Administration is engaged in a massive cover-up

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Wehrwolfen, Nov 29, 2012.

  1. Wehrwolfen
    Offline

    Wehrwolfen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    2,752
    Thanks Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +339
    Administration is engaged in a massive cover-up

    Benghazi explained: Interview with an “Intelligence Insider”​



    By: Doug Hagmann
    November 28, 2012


    This is part one of a multi-part interview with a government insider intimately familiar with the events that took place in Benghazi. In this part, he provides important background, and explains this administration is engaged in a massive cover-up.

    DH: It’s been a while since we’ve discussed Benghazi. What have you heard lately?

    II: Before I answer that, I want to get a few things off my chest. Every politician, whether it’s a congressman senator, diplomat, or their spokespeople and the media are lying to the American public every time they call the location of the attack a consulate. It was not. There was absolutely no diplomatic consulate in Benghazi. None. Words are important here. They can create a wrong image, an incorrect picture of what was really going on. The property where our Ambassador and other Americans were murdered was a rented villa consisting of a primary residence with a couple of outbuildings behind the actual house. The reason they’re still calling it a consulate is to subtly divert any questions about our activities there.

    DH: Let’s go over this again; exactly what was taking place at Benghazi?

    II: As I said, the place where the attack happened is one of the largest, one of the most active CIA operation centers in North Africa, if not in the entire Middle East. It was not a diplomatic station. It was a planning and operations center, a logistics hub for weapons and arms being funneled out of Libya. Unlike the embassy in Tripoli, there was limited security in Benghazi. Why? So the operation did not draw attention to what was going on there.

    DH: So in reality there were no actual security issues?

    II: Oh yes, there were, in Tripoli. Diplomatic cables show that. But it was for the embassy in Tripoli, the Ambassador and the diplomatic staff in general, not specifically for the Benghazi location for two reasons. First, the Benghazi location was a CIA operation, not a diplomatic one. Visible security at that location would draw unwanted attention there. They had to blend in. Remember, the villa was located in a somewhat residential area, sort of like the suburbs. Secondly, additional manpower was not needed there, at this CIA center, as the operation was already winding down.

    DH: I know you’ve gone over this before, but let’s get into the specifics of the operation at Benghazi.

    II: Good, I want to be clear. After Gaddafi was taken out, there was the matter of his weapons and arms that were hidden all over Libya, including chemical weapons - gas weapons. According to Obama and Hillary Clinton, we were in Libya to collect and destroy these weapons to make for a ‘safer’ Libya. That’s what they were telling the American public. That’s not really what was going on, though, and it seems like all of the other nations except the average American knew it. Anyway, you can find pictures and videos of weapons caches being destroyed, but that is strictly for the public’s consumption.

    What was really happening, before Gaddafi’s body was even cold, is that we had people locating caches of weapons, separating the working from those that weren’t, and making a big show of destroying the weapons, but only the weapons that were useless. The working weapons were being given to Islamic terrorists. They were being funneled through Libya, crisscrossing Libya on a Muslim Brotherhood managed strategic supply route. In fact, Michael Reagan called it the modern day equivalent of the Ho Chi Minh Trail in a recent article he wrote, and he is correct.


    [excerpt]

    Read more:
    Benghazi explained: Interview with an “Intelligence Insider”
     
  2. Lakhota
    Offline

    Lakhota Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    47,699
    Thanks Received:
    4,706
    Trophy Points:
    1,855
    Location:
    Native America
    Ratings:
    +15,974
    [​IMG]

    Benghaaaaazi...
     
  3. Lakhota
    Offline

    Lakhota Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    47,699
    Thanks Received:
    4,706
    Trophy Points:
    1,855
    Location:
    Native America
    Ratings:
    +15,974
    [​IMG]
     
  4. HUGGY
    Offline

    HUGGY I Post Because I Care Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    33,727
    Thanks Received:
    3,805
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Seattle, in a run down motel
    Ratings:
    +6,285
    Hyperbol much? What an idiot. No..what a hack idiot.
     
