Posted on 10/26/2012 8:19:12 PM PDT by vbmoneyspender
I agree and say it in bold letters in Post #40.
I had the same feeling, except it seemed as though he was telegraphing they had explicitly controlled the final fate of Tyrone Woods, and not simply by telling him to stand down.
Seemed more of a veiled threat, like “we know where you live” -type of remark. A threat or insult with plausible deniability.
It sure wasn’t the type of comment to me made in that circumstance to grieving family members.
One of the few things that make sense.
IOW, in this CT,...it was a preplanned attack,...movements of resources though took longer than several hours.
What was their objective?
The Ambassador?
The MANPADS?
Interruption of a shipping transaction?
How far in advance was the Ambassador’s meeting scheduled with the Turkish envoy?
Did something go on in that meeting, which might have been listened to by others, become a decision point, redirecting the objectives of the attacker’s leadership?
Actions, inactions and timing of the mortar assault on the Annex indicates the militants were obeying real time orders from outside the on site command.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
IMHO, both sides were being controlled by this Administration, but perhaps they are Black ops inside Black Ops, where they demand centralized command and centralized control. They were working towards controlling major worldwide terror networks and the MANPADS were valuable resources, at least for the next few years, regardless who wins the election.
The Ambassador’s disappearance was the ‘fog of war’ element, coupled with the ‘rogue ex-SEAL contractor’ obeying centralized command, decentralized control methods of operation became a distraction for their preplanned BlackOp, when he disobeyed perceptibly illegal orders.
The real damage to US security is that by this Administration covering it up, they have exposed their true ways of corrupt thinking. Our adversaries can now read Obama and the Administration like a book, forecasting their decisions, willpower and volition. Now the US can be easily outmaneuvered in this window of vulnerability between now and the Administration’s removal.
(Then again, maybe they were just upset by the video and act irrationally...)/CT
the first job of a CIA chief is that the CIA never takes ANYONE’s words at face value
get the intel first before believing anyone
and the idea that the Bengazi incident began as a protest over the stupid video, did not come from intel
it was the story the organizers (who set up the protest as cover) put out
so, my guess is that leading up to September 11 the CIA “actionable” intelligence was poor, and by September 24 Patreaus went to Congress to repeat the party line, not betray all he really knew (IT WAS terrorists and terrorists organized) soon after the attack was over
now, as of today, he and Clinton and Panetta and Obama are all pointing fingers at each other
The protest was in Egypt. There was no protest in Benghazi - only an attack - in which 4 Americans died.
And it had nothing to do with the now-famous video, either.
The crowd was chanting "Obama, we are all Osamas now!"
"The Innocence of Muslims" warranted not a single mention...
you’re preaching to the choir
Why should we believe Democrat Representative Ruppersberger’s take on this. Just because Rupersberger is claiming it does not mean that it is so.
Petraeus cannot defend himself on this because it was a closed briefing.
Beyond that, Petraeus has already issued a press release denying that the CIA stopped help from going to the Americans who were under attack in Benghazi. If the Democratic representative is lying about Petraeus' position on the video causing the 'demonstration' at Benghazi then he has an obligation to rebut that misinformation just like he did on the reports about the CIA being ordered to stand down.
vbmoneyspender posted:
“If the Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee publicly states that Petraeus said one thing and Petraeus didn’t say that, he can easily come out and say he didn’t say that. Indeed given the circumstances, he would have an obligation to do so so that his fellow citizens do not remain misinformed about an event of national significance.”
marktwain replies:
I disagree. This was a classified briefing. It is not the head of the CIAs job to correct members of Congress. The CIA has traditionally stayed out of these sort of topics, because they are supposed to provide information only.
It is a big thing that the CIA has officially said that they did not stop anyone from providing aid in Benghazi. Rather unusual. Petraeus is going out on a limb that the CIA usually is not willing to go out on.
My first thought at the time: when the event took place immediately AFTER the Turk left was that he delivered $$$ or something else valuable that was the target Has anyone been able to interview the Turk?
>> “In the Benghazi area, in the beginning we feel that it was spontaneous ...”
Feel?
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.