There may have been a "scandal" in Benghazi..

[emptystep]

One more hint.

Operation Ajax.

Yeah, Libya has a lot of crude but they also had a bad person in the way of the Arab Spring. How does that directly come down to Benghazi?

(afk for half hour)

 

[Sallow]

One more hint.

Operation Ajax.

Yeah, Libya has a lot of crude but they also had a bad person in the way of the Arab Spring. How does that directly come down to Benghazi?

(afk for half hour)

It's this:

Now, I don’t know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually, um, had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner and they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So that’s still being vetted.

The challenging thing for General Petraeus is that in his new position, he’s not allowed to communicate with the press. So he’s known all of this — they had correspondence with the CIA station chief in, in Libya. Within 24 hours they kind of knew what was happening.
Why did Paula Broadwell think the CIA had taken prisoners in Benghazi?

No one is going to touch that.

 

[KissMy]

This makes no sense because Obama says he told us it was a terrorist attack from day 1 in the Rose Garden.

But he did not mention Al Qaeda.

Isn't that what you guys are pissed over?

Well, there may be a REAL LIVE REASON for it.

Susan Rice went beyond the talking points. "She even mentioned that under the leadership of Barack Obama we had decimated al-Qaida. She knew at that point in time that al-Qaida was responsible in part or in whole for the death of Ambassador Stevens.

 

[emptystep]

One more hint.

Operation Ajax.

Yeah, Libya has a lot of crude but they also had a bad person in the way of the Arab Spring. How does that directly come down to Benghazi?

(afk for half hour)

It's this:

Now, I don’t know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually, um, had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner and they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So that’s still being vetted.

The challenging thing for General Petraeus is that in his new position, he’s not allowed to communicate with the press. So he’s known all of this — they had correspondence with the CIA station chief in, in Libya. Within 24 hours they kind of knew what was happening.
Why did Paula Broadwell think the CIA had taken prisoners in Benghazi?

No one is going to touch that.

I have heard the prison break theory also but it does not seem to fit. If there were prisoners I doubt they would be kept at such a building. Have you looked at the size and shape of the actual building?

The ambassador was only stopping by for a day or two and otherwise practically no one would be there. Definitely not enough to guard high value prisoners.

I think what is most suspect is that the attackers had so much intel. They knew the when, where, what, why and how of it. Who the fuck were these people? Is this the level of a state run operation and if so which state? And most important question is, "where are they right now?"

 

[Sallow]

Yeah, Libya has a lot of crude but they also had a bad person in the way of the Arab Spring. How does that directly come down to Benghazi?

(afk for half hour)

It's this:

Now, I don’t know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually, um, had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner and they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So that’s still being vetted.

The challenging thing for General Petraeus is that in his new position, he’s not allowed to communicate with the press. So he’s known all of this — they had correspondence with the CIA station chief in, in Libya. Within 24 hours they kind of knew what was happening.
Why did Paula Broadwell think the CIA had taken prisoners in Benghazi?

No one is going to touch that.

I have heard the prison break theory also but it does not seem to fit. If there were prisoners I doubt they would be kept at such a building. Have you looked at the size and shape of the actual building?

The ambassador was only stopping by for a day or two and otherwise practically no one would be there. Definitely not enough to guard high value prisoners.

I think what is most suspect is that the attackers had so much intel. They knew the when, where, what, why and how of it. Who the fuck were these people? Is this the level of a state run operation and if so which state? And most important question is, "where are they right now?"

It fits fine.

The fact there is even mention of a "CIA Annex" fits fine as well.

And it goes along with Obama's aggressive policy of cloak and dagger ops against Al Qaeda.

In terms of diplomacy? This is a huge clusterfuck.

That's why no one wants to touch it.

Republicans are probably going to back off soon. But..the damage may already be done. This story is out there. So far..no one is running with it. But that may not last.

 

[Sallow]

This makes no sense because Obama says he told us it was a terrorist attack from day 1 in the Rose Garden.

But he did not mention Al Qaeda.

Isn't that what you guys are pissed over?

Well, there may be a REAL LIVE REASON for it.