  5. BlindBoo
    Offline

    BlindBoo Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    Messages:
    19,590
    Thanks Received:
    2,194
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +4,389
    If, and I do mean 'if' this were true, then that would mean that the Oversight committe would be privy to this classified information. Meaning the gang of three would be more full of shit than ever because they know the "real story" could never be told to the public.
     
  6. emptystep
    Offline

    emptystep VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Messages:
    3,654
    Thanks Received:
    220
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +221
    So very true. I would really know to know what was said to that gang by the acting CIA director.
     
  7. HUGGY
    Offline

    HUGGY I Post Because I Care Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    33,727
    Thanks Received:
    3,805
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Seattle, in a run down motel
    Ratings:
    +6,285
    I agree. My guess is that the story is too gay literaly to go public. No joke intended. I have tried to figure out why the ambassador was so far away from the safety of Trippoli and cannot help but surmise that him being gay had something to do with it. I think he was having a gay relationship in Benghazi and THAT is why the muslims attacked HIM.
     
  8. BlindBoo
    Offline

    BlindBoo Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    Messages:
    19,590
    Thanks Received:
    2,194
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +4,389
    The gay rumors seem to have originated on Hillbuzz.com, the website of Kevin DuJan, who also believes that President Obama is gay.

    TPF: Rumor-mongering surrounds Chris Stevens’ death ----- Right-wing blogs continue to speculate about the Ambassador's death
     
  9. HUGGY
    Offline

    HUGGY I Post Because I Care Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    33,727
    Thanks Received:
    3,805
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Seattle, in a run down motel
    Ratings:
    +6,285
    I don't follow that source. I came up with Stevens sexual orientation on my own. Just observing his mannerisms. I seriously doubt Obama is gay. He just does not project THAT vibe at all.
     
  10. Wehrwolfen
    Offline

    Wehrwolfen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    2,752
    Thanks Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +339
    “Benghazi-gate”: A Window into the Secret War in Libya by the CIA. ​



    By: David William Pear


    [snip]
    Anyone who followed the Benghazi story closely must have wondered why more media attention was not given to the "Three other Americans" killed. To her credit, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did honor them at a memorial service. Their names are Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods and Sean Smith. Mr. Doherty and Mr. Woods were both former Navy Seals, and Sean Smith was a career Foreign Service Officer.

    In early November, almost two months after "Benghazi-gate" it was reported by Reuters that an "un-named reliable source" revealed that the "Three other Americans" were actually CIA agents. That explains all the hush, hush.

    Further, according to the same Reuters report: "The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation, according to officials briefed on the intelligence. Of the more than 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi following the deadly assault, only seven worked for the State Department. Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic cover, which was a principal purpose of the consulate, these officials said." This is the kind of information that should make any journalist realize that now with all the smoke there is a fire.

    Twenty-three CIA agents if used as force multipliers can support a paramilitary group of hundreds. From the information known that seems to have been a part of their mission. We know this because one of the excuses for why it took so long for the CIA to come to the rescue was that they needed time to roundup their militia group.

    Fortunately, it is hard to keep secrets in Washington…especially so if that secret involves a potential scandal during the middle of presidential election. The secret gets even hotter if there is interagency squabbling and infighting. That seems to be exactly what is going on between the FBI and the CIA. Everyone is trying to protect their turf.

    The timing is strange for the new Director of the CIA, David Petraeus, to be suddenly caught in a "honey trap" of an extramarital affair by the FBI. One should be suspicious of convenient coincidences, especially given the animosity between the FBI and the CIA. Was it payback by an FBI that maintains files on everybody who is anybody? Was the Obama administration looking for a fall-guy to take the heat? Will Benghazi-gate be swept under the rug along with the reputation of David Petraeus? It is not likely now that the press smells blood in the water. The media loves nothing better than a juicy sex scandal to titillate the American people.

    So where has our news media been since September 11, 2012? Obviously they have not been asking the right people the right questions, nor reporting the important information to the American public as is their duty in a democracy. Hopefully the media will get on the real story, but it is unlikely now that they can make a circus out of a trite romance triangle. The security issues at the Benghazi consulate are important. But the real story the American people need to know is what the CIA was up to in Libya and what are they doing elsewhere in our name?

