which is being described as a breach of security. However, White House Counter-terrorism adviser John Brennanreportedly knew about the affair in the summer of 2011. If there was a compromise of U.S. security serious enough to force Petraeus's resignation, then the White House let that breach of security last for over a year until Petraeus resigned a week ago.
After Petraeus was forced out over the affair, he switched his story, and on Friday told Congress that classified intelligence had been provided to the White House showing that the attack came from terrorists. It is now known that the American consulate in Benghazi alerted the White House several hours prior to the attack that they feared one was eminent. Petraeus testified that the White House withheld that information from the public, ostensibly to avoid tipping off terrorist groups.
Over two months later, the Obama administration still has not revealed who instructed U.N. Ambassador Rice to make appearances on five shows after the attack declaring that it was a “spontaneous demonstration” in response to a video. The surveillance video from the attack has not been released, even though three top U.S. Senators have written letters demanding that it be declassified. There has been no explanation why General Petraeus was not forced to resign until a week before he was scheduled to testify about Benghazi. By then, his extramarital affair had ended.
The cover-up is extremely hypocritical coming from the Democrats. The left was outraged over President Reagan secretly providing U.S. arms to the Contras in Nicaragua. The Iran-Contra hearings resulted in Reagan dismissing Oliver North from his position at the National Security Council. In contrast, there has been no fall guy losing their job over Benghazigate, even though four Americans are dead. Instead, the opposite is occurring; guys like Petraeus are ousted in order to continue to protect the cover-up. The Obama administration will stop at nothing to protect those complicit in the cover-up. As a popular graphic now making the rounds on the Internet declares, “If Obama would have defended our Ambassador like he did Susan Rice, four Americans would still be alive.”
Waaaaaaaaaait a minute. I have not read or heard that he had been questioned about the affair before he resigned. If you know otherwise then I would like you to post your source if it is a reliable one and not just some blog. General Petraeus might have voted for 0bama but he was an Officer and a Gentleman first. Otherwise you think he would have resigned? No way
Hah, and does anyone really think the DEM Senate would be capable of impeachment? Think again.
So, Obama & cohorts played down the after-action report by CIA that this was an organized AQ associate attack on our Mission at Benghazi. The cover story was a demonstration incited by a video. Ooooookay.
How did anyone from Obama to Susan Rice to Hillary plan to play down this central, unchanged, decisive fact, known by Obama on down within 24 hours of the attack:
Two Americans were KIA by mortar fire at 0400.
Why isn’t the media, McCain, and everyone hammering that fact home at every opportunity?
General Question to All:
Is changing a CIA memo prior to 5 Sunday news shows more of a crime than (Presuming it exists) Dereliction of Duty?
Is it okay for the Pres of a Country to abandon country men that beg for protection for 7 hours?
I know there are videos on War sites that show Intelligence members from various countries getting their heads cut off with Swords by opposition forces - but is this what happened here at Benghazi. More to the point - Did these 4 CIA affiliated people “Self-Destruct”?
Then there wouldn’t be a crime.
???
I don’t know how these things work, just asking.
Why isn't the CIA in Mexico, mopping up after H0lder and Zer0?
King also said that the testimony from Petraeus today was much different than his original testimony on Sept. 14. Today, Petraeus told the committee that he knew “almost immediately” that the attack was the work of an al-Qaeda affiliated militia called Ansar al Sharia and that the “overwhelming amount of evidence said this was a terror attack.”
According to numerous reports, in his original testimony, Petraeus focused almost exclusively on the YouTube video as the prime motivator for the attack.
So, at least according to Rep. King, we have Petraeus amending and/or contradicting his original testimony,
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/11/16/Rep-King-CIA-Talking-Points-Removed-Al-Qaeda-Element
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
While Petraeus prepares to give his side, lawmakers have begun to openly question when Petraeus first knew about the investigation that uncovered his affair — and whether it impacted his statements to Congress on Sept. 14 about the Libya terror attack.
Petraeus briefed lawmakers that day that the attack was akin to a flash mob, and some top lawmakers noted to Fox News he seemed “wedded” to the administration’s narrative that it was a demonstration spun out of control.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/14/petraeus-agrees-to-testify-on-libya-before-congressional-committees/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
King, a New York Republican, said he told Petraeus he had a “different recollection,” referring to his Sept. 14 briefing to members of Congress that the attack on our Benghazi consulate was a “flash mob” gone wild in response to an Internet video.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/111612-633790-petraeus-knew-benghazi-was-terrorist-attack.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Petraeus told lawmakers today that he consistently told Congress that there were terrorist elements involved in the attack, but King said he remembers Petraeus’ Sept. 14 testimony differently.