Susan Rice went beyond the talking points. "She even mentioned that under the leadership of Barack Obama we had decimated al-Qaida. She knew at that point in time that al-Qaida was responsible in part or in whole for the death of Ambassador Stevens.

Could be rabbit..could be.

 

[emptystep]

It's this:



No one is going to touch that.

I have heard the prison break theory also but it does not seem to fit. If there were prisoners I doubt they would be kept at such a building. Have you looked at the size and shape of the actual building?

The ambassador was only stopping by for a day or two and otherwise practically no one would be there. Definitely not enough to guard high value prisoners.

I think what is most suspect is that the attackers had so much intel. They knew the when, where, what, why and how of it. Who the fuck were these people? Is this the level of a state run operation and if so which state? And most important question is, "where are they right now?"

It fits fine.

The fact there is even mention of a "CIA Annex" fits fine as well.

And it goes along with Obama's aggressive policy of cloak and dagger ops against Al Qaeda.

In terms of diplomacy? This is a huge clusterfuck.

That's why no one wants to touch it.

Republicans are probably going to back off soon. But..the damage may already be done. This story is out there. So far..no one is running with it. But that may not last.

Did you view the video from this link I posted a day or two ago?
Is the Obama administration covering up scandalous details in Libya attack? – Glenn Beck

 

[Si modo]

Steven's knew too much. And an opportunity presented itself to have him taken out with "plausible" deniability.

We'll see how long that remains plausible.

 

[Sallow]

I have heard the prison break theory also but it does not seem to fit. If there were prisoners I doubt they would be kept at such a building. Have you looked at the size and shape of the actual building?

The ambassador was only stopping by for a day or two and otherwise practically no one would be there. Definitely not enough to guard high value prisoners.

I think what is most suspect is that the attackers had so much intel. They knew the when, where, what, why and how of it. Who the fuck were these people? Is this the level of a state run operation and if so which state? And most important question is, "where are they right now?"

It fits fine.

The fact there is even mention of a "CIA Annex" fits fine as well.

And it goes along with Obama's aggressive policy of cloak and dagger ops against Al Qaeda.

In terms of diplomacy? This is a huge clusterfuck.

That's why no one wants to touch it.

Republicans are probably going to back off soon. But..the damage may already be done. This story is out there. So far..no one is running with it. But that may not last.

Did you view the video from this link I posted a day or two ago?
Is the Obama administration covering up scandalous details in Libya attack? – Glenn Beck

Beck is postulating nonsense.

This is basically BAU..except for the prisoner part. They may have been conducting interrogations there..who knows?

But the CIA operating within diplomatic missions happens all the time.

And it flys in the face of international convention, protocol and law.

No spook is covered by Geneva.

 

[Sallow]

Steven's knew too much. And an opportunity presented itself to have him taken out with "plausible" deniability.

We'll see how long that remains plausible.

He may have uncovered something. Which may explain why he was asking for security and was there that night.

 

[emptystep]

It fits fine.

The fact there is even mention of a "CIA Annex" fits fine as well.

And it goes along with Obama's aggressive policy of cloak and dagger ops against Al Qaeda.

In terms of diplomacy? This is a huge clusterfuck.

That's why no one wants to touch it.

Republicans are probably going to back off soon. But..the damage may already be done. This story is out there. So far..no one is running with it. But that may not last.

Did you view the video from this link I posted a day or two ago?
Is the Obama administration covering up scandalous details in Libya attack? – Glenn Beck

Beck is postulating nonsense.

This is basically BAU..except for the prisoner part. They may have been conducting interrogations there..who knows?

But the CIA operating within diplomatic missions happens all the time.

And it flys in the face of international convention, protocol and law.

No spook is covered by Geneva.

Do you mean it's again the 'rules'. Like I said, "the way the world works these days".

 

[Sallow]

Did you view the video from this link I posted a day or two ago?
Is the Obama administration covering up scandalous details in Libya attack? – Glenn Beck

Beck is postulating nonsense.

This is basically BAU..except for the prisoner part. They may have been conducting interrogations there..who knows?

But the CIA operating within diplomatic missions happens all the time.

And it flys in the face of international convention, protocol and law.