    The United Nations "no-fly" authorization was supposed to have ended in October, 2011. And the Obama administration promised that there would be no "boots on the ground" during the "Arab Spring" in Libya. Did the Obama administration and the CIA keep that promise? Was the CIA the real source of the movie trailer the "Innocence of Muslims" so that it would create a disturbance that the CIA could use as a cover to round up the political opposition? President Obama did seem to protest too much in his U.N. speech that the source of the movie was not the U.S. government. So was Benghazi-gate a case of Blowback from a CIA operation gone bad?

    The reasons given by the "un-named reliable source" to Reuters for having such a large CIA station in Benghazi is that: "The CIA was chasing terrorists, as well as shoulder-fired missiles and other military gear liberated from Libyan Army arsenals." On November 2, 2012 the Wall Street Journal reported that the terrorist group that the CIA was chasing, and that was responsible for the Benghazi attack, was an "al-Qaeda regional offshoot and members of a militia known as Ansar al- Shariah".

    Reading between the lines of the news reports; trying to make sense out of them and connecting the dots and making educated guesses it seems likely that the CIA was actively involved throughout the Libyan revolution, had CIA boots on the ground during the "no-fly" mission, aided rebel groups that the U.S. favored and armed them with shoulder-fired Stinger-type anti-aircraft missiles to shoot down Libyan planes.

    Now one mission of the CIA in Libya is to roundup those left over Stinger missiles so that they do not end up being used against the U.S. This scenario is similar to the mission carried out against the Soviet Union by the CIA in Afghanistan during the 1980's. According to Steve Coll's book "Ghost Wars" the CIA had to scramble to retrieve Stinger missiles from the Afghan Mujahedeen and the Afghan- Arab fighters after the Soviet Union pulled out in defeat.

    Many members of the Ansar al-Shariah militia are veterans of the CIA sponsored Afghanistan war against the Soviet Union. Ansar al-Shariah is now a powerful militia group in Benghazi. They were one of the fighting forces that received CIA support in overthrowing Muammar Gadhafi in 2011. The new Libyan government was still relying on them to help maintain order and security in Benghazi. The CIA may have been working with them right up until the attack on the American consulate. Maybe that is how a terrorist group was able to gain intelligence to attack the American consulate that night in Benghazi? A suspicious and curious news media would be pursuing all of these angles instead of just waiting for some "un-named reliable source" to give them a confidential briefing that serves the political purposes of insiders.

    Ansar al-Shariah is one of the more extremist fundamentalist Islamic militias that are opposed to the new General National Congress recognized by the U.S. as the official government of Libya. Ansar al-Shariah is just one of the many Libyan militias that sprang up and united in opposition to Gadhafi. Once Gadhafi was gone these various militia groups began competing and fighting with each other. There continues to be a possibility of a bloody civil war breaking out in Libya between these different groups. The CIA may be working in Libya to prevent that from happening.

    What many of the militia groups agree on is that they are opposed to a U.S. imposed General National Congress (formerly the Transitional National Counsel) that has seized control of the Libyan government. The General National Congress (GNC) is now trying to disarm the militia groups and consolidate their power. That the U.S. is backing the GNC gives many groups and militias reason to be very angry at the U.S.

    As with all other Middle Eastern countries that have abundant oil and strategic location, the United States feels that it has the right to determining who governs them. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton keeps referring to the GNC as having been democratically elected by the people of Libya, and the New York Times keeps parroting her. Yet no one seems to recall ever seeing smiling faces of the Libyan people standing in line to vote and holding up ink stained thumbs to celebrate their new democracy. Instead the new Libyan government was orchestrated by the United States.

    [excerpt]

    Read more:
    http://therealnews.com/t2/component/content/article/170-more-blog-posts-from-david-william-pear/1325-benghazi-gate-a-window-into-the-secret-war-in-libya-by-the-cia

    The question has to be asked as to whether this was another Fast & Furious gone wrong orchestrated and hatched by the Obama regime?


    Video:
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIAE6vLct-0"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIAE6vLct-0[/ame]
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2012

Share This Page