“I told him... I had a very different recollection of that,” King said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57550932/petraeus-testifies-on-benghazi-attack/
When did the FBI first question him about the e-mails and the affair? He knew then that he was in trouble. And it was weeks before he resigned. Sorry, Petraeus may have been an officer, but he was no gentleman.
That IS the question, isn't it. They were prepared to lose 40.
Why? gun-running/arming Al Qaeda exposed? fear that ME Arab Spring partnership with Al Qaeda/Hamas/MB might be exposed? Benghazi prison exposed?
I heard today that Jennifer Griffin had reported that prior to Sept 11, Benghazi Annex was the biggest CIA detention center in the ME and that most of the "detainees" in Benghazi prison annex had been "relocated" shortly before Sept 11. If true, I missed that report.
The government has been doing quid pro quos with al qaeda and the mb, (which should anyone forget, are one and the same,) for ages now.
WHY did we fight on the side of heathen in Kosovo? Why did we virtually destroy Yugoslavia and risk WWIII with China and Russia? Why didn’t we blow Yemen off the map after the USS Cole incident? Why was Fallujah left standing AFTER WHAT THEY DID TO OUR AMERICAN CONTRACTORS? Why were our Marines NOT allowed to fight? Why topple Mubarak? Why topple Gaddafy? Why did we sacrifice thirty SEALs on board a Chinook the Afghan bastiches knew was coming? Why are we arming the hamas and have been for years?
I can name five more of these off the top of my head.
There are so many of these and no one stands back and looks at the greater long term picture because it is monstrous and evil and we refuse to look evil in the eye and call it what it is...beause it’s OUR government right or wrong.
Evil in and of itself cannot act. It needs WILLING participants. It is a dark, pulsating blob that cannot move of its own accord, growing exponentially with each soul that offers itself up until it covers most of the earth. You can’t kill evil but you can render it helpless. You have to starve it by killing its food supply...which we will not do because we are MUCH too civilized.
Good observation. Good also needs willing participants. Will there be enough good People for good to triumph? When the ranks are built is sometimes not enough. Once in a while God has to swing his sword. I observe in awe when that happens.
Bump!
Boy... it would be good to have an article from the media on that.
Well,...on the left there is a bit of an alliance....see Dave Horowitz’s book...Unholy Alliance.
Placemark.
Kind of interesting that they relate it to Fast and Furious, but stay away from “Iran Contra”. I guess it’s because such vigorous action was taken over Iran Contra and they don’t want to make that type connection.
The REAL Questions Are Still About Benghazi, NOT the Petraeus Sex Scandal by Monica Crowley
C) Jennifer Griffin of Fox News—who has done outstanding investigative work on this story—reported yesterday that part of the CIA mission in Benghazi was actually a detention facility in which scores of prisoners were being kept from all across the Middle East and Africa.
She reported that it was the “largest” such facility the CIA was operating. The CIA immediately issued a denial, saying that it has not operated such a detention facility since January 2009, when newly sworn-in President Obama signed an executive order outlawing such facilities. Did Benghazi, in fact, house a terrorist prison?
D) If Griffin’s reporting is correct and Benghazi WAS a detention facility, did Obama know about/sign off on it? Or was this a rogue CIA operation?
E) Griffin also reported that the prisoners held there were moved 2 weeks before the attack on September 11. Did the CIA get a sense an attack was coming to try to free the prisoners there?
****
Crowley's Source: Jennifer Griffin
A well-placed Washington source confirms to Fox News that there were Libyan militiamen being held at the CIA annex in Benghazi and that their presence was being looked at as a possible motive for the staged attack on the consulate and annex that night.
According to multiple intelligence sources who have served in Benghazi, there were more than just Libyan militia members who were held and interrogated by CIA contractors at the CIA annex in the days prior to the attack. Other prisoners from additional countries in Africa and the Middle East were brought to this location.
The Libya annex was the largest CIA station in North Africa, and two weeks prior to the attack, the CIA was preparing to shut it down. Most prisoners, according to British and American intelligence sources, had been moved two weeks earlier.
I have no doubt about an American role in the provision of MANPADS to shady ME actors, but that does not make the weapons, “American”, per se. It’s much more likely that they’re all Russian, Chinese, etc, and not American made.
That probably doesn’t matter much to American media end-users, maybe it’s a technicality.
I would be surprised if the CIA had provided stingers —even a small number would surprise me.
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.