No spook is covered by Geneva.

Do you mean it's again the 'rules'. Like I said, "the way the world works these days".

Yup.

 

[emptystep]

Steven's knew too much. And an opportunity presented itself to have him taken out with "plausible" deniability.

We'll see how long that remains plausible.

Taken out by whom is the question. Any random guesses?

 

[jillian]

I have heard the prison break theory also but it does not seem to fit. If there were prisoners I doubt they would be kept at such a building. Have you looked at the size and shape of the actual building?

The ambassador was only stopping by for a day or two and otherwise practically no one would be there. Definitely not enough to guard high value prisoners.

I think what is most suspect is that the attackers had so much intel. They knew the when, where, what, why and how of it. Who the fuck were these people? Is this the level of a state run operation and if so which state? And most important question is, "where are they right now?"

It fits fine.

The fact there is even mention of a "CIA Annex" fits fine as well.

And it goes along with Obama's aggressive policy of cloak and dagger ops against Al Qaeda.

In terms of diplomacy? This is a huge clusterfuck.

That's why no one wants to touch it.

Republicans are probably going to back off soon. But..the damage may already be done. This story is out there. So far..no one is running with it. But that may not last.

Did you view the video from this link I posted a day or two ago?
Is the Obama administration covering up scandalous details in Libya attack? – Glenn Beck

loony toon... how 'bout you not post nonsense from beck.

i can say that now that someone seems to have moved this thread.

what a surprise... given that it's a washington post article that forms its basis.

but whatever.

 

[emptystep]

Beck is postulating nonsense.

This is basically BAU..except for the prisoner part. They may have been conducting interrogations there..who knows?

But the CIA operating within diplomatic missions happens all the time.

And it flys in the face of international convention, protocol and law.

No spook is covered by Geneva.

Do you mean it's again the 'rules'. Like I said, "the way the world works these days".

Yup.

A prison break with Stevens 'just happened to be there and get killed'? Any prisoner of enough value that a highly skilled team would risk losing multiple members would be flown out the the ao asap.

Also an arms deal mimics Iran-Contra, minus the embargo, the hostage swap, and several other illegalities. Definitely not something that is going to be put out there on day one however. The fact that the intel community was not wanting to come out with a terrorist attack immediately makes sense. The timing for statements after that get a little squirrelly though.

 

[emptystep]

loony toon... how 'bout you not post nonsense from beck.

Is that a direct order? If so under what authority? Your own? Sorry, on this board we're all just privates, first class no less.

 

[Sallow]

Steven's knew too much. And an opportunity presented itself to have him taken out with "plausible" deniability.

We'll see how long that remains plausible.

Taken out by whom is the question. Any random guesses?

It's not that he was "taken out". It's more that he might have been angry about the situation. Stevens seems like a "true believer" and was really happy about Libyan independence.

Glenn Beck may have gotten one thing right. That the CIA wanted Libya for a different reason. A honeypot for terrorists. Which was part of the reason for the Iraqi invasion. Except this time..they were doing it on the sneak.

Shooting fish in a barrel as it were.

And Stevens may have left the reservation over that. He wasn't "taken out" but he was probably in the wrong place at the wrong time for the "right" reasons.

 

[Sallow]

Do you mean it's again the 'rules'. Like I said, "the way the world works these days".

Yup.

A prison break with Stevens 'just happened to be there and get killed'? Any prisoner of enough value that a highly skilled team would risk losing multiple members would be flown out the the ao asap.

Also an arms deal mimics Iran-Contra, minus the embargo, the hostage swap, and several other illegalities. Definitely not something that is going to be put out there on day one however. The fact that the intel community was not wanting to come out with a terrorist attack immediately makes sense. The timing for statements after that get a little squirrelly though.

Bingo.

Give that man a cigar.

 

[emptystep]

This just in:
Benghazi Security Director Is Assassinated, Libyan Official Says
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/w...s-assassinated-libyan-officials-say.html?_r=0

 

[Sallow]

This just in:
Benghazi Security Director Is Assassinated, Libyan Official Says
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/w...s-assassinated-libyan-officials-say.html?_r=0

The plot thickens.